J For Res (2004) 9:1–5 © The Japanese Forestry Society and Springer-Verlag Tokyo 2004

DOI 10.1007/s10310-003-0062-y

INVITED REVIEW

Hideo Fujisawa*

The forest planning system in relation to the forest resource and

forestry policies

Received: January 8, 2003 / Accepted: October 4, 2003

Abstract The current forest planning system of Japan has

domestic wood supply in total consumption has dropped
been in place since the formulation of the Forest Law
to 20%, and the annual cut volume is only 23% of the
back in 1897. During this time, although addressing
annual volume increment.
specified forests as demonstrated in the system for
Forests are as much a public property as they are
protection forests, in a more general sense, the execution of
private and, moreover, represent a globally significant
the forest planning system has placed “forestry
resource. Active stewardship, such as materializing
management” at the core. In other words, it has instead
internationally agreed notions of sustainable forest
been forest administration deliv- ered in a manner
management, promot- ing forest certification systems, and
relevant to forestry management. This trend is exhibited
complying with the Kyoto Protocol, are now important
in, for instance, policies for the reorgani- zation of
issues, both domesti- cally and internationally.
common forest, the forest management planning system,
The paradoxical gap between current forestry trends
forest owners’ associations, the proceeds-sharing
and public aspirations for forests is widening with each
reforestation system, cooperative silviculture
year, thus creating a grave social problem. I have been
management, and valley forestry revitalization; which
focusing on forestry revitalization as the primary step
have all been implemented.
towards the resolution of this issue. As the logical basis
In this paper I review the results of these practices and
for executing this policy, I review the relations between
explore the contemporary forest owner’s pattern of behav-
forest resource policies and forestry policies.
ior. I also discuss the passive attitudes among forest owners,
At the same time, by reviewing the forest planning sys-
especially in comparison with the attitudes prevalent during
tem and its developmental process, I sought to investigate
the postwar reforestation era, continuing up to the 1960s,
what new policies would fulfill the need to realize the public
and the current tendency towards neglect in the afforested
functions of forests while revitalizing forestry, form the
areas, as well as the increasing number of forest owners
point of view of forestry policies and their influence on
giving up forestry practice.
the forest planning system. I have concluded that there is a
In the postwar era (up to the 1960s), forestry had been
case for separating forest management from forest
following an upward trend of development that motivated
ownership in units of forest compartments; namely to
forest owners to afforest, as this was the optimal choice
establish an incor- porative management system by which
for increasing the family’s stocks for future generations
forest owners can invest in their stands.
(in the manner of holding an asset), and thus a rapid
expansion of plantation forests resulted. By the 1970s,
Key words Distancing from forestry practice · Forest
when domestic wood supply became less than a half of all
resource policies · Forestry policies · Forest planning system
domestic wood demand (it is still declining now), forest
owners gradually began to lose interest in reforestation
and care of the forest as a method of increasing assets.
The current share of Forest resource policies (sustainable forest
management) and forestry policies

