What the Written Record Tells Us

(OK, this is an academic literature review)

Alabama’s forest products industry is dominated by large corporations whose ownership of forest land and mills plays a major role in Alabama’s rural economy (Bliss and Meuhlenfeld 1991). In 1999, manufacturing in the forest products sector of Alabama accounted for $4.3 billion in value-added, $10.7 billion in value of shipments, $1.5 billion in payroll, and 41,500 jobs (U.S. Census Bureau 1999). Pulpwood production and the manufacturing of pulp and paper products represents the largest segment of this sector. The South produces 77% of the nation’s pulpwood (USDA Forest Service n.d.), and Alabama is the nation’s leading state in pulpwood production (Johnson and Steppleton 1999).

Pulp and paper production is a capital-intensive operation, with individual mills representing up to $2 billion in investment (Bailey et at. 1996a). There are at present 14 large pulp and paper mills operating in Alabama. Workers at these mills are among the best paid in Alabama’s rural economy, but their numbers are shrinking as mills close (two closed within the past five years) and as new technologies come on line which replace labor (Bailey et al. 1996b; Lupo in prep.). The rural development impact of these positive contributions have been muted by extraordinarily low property taxes on forest land throughout Alabama (PARCA 2001), and tax abatements which have made it possible for pulp and paper mills annually to escape millions of dollars in property taxes (Joshi 1997; Joshi et al. 2000).

In recent years, the combined effects of corporate consolidation and technological change have led to increasing economic concentration in the forest products sector (Sinclair, Bailey, and Dubois in press). The introduction of mechanized whole tree harvesting operations has led to the virtual demise of labor-intensive shortwood pulpwood producers, once a significant source of employment for the rural workforce (Bliss and Flick 1994). Operating shortwood pulpwood producers allowed for an expanded menu of forest management alternatives for forest owners. In 1979, 78% of southern pulpwood loggers produced shortwood. Only fifteen years later that figure had dropped to 20% (Munn et al. 1998). Similarly, smaller sawmills which once dotted the landscape of rural Alabama have closed down as economies of scale resulted in fewer but larger mills dominating the industry. The decline in the availability of shortwood pulpwood producers directly led to a decline in forest management alternatives, marginalizing many forest owners out of the timber marketplace (Toms et al. 2001).

The process of economic concentration has included ownership in forestland. In contrast to national trends towards fragmentation, in Alabama small forest land tracts are being consolidated into larger holdings (Bliss, Sisock and Birch 1998; Sisock 1998). More than half (58%) of Alabama’s forest land is owned by 1% of all ownership units, and this concentration is most marked in the Black Belt region (Bliss, Sisock and Birch 1998). Data from the 1980s indicate African-Americans in Alabama own only 4% of the private forest acreage (Rosson and Doolittle 1987). Research on the decline in African-American farm ownership in Alabama (Zabawa, Siaway, and Baharanyi 1990; Zabawa 1995), and on-going research on problems faced by minority forest land owners (Crim in prep.; Crim, Dubois and Bailey in prep.) suggest that conditions have not improved since then. The process of consolidation into ever larger tracts could continue (Bailey, Sinclair, and Dubois in prep.) if current research on genetic engineering were to yield dramatic increases in productivity promised by some proponents (Sedjo 1999).

The net result of these changes is that the connection between rural community and the forested landscape in Alabama has weakened. Forest land owners who have sufficient acreage to produce timber on a commercial basis have done well, as have those fortunate enough to be employed in mechanized logging operations, in the remaining saw mills, or in the large pulp and paper mills. However, during the period 1950-2000, when economic conditions in rural Alabama generally improved, non-metropolitan timber-dependent counties lagged behind both metro and non-metro counties which were not timber dependent (Bliss et al. 1993; Robinson, Howze and Norton in press). This finding also holds true for non-metro counties hosting large pulp and paper mills (Bliss and Bailey in press; see Appendix 2).

The forest products industry of Alabama is most heavily concentrated in the state’s timber dependent Black Belt counties, where problems associated with poverty and unemployment are most severe (Walkingstick 1996; Bliss, Walkingstick, and Bailey 1998). Northrup (1970) documented discriminatory labor practices that effectively excluded African-Americans from good jobs in the paper industry. Bailey et al. (1996b) reported that racial discrimination in Alabama has not been entirely eradicated in this industry. This is significant because poverty in this region is most concentrated in minority households (U.S. Census Bureau 2000).

The connection between natural resources and persistent rural poverty is not limited to Alabama (RSS 1993). One of the most common causes of this connection is the lack of local control over resources and the economy (Bailey et al. 1993; Peluso et al. 1994). The concentration of economic power in relatively few hands, and the absence of local hands holding this power, leaves local communities powerless to deal with decisions made far away (RSS 1993). This in turn undermines the ability of local communities to promote development. Norton (2001) found that social capital (trust and civic mindedness) was strongest in those Alabama Black Belt counties where the economy was relatively diverse and weakest where it was not.

