0827-A5
Fiona Hamersley Chambers 1
Public involvement (PI) plays an increasingly important role in Canadian forest management. Over the past 30 years, government decentralization as well as changing societal expectations and values for forest resources have led to greater PI legislation and policies at both the provincial and federal levels. Requirements to conduct PI, previously the realm of government, are now being passed on to the forest industry, which is recognizing that a 'social licence' to practice forestry is needed in conjunction with the conventional legal licence. Mistik Management Ltd. is a 50% aboriginal-owned forestry company operating in the boreal forest of Northwestern Saskatchewan. Over the past decade, Mistik has undertaken a unique and successful PI process of 'co-management' with nine local aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities. Major successes include increased trust among managers and stakeholders, reduction of forest-based conflict, community capacity building and employment, and incorporation of traditional knowledge in forest planning and management. Concerns with the process include a lack of government support, the absence of independent and long-term funding, possible conflict of interest and questions as to whether all stakeholders are participating. Despite these concerns, Mistik provides a remarkable case study of industry-driven PI that is arguably unparalleled in Canada. Key lessons learned can be applied to community-based management systems in other countries and with other forest types.
Public involvement (PI) is playing an increasingly important role in Canadian forest management. Since the vast majority (94%) of the country's forests are publicly-owned, the imperative to incorporate public values and objectives into forest management and planning are particularly clear. In Canada, government and industry are seen as the stewards and managers of these resources for the public owners, with citizen participation an accepted (and indeed necessary) element of forest management. While significant benefits can be realised through PI processes there are also a number of concerns which much also be addressed if these processes are to be successful in the long term. The purpose of this paper is to briefly explain the underlying reasons for the recent increase of PI in Canadian forest management, to investigate some of the key benefits and concerns of PI by referencing a PI case study, and to draw lessons and conclusions so that other practitioners and researchers may learn from this experience.
Mistik Management Ltd., a 50%-Aboriginal owned forest company operating in Northwestern Saskatchewan, represents a unique and valuable experiment in PI. While this initiative on the part of industry would not have been possible without provincial approval and community participation, it was industry that provided the initial vision, energy and funding to get the process started. While the example given is Canadian, the lessons learned are wide-ranging and are highly applicable in the global search for sustainable forest management (SFM). Since forests are an important source of life throughout the world, the social and environmental impacts of forestry and how forest-dependent communities are consulted in their management are of global concern and interest.
The information presented in this paper was gathered during field research conducted at various times between 1996 and 2002, first for the Canadian Forest Service and then for a number of consulting contracts. A literature review was conducted and interviews undertaken with government, industry, community members and academics. The author also attended many community co-management board meetings as a non-participant over a 3-year period. Interview questions and methods were reviewed and approved by the University of Calgary Ethics Committee. To protect the identity of key informants, quotes given in this paper are identified only with a code number.
The conventional, top-down planning processes of the mid-20th century are now widely recognized in Canada as failing to manage forests sustainably and to support forest-dependent communities (Beckley and Korber 1996). More specifically, there is a growing recognition that earlier `blueprint' rational planning models of resource development are unable to account for the current climate of multiple stakeholders and uses that typifies modern Canadian forest management. Historically in Canada, there have been few opportunities for local resource users to participate in forest planning and operations, and little requirement of license holders to provide such opportunities. Over the past 30 years, however, a number of factors have contributed to increasing PI legislation and policies at both the provincial and federal levels. These include the trend of government cutbacks and decentralisation as well as changing societal expectations and values for forest resources.
Canadian civil society is increasingly critical not only of forest management practices, but of the whole resource management process, in particular the lack of opportunity for effective and meaningful public input and involvement (Higgelke and Duinker 1993). In the forest sector, for example, this pressure has resulted in a call "for a re-orientation of the hierarchical, control- and regulation-oriented structure of state forest management which has evolved over the last century..." to a more cooperative and locally-based system (Vira 1997:11). The trend today is therefore towards a more co-operative and democratic approach to land and resource management involving both increased public participation and a devolution of management responsibility from government to civil society. Indeed, one of the discerning features of Canadian resource management in the 1990s has been a tremendous innovation and progress in PI in the forest sector. As we enter the 21st century, there is now widespread recognition that public values have an important place in Canadian forest management and for the achievement of SFM.
