World Resources Trusteeship
Robert Swann
[Chapter 15, from Building Sustainable
Communities, Tools and Concepts for Self-Reliant Economic Change,
published by The Bootstrap Press, New York, NY; 1989]
Land trusts in their various
forms represent concrete ways, at the local community level, of
addressing what is in fact a global problem - that of wise
stewardship of the world's natural resources. Here Robert Swann
provides an encompassing framework for addressing that question,
building upon the land trust movement in the U.S. and comparable
efforts in other countries.
|
If we look at the question of natural resources form a world
perspective, most people will agree in theory that, ideally, such
resources as oil, gas, and minerals, for instance, should be held
under a trusteeship for all the people of the world, allocated and
used in such a way as to distribute equitably their use with a planned
phaseout as other sources (such as solar energy) are made available
for use. For example, if a world trusteeship were presently holding
oil and gas, the two major sources of energy, it could lease their
exploitation (at prices to control unearned profit) to private or
public corporations for drilling and selling, and use the lease income
to promote, research, and develop alternative sources of energy such
as solar. In this fashion, the concept of the Community Land Trust
could be applied on a world level to all natural resources.
Lest anyone suppose that this is a purely theoretical problem,
consider the debate which has been going on over the so-called "Law
of the Seas" for several years, over the issue of who (what
countries, corporations, etc.) are going to control exploitation of
the rich mineral resources on the bottom of the oceans. Clearly, no
country can claim "sovereignty1 over the middle of the Atlantic
or Pacific Oceans.
It is true that the issue would not have arisen except for the fact
that new technology has made such exploitation possible. But it is
also true that, if such technology had been available to the "big"
countries several years ago, it is likely that they would not have
waited for an international agreement before going ahead with
exploitation. In fact, the U.S. and other countries have been
threatening to go ahead hi any case. What is important is that so far
they have been restrained, even though the Reagan Administration says
that it does not consider U.S. companies inhibited by the "Law of
the Sea" agreement that was finally negotiated after years of
effort.
Why have they been restrained? Perhaps the most plausible answer may
be that there exists today a worldwide consciousness of the moral
issue involved in such unilateral exploitation and even the big
countries feel constrained by this consciousness. It is also true, of
course, that within the United Nations, where the debate is taking
place, the number and role of the less powerful countries has grown
significantly in recent years so that, in number at least, they play
an increasingly important role. But it was not many years ago that
such considerations of unilateral action were no deterrent to the big
countries when their own interests were involved.
If we can agree that while the world may be moving slowly towards a
world trusteeship of natural resources, the real problem is how can it
move more rapidly in that direction, and, more specifically, how can
the present land trust movement contribute toward this direction.
Clearly, the educational value of CLTs and their impact at a local
level is part of the process which must go on. This educational
process, however, may be greatly enhanced, if there exists an organic
relationship between local Community Land Trusts and the resources
which they possess and the development of a world trusteeship of
resources. The purpose of this chapter is to explore how this might
come about.
In the first place, every local Community Land Trust possesses
certain potentially valuable mineral resources which it withholds from
the lease rights it designates to leaseholders. These mineral rights
could, in theory at least, become very valuable if oil, gas, or coal,
for instance, should be discovered beneath the land held by a CLT.
While this may seem a remote possibility, it is not beyond imagination
as CLT holdings increase around the world. However, perhaps the most
important consideration, or the consideration of most immediate
consequence, is natural forests. How should such forests be treated?
Should they be treated as natural resources which Community Land
Trusts hold for the common good (as mineral resources are) or should
they be considered the sole possession of the leaseholder and for
his/her use and purposes only? Clearly, this is an important question
because probably more than 50 percent of all the land which is being
acquired by CLTs, at least in the Northeastern United States, consists
of natural forests.
I would argue that these grown forests should be treated as natural
resources, since they generally grew through natural regeneration or
were planted by other people - certainly not the leaseholders who now
occupy the land. (This does not mean that they should not be used by
the leaseholders in the same way that the leaseholder uses topsoil, a
natural resource, for farming in return for payments of the lease.)
The Community Land Trust's role is first to protect the forests from
being misused, in the same way its role is to protect the topsoil from
being misused and lost.
But, unlike the topsoil, which only the individual farmer can use and
plant, the forests represent a unique problem. The best management of
the forestland, partly because of the nature of forests themselves and
partly because forests talce more than ,one generation to grow and
produce, can be accomplished only on a broader community basis. Thus,
the forests represent a resource for the whole community. This has
long been recognized in most parts of the world where forests are
often held as "town forests," or at the state and national
level as resources for public recreation, wildlife preservation, as
well as for firewood or lumber resources.