Even though most of the forest land of Alabama’s Black Belt is in large ownership units, there are a large number of owners of small tracts who have limited opportunity to market timber from their land. This is the population of landowners we wish to study

The average forest size of the non-industrial private owner is declining. Greene et al. (1997) documented a trend towards decreasing timber stand and timber sale size in Georgia and noted the need for technology to better address the harvesting and silvicultural needs of smaller forest ownerships. Given existing harvesting and silvicultural management paradigms, some forest practitioners and forest policy analysts bemoan declining forest ownership size as a "small-owner problem." Others view small-forested tracts as an opportunity to develop sustainable, small-scale harvesting that can operate efficiently, and protect the amenity values demanded by society while meeting the diverse management objectives of non-industrial private forest (NIPF) owners. DeCoster (1998) in an analysis of NIPF ownership fragmentation stated, “We need new approaches and technologies designed for small [forested] parcels.”

Small-scale harvesting systems, such as farm tractor-based systems, may complement large-scale mechanized logging by filling the harvesting niches of small forested tracts, low sawlog volume harvests, and aesthetically sensitive areas. For example, use of animals (horses and mules) to haul logs out of the woods is an alternative available in some locations. There are those in the forestry community that question the practicality of using animals in logging operations, claiming any interest in animals is just nostalgic wishfulness. However, results of a survey of natural resource managers in the northeast U.S. found that 58% agreed with the statement: “If there were loggers who used animals in my area, I would use animal logging over conventional methods in some situations” (Egan 1998). Toms et al. (2001) estimated there were 50 active animal logging operations in Alabama in 1998.

Small forested tracts are not well served by contemporary logging operations. The challenge is to identify and develop small-scale harvesting systems that can operate efficiently while meeting the diverse management objectives of non-industrial private forest (NIPF) landowners (DeCoster 1998). A 1991 survey of NIPF owners in Alabama indicated 71% considered income from timber sales an important benefit of forest ownership. However, only 25% indicated this was the primary management objective (Bliss 1993). Almost 60% reported that non-commodity values (e.g., maintaining family ownership, protecting wildlife, and personal recreation) were the primary benefits of ownership. Poitras (n.d.) found that 43% of NIPF owners would not allow heavy equipment to harvest timber on their land because of adverse forest impacts (e.g., soil compaction, soil erosion, incompatibility with selective harvesting). In contrast, 45% of respondents were willing to accept less money for their timber if low impact logging (e.g., animal logging, tractor logging) were used to improve their forest’s future health and productivity.

The effect of tract size on harvesting costs has been examined. Cubbage (1983) reported that harvest costs for capital-intensive, highly mechanized systems are more sensitive to tract size than low-capital, labor intensive shortwood harvesting systems. Highly mechanized systems have higher move costs, meaning that it is inefficient for such operations to stop and harvest small tracts. Cubbage (1983) reported that shortwood harvesting operations had the lowest harvesting cost for tracts less than 20 acres. Toms et al. (2001) reported that 20 acres represents the median tract size for animal logging operations in Alabama, and that in this range such low capital harvesting systems may be cost effective. DeCoster (2000) suggests that forest parcels below 50 acres often cannot be harvested through conventional forestry approaches. From a rural development perspective, the viability of forestry on small landholdings raises other concerns. Minority and limited resource landowners in Alabama generally have smaller than average landholdings (Schelhas 2000). Gan and Kolison (1999), studying minority forest landowners in two Southeastern Alabama counties, found a median forest land holding of 70 acres, with one-third of forest landowners having less than 50 acres. Making an economic return from forest lands may be critical in to small landowners ability to retain their lands and maintain their economic well being (Zabawa et al 1990; Tufts and Zabawa 2000). But this requires greater attention from researchers and extensionists to the practice of forestry on small parcels.

Literature cited

Bailey, Conner, Peter Sinclair, and Mark Dubois. In prep. Genetic Engineering in Forestry: Forecasting Social Consequences. Society & Natural Resources. Status: Revise and resubmit

Bailey, Conner, John Bliss, Glenn Howze, and Larry Teeter. 1996a. Rural Development and Timber Dependency in Alabama's Black Belt. Unpublished paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Des Moines, Iowa, August, 1996.

Bailey, Conner, Peter Sinclair, John Bliss, and Karni Perez. 1996b. Segmented Labor Markets in Alabama's Pulp and Paper Industry. Rural Sociology 61(3): 475-496.