There are a number of potential benefits offered by incorporating PI into forest management. In theory, effective PI offers solutions to many issues faced not only by local forest-dependent communities but also by the other key players in forest management of government and industry. These include reduction in forest resource conflicts, incorporating public values into planning and decision making, and educating and informing the public. PI can help government and industry to meet legal and policy obligations and improve the quality of forest management decisions. Greater cooperation, trust and improved relations between stakeholders and foster community empowerment, development and education can also result as well as mutual learning between stakeholder groups and the development of sustainable forest management systems (Hamersley Chambers and Beckley in progress 2002).
Despite the many potential benefits offered by PI, there remain a number of challenges and concerns that need to be considered. For example, there is often no consensus on what individual PI processes are supposed to achieve or how each is best structured. A review of past North American PI experience demonstrates great differences in structures and practices as well as expectations and goals. Organisers must recognise that the 'public' is not heterogeneous but is made up of diverse sets of interests and values that are often competing. Intercultural communication barriers such as the language spoken and protocol must also be acknowledged and addressed. For their part, the public must realise that as they accept the new rights that come with PI, so must they accept increased responsibility. This includes improving their basic knowledge levels and capacity regarding the issues that they are dealing with.
Historically, government has seen PI as a vehicle to inform and make the public aware of issues rather than to share management power and responsibility. Power is central to PI and an effective process can change existing power dynamics, patterns and relationships. This can be particularly challenging for government and industry representatives, who have traditionally held much of the power and legal authority for forest management and who are often not keen to change this structure.
In greater or lesser degree, the forest industry is recognizing that it often requires more than the conventional legal license from a province to manage timber on Crown land. Indeed, some companies have realised that they increasingly need a 'social license' if they wish to reduce conflict with local communities regarding their operations. A social license is essentially legitimacy afforded by public support. In some situations it may be enough to have legitimacy locally. In other cases a social license may be required by provincial level stakeholders or the public. Effective PI processes have been proven to help industry achieve this goal.
Some companies are taking a reactive approach to PI, responding to forest management policy and legislation as they are changed. Other license holders are taking a more proactive stance. For example, conducting their own experiments in PI. These companies recognize that obtaining a social license often requires going beyond what is required in the existing legal license. One such company is Mistik Management Ltd., a forest company operating in Northwestern Saskatchewan. For more than a decade, Mistik has been practicing a high level of PI in their management of boreal forest resources with local Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities.
Mistik Management Ltd. is a forest company responsible for the planning, harvesting and reforestation of the NorSask Forest Management License Area (FMLA), which covers 1.7 million hectares of mixedwood boreal forest. Mistik is jointly owned by Millar Western Pulp Ltd. (the hardwood user and owner of the zero-effluent pulp mill in Meadow Lake) and the Aboriginal-owned NorSask Forest Products Inc. (sawmill owner and softwood user). From its inception as a company, Mistik has stated its commitment to conducting public consultation and community-minded forestry in its License Area.
The Mistik PI process began as a direct result of conflict over a historic lack of public involvement in forest management, and an 18-month long logging road blockade by the Canoe Lake First Nation. After meeting with local groups including Elders, First Nations Chiefs and elected representatives of northern communities, 'forest co-management' was identified as the vehicle to involve the public and mitigate and resolve any future conflict over forest operations and management. Co-management board boundaries were aligned with the existing Fur Conservation Areas (FCA), which were established in the 1940s and roughly correspond to communities' traditional land use patterns.
