Are Forest Stewardship Plans meeting expectations FPB SIR44-FSP-Are-They-Meeting-Expectations-1
“The board previously looked at forest stewardship plans in 2006 and found numerous problems, so we wanted to see if they had improved since then,” said board chair Tim Ryan. “Unfortunately, we found there has been no improvement in that time.”
Time for BC to renew its land use leadership
Bruce Sieffert,Time for B.C. to Renew Lan 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
A Sustainable Forest Management Framework for BC Crown Forests
Healthy Forests Healthy Communities
The implementation of SFM requires there be an actual plan of management. Such a plan gives purpose,
meaning and direction to all the actions of forest protection, harvesting and renewal across the
landscape. The overall objective is to first identify a future forest condition with all the features the
public wishes to see in their public forests 50 to 100 years from now. Today’s management to achieve
the desired future forest, requires the features be quantified, as best as we are able, based on our
current scientific understanding of forest dynamics and visual quality values, fish and wildlife habitat,
watershed dynamics and biodiversity values at the tree, stand and landscape levels. The future forest is
not just a wooly concept but a real, bounded, area‐based forest condition at the scale of 100,000 to
200,000 hectares or 250 to 500 times the size of Stanley Park. We have known how to do this for over
20 years.
To reach this future condition, today’s forest inventory needs to be grown into the future by computer
modeling. BC has pioneered this work. We know how to do it and we can develop various scenarios of
different planned actions in time and space that will produce different outcomes based on meeting
public, Government and industry expectations. The desired outcomes must be chosen in consultation
with the public, First Nations and the tenure holders. It’s a social decision. This process of analysis and
consultation requires a wide range of specialist expertise that must cooperate. This process reduces
barriers between bureaucratic silos and helps the public, stakeholders and First Nations understand
what is proposed and done.
Accountability lies in monitoring not just “forest practices” but real coordinated progress towards the
future forest. We monitor to learn from successes and errors by adaptive management. The chosen set
of actions form the basis for today’s short term operating plans and have built within them a certain
harvest level (Allowable Annual Cut) linked to a real spatial plan of management.
Such planning has initial costs but when considering public consultation and industry planning over time
they are expected to decline as people become familiar with the process and collaboration. This
essential planning process is not new. It is already in place in other provinces, notably Alberta, where all
area‐based tenures have such plans on the web. Most of the BC public forest does not have such SFM
plans and they are not formally required. No wonder there is great dissatisfaction with the lack of vision
and accountability in public forest management.
Dr. Gordon Weetman, Professor Emeritus, Department of Forest Sciences, University of British Columbia.
RESTORING BC’s FOREST LEGACY AND ENERGIZING THE FOREST SECTOR (Final Report)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Excerpt:
The growing concern about the future of BC forests in meeting the long-term societal expectations from a wide range of concerned citizens initiated the Healthy Forests-Healthy Communities: A conversation on BC forests initiative (HFHC)1 . The final report and recommendations are based on a forest management and associated land use dialogue with communities, experts and concerned citizens across BC over a two year period. The intent was to inform politicians of recommended strategic actions necessary to ensure the future forest will restore the BC forest legacy and energize the forest sector. Failure to manage forest lands through a long-term sustainability lens will result in a reduction in both investment and management of the forest asset leading to unacceptable levels of community economic development, family health and BC revenue. BC needs to change their focus to avoid a future crisis!
Restoring BC’s Forest Legacy and Energizing the Forest Sector – Strategic Action Plan – DRAFT
Excerpt:
This Action Plan presents the current information for use in the dialogue on the future of BC forest lands and to assist in the on-going discussions regarding actions by political parties leading up to the commitments expected during the 2013 election campaign. Future drafts incorporating the results of upcoming expert and community workshops will be posted on the HFHC website.
