0556-C1
David Watton[1] and Dan Marinigh
This paper examines Ontario’s Living Legacy, an innovative land use policy for Ontario, Canada, that includes the biggest increase in the history of Ontario’s system of parks and protected areas.
It also contains measures to create better business climates in the forest industry, resource-based tourism and mining industries and provides for an ongoing forum for increased public participation in resource management decision-making.
Ontario’s Living Legacy guides land use and resource allocation for 39 million ha across the central and near-north parts of the province (about 45% of Ontario’s landbase, including all of Ontario’s industrial Crown forest).
An examination of Ontario’s Living Legacy, including its origins, its approach to citizen-based public consultation, the contents of the Policy and factors essential to its success, provides important lessons for participatory decision-making in the development of land use resource policy and resolution of related conflicts.
The Province of Ontario, Canada is a large landmass of 107 million hectares of which 69 million hectares is forested, representing 17% of Canada’s forests and 2% of the world’s forests.
Ontario’s forested area is equal to the landmasses of Germany, Italy, Switzerland and the Netherlands combined. In Canada, the provinces have responsibility for land use and forest management.
The forest industry supports direct employment for 70,000 people and produces shipments valued at $15 billion Cdn. from an annual harvest area of 210,000 hectares. Most of Ontario’s 11 million people are concentrated in the southern agricultural portion of the province.
"Ontario’s Living Legacy" (OLL) Policy announced in July 1999, was the result of an intensive two and one-half year public land use policy development process called "Lands for Life" (LFL). Lands for Life covered 39 million hectares across the central and near-north parts of the province (about 45% of Ontario’s land base, including all of Ontario’s industrial Crown forest) (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Ontario’s Living Legacy Planning Area
In Ontario, the 1800’s and early 1900’s were characterised by a focus on settlement of the landscape and a strong resource extraction philosophy that usually accompanies pioneering periods. Government resource management policy focused on "opening up" Ontario’s north country and included the exploitation of its forests and mineral resources.
The mid 1900’s saw the emergence of a recognised need for forest renewal and related planning, and the tentative beginnings of influence of the principles of "conservation biology." During most of this period, however, an industrial resource development agenda prevailed, and the relationship between resource development industries, northern communities, and Ontario Government agencies was very close, to the virtual exclusion of the interests of others concerned with the use and perpetuation of the natural resource base.
Even into the early 70s, knowledge about northern Ontario’s natural resources and the formulation of government policy related primarily to industrial resource allocation. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the forest and mining communities were the primary agents charged with determining management strategies.
The late1970s and early 80s saw greatly increased interest and influence of environmental perspectives coincident with the preparation of Ontario’s first comprehensive land use planing guidelines, and government approval of a policy for Ontario’s provincial parks.
Largely as a result of issues raised by this increased interest, in 1987 the Ontario government ordered an Environmental Assessment of the Ministry of Natural Resource’s Timber Management on Crown Lands. The hearings concluded in 1992 with 115 Terms and Conditions, which called for the government to make major changes in the way the forest was managed.
The five-year Environmental Assessment greatly expanded the number of players with a formal stake in Ontario’s management of its forests and of other natural resources. It also reinforced the message to government that a much wider field of participants must be included in resource management decision making.
The Timber Environmental Assessment dealt with forest management practices but it did not deal with deciding what types of land use could take place on the Province’s Crown land.
By the early 1990s Ontario’s land use guidelines for Ontario’s forested areas were 15 years old. They had not been kept current, nor were they designed to deal with conflicts that were reaching a new level of intensity between the different users of Crown lands and forests.
Environmental interests were pushing for rap14id implementation of the Environmental Assessment provisions and more parks and protected areas. Tourism operators and others wanted greater say in the use of the forest. Increasingly, these interests used more sophisticated and powerful means to express their concerns. Environmental assessment legislation was used to delay implementation of forest management plans and the sustainability of the Province’s forest management program was challenged in the Courts.
This acrimony, termed the "War of the Woods", was disrupting the resource related business investment climate and the economic and social well being of forest communities.
The need for a new comprehensive policy on land use was clear.
The Lands for Life policy development process took place because conflicts among users of Ontario’s Crown forests had grown to the point of having untenable economic and social consequences.
Traditionally, the allocation of resources and related planning in Ontario had been under the direct leadership and control of government. The government recognised that the success of any new land use policy development process must now depend 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. It was decided early on that while ultimate decisions on policy for the allocation and use of public resources were clearly the responsibility of government, major participation by the people directly affected was needed for decisions to be widely accepted and enduring.