Generally, good professional forest management becomes possible only
when fairly large acreages of forestland can be managed as a unit.
This is due to several reasons, but primarily it is because individual
landowners (or users) are not skilled or knowledgeable regarding the
complexity of forest management, particularly sustained yield
management, which requires a sophisticated knowledge of many species
of trees, their use, value, and role in the forest ecology. Moreover,
considering the relatively low return per acre on forest production
and the long-term perspective required (compared with farming), it
does not pay a farmer, or small woodlot owner, to spend his/her time
studying and learning all of the intricate ecology and economics which
foresters spend years in school learning.
A landowner or land user may, of course, hire a professional forester
or have a state paid forester advise him/her on the management of
his/her forestland. In fact, however, this seldom happens because it
is either too expensive to hire a professional for the small size of a
woodlot, or because state foresters are either unavailable or when
they do advise, their advice alone is inadequate to maximize
utilization and protection of the forest as a resource.
For all of these reasons, management of forestland as a resource
should become the responsibility of the Community Land Trust. It is hi
the position (once its acquisitions are large enough) to hire very
competent foresters to manage on a continued, sustained-yield basis
all of the forests, or woodlots, which it has acquired and will
acquire in the future. My contention is that only in this way can both
the maximum utilization and the protection of this natural resource be
maintained for the present as well as future generations.
Presently, due to our problems of small private ownership, the
forestland is the most underutilized (or improperly utilized) of all
natural resources in the United States. (In New England only about 5
percent of the forests are under management.) Except in some European
countries, I suspect this is true on a worldwide basis. This is not
the place to elaborate on the importance of forests as a worldwide
resource and the growing danger which presently exists in many
so-called developing countries of the loss or erosion of forestland
due in large part to increasing population and demand for firewood.[1]
So far, this danger has not existed in the United States, but with the
pressure of the "energy crisis" and the growing demand for
paper, lumber, and other forest products, it will in the future become
increasingly important and more difficult to protect the forest-land
against rapacious cutting. Community Land Trusts can and should play
an important role in preventing this from happening.
Therefore, I would suggest that Community Land Trusts establish the
use factor of forestland in the price of the leasehold, which would
permit all leaseholders to cut firewood within the framework of a
Forest Management which the CLT provides, but only to the extent of
the leaseholder's needs for his/her own heating purposes, etc. (During
the early years of CLT establishment, before a management plan has
been worked out, the CLT would permit selective cutting on the basis
of advice from state foresters, if possible.)
Revenues, then, from forestry management, logging, etc. would accrue
to the CLT to help cover its operating cost and to develop a land
acquisition fund for further land acquisition. Some portion of this
revenue, however, should be set aside for the development of a World
Resources Trusteeship Fund, just as we were postulating that oil lease
revenues should be held by a World Resources Trusteeship for the
benefit of the population as a whole. Thus, we can see in outline the
possibility for an organic relationship between local Community Land
Trusts' natural resources (primary forests) and the beginning of a
World Resources Trusteeship.
The most difficult question is how could, or should, such a World
Resources Trusteeship be constructed or developed. To sketch in an
outline, it would be useful, probably from the very beginning, to try
to utilize the principles which we have tried to use in constructing
the local boards of Community Land Trusts and the regional networks.
Initially, of course, at the local level board members of the CLTs are
essentially self-appointed and to some degree self-perpetuating, since
a constituency does not exist. As local organizations grow and a
constituency develops this constituency has a vote, usually according
to the by-laws of local CLTs.
However, in order to create a network of experienced board members
and to provide an objective viewpoint to the local situation, we have
recommended that some board members (perhaps one-third) should come
from a wider regional area and be persons with some experience,
hopefully, to contribute. We also suggest that professionals, or local
officials who have some special skills (legal, land use planning,
architectural, and so forth) should be invited on the board (also
one-third) in order to create as balanced a board as possible.
Applying this concept to a worldwide trust, we could invite
individuals around the world with the widest experience in land and
trusteeship. One thinks of Vinoba Bhave or J.P. Narayan in India,
while they were alive, or Lanzo Del Vasta in France, and perhaps
Julius Nyere in Tanzania. Included might be some key members of the UN
- particularly those working on the "Law of the Seas"
problem, such as Elizabeth Mann-Borghese or others involved with
global' resources (of the stature of Buckminster Fuller, were he still
alive). Perhaps, initially, these "elder statesmen" would
have an honorary position, while the working members of the trust
would be selected or appointed by local or regional groups.
