**7. Notes**


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

The origin of the forest producer cooperative was the common forest starting during the Edo Period. At that time, forests were an essential resource for agriculture, energy, and daily life. A limited number of people living in a specific area conducted sustainable forest management by following local rules and excluding outsiders. Since 1966, some of such forests have been changed to forest producer cooperatives. These cooperatives have endured many hardships and continue to face major financial and other challenges. However, some novel solutions have recently been applied to revive cooperatives. All of these have included expanding the cooperative's business outside of the forest owned by the cooperative. This has resulted in the formation of new business networks, acceptance of new types of administrative services, and new sources of funding. Moreover, a new generation of leaders, with fresh ideas and different job experiences compared to past presidents, appears

to be having an impact, taking the cooperatives into new, unexplored directions.

The author thanks the staff of the department of forestry of the prefectural government, board members of the forest producer cooperative and related organizations for the case studies in the three prefectures. The author also thanks anonymous reviewers for their

1. See Handa (1988) and McKean (1992) for English language accounts of the common

2. A term that means the smallest unit relating to the rights of the common forest is difficult. In Handa (1988, 2001), "hamlet" is used. "community forest" sometimes means another forest other than the smallest unit of the village. For example, it means

5. This act was not only for the common forest but was also for common land among the municipality forest. As referred to in section 1, part of the common forest became public forest at the time when the municipality system was introduced in 1889. At that time, conventional utilization, which continued from the Edo Period, was permitted in some cases of newly established public forest that originated from the common forest. Namely, there was common land among municipality forests. The important point is

forest owned by the city, town, and village in GHQ (1951). 3. Itoh (2009) pointed out the current decision by the Supreme Court. 4. See Totman (2007) for more on land reform during the Meiji Period.

cooperative but also for the community and its members.

**5. Conclusions** 

**6. Acknowledgments** 

forest in Japan.

useful comments.

**7. Notes** 

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


Recent Problems and New Directions

and Nagata (2009).

forestry workers.

(2008).

27. Kobe Newspaper, March 12, 2010.

Japan Common Forest Society.

gave silent approval.

private companies (Forestry Agency, 2011a).

private companies (Forestry Agency, 2011a).

for Forest Producer Cooperatives Established in Common Forests in Japan 179

28. Part of the explanation of this section is based on Kawasugi (2009), Matsushita (2009),

29. In Case 1, the area in which the forest producer cooperative is located is among the most important forestry areas in Hyogo Prefecture. The Prefectural government has introduced various forestry policy programs in this area, and there are relatively many

30. In fiscal year 2009, 486 sites in national forest were used for activities sponsored by

31. In fiscal year 2009, 638 sites in non-national forest were used for activities sponsored by

32. Part of the explanation of this section is based on Kuniyoshi (2007, 2008) and Matsushita

33. The holding area of forest is larger than that of the private forest owned by individuals. This is an important characteristic of the forest producer cooperative, and Handa (2001) and Hirata (2008) have pointed out that this characteristic has to be utilized more often. 34. The Government enacted the Act on Promotion of Ecotourism (Act No. 105 of 2007) in 2007 and enforced it in 2008. Article 3 of the Act indicated a philosophy of ecotourism, including protection of the natural environment, promotion of tourism, regional development, and environmental education. The national government created basic ecotourism policy and the municipal offices made the regional master plan. Ecotourism started before enforcement of the Act, but enacting ecotourism into law was recent. In case 3, some activities related to ecotourism started before enforcement of the Act. 35. Yakushima Island, Shirakami Mountain, and Shiretoko were listed as World Natural

36. Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range were listed as World Cultural Heritage Sites by UNESCO in 2004. Most of the forest is non-national forest. 37. Based on a presentation by Kuniyoshi (2008) at the 28th Annual Meeting of the Middle

38. The major contents of the leaflet for the visitors are as follows. There are problems such as damage in forest roads and climbing trails, illegal picking of natural plants in private land, and illegal waste dumping due to the increase in visitors and climbers. The fee is 300 yen for adults and 100 yen for children of elementary school age or younger. The use of the fund is limited to improvement of climbing trails, maintenance, operation,