H. Fujisawa Forests evolve with social conditions and economics, which

Forest Policy Research Institute, 1-7-12 Koraku, Bunkyo-ku, consequently change forest functions, and in turn affect
Tokyo 112-0004, Japan
Tel +81-3-3813-8075
socioeconomics; it is a continuum of functional feedback
e-mail: fujisawa.h@jcom.home.ne.jp systems. Forest resource policies are institutions which are
established in relation to this system, from the viewpoint of
* Recipient of the Japanese Forestry Society Award 1998
2
forests as a public asset. Forest planning systems maintain
temporal and spatial order, in order to materialize the
above resource policies.
The objective of the forest resource policy, as
stipulated under the Forest Law, Article 1, is to “conserve
national land and contribute to the state’s economy by
cultivating and sustaining forests and enhancing forest
productivity,” which can be considered as a generalized
concept for forest functions in the light of social welfare
(Worrell 1973; Boulding 1960; Nomura 1960). What is
expected of a forest is to generally diversify with
socioeconomic development and, consequently,
expectation levels are raised. When such expectations
compose a social value, then the various func- tions
which are the subject of the citizens’ expectations become
the resources (Science and Technology Agency Resource
Research Society 1971). Therefore, the political drive of
forest resource policies is generally based on people’s
value judgments.
In the current institution, namely under Article 2 of the
Forest and Forestry Basic Law (hereafter, the Basic Law),
forest resources should be adequately managed to retain
multiple functions such as the protection of the national
land, water head conservation, conservation of the natural
environment, recreation, prevention of global warming, and
provision of forest products. These functions are
consistent with what was already stipulated before the
revision of the Basic Law.
On the other hand, forestry policies are generally made
with the aim of increasing industrial forestry productivity,
increasing the income of forestry-industry-related people,
and advancing social status. The political motivation is
commonly based on indicators from the market; namely,
demand for wood, wood prices, wood sales methods, forest-
land prices, wages in forestry occupations, forest industry
labor circulation, forestry industry productivity, wood circu-
lation, forest ownership structure, behavior patterns
among forest owners, exchange rates, trends in foreign
wood im- ports, income levels and living standards of
forestry-indus- try-related people. Like any other
industry, forestry is strongly influenced by market-price
economics, and should obey the basic rules of open
competition where deliberate controlling of prices is not
allowed. Therefore, applicable measures may be limited.
As discussed above, the forest industry is guided by
the market, while the improvement of forest function is
guided by public opinion. It is theoretically unlikely for
these two aspects should be compatible; that is, for the
forest industry to be promoted in such a way as to meet a
sufficient level of a forest’s function improvement. The
basic issue at hand is the institutional issue of the
resulting gap between the an- ticipated role of the forest
and the situation of the forest itself.
The forest planning system indicates in numericical
terms “the materialization of the multiple functions of the
forest as well as the objectives for provision and use of
forest products” within the basic plan established by the
government. The Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries then prepares a “nation-wide forest plan,” fol-
lowed by the “regional forest plan” made by the
prefectural
governor, and the “local forest improvement plan” made by
the head of the local government (mayor). These plans are
realized through silvicultural practices for commercial
for- estry where the respective forest owner voluntarily
executes the silvicultural plans (approved by the mayor).
Neverthe- less, as mentioned above, as forestry practices
are based on the voluntary motivation of forest owners,
dissociation be- tween the actual operation and the plan is
a common occur- rence, regardless of how thoroughly the
forest plan was considered at the point of implementation.
Although certain areas depend on forestry policies in
order to minimize such gaps, there is a limit to the effect,
as is apparent from the aforementioned policy
characteristics. According to the Forest and Forestry
Basic Law, amended in 2001, forestry policies are included
in the forest resource policies. Article 3 reads, “in light of
the significant roles of exhibiting the multiple functions of
forests, by se- curing forestry workers, promoting
increases in productiv- ity levels, and by establishing an
ideal forestry structure, that forestry must be envisioned
to develop sustainablly and soundly.” For the sake of
reference, according to the Forestry Basic Law before the
revision, under Article 2, it states that “the objectives of
national forestry policies are, in accordance with the
socioeconomic development and social living of the
state and its people, to adjust for any naturally,
economically, or socially limiting disadvantages of
forestry, and to anticipate enhanced forestry industry
productivity, while promoting the productivity of forestry in
order to attain a stable development that is not in diver-
gence with other industries, and at the same time, to
antici- pate the increased income and uplifting of social
status for
forestry-related personnel”.
There are several reasons for revising the current
policy. At the United Nations Conference for
Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992, the
“non-legally binding authoritative statement of principles
for a global consensus on the management conservation
and sustainable develop- ment of all types of forests” was
adopted, prompting a consensus formation on
management, conservation, and sustainable development
for all types of forests. This was followed by forest
certification systems established in various nations around
the world, and the results of these efforts have been
fruitful. However, in Japan, only a few forest owners have
attained forest certification, and forest owners generally
have little concern about global issues. This has been
pointed out in the publication “The business of
sustainable forestry,” in a chapter subtitled “Little inter-
est in Japan and Asia,” and elaborates that “attempts for
sustainable forest management and forest certification are
hardly recognized in Asia and Japan” (Jenkins and Smith
2002).
If this situation in Japan is to continue in the future,
there is no doubt that Japan will be required to play a
more active global role; and that the forest owners will
be requested to consider the social responsibilities
associated with their forest holdings.
Another reason is the Third Conference of the Parties
(COP3) of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. The Kyoto Protocol has been adopted

