Who Should Mind the Forests?

Local communities chop down forests, while governments protect them. At least, that's the premise on which the U.N. is making plans to manage the remaining forests of the world.

But it turns out, according to a study by the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, the U.N. is wrong.

Research shows that, overall, commonly held forestlands sequester more carbon than government owned lands. What that means is that locals are better equipped than governments to reduce global warming. In an article in New Scientist, researcher Ashwini Chhatre said, "...our findings show that we can increase carbon sequestration simply by transferring ownership of forests from governments to communities."

So far, no one knows exactly why this is true, though researchers have made some educated guesses: "One reason may be that locals protect forests best if they own them, because they have a long-term interest in ensuring the forests' survival." If this guess is accurate, it might also have implications for management of other natural resources such as fisheries, pastures and water supplies.

It's amazing how simple the answers to complex issues can be. Do nothing, let local folks handle their own resources, and the outcomes are likely to be positive. Get governments involved, spend a fortune on land management -- and suffer the negative consequences.

The question remains, however, will the U.N. and government get smart and keep their hands to themselves? It would be the green thing to do.

Photo courtesy of stock.xchng