39. The basic policy of the past 45 years on the common forest rights is facing limits. When the act was enforced in 1966, the Forestry Agency and the departments of forestry of prefectural governments did not have ideas such as these three cases. One of the reasons is that these three examples may conflict with the basic principles of independent businesses, which are required for the forest producer cooperative. However, in these three cases, the department of forestry of the prefectural government

40. In the three cases, the former job of the president was not forestry. Thus, it is possible that their experience in fields other than forestry might have influenced their decisions. New ideas may continue to develop as the ageing population grows in rural areas, particularly

Heritage Sites by UNESCO in 1993, 1993, and 2005, respectively.

and activities related to nature protection, and so on.


 (http://holdings.hankyu-hanshin.co.jp/eco/information/information\_110314.html, 2011/09/06)

26. This organization was founded in 2003. As of April 5, 2011, the total number of certified forests by SGEC was 116, and the total certified forest area was 864,351 ha. More certified forests in Japan have been certified by SGEC than any other certification organization.

27. Kobe Newspaper, March 12, 2010.

178 Sustainable Forest Management – Case Studies

15. Today, forest management practice of forest producer cooperatives is financially subsidized and generally undertaken by forest owners' cooperatives (Kawamura, 2010). 16. Recently, there has been a rise in the number of forest producer cooperatives that have dissolved their cooperative in order to transfer the forest into a regional organization such as a residents' association (Sakai, 2005; Yamashita 2006). This was unexpected, but is legal, and will likely lead to many future problems, for example, conflicts over how to

17. These three cases were picked from the annual meeting of the Middle Japan Common

18. Part of the explanation of this section is based on the personal interview by the author with the board members of the forest producers cooperative in July, 2011, and presentation by Fukuda at the 32th Annual Meeting of the Middle Japan Common

19. These data are based on a forest planning system summary table managed by the

20. See Matsushita and Taguchi (2011) for more information about global warming and

21. In 2008, the Act on Special Measures concerning Advancement of Implementation of Forest Thinning, etc. (Act No. 32 of 2008) was enacted. Thinning above the usual levels was promoted by this Act. During fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2012, the usual thinning target area is 350,000 ha per year, and the additional area is 200,000 ha per year. In total, 3.3 million ha of planted forest is planned to be thinned as a result of this

22. Ishimaru (2011) explained the current situation and problems regarding the introduction of the J-VER Scheme to the forest owners' cooperatives, using the

23. On December 2010, the total number of registered forest management J-VER projects and the quantity of credit was 60 and 74,038 tons CO2, respectively, and among these registered projects, the total number of entirely certificated projects was 26 and 34,993

24. The number of cooperatives was based on the Forestry Cooperative Statistics for fiscal

25. Part of the carbon credit from the forest owned by the cooperative and jointly owned private forest was purchased by a private railway company to offset the carbon dioxide emitted from a railway station, which was newly opened on March 14, 2009. This is the first case of such a project related to a railway station (The Kobe Newspaper, March 12, 2010). The railway company's homepage indicated that the quantity of CO2 offset during March 14, 2010 and March 13, 2011 was 37 tons in CO2 for operating the station, 267 tons CO2 for the train, 3 tons CO2 for the station stand and automatic vending

(http://holdings.hankyu-hanshin.co.jp/eco/information/information\_110314.html,

26. This organization was founded in 2003. As of April 5, 2011, the total number of certified forests by SGEC was 116, and the total certified forest area was 864,351 ha. More certified forests in Japan have been certified by SGEC than any other certification

prefectural government; not all planted forests are included in the system.

Act. Additionally, planting in non-reforested land is promoted.

distribute profit after harvesting trees.

Forest Society in September 1, 2011.

examples of Osaka and Hyogo Prefectures.

machines, or a total of 308 tons CO2.

tons CO2, respectively (Forestry Agency, 2011a).