here, and Japan took on a commitment to decrease CO 2
levels to 1.155 billion tons of CO 2 for the mean average
emission levels during the years of 2008–2012, a 6% de-
crease from the 1990 level of 1.229 billion tons CO 2. One of
the measures to realize this is through the efforts of forest
management. During the COP7 Conference, a target of 13
million tons C (or 47.67 million tons CO 2, 3.9% of the
standard year gross emission rate) was confirmed. In June
1998, the “Essential measures to prevent global warming”
were agreed. In the same year, a “Law on promoting of
preventing of global warming” was adopted, and this
year, the Kyoto Protocol was ratified by the Diet. Japan
has reached a stage where, as a nation, she must commit
to her responsibilities of forest improvement.
Thirdly, people’s expectations of forests have shifted
largely towards public involvement in forests. According to
an opinion poll conducted by the Cabinet Office in 1980,
people’s expectations were focused on the prevention of
disasters, wood production, head water conservation, air
purification, antinoise measures, health and recuperation,
and non-wood forest production, in that order. In a similar
opinion poll conducted in 1999, people’s expectations
focused most prominently on the prevention of disasters,
as was the case in 1980, but water head conservation
came in second, replacing wood production, which came
in last. In other words, people’s expectations of forests
have been shifting largely towards the public utilities
aspects of forests. The fourth reason is the price of logs,
which is definitely declining. For example, the sugi
(Cryptomeria japonica) species, which has declined
from the standard at 100 (in 1965), to a mere 73 by
1999. During the same time, the actual wage index has
increased to 562 points. Conse- quently, the
profitability of forestry as an industry has decreased
consistently, and naturally, the internal rate of return has
decreased proportionately. (In the 2000 “Annual report on
trends of forest and forestry,” the return rate was only
1.2% for sugi, even when including subsidies.) This
further discourages forest owners from forestry, and
hence forestry itself is experiencing a tremendous decline.
Under these conditions, the continuation of former
policies would
not be beneficial.
In the following, I revisit forest resource policies, prima-
rily the trends in developing a forest planning system. I
focus on the relation between these systems and the forest
resource policies and forestry policies, and finally propose a
forestry policy that pertains to the forest planning system,
and which incorporates the challenges faced by forestry
today.
The relation between forest resource policies and
forestry policies in the developmental process of the
forest planning system
In Japan, the forest management system was established
in 1897. The system was established in order to put a
regula- tion on the denuded forest, such as the forest
protection system. In other words, reacting to the urgency
of the issue,
3
and thus, the primary measure taken was to impose a pen-
alty on violators of applied duties (Forestry Agency
1951). For public forests, and temple and shrine forests,
although “economic sustainability” was imposed, it did
not corre- spond with any specific forestry practices.
After the Japanese–Russian war, as wood demand in-
creased rapidly, wood export also increased. It was in this
context that the Forest Law was amended in 1907. The
public forests, and shrine and temple forests that had been
bound by “economic sustainability” or sustainable wood
production goals, could now be subjected to compulsory
actions of forest management plans or silvicultural
outlines as ordered and approved by local government
heads (Forestry Agency 1951). In that wood sustainability
was addressed, the forestry aspect was, for the first time,
specified in a system.
Since the establishment of the Forest Law, the problem
of denuded forest among common forest was still the
most prominent issue, but the commonage customs that
pre- vailed made it unsolvable by mere regulation. Thus, in
1910, the “Public forest reforestation promotion
regulation” was adopted, and a dual objective of creating
new employment opportunities by subsidizing
reforestation activities as well as forest improvement was
implemented as a policy. In the same year, the “Issue
regarding public forest improvement and development”
was also issued and a first step was taken to unify
community forests with town (village or city) for- ests
(Tezuka 1980). This unifying policy had the effect of
putting an end to the previous form of commonage forests