The defining characteristic of the Lands for Life policy development process was a shift in emphasis from planning by government to planning by the public.
The Lands for Life process occurred in a planning area that comprised 45% of Ontario’s landbase and included all of Ontario’s industrial Crown forest. Within the planning area, three geographically-based, multi-interest citizen’s Round Tables were created to design and undertake wide-ranging public consultation and make land use policy recommendations to the Ontario government.
The major objectives for the Lands for life process were established in advance by government, specifically;
1. Completing Ontario’s system of parks and protected areas;
2. Recognizing the land use needs of the resource-based tourism industry,
3. Providing forest, mining, and other resource industries with greater land and resource use certainty; and
4. Enhancing angling, hunting and other Crown land recreation opportunities.
The Minister of Natural Resources appointed Round Table members and Chairs and their recommendations were made directly to the Minister. Members of the Round Tables were required to be residents of their respective planning areas.
A mechanism for consultation with the broader Ontario public (in addition to the work of the Round Tables) was devised, and the role of the government and civil service during Round Table discussions was as support to the Round Tables, not the more traditional role of leader and controller.
The Round Table public consultation process took 14 months; government review and decision-making took 8 months. The major events of this 22-month period took place in four distinct periods.
The first year of Lands for Life was directed and co-ordinated by the three citizens’ Round Tables. Each Round Table consisted of about 14 members, appointed by the Minister of Natural Resources. Members had to be residents of their planning region, and collectively had to represent the range of resource interests (tourism, forest industry, the environmental community, municipalities First Nations, mining and exploration and others) found in the planning region.
With the aid of MNR (and other ministries’) staff, the Round Tables conducted three rounds of public consultation. Over the period of this year, there were 190 public meetings in cities and towns across the province (within and outside the planning area), involving about 13,000 members of the public. Public response and reaction came in the form of 900 individual presentations, and 16,000 letters, faxes and emails. The Round tables delivered their recommendations to the Minister of Natural Resources in July 1998.
The three reports of the Round Tables received by the Minister were inconsistent in form, format, and content (a product of allowing independence and flexibility within the Round Tables). Before their recommendations were released to the public, the three reports were consolidated. The consolidation re-formatted the content of the three reports, and developed a more consistent approach to land use designations, but did not change the actual recommendations of each of the Round Tables. The public also had access to the original reports on the LFL website.
This "Consolidated Report" was released for public review and comment in November 1998. Approximately 14,000 comments were received. Comments represented a spectrum from total support of the recommendations through outright disagreement. It became clear however, that a large segment of the public felt that the Round Tables had fallen short of the objectives of completing Ontario’s system of parks and protected areas. The directly related objective of providing forest, mining, and other resource industries with greater land and resource use certainty; was therefore also not able to be achieved.
Although there were many other issues and concerns, these were the two major issues that drove the next and final phase of Lands for Life.
The open public process had been a huge effort, but it had not managed to adequately achieve key objectives. The government decided to engage the major stakeholders in a process to negotiate a better end product. A new series of discussions with selected stakeholder groups took place. By far the most intensive of these involved a three week face to face negotiation between representatives of the Ministry of Natural Resources, the forest industry and the environmental community (represented by the Partnership for Public Lands). These three parties had the greatest stake in trying to achieve greater progress on the Lands for Life objectives.
The negotiations produced a historic agreement resulting in recommendations to government to set aside 12% of the planning area in parks and protected areas, and outlined mechanisms through an "Ontario Forest Accord" to meet a set of needs identified by the forest industry. The agreement didn’t fully satisfy any of the three major parties, but made real progress on all of the major objectives.
The 242 Round Table recommendations, supplemented by the negotiations resulting in additional parks and protected areas and the Forest Accord were combined into a draft report released for public comment. Final modifications were made and in July 1999 the government published "Ontario’s Living Legacy - Land Use Strategy," the document that now guides land use and resource management decisions across 45% of the province.
The Land Use Strategy provides Ontario’s new policy and management framework for land and resource management and includes:
An increase in the amount of Parks and Protected areas in the province from 214 (3.6 million hectares or 7% of the planning area land base) to 592 (6.0 million hectares or 12% of the planning area land base) (Figure 2).
Other land use designations with special provisions for natural heritage, recreation, remote access, fish and wildlife, Great Lakes coastal area, resource-based tourism, and intensive forestry.