Forest Conference.

forest policy in Japan.

2009.

2011/09/06)

organization.


Recent Problems and New Directions

1349-8584

1873-7617

Vancouver, Canada

198-2, California, U.S.A.

Prefecture, Tsu, Japan

Tokyo, Japan

ISBN 978-4-903729-76-3, Tokyo, Japan

pp.101–108, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

for Forest Producer Cooperatives Established in Common Forests in Japan 181

Kawamura, M. (2010). Iriai rinya keiei to Seisan shinrin kumiai (Management of common

Kawasugi, S. (2009). Iriai rinya no aratana kanosei (New possibility of common forest),

Kuniyoshi, K. (2007). Genkai syuraku no saisei to kankyo hogo kyoryokukin no donyu

Kuniyoshi, K. (2008). Eco-green tourism ni yoru iriai rinya no kanosei (Potential of common

Matsushita, K. (2008). Seisan shinrin kumiai ni yoru ecotourism (Ecotourism by forest

Matsushita, K. (2009). Seisan shinrin kumiai to kigyo no mori (Forest producer cooperative

Matsushita, K. (2012). Gendai ni okeru seisan shinrin kumiai no jittai haaku (Proposals for

Matsushita, K. & Taguchi, K. (2011). The Kyoto Protocol and the private forest policy at local

Matsushita, K. & Hirata, K. (2002). Forest owners' associations, In: *Forestry and the forest* 

McKean, M. A. (1992). Management of traditional common lands (Iriaichi) in Japan, In:

Mie Prefecture (2010). *2009 Shinrin kumiai tokei (Statistics on Forest Cooperative)*, p.108, Mie

MAFF, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (2010). *Syokuryo nogyo noson hakusyo* 

Nagata, M. (2009). *Seisan shinrin kumiai ni okeru kigyo no mori seido no genjyo to kadai (Current* 

Ota, I. (2009). Activities and significances of forest owners' cooperative in Japan, In: *Legal* 

*Society*, No.30, (March 2010), pp.26–38, ISSN 1349-8584

*Society*, No.29, (March 2009), pp.37–38, ISSN 1349-8584

(March 2008), pp.18–20, ISSN 1349-8584

2008), pp.44–46, ISSN 1349-8584

2012), pp.24-35, ISSN 2186-036X

forest and forest producer cooperative), *Journal of Middle Japan Common Forest* 

*Journal of Middle Japan Common Forest Society*, No.29, (March 2009), pp.17–18, ISSN

(Regeneration of the marginal community and introduction of the cooperation fund for the protection of environment), *Quarterly Ecotourism*, (August 2007), No.36, p.12

forest by eco-green tourism), *Journal of Middle Japan Common Forest Society*, No.28,

producer cooperative), *Journal of Middle Japan Common Forest Society*, No.28, (March

and forests supported by private company), *Journal of Middle Japan Common Forest* 

survey of forest producer cooperative), *Journal of Common Forest*, No.32, (March

governments in Japan, *Small-scale Forestry*, Vol.10, (March 2011), pp.19–35, ISSN

*industry in Japan*, Iwai, Y., (ed.), pp.41–66, UBC Press, ISBN 0-7748-0883-7,

*Making the commons work*, Bromley, D. W. (ed.), ICS Press, pp.63-98, ISBN 1-55815-

*(White paper on food, agriculture, and agricultural community)*, Saiki Printing, p.238,

*situation and problems in the "Forest sponsored by private company" system applied to the forest producer cooperative)*, Graduation Thesis of Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan Nakao, H. (1969). *Iriai rinya no horitsu mondai (Legal problem of common forest)*, Keiso Shobo,

*aspects of European forest sustainable development, Proceedings of the 10th international symposium in Sarajevo*, Avdibegovic, M., Herbst, P., & Schmithüsen, F., (eds.),

in mountainous areas, and generations change, and new presidents or board members with different experiences and fresh ideas take over the cooperative's business.
