0557-C1
David Watton[1] and Fraser Dunn
A major Government land use planning process in Ontario, Canada, called ‘Lands for Life’ was implemented between February 1997 and May 1999. Its two main products were ‘Ontario's Living Legacy Land Use Strategy,’ which outlines strategic direction for the management of Crown lands in a planning area covering 45% of the province, and the ‘Ontario Forest Accord,’ an unprecedented agreement representing a new relationship between the forest industry, the environmental community and the Ontario Government.
This paper documents the circumstances leading to the creation of the Ontario Forest Accord, its products and its current status. The impact of the Forest Accord on resources management in Ontario and the relationship between the forest industry, the environmental community and the Ontario government is discussed.
In Canada, the provinces have responsibility for land use and forest management.
For most of the 20th century, The Ministry of Natural Resources[2] was a dominant government presence in Northern Ontario. This ongoing presence helped to build a close working relationship with the resource industries in northern communities.
Throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s the ministry’s role came under increasing pressure as more and more players became involved, environmental awareness increased, and competition for finite resources increased.
Competition among these stakeholders for resource use and pressure for better resource allocation and management grew until, by the mid 1990’s, a wide ranging dispute was being carried out in the press and in the courts. This debate was sometimes described as Ontario’s ‘War of the Woods" and it was in full form.
In response to an increasingly untenable situation the Province of Ontario, in 1996, announced a major land use policy development process called Lands for Life.
Lands for Life had four objectives:
Completing Ontario’s system of parks and protected areas;
Recognizing the land use needs of the resource-based tourism industry;
Providing forest, mining, and other resource industries with greater land and resource use certainty; and
Enhancing angling, hunting and other Crown land recreation opportunities.
Figure 1 Ontario's Living Legacy Planning Area
The defining characteristic of the Lands for Life process was a shift from planning by Government to planning by the public. This guiding philosophy took form by using three geographically based Round Tables comprised of private citizens - not government - to consult with the general public and interest groups and make recommendations to government.
Lands for Life involved 14 months of intensive planning and public consultation by the citizens’ Round Tables. This was followed by eight months of intensive review and decision-making by the government.
The results of the massive efforts of the Round Tables, including their unprecedented degree of consultation, were delivered to the Ontario government in July 1998.
The Round Table reports were innovative and comprehensive containing 242 land use recommendations. Their recommendations however limited the increase of parks and protected areas from 7.8% to 9.3% of the Landbase. This was not enough to satisfy environmental interests, and as a result, greater land use certainty was not secure for resource industries.
Public review of the Round Tables’ recommendations in the fall of 1998 indicated that the most controversial issue was the creation of more parks and protected areas. More than 50% of the population of both northern and southern Ontario supported increases to protected areas greater that those recommended by the Round Tables.
The Partnership for Public Lands[3] wanted more protected areas and the forest industry pushed for acceptance of the Round Table recommendations. Both stepped up their campaigns for public support, including public demonstrations and use of the media.
The high degree of public rhetoric was making it increasingly difficult for government to support the continuance of the Lands for Life process since the overall public perception of the process was increasingly negative. Deferral of any decision started to become more probable than either accepting the Consolidated Recommendations or trying to build on them.
The government decided, however, that it would meet with the major stakeholders in the Lands for Life process to see if further progress were possible.
The ministry arranged separate meetings between itself and First Nations, the tourism industry, exploration and mining industries, and anglers and hunters.
The most intensive discussions, however took place between the ministry, the forest industry and the Partnership for Public Lands.
During the period of Round Table deliberations some informal meetings between some members of the forest industry and the environmental community had taken place. These initiatives however were inhibited by the adversarial nature of the participants’ historical relationship and lack of a common voice within the forest industry. There were some signs of interest in further talks, however, from some leaders of the forest industry and the Partnership for Public Lands, and after several attempts, the three parties agreed to enter discussions to try to build on the Round Tables’ recommendations.
They were challenged by government to build on the recommendations and complete the parks and protected areas objectives by defining 12% of the area as parks while, at the same time, ensuring minimal impact on jobs in the industry.
The negotiations were carried out over three weeks and had the following structure:
A ‘Main Table" consisting of approximately 15 people including forest industry executives and managers, Partnership for Public Lands executives and managers, Ministry of Natural Resources executives, the Minister and his staff.
A Ministry of Natural Resources support group comprised of the four senior Ministry Lands for Life managers, an Information Technology manager and their respective staffs, numbering about 20, people. During the discussions, the Director of Forest Management Branch joined this group.
Approximately 6 support staff from the Partnership for Public Lands and the forest industry.
A facilitator experienced in the resource management field and agreed to by the three parties.
As the discussions progressed, other members of the forest industry joined discussions that were taking place outside the "Main Table".
The sessions took place over a three-week period, the most concentrated of which was the first week, which took place at a remote location in central Ontario.
