A grassroots groundswell of support – our initiative gets some good press in the Sicamous Eagle Valley News after the Shuswap Community Dialogue Session. Click here for the full article.

The Healthy Forests-Healthy Communities initiative is getting feedback from BC communities. Communities are concerned about the future of local forest landscapes. Communities want a viable and sustainable local forest economy and greater influence in forest land decisions. Click here for the full report from Andrew Mitchell entitled “Better Community Control Over Forests”.

BETTER COMMUNITY CONTROL OVER FORESTS
Andrew Mitchell

The Healthy Forests-Healthy Communities initiative is getting feedback from BC communities.
Communities are concerned about the future of local forest landscapes. Communities want a viable and
sustainable local forest economy and greater influence in forest land decisions.

To address these needs, the BC Government and forest corporations will seek a symptomatic treatment
and possibly supply some new public involvement processes. There is no doubt that effective and
meaningful involvement by communities in management of local forest landscapes could be a
foundation for sustainable stewardship. A few new opportunities to review and comment on the
intentions of central government and forest corporations will not provide meaningful involvement.

Most of BC’s forests are Crown forests owned by the Province of BC. In the days of absolute monarchy,
Crown lands would be chartered to feudal lords and formed the basis of feudal systems. The majority
had little or no say. However, Canada and British Columbia are democracies and the appropriate role of
the BC Government over the Crown forests is to act as trustee and see that the forests have wise
management to sustain communities and a strong forest economy. This progressive view of Crown
forest land was expressed in BC over 100 years ago by a Royal Commission on forests. The commission
recommended that the Crown forests be retained in Crown ownership, supplied independent
management by professional forest service with the intent of providing sustainable communities and a
healthy forest industry. They noted that the priority of Government was to ensure that there was a wise
system of forest stewardship through a progressive legal and institutional framework.

Given the enlightened early vision for BC’s Crown forests, the last 100 years should have brought some
devolution of control and management of forests to the local level. Unfortunately, the legal and
institutional framework for Crown forest land has been regressive. The allocation of harvesting rights
for most of BC’s Crown timber to a few commodity forest products corporations restricted the
diversification of the BC wood products industry and the administered prices made wood exports
vulnerable to export tariffs and taxes. Improvident stripping of the best virgin timber led to major
problems in the coastal forest industry. In the interior, improvident forest management led to the
accumulation of huge areas of old Lodge Pole pine and set the stage for the loss of tens of billions of
dollars worth of timber to beetle attack. independent professional forest management was
compromised by passing more and more forest management responsibilities to forest corporations. BC
Government administrations have developed a legal and institutional framework that has enabled
forest corporations for more than 60 years. It can be said to be regressive because it is akin to that of an
absolute monarch handing out the benefit of land to the feudal lord. The only difference is that the
feudal lord has been replaced by a corporation. This is not progress. The feudal lord was a real person
and there were some expectations of human decency. The corporation is a legal person constituted to
make profit; not the best profile for the steward of the local forest landscape.

The legal and institutional framework for managing BC’s Crown or public forests, involving corporate
timber harvesting rights has become the established paradigm in BC. There is fear that any change will
have adverse economic effects. There have already been enough adverse economic effects that we
should really fear failure to make major change. The legal and institutional framework has been headed
in the direction of giving more control over public forests to corporations for over 60 years. We are at a
tipping point and any moves toward stronger tenure by forest corporations will complete the slide
toward enclosure of our Crown or public forests into the private interest. It is the inevitable destination
under the present paradigm.

If BC communities are concerned about the future of local forest landscapes and their forest economy
and want more control, they need to do more than ask our political decision makers for some more say
in the present framework. BC communities need first to remind our politicians that the local forest
landscape is our land. The rightful relationship of the community to the local forest is through an
elected board that directs a local professional forest management staff that manages the forest
landscape for the benefit of local communities.

The building block of a new framework would be the local forest trust. It would involve a sufficient area
of local forest landscapes to form a viable economic forest enterprise. More than one community or
rural area in the vicinity could be represented by a ward system on the elected board. The board and
professional forest managers would operate under trust documents or a charter modeled on the
international Montreal Process definition of sustainable forest management and conservation. The
managers would develop a local forest economy that includes timber, non timber, and nature based
economic activities. Delegation of forest management responsibility for anything greater than a family
woodlot or stewardship license would not be permitted and timber would be sold on an open market.
A provincial institution would be required to audit, support and provide a court of appeal for decisions
made by local forest trusts. A provincial forest trust assembly governed by an equal number of elected
board and professional forest management delegates could fulfill this role. Major policy changes would
require ratification by local forest trusts.

