**4. Discussion**

174 Sustainable Forest Management – Case Studies

Protected Areas and almost all forest-related activities are prohibited within them. In contrast, this cooperative owns the forestland, which is non-national forest36, and thus can

The second is the basic policy that the existing facilities are important. For example, the renovation of traditional houses, which were damaged by extraordinarily heavy snowfall, is in progress. The first projects are in cooperation with volunteers, and the next project will be developed to effectively utilize the houses. Such a basic idea of utilizing existing facilities is actually related to funding problems. In the past, public work projects for tourism in forested areas required building new facilities, which were paid for by subsidies from the national or prefectural governments. However, in the case of this cooperative, the costs are covered or mitigated using volunteers and sponsors and involving the private sector in

Third is the fact that the ecoprojects were conducted directly by forest producer cooperative that own the forestland used for the ecoprojects, with the cooperation of individuals and organizations that have had no previous relationship with forestry. In contrast, the involvement of the forest owners' cooperative, prefectural federation of forest owners' cooperative association, and logging companies, which played an important role in the new activities of the forest producer cooperative in Cases 1 and 2, seems to be small in Case 3. There are many tourism-related sites and various activities in the national forest, but the Forestry Agency and its regional offices are not involved directly in tourism management. Their role is only that of being the owner of the forestland. The fact that the forest producer cooperative participate directly in the ecoprojects as the forest owner seems to be a new

Fourth is that this cooperative's initiative could lead to substantial earnings. The community is located at the entrance to Hakusan National Park. The cooperative pointed out that the environment, history, and culture of the community are being lost due to depopulation and the increase in the number of climbers in the national park37. Particularly for the latter reason, a cooperation fund for protecting the local environment, which is a toll fare system38, was introduced in 2007, and toll gates were constructed at the entrance to the forest road. Although the income from toll fare is limited, the cooperative is expecting more income

In Japan, the national park system is based on a zoning system, and the government does not generally own the land within a national park. Thus, the role of private land is important in regions where privately owned land is dominant. However, the Ministry of the Environment, which is responsible for managing the national parks, has done almost nothing to protect and maintain the natural environment in privately owned forests, except to regulate cutting activities. Simultaneously, residents living within park areas do not understand the characteristics of the region in general. Under these circumstances, the new projects of the cooperative have great significance for the national park system, because there are many national parks in which the percentage of privately owned forest is high. The cooperative is contributing to the maintenance of the natural environment around the

Finally, this cooperative has shelved timber production and forest practices, the major objectives of all cooperatives at their founding, in favor of preserving the community's history, culture, and lifestyle. There are other cooperatives and communities in similar situations throughout Japan, particularly in mountainous areas. Still, many challenges remain. If, for example, the remaining two residents leave the community, the long history

open it up for ecotourism.

planning and finance.

direction in forest resource management.

from the other activities it has planned.

national park.

Three case studies were introduced in this study to illustrate new trends in the management of forest producer cooperatives. The cooperative in Case 1 reestablished timber production and increased their income by trading carbon credits; that in Case 2 developed a novel relationship between the cooperative and forestry-related organizations; and that in Case 3 has started a number of initiatives aimed at regenerating the community, increasing the population, and embracing ecotourism activities and principles. In all cases, the cooperatives introduced a new social and economic system. Importantly, a small number of cooperatives throughout Japan have begun to apply similar ideas to their cooperatives.

As the management of forest producer cooperatives becomes increasingly difficult and timber prices continue to drop, fewer cooperatives are being formed, and those that were founded long ago are increasingly being dissolved. Yet, these three cooperatives have found new ways to manage their lands in ways that are completely different than previous management styles. The three cooperatives have some common characteristics, which may help inform more effective management of other cooperatives in the future.

First, each has embraced outside organizations that have no connection to forestry, from the private companies purchasing CO2 credits in Case 1 to the automobile enterprise involved in Case 2 and the college involved in Case 3. Concern about global environmental problems has been gradually increasing in Japan, and the first commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol started in 2008. Environmentally related activities of private companies or organizations have been increasing, and, at the same time, the content has been changing. Thus, in some cases, a forest producer cooperative can open up their lands for such environmental activities. The cooperatives and other forestry-related organizations should explain their difficulties regarding sustainable forest management to the public.