It is important to note here that while the parties involved call their process 'co-management', their experience falls short of what many consider to be "true" co-management. For some, nothing short of an institutionalised partnership of parties with roughly equal power can qualify as "true" co-management. In the Mistik case, only one of the partners (industry) really holds legal management authority. This is because under the Canadian system the provincial government holds ultimate responsibility for the resource and has only allocated property rights to industry. In the absence of a comprehensive land claims agreement, 'co-management' implies only a right for local resource users to participate in managing forest resources on Crown lands under provincial jurisdiction (Robinson and Ross 1997:604). In less formal agreements, such as the Mistik case, government retains the final authority to allocate resource access rights, to determine the terms and conditions of resource tenures, and to collect the royalties levied (ibid.). In deference to the participants in the Mistik process, who are understandably proud of the success they have achieved, this papers continues to refer to the process as 'co-management'.
The Mistik process operates under a 1993 Forestry Co-Management Partnership Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Operational Terms of Reference which were drafted and signed between NorSask and the Saskatchewan government (Saskatchewan Environment - SE). The MOU identifies existing rights and responsibilities of the parties involved (as based on the FMLA and Aboriginal and treaty rights), supports SFM as the guiding principle, and describes the level of commitment expected from NorSask and SE.
This research demonstrates that the NorSask process has resulted in a number of significant benefits to the parties involved. These include increased trust and stronger working relationship between the parties, providing a forum for affected local communities to bring their concerns about forest resource development to industry and government, and recognising forest resource users as a valid part of the resource management process. Although admittedly more expensive and time-consuming in the short-term than conventional resource management, participants feel that in the long-term this process provides a cost-effective forum for government and industry to bring their development plans and concerns to resource users and local communities.
The Mistik process also provides a mechanism and communications network with which to disseminate information from forest managers to participants, communities and stakeholder groups and has speeded up the rate at which government and industry managers respond to resource user concerns. The main stakeholders have used this experience to learn about and to understand each other's points of view as well as their strengths and limitations in managing the forest resource. For example:
"Yes, I think that co-management has been a good experience for us [government]. It has made us more aware that we are not the sole beings responsible for making decisions. Co-management has made bureaucrats realize that they need to listen to others." (#104)
Since its inception in 1993, Mistik's PI process has significantly reduced conflict over forestry management and operations in the FMLA. For one industry representative: "The most successful aspect of this process for us is that we haven't had a road blockade here in ... years!" (#132) This reduction is also attributed to the more responsible forestry practices and greater accountability of industry and government that have arisen through the process.
A specific goal of Mistik's initiative is to return benefits and income from development of the forest resource to local communities and resource user groups whose lifestyles and livelihoods are being impacted by logging activities. Important employment, educational, management and training opportunities are being provided through individual co-management boards. Some boards are even providing a source of interest-free loans and capital for small-business development in their communities.
Participants agree that one of the greatest benefits to date is the incorporation of local knowledge into the forest management decision-making and planning process. This incorporation has resulted in more effective decision-making and planning by both government and industry. In this case, `more effective' decision-making is defined as that which results in decisions that are longer lasting, of a higher quality and accepted by a wider range of stakeholders than those achieved through conventional management methods.
Although the majority of participants feel that their process is far from perfect, they agree that it is a great improvement over the conventional forest management system that existed before. Despite these significant positive benefits, however, there remain a number of concerns with the process in the FMLA.
Concerns with the process include a general apathy and lack of interest within local communities and resource user groups unless something affects an individual directly, internal divisions, historical mistrust, and politics within both local communities and forest user groups. A significant amount of friction also exists because of the differing reasons and goals of the Caucasian participants and those of the First Nations and Métis representatives. Political tensions within communities, such as a power struggle between the Board and Chief and Council, have also presented a barrier.
The absence of stable long-term funding presents a barrier to the future security of the process and discourages the participants from undertaking long-range planning. Funding comes entirely from industry, with Mistik providing each new co-management board with a $10,000 start up grant once the group has gained non-profit status under the Society's Act. Yearly operational funding is provided by a voluntary 'levy' of $0.50 per cubic metre of wood cut in each board's FCA. This is an interesting case as this type of arrangement is rarely done. Indeed, the arrangement is frowned upon by government, who views this as 'revenue sharing' which is not permitted under existing natural resource legislation. While this arrangement does provide the boards with a significant level of funding, this is a problematic arrangement as each board's income is tied to harvesting levels. Although not yet substantiated, there is a concern that at some point this may encourage a board to overcut in their area.