The provision for Resource Stewardship Agreements, designed to formalise the relationship for resource use between resource-based tourism and other resource based industries.
In addition, the government approved:
i. The Ontario Forest Accord, an agreement developed through discussions among representatives of the forest industry, the Partnership for Public Lands and the Ministry of Natural Resources. It sets out a mutually acceptable approach to establishing protected areas in the planning area and addressing forest industry needs.
ii. A Living Legacy Trust fund of $30 million managed by an independent Board of Directors to improve natural resource management in northern Ontario. It supports compensation for loss of forest industry infrastructure, increased scientific information on forests, fish and wildlife habitat and populations, enhancement of forestry-related economic and employment opportunities, and increased access to hunting and fishing.
Figure 2: New Parks and Protected areas
The defining characteristic of the Lands for Life policy development process was a radical shift from planning by government to planning by the public. This meant that a citizen’s body, not government, consulted with the general public and interest groups and made recommendations to government.
The principal components of the process that led to its success were a real delegation of planning and consultation authority to the public, strong government commitment to the process and an opportunity to develop constructive relationships among protagonists.
The Round Tables represented the public, and communicated directly with the public. They adjusted the process when they felt it was necessary, debated matters fully among themselves and with the public, and provided their recommendations directly to the Minister. This role played by the Round Tables, combined with an unprecedented level of public consultation and free flow of information, constituted true delegation of responsibility. Although some final decisions were determined by discussions between the government, environmental community and the forest industry, all of the decisions could be traced to the work of the Round Tables and the associated public input. Through the role of the Round Tables, the Lands for Life process constituted a major change from normal government policy development processes.
Throughout, the government demonstrated a vision and a commitment to the Lands for Life process. When required, the government made decisions to keep the process alive even in the face of stiff opposition by some groups and individuals both within and outside government. At several points in the process, the government kept the parties at the table by providing additional direction and reconfirming, from its most senior level, its commitment to the process. As important as government commitment was to the process, lack of interference from government was equally important in allowing the Round Tables to do their jobs. The public discussions involved a high degree of controversy and the government was faced with a considerable amount of lobbying while the Round Tables were conducting their public consultations. Despite this lobbying, the government did not interfere in any substantive way during the Round Table deliberations.
Great efforts were made to make the Lands for Life process open and accessible. When the Round Tables were operating, all meetings were open to the public. MNR also changed its policies on access to data, partly in response to relentless pressure from the environmental community. This shift in government approach ultimately resulted in a free flow of data and information between the MNR and all participating parties - something unprecedented in prior planning processes. The availability of information helped the parties to focus on the important land use and resource allocation issues instead of wrangling over the validity of each other’s information. It also resulted in establishing trust and a cooperative working environment among technical staff of the various organisations, which proved to be invaluable in achieving success during difficult discussions and negotiations.
Perhaps the most important product of Ontario’s Living Legacy and the Forest Accord is a vastly improved relationship between former protagonists. Many of the relationships built among Round Table members will endure for years. Although Round Table discussions were often fractious and sometimes without resolution, members persisted, spending an average 2-3 days per week on Lands for Life over the year. This commitment and the fact that only five of the original forty members stepped down is a testament to their dedication to the work and to each other. Many people and organizations in making presentations to the Round Tables also left with a much better understanding of the interests of others.
The Forest Accord establishes an unprecedented process to resolve future land use issues between the forest industry and the environmental community and government. The three parties were able to reach some very difficult decisions and compromises in an atmosphere of co-operation that has been carried forward as a "new relationship" between traditional antagonists.
It would be wrong to assume however that the 22-month process was not without many problems and issues, some of them major. The process was not able to substantially improve the working relationship between First Nations and the government. There were concerns from southern Ontario about lack of adequate access to the process. The Round Table members were concerned that the short timeframes inhibited them from fully completing their dialogue with the public and at points in the process, the lack of full, active, forthright involvement by some of the participants created obstacles to its success. In all major processes, lessons need to be learned from both positive and negative experiences - Lands for Life was no different.
A Toronto Star editorial writer described the end result this way:
"Lands for Life is not a total victory for the environmental movement. But neither is it a defeat, a betrayal, or a sell-out. It is a compromise: hard won, slightly messy, easier to attack than defend... Working together doesn’t produce heroes. But it does produce progress." (Goar 1999)
Goar, C., 1999. Compromise: not for the weak. The Toronto Star.
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.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 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] |