for community members, and to shift management to
town or town cooperative management. This was the first
move that changed the forest ownership structure.
However, there was little progress in modernization of these
common- age forests, and in 1966, the “Law on promoting
moderniza- tion of rights regarding common forest land”
was adopted to forcefully shift the premodern patterns of
common land rights to modernized forms of rights.
With the revision of the Forest Law in 1939, the forest
management planning system was established for the first
time and, simultaneously, as the managing subject of this
system as well as establishing body, the forest owners’ asso-
ciation (FOA) was formed. For owners of forest-land larger
than 50 ha the responsibility was rendered individually.
Owners with 50 ha or less were to form an FOA which was
to take on the responsibility of establishing a forest manage-
ment plan. The forest management plan had to be
approved by the governor before implementation Tezuka
1980).
The forest management plan was applicable to all
forest- land throughout the country, and enabled a
“bottom-up” forest resource management scheme that
was controlled according to forest management plans.
This was the begin- ning of the forest planning system that
took in forestry as its premises. However, with the onset of
the Second World War, the gap grew between the ideals
of the law and the actual operation.
In 1951, during the postwar rehabilitation, the demand
for wood materials outstripped the supply (the annual
growth volume); and with this the Forest Law was
amended, and so was the forest planning system. Essen-
4
tially, the revision was to enforce upon the forest owners
a system where approval had to be sought before cutting
stands that were younger than the ascribed normal cutting
age, the duty to report any cutting of stands older than the
ascribed normal cutting age, compulsory reforestation
after clear-cutting, and a ban on clear-cutting on young
forest compartments and extreme sloping areas. The
forest plan- ning system was applicable to all forests
throughout and according to a “top-down” system of “The
basic forest plan” established by the Minister of
Agriculture and For- estry, the “Forest area management
plan” and “Forest area working plan” by the governor
were established in part (Ishitani 1951). At the same time,
subsidization for refores- tation activities by the state was
implemented in the Forest Law and delivered
substantially. In 1958, the Proceeds- sharing Forest
Special Measure Law was implemented and reforestation
activities were conducted in a manner which served to
separate management from ownership of land. This new
structural improvement measure was appropriate as a
resource policy (Fujisawa 2001).
In 1962, in opposition to the restrictive measures of the
forest planning system, the Forest Law was amended and
the forest planning system was modified to a forest resource
management type of system whose premise was the wood
supply and demand relationship. More specifically, by
fos- tering a management that is flexible with respect to
the needs of the market, to meet the forest’s functions as
public asset was an ideal to be attained through
predetermined harmony. With an aim of enhancing the
modernization of forestry management, the Forestry
Basic Law was estab- lished in 1964. In relation to the
fostering of forestry man- agement, the Forest Law was
amended in 1968 and a forest planning system was
developed to sustainably maintain forests owned by
private forest owners (Fujisawa 2001).
Despite the efforts to revise the systems as mentioned
above, the improvement displayed in the modernizing of
forestry management was not necessarily as fruitful as
had been anticipated. On the other hand, destruction of
the environment accompanying economic growth
became the center of public concern, and conservation
issues of the natural environment of forests became a
political issue as part of this broader scope of concerns.
With acknowledgement of the difficulty of attending to
the issue under the basis of former wood demand, in 1974,
the Forest Law was amended. In this forest planning
system, forests were assigned a certain function to carry
out, specified ac- cording to each forest’s location;
indicating goals of forest improvement that were guiding,
and changed itself to a forest function management plan.
In order to realize these goals, a system to accommodate
“Cooperative forest plans” was established. At the same
time, a new system requesting the governor’s approval for
modifying soil traits for forest land use changes was
adopted (Fujisawa 2001).
On the other hand, as for domestic forestry, in the