While all of this may seem relatively far off and visionary, I want
to point out several factors which would make it much more practical
than it might at first seem. I have often observed to local groups
that one important reason for setting up a non-profit Community Land
Trust is simply because without such a local organization, gifts of
land (or money to purchase land) have no place to go. And if this
seems idealistic, consider the facts: a quarter of a century ago, the
Nature Conservancy was established as a private agency to receive
gifts of land (or money to purchase land) which needed to be protected
for special ecological reasons. Since then, millions of dollars and
thousands of acres of valuable land have been given to or bought for
the Conservancy to be set aside for these reasons.
It is not at all inconceivable that as Community Land Trusts grow in
significance an increasing number of landowners and contributors will
provide the bulk of CLT land as gifts. (One of the Nature Conservancy
directors once told me that we should get "all the land we need"
as a gift to Community Land Trusts.) We are working on a number of
ways to facilitate and encourage such giving (with advantages to
landowners also), which already amounts to thousands of dollars in
land and money.
One major obstacle to such gifts has been the reluctance of the IRS
to grant tax deductible status to local CLTs. Nevertheless, the IRS
will grant deductability for gifts which are natural resources for
conservation, including forests. For this reason, we have established
the American Natural Resources Trust, which like the Natural
Conservancy can receive gifts of land, including farmland, but is
permitted to retain only the natural resources (mainly forestland).
Thus, gifts of land (some have already been received), of which the
American Natural Resources Trust retains only the forestland, would be
put into long-range forest management (probably managed by the local
CLT), while the farmland would be conveyed to local CLTs, and the
revenues from the forestland would be put into the World Resources
Trusteeship Fund. But since the land had been given without purchase
cost, the ANRT should be able to add revenues to the World Resources
Trusteeship Fund more rapidly than land purchased by local Community
Land Trusts.
But most important, it needs to be pointed out that in order to
encourage such gifts of land, the entire CLT movement must be
strengthened in such a way that potential land donors perceive that at
a local, national, and even world level, the movement consists of
responsible trustees and has a structure that provides the greatest
possible stability and long-range continuity. Hence, the importance of
an integrated structure and of well-known, reputable persons as
national or world trustees.
v , How would revenues to a world trusteeship be expended? This, of
course, would be a decision for the world trustees. But we could
speculate that first priority would be the long-range viability of the
forestland already held. This would mean assurance of the best
management and use of the forests. Second, would be acquisition of
additional holdings on a world basis wherever the need (for
forestation and protection) exists and wherever CLTs exist or could be
developed (India, for example). Also important would be general
education about forest conservation and use of the trusteeship
principle with the objective of increasingly including other natural
resources in the holding of the World Resources Trusteeship (oil and
gas), increasing pressure through education to take such resources out
of private or national holdings and place them in the World Resources
Trusteeship, and providing funds for research or work on other
alternative energy sources (particularly solar energy).
A further note needs to be added here to underline the importance of
land as a gift or gift money to purchase land. The point is simply
this: in its widest or deepest concept, the Community Land Trust
movement is designed to reduce the cost of land or the cost of access
to land towards zero, or as close to zero as possible. This does not
mean that the yearly leasehold charge should be reduced to zero. The
lease is the individual's payment to society for the use of land and
resource which are limited and cannot be equitably distributed in any
other way. Land, which was originally given without cost by God or
nature, should be returned to society (the general welfare) without
the addition of a price, which as Henry George pointed out represents
"unearned increment." Thus, gifts of land (or money) have a
very important economic role, and should be treated as a partial
return to nature or God, the spiritual part of humankind from which it
originally came.
Such an attitude or feeling about land is very widely felt among
human beings and was clearly expressed by native Americans, indeed
native people all over the world, before the commercial spirit of the
"industrial revolution" overtook Western civilization in the
last 200 years. But the original spirit remains in many people and
today we see it manifest in different ways. We must not ignore this
spirit as the classical (and Marxist) economists have done and assume
that land must be sought and paid for as a community or taken forcibly
away from individuals and placed in the hands of the state. For it is
on this spirit, this instinctive need to protect and care for land
that resides deep inside all of us, it is on this spirit which the
future of the human race depends -- gradually returning land to its
original place in economics, a gift from God or nature.
NOTES
- See Erik Eckholm, Losing
Ground: Environmental Assets in World Food Prospects
(Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press, 1978) for documentation.
|