These new institutions also provide an innovative mechanism to resolve First Nation claims. First
Nation’s will be able to have local forest trusts or equitable representation through a ward system on
local forest trusts. The Montreal Process provides for customary aboriginal use.
Forest dependent communities should seek direct control of the management of local forest landscapes
under the new institutions of Local Forest Trusts and a BC Forest Trust assembly. This is a much more
sustainable alternative than gaining a facade of more public involvement in the existing centralized
government and corporate framework. It has been moving and will continue to follow a path of stealth
privatization that will result in the enclosure of Crown forests into the private interest. Communities
should grab the opportunity to ask for changes that will bring a sustainable future under their own
control. The default alternative is debilitated industrial wood forests and probably gates restricting
access to privatized local forest landscapes.

Our initiative’s Coordinator, Bill Bourgeois, publishes an new piece titled “Will BCs Forests Deliver – A Forester’s Challenge.” The article is being distributed to all CIF members of the Vancouver Section.

Will BC Forests Deliver Community Needs?

Bill Bourgeois, PhD, RPF
Coordinator
Healthy Forests-Healthy Communities: A conversation on BC forests
August 22, 2011

A wide range of knowledgeable forest leaders are raising the question of whether British Columbia (BC)
forests are on a course that will significantly impact the future of communities and families. As forest
professionals, it is critical we individually or collectively bring forward our views to decision-makers,
communities and concerned citizens. Traditionally foresters, I being one of them, tend to not speak out
for various reasons. However, the time has come to capitalize on the positive reputation of the
profession within the public.

There have been a number of newspaper articles and contributions to the “Healthy Forests- Healthy
Communities: A conversation on BC forests” (https://www.bcforestconversation.com) initiative that have raised
questions regarding the current state of the forest and its future. Many of these include references but
also opinions. I thought it might be useful to bring some of the issues and concerns together where
specific reference materials are available to support the concerns. I would encourage you to review the
following and let decision-makers and concerned citizens know your views, supportive or not, of
whether the current BC forests trajectory will deliver the expected short and long-term community
needs from our forests.

Forest management issues; concerns

• Leadership: No long-term forest lands vision exists to guide policy and management decisions
  in BC; the Government’s “The State of the Forest Report” did not include a vision to evaluate the
  success of existing forest management.
• Re-stocking: Regeneration levels (40-70%) in Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) impacted areas; this
  level of regeneration is expected to significantly compromise future productivity if not
  corrected, especially with increasing global external influences.
• Monitoring: Staff reductions (25% in 10 years) in BC Forest Service, much in the area of
  monitoring; current levels of oversight are expected to challenge the ability to both adequately
  determine the state of BC forests and ensure sustainable management; no evidence exists that
  other efficiencies or delegation have compensated for the staff reductions.
• Resource inventories: Funding levels of resource inventories (45% of the estimated essential
  staffing levels for inventories maintenance; 75% of the inventories are 25 years old); lack of
  updated and readily available resource inventories is expected to limit managers’ ability to
  evaluate and manage forest conditions appropriately.
• Research: Unprecedented low funding levels for forest lands research (80% over the last 3
  years); reduction of research expenditures is expected to affect the ability of researchers to fill
  knowledge gaps and respond to impacts of global external influences.
• Management: Short-term management policies to assist industry while maintaining forest
  stewardship (e.g., management plans deferred for up to 10 years beyond earlier agreements;
  Government operational decisions focused on reducing industry costs; relaxation of small scale
  regeneration in MPB salvage areas); decisions to focus on short-term competition gains are
  expected to negatively impact the future forest productivity and the forest asset base.
• Policies: Transfer of Community (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal) interface hazard reduction
  planning and implementation responsibility from Government to communities; increased large-scale
  fire risk exists due to required levels of implementation and funding with all the risk
  residing with communities and not the Provincial Government.
• Industry: Industry focus on marketing at the expense of forest management; failure of the
  forest industry to request Government assistance with long-term forest management costs,
  compared with recent requests for product marketing assistance, suggests forest management
  is not a priority.

Realizing increased value issues; concerns

• Planning: Activity level of public involvement in strategic land and resource planning; public
  involvement limited to providing input into Government plans with limited or no oversight by
  pubic advisory committees to harness past world-class land use planning and threaten global
  land use planning leadership.
• Forest use: Coordination and timber impact limits associated with non-traditional forest
  resources management; reduced lack of policy coordination and the continued legislated limit
  regarding impacts of recreation, road access, fish and wildlife, parks and reserves, cattle
  management and non-timber forest products suggest the focus is on timber management at the
  expense of other resources.
• Product development: Marketing of “value-added products” (10-25% of total Government
  marketing allocation); low levels of market development funding is expected to limit the growth
  of the secondary manufacturing industry and hence community diversification and full
  utilization of the fibre resource.
• Community development: Funding levels ($1 M/year for each Beetle Action Coalition for three
  years) for community diversification in MPB impacted areas; current funding allocations for
  community diversification in each of the three BC regions is expected to limit diversification and
  be far short of the projected funding needed to establish viable and sustainable communities.
• Community diversification: Policy barriers to the encouragement of wood utilization for bioenergy;
  existing barriers limit opportunities for broader diversification and full utilization of the
  forest resource.