1970s, the share of domestic supply in wood consumption
dropped to less than 50%, and has followed a downward
trend ever since. The environment for domestic forestry
gradually de- teriorated with the stagnation of the
domestic wood market and, consequently, thinning
operations and other silvicul-
tural practices were severely delayed. Hence, in 1983, the
Forest Law was amended for governors to assign a
“Forest improvement local government” in order to
prompt thin- ning and other necessary operations.
Assigned munici- palities took on the responsibilities to
draft “Forest improvement plans,” and if thinning
operations did not take place where necessary, an
administrative intervention was made possible. In other
words, mayors were given the authority to issue
“arbitration” and “recommendation” actions in relation to
thinning operations. To support this system, in the same
year, the “Proceeds-sharing Forest Special Measure Law”
was established as a measure to assign the right of
management of regenerating stands that were in need of
thinning, to a third party. This was the newly established
system for “proceeds-sharing forests.” As will be mentioned
below, in 1991, the Forest Law was amended once again
to allow the governor to adjudicate a proceeds-sharing
forest contract upon forest owners with forests that were
in need of thinning (Fujisawa 2001).
Despite the measures mentioned above, delays in thin-
ning operations and similar problems remained
unresolved issues. In 1991, with the revision of the Forest
Law, a policy for “valley forestry revitalizing” was
proposed. This policy prompted state forests and private
forests to come together in efforts to revitalize domestic
forestry and, through this revitalization effort, to improve
forest conditions. In order to promote this scheme, certain
systems were adopted by law such as the “forest
management implementation plan” for efficient forest
improvement activities by forest owners of the same
single forest estate, and the “local forest im- provement
plan” for municipalities from downstream to come
together with the upstream municipalities for forest
improvement activities. At the same time, in order to
encourage the use of domestic material, “development of
necessary facilities to promote the utilization of forest prod-
ucts” was added as an item of the “District plan for non-
national forest” (Fujisawa 2001); items unheard of
previously were adopted into the law. In 1996, a system
for financing support in forestry was further reinforced.
As mentioned above, the forest planning system, since its
revision in 1951, has evolved in a “top-down” system.
This manner of top-down politics was reflected not
only in the forest planning system alone, but is
omnipresent in Japanese administrative systems
generally. In the gradual uprise of decentralization, these
top-down systems became increasingly unpopular. Hence
the government adopted de- centralization in its
administrative reform; the forest plan- ning system was
revised (1998 Forest Law amendment) and certain
operations such as assigning the lifting of the protec- tion
forest status was devolved from the Agriculture, Forestry
and Fisheries Minister to the local governor, and the
approval of forest management plans, cutting report
collection, and recommendation for forest operation was
devolved from the governor to local government level.
A prominent point is the local government forest im-
provement plan becoming mandatory to all municipalities
with private forest-land. This change was most likely
backed by the notion that forest improvement activities
can be made more effective by involving municipal mayors
who 5
 6
are in the most immediate position to issues related to
forests and most knowledgeable about the local traits in
forest administration and forestry issues.
As observed above, despite the multitudinous efforts
taken to promote forestry and forest improvement, signs
of improvement in forest and forestry issues have been
far from apparent. In order to address this severe reality,
and to promote forest improvement, as mentioned earlier,
in 2001, the former “Forestry Basic Law” was amended as
the “For- est and Forestry Basic Law.” This is indicative
of the ideal as displayed in the law that in order to
establish sustainable forest management, sound
development of forestry is a pre- requisite, and for this, an
appropriate level of supply and utilization of forest goods
is necessary. In other words, with- out the unification in
policy regarding forests, forestry, as well as the forestry
industry, under current forestry traits, the promotion of
forest improvement is extremely difficult. My interests