Bailey, Conner, John C. Bliss, Glenn R. Howze. 1993. Dependency Theory and Timber Dependency. Paper presented at the 1993 meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, Orlando, Florida. August 1993.

Bailey, Conner, John C. Bliss, Glenn R. Howze, and Larry Teeter. 1992. Social and Economic Correlates of Timber Dependency in Alabama. Grant proposal submitted (and funded at $251,000) to the Rural Development Program, USDA National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program.

Bliss, John C. 1993. Alabama’s Nonindustrial Private Forest Owners: Snapshots from a Family Album. Alabama Cooperative Extension System, Auburn University, AL, Circular ANR-788. 20 p.

Bliss, John C. and Conner Bailey. In press. Pulp, Paper, and Poverty: Forest-based Rural Development in Alabama, 1950-2000. Robert Lee, Donald Field, and William Burch (eds.), Forestry and Community. (In negotiation with publisher.)

Bliss, John C., Mary L. Sisock, and Thomas W. Birch. 1998. Ownership Matters: Forest land concentration in rural Alabama. Society and Natural Resources 11(4):401-410.

Bliss, John C., Tamara L. Walkingstick, and Conner Bailey. 1998. Development or Dependency? Sustaining Alabama's Forest Communities. Journal of Forestry 96(3):24-31.

Bliss, John C. and Warren A. Flick. 1994. With a Saw and a Truck; Alabama Pulpwood Producers. Forest & Conservation History 38:79-89.

Bliss, John C., Conner Bailey, Glenn Howze, and Lawrence Teeter. 1993. Timber Dependency in the American South. Southeastern Center for Forest Economics Research Working Paper No. 74. 18 p.

Bliss, John C. and Ken Muehlenfeld. 1991. Timber and the Economy of Alabama. Agricultural and Natural Resources Circular ANR-602-DTP. Alabama Cooperative Extension Service, Auburn University.

Crim, Sarah. In prep. Meeting Forest Landowner Needs: Women and Minority Forest Landowners in Alabama. MS. Thesis, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences. Expected: May 2003.

Crim, Sarah, Mark Dubois, Conner Bailey, and John Schelhas. In prep. Characterization of Underserved Forest Landowners in Rural Alabama. Paper to be presented at the 2003 meetings of the Southern Forest Economics Workers, New Orleans, March 2003.

Cubbage, F.W. 1983. Tract Size and Harvesting Costs in Southern Pine. Journal of Forestry 81(7):430-33,478.

DeCoster, Lester. 2000. Summary of the Forest Fragmentation 2000 Conference: How Forests are being Nibbled to Death by DUCs, and What to do About It. In Proceedings of the Forest Fragmentation 2000 Conference, edited by Lester DeCoster, pp 2-12. Alexandria, VA: Sampson Group, Inc.

DeCoster, L.A. 1998. The Boom in Forest Owners-a Bust for Forestry? Journal of Forestry 96(5):25-28.

Egan, A. 1998. Clashing Values at the Urban Fringe: Is There a Niche for Horse Logging? Northern Logger. July 1998:16-32.

Gan, Jianbang, and Stephen H. Kolison, Jr. 1999. Minority Forest Landowners in Southeast Alabama. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 23(2):175-178.

Greene, W.D., T.G. Harris, Jr., C.E. DeForest, and J. Wang. 1997. Harvesting Cost Implications of Changes in the Size of Timber Sales in Georgia. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 21(4):193-198.

Hartsell, A.J. and M.J. Brown. 2002. Forest Statistics for Alabama, 2000. Ashville, N.C.: Southern Research Station. Resource Bulletin-67.

Johnson, T.G. and C.D. Steppleton. 1999. Southern Pulpwood Production, 1997. Ashville, N.C.: Southern Research Station. Resource Bulletin SRS-37.

Joshi, Mahendra L.. 1997. Industrial Recruitment Policy and Rural Development: A Case Study of Pulp and Paper Industry in Alabama. Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Forestry, Auburn University.

Joshi, Mahendra L., John C. Bliss, and Conner Bailey. 2000. Investing in Industry, Under-investing in Human Capital: Forest-based development in Alabama. Society & Natural Resources 13(5):291-319.

Lee, L. and J.A. Sumners. 2003. Beyond the Interstate: The Crisis in Rural Alabama. Auburn University: Economic Development Institute.

Lupo, Crystal. In prep. Labor Markets and Occupational Communities: Case Studies from Alabama’s Pulp and Paper Industry. M.Sc. Thesis, Interdepartmental Graduate Program in Sociology, Auburn University.

Munn, I.A., J.B. Cutshall, and D.G. Hodges. 1998. 1993 Pulpwood Logging Contractor Survey. Forest Products Journal 48(7/8): 47-53

Northrup, Herbert R. 1970. The Negro in the Paper Industry: The Racial Policies of American Industry. No. 9. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Norton, Joni Fisher. 2001. Social Capital, Economic Diversity and Timber Dependency in Rural West Alabama. M.Sc. thesis in Rural Sociology, Auburn University.

PARCA (Public Affairs Research Council). 2001. How Alabama’s Taxes Compare. The PARCA Report, Number 42. Birmingham: Public Affairs Research Council, Samford University.

Peluso, N.L., C.R. Humphrey, and L.P. Fortmann. 1994. The Rock, the Beach, and the Tide Pool: People and Poverty in Natural Resource-Dependent Areas. Society and Natural Resources 7:23-38.

Poitras, Ron. n.d. Downeast Initiative on Implementing Low Impact Forestry. <http://www.powerlink.net/fen/hancock.htm>. Accessed 26 February 2003. Forest Ecology Network, Augusta, Maine.

Robinson, L., G. Howze, and J.F. Norton. In press. “Historical Analysis of Timber Dependency in Alabama.” Southern Rural Sociology. Accepted for publication during 2003.

Rogers, E. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.

Rosson, J.F. and L. Doolittle. 1987. Profiles of Midsouth Nonindustrial Private Forests and Owners. USDA Forest Service Southern Forest Experiment Station Resource Bulletin SO-125.

RSS (Rural Sociological Society). 1993. Persistent Rural Poverty Rural America. Report of the Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty, Rural Sociological Society. Boulder: Westview Press.

Sampson, Neil and Lester DeCoster. 2000. Forest Fragmentation: Implications for Sustainable Private Forests. Journal of Forestry 98(3):4-8.

Schelhas, John. 2000. Sustainability and Forest Fragmentation in the U.S. South: Minority and Limited Resource Landowners. In, Proceedings of the Forest Fragmentation 2000 Conference, edited by Lester DeCoster, pp 154-159. Alexandria, VA: Sampson Group, Inc.

Schnepf, Chris. 2000. Re-considering Approaches to Owners of Fragmented Forests. In Proceedings of the Forest Fragmentation 2000 Conference, edited by Lester DeCoster, pp 307-314. Alexandria, VA: Sampson Group, Inc.

Schnaiberg, A. and K.A. Gould. 1994. Environment and Society: The Enduring Conflict. New York: St. Martins.

Sedjo, Roger A. 1999. Biotechnology and Planted Forests: Assessment of Potential and Possibilities. Discussion Paper 00-06, December 1999. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

Sinclair, P.R., C. Bailey, and M. Dubois. In press. One Engineer and a Dog: Restructuring Capital and Labor in Alabama’s Pulp and Paper Industry. Southern Rural Sociology. Accepted for publication in 2003.

Sisock, M. 1998. Unequal Shares: Forestland Concentration and Well-being in Rural Alabama. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. 87 p.

Toms, C.W., M.R. Dubois, J.C. Bliss, J.H. Wilhoit, and R.B. Rummer. 2001. A Survey of Animal-powered Logging in Alabama. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 25(1):17-24.

Tufts, Robert A., and Robert Zabawa. 2000. Using Business Entities to Minimize Fragmentation. In Proceedings of the Forest Fragmentation 2000 Conference, edited by Lester DeCoster, pp 354-358. Alexandria, VA: Sampson Group, Inc.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1999. Annual Survey of Manufacturers 1999. Geographic Area Statistics. Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. <http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/m99-as3.pdf>.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. County Estimates for People of All Ages in Poverty for Alabama: 1997. Released November 2000. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/hhes.www/saipe/stcty/a97_01.htm.

USDA Forest Service. n.d. Forest Inventory and Analysis Timber Product Output (TPO) Database Retrieval System. { PRIVATE HREF="<http://130.18.28.53/rpa/tpo/>." http://130.18.28.53/rpa/tpo/.

Walkingstick, T. L. 1996. Pulpwood, Dinettes, and Doublewides: Comparative Case Studies of Forest Dependency in Alabama. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. 256 p.

Wimberley, Ronald C. and Libby V. Morris. 1996. The Reference Book on Regional Well-being: U.S. Regions, the Black Belt, Appalachia . Starkville: Southern Rural Development Center, Mississippi State University.

Wolek, F. 1985. The Transfer of Agricultural Technology. Journal of Technology Transfer 9:57-70.

Zabawa, Robert, Aurthur Siaway, and Ntam Baharanyi. 1990. The Decline of Black Farmers and Strategies for Survival. Southern Rural Sociology 7:106-121.

Zabawa, R. 1995. And the Devil got Alabama and Georgia: Black Land Ownership in the South. Paper presented at the conference “Who Owns America? Land and Resource Tenure Issues in a Changing Environment,” Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 21-24 June 1995.

Return to Project Homepage.