Main Table discussions began by generally exploring the three parties’ interests and concerns and refining the areas of discussion
The negotiations evolved into consideration of which lands would constitute the 12% parks and protected areas, the related needs of each of the three parties, and ways to meet those needs.
The discussions were assisted by teams of staff from the forest industry, the Partnership for Public Lands and the ministry who acted on the wishes of the Main Table and advised on a range of matters including characteristics of proposed parks and protected areas, ways to mitigate wood supply impacts, capital improvements due to the creation of new parks and protected areas, and how to streamline the government resource management processes.
The days were very complex, with the facilitator providing for caucusing of the three parties with their staff and advisors but with most of the time spent by the parties at the Main Table wrestling with each other's concerns, views and values to find the preferred candidate parks and protected areas.
The analytical teams of the forest industry, Partnership for Public Lands and the ministry were extremely busy, responding to the various scenarios requested by the Main Table and calculating the impact of the scenarios. Caucusing within the forest industry, the Partnership for Public Lands and the ministry continued, this time focusing principally on proposed sites and related industry impacts.
A two week period of intense discussion in various locations followed during which negotiations continued over the specifics of candidate parks and protected areas and refining the list of related conditions to which all parties could agree.
On March 29 1999, the Premier of Ontario announced the completion of the Lands for Life process and introduced its products: ‘Ontario's Living Legacy’, and the ‘Ontario Forest Accord’.
Ontario's Living Legacy included government acceptance of 213 of 242 land use policy recommendations from Citizens’ Round Tables, 378 new parks and protected areas covering 12% of the planning area, and measures to create better business climates in the forest industry, resource-based tourism, and mining industries.
The Ontario Forest Accord, part of Ontario’s Living Legacy, is a agreement among the forest industry, the Partnership for Public Lands and the Ministry of Natural Resources which identifies a mutually acceptable approach to the establishment of parks and protected areas while considering the needs of the forest industry.
The Accord documented agreement on:
The completion of representative parks and protected areas encompassing 12% of the Lands for Life area and potential for further mutually agreed on expansion.
Unless otherwise agreed to there would be no net increase in wood costs and no long- term reduction in wood supply relating to these land use decisions.
Specific measures to increase the quality of resource management science and provide for mitigation of impact on the forest industry caused by the new Parks and Protected areas
Measures to reduce red tape in forest management while remaining environmentally responsible.
The creation of a formal body, the Ontario Forest Accord Advisory Board (OFAAB) comprised of nine members representing the forest industry, the Partnership for Public Lands and the Ministry of Natural Resources. OFAAB’s function was to ensure continuing dialogue among the three parties and to ensure that the 31 articles of agreement were implemented.
The Ontario Forest Accord Advisory Board worked intensively for three years after the 1999 announcement, meeting formally eight times a year for three years, and many more times informally in subcommittees, with stakeholder groups and with the public.
In March of 2002, OFAAB submitted its final report to the Minister of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
The accomplishments documented in the report included:
1. Development of a process for sharing permanent increases in wood supply between additional protected areas and increased timber supply for industry; specifically:
- Definition of the gaps and a process to fill gaps in the parks and protected areas system.
- Benchmarking and securement of long-term wood supply.
- A process for sharing permanent increases in wood supply between parks and protected areas and the forest industry.
2. Agreement by the Board that mitigation measures introduced since the Accord was signed have offset overall province - wide reductions in wood supply caused by the creation of Living Legacy parks and protected areas.
3. Recommendations for the application of intensive forest management in specified areas and the establishment of pilot projects to support enhanced planning, research and monitoring of forest management activities.
4. Acceptance of a report that will consolidate 34 separate forest management guidelines into six streamlined guidelines.
5. The preparation of an action plan for operationalizing commitments of the Ontario Forest Accord.
6. A recommendation that the role of OFAAB be changed to become less intensive, but that the parties continue to meet twice a year to monitor the implementation of its work.
Not only was the creation of the Ontario Forest Accord a major breakthrough in natural resources management, but also the relationships built during the process have endured and grown so that its accomplishments are being successful implemented.
The Accord discussions took place because the government, the forest industry and the Partnership for Public Lands saw that it was in their best interest, and all three had commitment to the process from the highest levels including appearances at the negotiations by the organizations’ chief executives and the Minister of Natural Resources.
The discussions were ultimately successful however, because the three parties were able to embrace major changes in their traditional roles and their relationship with each other.
The Ministry of Natural Resource’s experience in the Lands for Life process and the making of the Ontario Forest Accord involved major changes it its relationship with its clients.
Traditionally, the allocation of resources and related Crown land use planning in Ontario had been under the direct leadership and control of the ministry.
In the design of the Lands for Life process, the ministry understood that its success depended on the full involvement of those with a stake in the management of Ontario’s Crown land resources, and that total government control was no longer acceptable. This was not an easy, or simple, transition to make.
In the prepresentations leading to the Ontario Forest Accord, the Partnership for Public Lands and industry argued that for purposes of the discussions, the ministry was really one of three parties; each had interests of their own. The ministry’s traditional role as only an arbitrator to the discussions of others was, therefore, inappropriate.
In agreeing that the three parties would together try to negotiate and jointly frame recommendations to government, the Ministry had agreed to a major change from its customary and historical position of always maintaining the balance of power.
The forest industry for many years was the dominant player in negotiating with government over the use of Ontario’s Crown forest resources. Of the three parties to the Accord discussions, the forest industry had the most to lose.
Most of the forest industry was very much aware however that changes were taking place through increased public interest in the allocation and use of natural resources, vastly improved public access to information, and the impacts of new resource management legislation. The industry was also very much concerned about increased uncertainty of their business climate due to disputes with the environmental community and others.
This understanding made the forest industry an early proponent for a new land use planning process. Anxiety within its membership and a lack of a provincial voice to speak and act in unison however hampered the industry’s effective participation during much of the Lands for Life process. The industry members on the Round Tables were actively engaged but the industry’s participation at the provincial level seemed to be on a rearguard basis, probably with the intuitive strategy of minimizing loss of the status quo.
The informal discussions between the some leaders of the forest industry and the environmental community however, paved the way for industry participation when it became clear that the public was not satisfied with the Round Tables’ achievement on parks and protected areas, and that the government was interested in further discussions on a tripartite basis.
Without the emergence of these industry leaders, the Forest Accord as a successful part of Lands for Life Lands for Life would have been impossible.
The industry leaders’ strength came from an understanding that the forest industry was now operating in a global environment and marketplace; that the forest industry was no longer the only major stakeholder on Ontario’s Crown lands and that much more was to be gained in a new relationship with the other interests than the continuation of procedural warfare over the use of the land.
The environmental community played an important role in the initiation of the Lands for Life process by pressing for the completion of the Parks and Protected areas system.
It was, however, the expansion of their traditional scope of interest and their effective organization into a provincial voice that was critical to the success of the Lands for Life process and the making of the Ontario Forest Accord.
The Partnership for Public Lands is a coalition not only of three major environmental groups (World Wildlife Fund Canada, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Wildlands League) but also forty other supporting agencies. The Partnership was able to rationalise the diverse and sometimes divergent policy positions of this large number of voices into a coherent stand for effective participation in the Lands for Life process.
The resultant Partnership for Public Lands was not only effective in supplying well prepared information to the Round Tables process but, equally important, it recognized that environmental interests would not be served by only pressing for more protected places. As the Round Tables consultations progressed, submissions from the Partnership increasingly dealt with the need for economic stability of northern communities and the industries supporting them.
This widening of traditional perspectives of the environmental community helped immeasurably in creating a climate where the forest industry and the Partnership were able to meet to pursue common interests and develop cooperative solutions.
The Ontario Forest Accord marks an important change in the approach to forest management in Ontario. Future challenges will be met differently as a result of the demonstrated benefit of cooperation and working to common purposes.
The impact of the Ontario Forest Accord and its continuing contribution to the sustainable management of Ontario’s natural resources can perhaps be best captured in the following two quotations:
"Having participated in pitched battles for over 30 years, I never thought the forest industry, government and the conservation community would actually collaborate to solve problems. But we have begun to do this through the Ontario Forest Accord Advisory Board."
Monte Hummel
President, World Wildlife Fund Canada"The Ontario Forest Accord has represented a new and unprecedented level of cooperation between industry, government and the conservation community. All three parties cooperated on its development and continued to work together throughout 2001 to resolve the issues that surrounded its implementation. The Accord has concomitantly provided security to the forest industry while ensuring the protection of the province’s natural heritage, and, in doing so, has provided a solid future for the people of Ontario, particularly the over 200,000 people in more than 40 northern Ontario communities that rely on the forest industry for their livelihood."
Tim Millard
President and CEO
Ontario Forest Industries Association
Ontario Forest Accord Advisory Board, 2002. Final Report on the Implementation of the Accord. Unpublished 25p.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1999. Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.136 p.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2000. The Making of the Ontario Forest Accord- A Background. Queens Printer for Ontario.13p.
Rodgers, G., 2001. The Evolution of Ontario’s Living Legacy. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 82p.
|
[1] Natural Resources
Consultant, 733 Wallis Drive, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, K9J 8E4. Tel: 705-749-3631; Email: [email protected] [2] Throughout this paper the ‘Ministry of Natural Resources’ is refereed to as the ‘ministry’ [3] The Partnership for Public Lands is a coalition not only of three major environmental groups (World Wildlife Fund Canada, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Wildlands League) but also forty other supporting agencies. |