Second, each made substantial administration changes, particularly in Cases 1 and 2. Forestry policy programs have traditionally been run mostly by the national and prefectural government, and in a different manner39. However, in Case 1, the carbon credit program is mainly operated by the Hyogo Prefectural Federation of the Forest Owners' Cooperative Association. In addition, the carbon credits produced from the forest are held by the prefectural association. The carbon offset provider is also closely related to the prefectural association. Similarly, in Case 2, many initiatives are sponsored by private companies, but prepared and managed by the prefectural government (a major reason why the companies feel safe supporting the activities). For example, a company paid for thinning and tree planting via the Mie Prefectural Federation of the Forest Owners' Cooperative Association, which is an extra-departmental body of the prefectural government.

Third, each cooperative has found new ways to be funded. In many ways, this is natural consequence of the two previous points. For example, a change in administration means a change in subsidy, and providing benefits to outside organizations can lead to earnings from those outside sources. For instance, in Case 2, the forest producer cooperative received rent from non-forest land every year.

Recent Problems and New Directions

land was divided equally.

determined at planting.

respectively.

2012).

for Forest Producer Cooperatives Established in Common Forests in Japan 177

6. Nakao (1969, p.56–69) reported five characteristics of common forest rights. (1) The rights were based on the customs of the area. (2) People who were living in a definite hamlet had rights. (3) Households had rights. (4) It was impossible to inherit rights. (5) It was also impossible to assign or sell rights to anyone. These five points make up the

7. Under the Forestry Cooperative Act, there were two types of forestry-related cooperative organizations at the local level: forest owners' cooperative and forest producer cooperative. See Forestry Agency (1955), Matsushita & Hirata (2002), and Ota

8. Total forest area for modernization of rights was divided by the total number of holders of common forest rights, resulting in 1.33 ha. This figure is just for reference, but it shows the approximate size of forest land that each person would have received if the

9. The statistics by the Forestry Agency do not include the annual numbers of established cooperatives and dissolved ones, only the number of existing cooperative (Matsushita,

10. These statistics were compiled annually for all forest producer cooperatives. In the fiscal year 2009 survey, survey sheets were sent to 3,224 cooperatives, and the number of respondents and the rate of respondents was 2,723 and 84.5%, respectively. The figures

11. Various combinations of profit-sharing forestation systems have been developed in Japan since the Edo Period. After World War II, the Act on Special Measures concerning Shared Forest (Act No. 57 of 1958) was enforced, and planting of coniferous trees was promoted. Most forest producer cooperatives prepared forest land for planting. The Prefectural Forestation Corporation or Forest Development Corporation allocated funds for planting trees, and the profit was divided as a constant percentage, which was

12. A fixed asset tax is common between private forest and forest owned by forest producer

13. From the Forest Cooperative Statistics of fiscal year 2009, the percentage of forest producer cooperatives with short-term debt and long-term debt is 14.5% and 22.6%,

14. When labor power is lacking, forest producer cooperatives must outsource forest practices to the forestry company or employ forestry workers. This may conflict with the principles of independent business. Plus, it is important for cooperatives to balance log price and labor cost. Generally in Japan, labor costs have been increasing, and log prices have been decreasing. In 2009, the average wage for male loggers was 12,898 yen per day and the average price for a medium-sized log of *Cryptomeria japonica* was 10,900 yen per 1 m3 (Forestry Agency, 2011b). In 1980, when the average log price peaked, these figures were 8,550 yen and 39,700 yen, respectively (Forestry Agency, 1992). Although a clear comparison is not possible due to the difference in survey methods between the years, it is

cooperatives. A corporate inhabitant tax is required regardless of income.

clear that the relative log price to the logging wage has decreased drastically.

(2009) for more information about the forest owners' cooperative in Japan.

simplicity, we refer only to "common forest" in this chapter.

difference between common forest rights and property rights.

shown here are for the 2,723 responding cooperatives.

that the conventional utilization in the municipal forest was not the right for the common forest and was permitted by the town or village assembly. However, for

Finally, each cooperative underwent a change in leadership40. The original presidents of these cooperatives did not come up with these novel ideas. It took a new generation of presidents, who decided to act in a broader area than just forest practice and timber production. In Case 1, the president had a long-term vision for joint regional timber production and sustainability of the community. In Case 2, the president agreed to participate in an in-forest event for residents and students, and in Case 3, the president was finding a way to regenerate the community. They are acting not only for the business of the cooperative but also for the community and its members.