Although participants cite the lack of direct government control and intervention at the start of their process as a main reason for its current success, the deficiency of any legal decision-making authority and jurisdiction of the boards is increasingly recognized as a constraint to its future security. Government reluctance to share management power is exacerbating this problem. The experience of other Canadian PI processes suggests that the longer the fundamental issues of government support and acceptance are left unresolved, the more difficult it will be to reach agreement on this matter between all parties.
The number of successful PI projects in forest management continues to grow worldwide. There are now a tremendous variety of cooperative planning and management partnerships that involve local communities and the traditional institutional players of industry and/or government management agencies. International agreements and certification schemes such as the Forest Stewardship Council increasingly require signatories and participants to include a PI component in their forest management systems. Mistik Management Ltd. provides a unique case study of industry-initiated and supported PI as well as a new model of corporate/community relations. Some may quibble with the exact terminology used but there is no mistaking that the business of forest management is being done differently in this region and with greater harmony than it ever was in the past. Indeed, there are very few cases of PI in Canadian forestry that rival the Mistik experience in terms of comprehensiveness, effectiveness, and in the level of support and resources put into the process by industry and communities. The Mistik experience is increasingly quoted in academic literature as an example of how industry-initiated PI can succeed where government-driven processes have failed. The key lessons learned of proactive PI, goodwill and real commitment to the process can be applied to community-based management systems in other countries and with other forest types.
Beckley, T., 1998. Moving toward consensus-based forest management: A comparison of industrial, co-managed, community and small private forests in Canada. The Forestry Chronicle. 74(5):736-744
Beckley, T., and D. Korber, 1996. "Clearcuts, Conflict and Co-management: Experiments in Consensus Forest Management in Northwest Saskatchewan." Edmonton: Canadian Forest Service information report NOR-X-349.
Beierle T. and J. Cayford, 2002. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Resources for the Future Press. 160pp.
Berkes, F., 1994. "Bridging the Two Solitudes." Northern Perspectives, Vol.22 No.2-3, Summer/Fall. Ottawa: Canadian Arctic Resources Committee. pp.18-20
Brunson, M., 1996. A Definition of "Social Acceptability" in Ecosystem Management. In Brunson, M. et al (eds). Defining social acceptability in ecosystem management: workshop proceedings. Gen. Tech. Rpt. PNW-GTR-369. Portland, OR. USDA, Forest Service. 7-16.
Chambers, F. 1999. From co-management to co-jurisdiction of forest resources: a practitioners workshop". October 28-30, Calgary Alberta. Sustainable Forest Management Network, Edmonton, Alberta
Chambers F. 1999 "The Future of Grass Roots Co-Management in Saskatchewan". Sustainable Forest Management Network Working Paper, Edmonton, Alberta pp.22
Hamersley Chambers F. and T. Beckley, to be published Spring, 2003. Chapter 4 "Public Involvement in Sustainable Boreal Forest Management" in Towards Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest, National Research Council Press. pp.51
Higgelke, P. E. and P.N. Duinker, March 1993. "Open Doors: Public Participation in Forest Management in Canada". Report to the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, and Forestry Canada. School of Forestry, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario. pp.45
Robinson, M. and M. Ross, "Traditional land use and occupancy studies and their impact on forest planning and management." The Forestry Chronicle, Vol.73, No.5, September/October 1997. pp.8
Vira, B., October 1997. "Deconstructing Participatory Forest Management: Towards a Tenable Typology". Oxford: Oxford Centre For the Environment, Ethics and Society.
1 University of Victoria, 1554 Pembroke St., Victoria, B.C., Canada V8R 1W2. [email protected]