are focused on the particular needs for sound
development of forestry under current forestry
conditions. An unresolved issue in the forestry policies
mentioned above, concerns the small-sized forest owner-
ship structure and the asset-holding manner of ownership
among forest owners. In order to resolve this issue, apart
from increasing the size of forest-land ownership, for
forest compartments that are large enough to provide
multiple functions of forests as well as to operate
sustainable forest production, ownership and
management need to be sepa- rated and a new system,
namely a new “incooperative sys- tem” needs to be
established where the forest owners invest
in the forest stands subject to management.
Perspectives
Although I have not described the compartment
incorpora- tive system in detail here, according to a forest
owner survey on incorporating which I conducted,
approximately 40% of participants looked forward to
incorporating, while fewer than 20% did not. It is
justifiable to consider the time ripe for incorporating.
However, even among those forest owners who are
optimistic about incorporating, few are spontaneously
motivated. Therefore, it is necessary to induce this
through a political initiative, and during the promotional
stages up till the institution is running, admin- istrative
support in the form of subsidies, taxing policies, and other
strategies will be inevitable.
Upon establishment of an incorporative management
system, the forest compartment will become a
management unit, and a silvicultural system that
sustainably produces timber and at the same time realizes
the multiple functions of the forest will be set up within
the forest compartment. With such advances, further
development in the forest man- agement plan system,
establishment of sustainable forest management, and
expansion towards a forest certification system are
awaited.
Literature cited
Boulding KE (1960) Principles of economic policy (trans Uchida T,
Ebihara T, Tomita T, Tsukuda T, Yamada K). Toyo Keizai Sinposya,
Tokyo
Forestry Agency (1951) History of forest law. Tokyo
Fujisawa H (2001) Resource administration: postwar forestry
history. Dai Nihon Sanrinkai, Tokyo
Ishitani N (1951) Interpretations of forest planning system. Rinzai
Shinbunsha, Tokyo
Jenkins MB, Smith ET (2002) The business of sustainable forestry
(trans Ota I, Kajiwara A, Shiraishi N). Tsukiji Shokan, Tokyo
Nomura S (1960) The particular theory of forest economic planning
system. Asakura Shoten, Tokyo
Science and Technology Agency Resource Research Society (eds)
(1971) Resource issues in the future, vol 1. Ministry of Science
and Technology (now: Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology)
Tezuka H (1980) The basic policies of forrestry and its promoters;
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 100-year history.
Tokyo
Worrell AC (1973) Principles of forest policy (trans Matsushima Y,
Ozawa K). Nihon Rinngyo Tyousakai, Tokyo
Appendix
Notes on economic policies
• Boulding KE (Japanese translation: Uchida T, Ebihara
T, Tomita T, Tsukuda T, Yamada K 1960) Principles
of economic policy. Toyokeizai Sinposya.
The writer defines the basic notions of economic
poli- cies as various principles which rule action with
specific objectives. For policy research, three articles
are consid- ered imperatives, that is; what we are in
need of (objec- tive); how we are to attain this
(measure); and who we are, or what are the
characteristics of the people or orga- nization affected
by the policies.
• Nomura S (1960) The particular theory of forest
economic planning system. Asakura Shoten.
Economic policies are a totality of (intervention)
pro- cedures and methods taken by the state, both
directly and consciously in response to citizens
economic activities and its conditions with an aim
toward improving the eco- nomic welfare of its
citizens.
• Worrell AC (Japanese translation: Matsushima Y,
Ozawa K) (1973) Principles of forest policy.
Nihon Rinngyo Tyousakai.
When united action by constituents becomes neces-
sary in order to attain social goals, there is a necessity
for this authorized guideline. This authorized form is
there- fore, the “policy.”
Notes on resources
• Science and Technology Agency Resource Research
Society (eds) (1971) Resource issues in the future, vol
1.
Resources are objects which people work on in order
to maintain and uplift social life . . . Resources are not
limited to tangible things. Resources are far less limited
to natural creations. Resources inhibit potentialities and
have a fluctuating characteristic that may increase or7
de- crease depending upon the measures taken. They
can change with desire and objectives.