Tracking a change in forests: a shift is occuring in America's timberlands, and it offers an opportunity to revisit the importance of community woodlands.

During times of major change, cycles often emerge that are usually invisible. When AMERICAN FORESTS was founded in 1875, forestland was plentiful in the United States. There were no public lands to speak of, little private ownership of forestland, and virtually no commercial forest land ownership.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Beyond the East Coast lay billions of acres ripe for settlement, agriculture, and industry. Forest land was opening to public owners, while commercial ownership was still unheard of outside New England. But the cutting of the forest was spreading west rapidly. The center of the forest industry in 1840 was Maine, by 1850 it was New York, Pennsylvania in 1860, and the Lake States by 1870.

AMERICAN FORESTS was formed, in large measure, to ensure that forestland was managed for the long-term (as opposed to the "cut out and get out" process). This "scientific revolution" in the timber industry led to private ownership of commercial forest land on a wide scale.

Private nonindustrial forestland ownership also skyrocketed during this same period, as settlers claimed lands, and roads and railways stretched across the continent. In fact, the miles of railroad in the U.S. doubled between 1865 and 1875, allowing the transport of large quantities of products, including timber. And timber made train travel possible in the form of railroad ties that tied a nation together.

Now, less than 150 years later, another revolution is occurring. The forest products industry is changing radically to adapt to global competition. This is best reflected in the unprecedented shift in the ownership of private forestland as corporations divest their forest lands to Timber Investment Management Organizations (TIMOs). (TIMOs are generally small companies that buy and manage forestland for institutional financial investors and wealthy individuals who are seeking short-term, 10- 15-year, gains). International Paper, for example, recently announced its decision to divest all its 6.5 million acres of U.S. forestlands.

Private, nonindustrial forestland owners are also affected by this dramatic shift, as changes in the marketplace bring uncertainty for tree growers.

What does this shift mean for the future of our forests? Is there a risk of turning full cycle? Will the "cut out and get out" mentality return in the 21st century? Jane Little tracks this issue in "Timberlands in Turmoil." We've also asked several prominent forest experts for their thoughts on convincing landowners to value trees.

Town forests have been covered in these pages since the 19th century. We helped the idea, common then in New England, spread beyond the Northeast. As towns and cities grew, town forests quietly disappeared in most places. In others, like Maryland, they were permanently protected for services to growing populations, especially filtering drinking water by protecting reservoirs and aquifers. Some communities see new town forests as the silver lining in the forest land tenure shift. Could divested commercial lands herald the return of town forests or will investors angling for quick profits and urban development win the day?

While there are those who doubt that the ecosystem services of forests--clean air and clean water--will be enough to save forests from development, it is more a question of whether we can afford to lose our forests. The answer is 'no.'

Michael Gallis, who keynoted our National Conference on Urban Ecosystems, sees the emergence of four or five regional centers worldwide that will be hubs of all industry and trade. Countries that do not protect their environment lose their resiliency to respond to economic changes. If unable to guarantee clean air and water in the future, they will lose the ability to compete in the global marketplace. America loses 6,000 acres a day of forest and open space. A major shift in land tenure, such as is predicted in these pages, that may increase this conversion of forests may mean more for America's future than any economic factor.

Perhaps the time has come again for the farsightedness that foresters bring to the environment. To stay competitive in the world and guarantee a high quality of life, we must keep forests as forests.

DEBORAH GANGLOFF

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR