Author Archives: hfhc

Time for BC to renew its land use leadership

Time for BC to renew its land use leadership
Bruce Sieffert,Time for B.C. to Renew Lan Use Leadership

Time for BC to renew its land use leadership

From 1990 to the mid 2000’s, British Columbia was a globally‐recognized leader in using community‐based land use planning to seek balanced and sustainable management of our rich endowment of natural resources.

Leadership emerged then because it was needed. Those old enough to remember might recall how the forestry and land use debate in B.C. became so intense in the 1980’s that it was dubbed the “war in the woods.”

To their credit governments of that era, along with community leaders, environmental advocates, and industry spokespersons, rose to the occasion. The community‐based land use planning processes that emerged provided a dramatic shift on B.C.’s public lands, with a doubling of the park and protected area system, coupled with a broad commitment to sustainable forest management. These processes were challenging at times – collaboration is seldom the shortest or easiest path – but they did provide the tools for substantial community influence on land use, ultimately providing a social licence for a new balance that included protection and sustainable development.

But now those hard‐won gains are at risk of being lost – with the possibility that a new “war in the woods” might take shape. Communities are once again feeling excluded from the management of the public lands around them. As noted by Harshaw, Pillman and Aird in an earlier background paper for the Healthy Forests Healthy Communities initiative, government has backed away from the community‐based planning processes that flourished in the 1990’s. Even modest support for community‐based plan implementation committees has dried up.

To avoid a return to a divisive land use debate in B.C. a renewed commitment to planning and community engagement is essential. It is important at the outset to explicitly recognize aboriginal rights and title, and the aspirations of both First Nation communities and non‐aboriginal communities.

The good work provided by previous planning will often provide a good starting place – but we should not be wedded to the specific approaches and products of the 90’s. Planning processes must be flexible to reflect the wide range of communities and First Nations. Some communities may have the interest and capacity to deal comprehensively with major regional challenges, while others may want to focus their energies on very specific local land use issues.

We can start now by empowering those First Nations and communities who are ready to move ahead. The province needs to play a sponsorship role, working with First Nations on a government‐to‐government basis, to describe a clear mandate to seek a renewed community‐based land use vision.

The province also needs to provide seed money. Any estimate of fiscal requirements is speculative at this time, given the need for communities to define their interests and tailor processes accordingly. A relatively small investment of $10 to 20 million over the next ten years would likely be sufficient to support well run and focused planning exercises in a number of communities. Moreover, the provincial government may not be the only funding source. The current collaborative marine planning initiative on the B.C. coast has brought together funding from a number of sources. The government does need to renew its own expertise in planning and community engagement, which has largely been eroded in a decade of downsizing.

In summary, it will take three things to move forward: a core investment by the provincial government, respect for and partnership with First Nations, and, more than anything, the time, energy, and creativity of British Columbians working together in well‐defined and well‐supported collaborative processes.

These are once again challenging times for communities and citizens, both First Nation and a non‐aboriginal.

This means that a working consensus can be difficult to reach. But as our past experience shows, British Columbians can come together in challenging times to define a new land use balance for our public lands. It is time for British Columbia to show it can lead once again.

Bruce Sieffert has over 30 years experience with the B.C. government in land use planning and policy, and is currently an adjunct professor with the Centre for Livehoods and Ecology at Royal Roads University

 

Forest Pest Management in BC

Forest Pest Management in BC
Dan Heppner, Healthy Forests-Healthy Communities

Forest Pest Management in BC

Forest management in BC currently lacks an overall vision, goals and objectives. I agree with the recommendations in the Healthy Forests – Healthy Communities report that there should be a change in focus from short‐term economics to long-term stewardship. A critical component of forest-management, landscape level planning, is also lacking. Planning in BC is primarily at the cut-block level and is carried out by the forest industry. There needs to be better government oversight and involvement in planning to ensure long-term stewardship. Planning at the landscape level is critical to forest pest management.

Forest management in BC currently lacks an overall vision, goals and objectives. I agree with the It should be acknowledged that we are experiencing an economic downturn of western civilization and there are unlikely to be the resources that we would like to see invested in forestry. The current situation may be the new reality; we may have to lower our expectations. Just the same, there is much that could be improved. Pest management is essential to the long-term stewardship of BC’s forests and the subsequent provision of goods and services to the public.

I believe the biggest pest management concerns in BC are associated with the effects of a changing climate and the accidental introduction of exotic insects and diseases from other countries. The affects of climate change are already impacting our forests severely (e.g. mountain pine beetle and Dothistroma needle blight) and serious exotic pests have already been introduced and established (e.g. white pine blister rust and balsam woolly adelgid). The biology of trees and pests are closely linked to each other and the environment. The anticipated changes in the climate will alter these biological relationships with pests likely being more positively affected than their long-lived, and increasingly stressed, tree hosts. Further climate change impacts are anticipated.

Forest pests are introduced from foreign countries annually. Improved climate conditions for pests will likely improve the probabilities that they will become established. Our formerly cold winters have limited the establishment of these accidentally introduced pests and have been our best natural defense. It is probable that some of these introduced pests will have serious impacts in the not too distant future.

If we are to mitigate pest impacts, forest health staffing and funding need to be maintained and augmented. Monitoring and research capabilities need to be improved. Current monitoring is probably adequate for medium to large scales. However, monitoring at finer scales for both native and exotic pests is essential as many pest management interventions are best applied at incipient stages. Research is needed to improve our understanding of pest/host relationships so that the affects of climate change can be anticipated. On‐going research leading to the development of novel control techniques is also necessary. I believe that current forest health capabilities in BC are insufficient to adequately deal with pest management issues now and into the future. Political parties need to be cognizant of this and act
accordingly.

Don Heppner, Retired forest entomologist with 30 years experience with the BC Ministry of Forests