Forest environment protection issues; concerns

• Biodiversity: Biodiversity protection initiatives; BC biodiversity “…is vulnerable to rapid
  deterioration, especially in light of climate change,” thereby requiring action to prevent loss of
  species and ecosystems.
• Adaptation: Response to global environmental influences; with a focus primarily on research
  and not operations adaptation is expected to limit future opportunities.
• Productivity: Cumulative impacts; without concerted coordination of broader resource
  management interests (especially in the Northeast) involving oil and gas exploration, forestry,
  mining, hydro development and agriculture, resource management and extraction activities are
  expected to create significant cumulative impacts to ecosystems and forest productivity.
• Restoration: Habitat restoration in areas impacted by the MPB epidemic; current level of
  habitat restoration is expected to significantly reduce ecosystem productivity.
• Watersheds: Impacts of MPB harvesting on streamflows; ecosystem and forest productivity is
  expected to be impacted by rising water tables due to tree harvesting and salvaging in MPB
  harvested watersheds.
• Public involvement: Level of meaningful community participation; local communities and family
  desires regarding forest lands management influence is expected to be limited unless policies
  are changed.

I encourage you, as forest professionals, to let your views be known through direct conversations with
decision-makers, communities or concerned citizens or through the Healthy Forests-Healthy
Communities initiative website, facebook or twitter.

Our initiative responds to Robert Gray’s OpEd piece with a Letter to Editor.

Re: New solutions needed for wildfire woes, Aug. 16

The communities of Kimberly and Cranbrook, with their partners, should be congratulated in coming up with an innovative approach to move towards independence of Provincial Government funding to address their major issue regarding interface area wildfire management. The Government has offloaded the cost and risk of this management to communities. It is only reasonable they encourage and support this type of innovation.

The request by the partnership to modify slightly the boundaries of Crown land adjacent to the two communities is an example of the innovative thinking identified as a challenge arising from the views of BC leaders in forest management (https://www.bcforestconversation.com). With the significant reduction in funding for forest management across the province over the last few years, it is critical to find ways to maintain the forest asset and protect communities through innovative solutions. Government should move immediately to accept the request and make the necessary Crown land map changes. Innovation is critical and flexibility by Government is the least they can do to help communities.

Bill Bourgeois
North Vancouver

The Vancouver Sun has published an OpEd piece by Robert Gray regarding the administrative and fiscal challenges facing communities attempting to deal with wildfire woes. The full article can be found here.

The Williams Lake Tribune publishes a Letter to the Editor drafted by our lead Coordinator, Bill Bourgeois (RPF) outlining the need for a new vision for local forests. The full article can be found here.

The Williams Lake Tribune covers the latest developments from our initiative in its articlePublic input discussed for forestry management.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A growing concern began in 2009 and continued through 2010 among professional foresters and
biologists, conservationists, academics, community leaders, forest support companies and First Nations
that British Columbia (BC) forests are in need of greater attention to meet societal expectations over the
long-term. During these conversations a number of initiatives were identified, generating the concept
of the Healthy Forests-Healthy Communities: A conversation on BC forests (HFHC) initiative. This was to
be a non-partisan, volunteer-supported initiative to catalyze dialogue with natural resource experts and
local communities (including members of the forestry profession, Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals,
community advocates, conservationists, youth and concerned citizens) to inform decision-makers about
the people’s vision for the forest lands of BC and identify areas for improving long-term sustainable
management to achieve the provincial, community and family goals of ensuring healthy forests and
healthy communities for a brighter BC future. The objectives were to raise the profile of forest
management for development of political party platforms leading up to the next provincial election and
inform decision-makers on communities’ vision for BC forest lands, including local and regional
perspectives and issues.

The process includes three components: 1) securing background information from experts in the field, 2)
holding Community Dialogue Sessions to acquire community views and suggestions, and 3) providing a
website and social media mechanisms to share information and enhance public dialogue. The dialogue
was guided by the following draft forest lands vision which could be modified at regional levels to reflect
local conditions or emphases identified through community discussions:

British Columbia’s forests are managed to:

• ensure the health and protection of all forest values;
• support healthy, diverse and resilient communities; and
• support a sustainable and globally competitive forest products economy.

The Interim Report covers the key findings from the 28 Background Briefs, six (6) Community Dialogue
Sessions and other contributions by concerned citizens. A further 15 Community Dialogue Sessions are
in the planning stages for this fall and further input through the website and social media will be
included in a Final Report expected by December 31, 2011.