1. Community Forests: Backgrounder for the Select Committee on Wood Supply Dr. Tom Beckley University of New Brunswick 19 February 2004

2. Presentation Overview Statement of interest, experience and biases Why the demand for community forests? What the proponents say Definitions – What is a community forest? CF in principle, CF in practice (two different things) The question What the critics say

3. Why am I here? Professor at UNB, Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Management since 2000. Trained as a rural sociologist (rural communities, community development, public involvement in resource management, non- timber forest use) Previous experience – 7 years with Canadian forest service in NB (1998-2000), and Alberta (1993-1998) Student of community forests and the concept of community forestry for 10 years Have toured community forests and interviewed community forest managers in BC, Ontario, Quebec, and Wisconsin. CF Feasibility study in 2000 (YSC, CFS UNB partnership) Two PhD students working on the topic currently.

4. A skeptical optimist My interest in community forestry and community forests comes from my sociological and rural development background. Would like to see thriving and empowered rural communities that rely on their natural resources to create wealth and well-being Many advocates think community forests are just the path to such an end. I am willing to entertain that as a working hypothesis

5. Policy as Experimentation Strong proponent of adaptive management in natural resources. Subject all management to scrutiny and strive for continuous improvement Treat policies as “natural experiments” Current system is a control, but there is no “test” We usually compare current practice to history and pat ourselves on the back for doing such a great job. Would be interested in seeing some experimentation in CF done on a small scale and subjected to close scrutiny. (Speculation won’t end until we try!) I am here not as an advocate, but as a resource person for the Committee.

6. Why community forestry and why now? If community forests represent change and reform, what is it about the present system of forest tenure and forest management that people don’t like? Perceived ecological degradation Perceived loss of local benefits (Fraser Valley ex.) Wide perception that we consider a narrow range of values in the management mix (fiber emphasis and not much else) Feelings of disempowerment and disenfranchisement from Crown land

7. No timber objective on Crown land, but…

8. Why community forestry and why now? Proponents of community forests say It will deliver better environmental stewardship The benefits will accrue locally (not Toronto & Finland) All forest values will be given consideration in the management mix It will be more democratic – people will have a chance to take a more active role and/or be sincerely listened to with respect to their preferences for management objectives for Crown land.

9. What is a community forest? “Academic” definitions Duinker et al. (1994) – A tree dominated ecosystem managed for multiple community values and benefits by the community. M’Gonigle – (1998) – Three essential features define a community forest: 1) the community makes management decisions, 2) the community benefits, and 3) the forest is managed for multiple values Most definitions have these three elements Community making management decisions Community benefitting from management (more than status quo) Forest is managed for multiple values (assumption = more balance and/or more environmental values)

10. What is a community forest? The empirical reality Forest tenant farming – Quebec Individuals on large woodlot sized parcels (26 X1000ha) Westwind Stewardship, Inc. – Ontario 540,000 ha area near Parry Sound (Crown license) BC Community Forest Pilots 8 to 11 pilots from 400 – 60,000ha First Nations Reserves Eel Ground, Pictou Landing, Menominee Reservation, WI Municipal forests Moncton, St. John, Halifax RM, Ottawa, Mission, North Cowichan Community buy-outs Pine Falls, Kapuskasing, Temiskaming, Meadow Lake

11. What is a community forest? It is an umbrella term Tremendous diversity in… Size (400-540,000 ha) Degree of oversight By Model Forest, Prov. Govts, Municipal Councils, INAC Property rights and conditions (simply an AAC or more?) Management structure (elected boards to appt. foresters) Management objectives (broad scope to fiber dominated) So there is no one model This is why it can be a vague, ambiguous, and loaded term Difficult to know what people are thinking when they use the term

12. What a community forest is NOT A return to pre-Crown Lands and Forest Act patronage system (death by a thousand cuts) Fee simple ownership by communities (e.g. no government or broader public oversight) These are some of the main things that opponents fear.

13. The Question Could a homegrown version of community forestry (made in NB solution) perform better than status quo Crown land management on… Economic criteria Value of total shipments, value-added, employment, value of residual stands Environmental criteria Forest health, biodiversity, water quality Social criteria Non-market forest values (recreation, tourism), quality of work, social cohesion, community development (through revenue capture, re-investment, spin-off employment, etc).

14. Why is there controversy over the concept of community forestry? It threatens existing interests Redistribution of benefits including but not only profits Redistribution of rights Decision-making, objective setting Land already given up to Protected Areas Strategy, and to Natives.

15. What the critics want to know Who would decide which communities get the wood? What criteria would determine the best use of the wood? Could the wood leave the province to the highest bidder? How would you assure sustainability? Who would pay for fire protection, roads, pest management and other support services? How does a community get collateral or apply for loans? Who determines who does the work? (harvesting/silviculture) Could communities sustain a 2 billion dollar business? What is a “community” for the purpose of this discussion? How will urban residents still have a say on how CF are managed? After all, it is still public land. These are all legitimate questions that the public deserves answers to.

16. Much of this relates back to the bigger questions about how we use Crown land. Who benefits? How are benefits distributed? Individual jobs and secondary spending or community dividends and tax relief? Who decides the objectives for which we manage? Who decides how we meet those objectives? Whose knowledge matters most? Scientific technical knowledge or local, traditional knowledge?

17. Are we absolutely certain that we are managing our public forests the best way? If we are not sure, it might be worth experimenting with with different forms of tenure in an adaptive management framework If we decide to experiment, do so with adequate controls (oversight) Actually CF would likely have more controls. Communities would have less political power than current license holders. If we experiment, we must do so with adequate variation and we should study the various outcomes so that we learn what works and what doesn’t. (BC pilots not doing this)

18. Questions, comments, discussion ? Experience with existing CF’s Community buy-outs – what we found Forest tenant farming feasibility study for NB How to tailor a system to NB?

19. What does this imply? First, a forest Second – multiple values defined by the community Third – management by the community How is this different from what we have now?

20. This means that we have… An “ideal type” of what a community forest is. That is, some people using the term to describe something in their imagination that doesn’t exist in reality. And “empirical examples” of what a community forest is that do not measure up to the ideal. That is, institutions or experiments that meet some but not all the ideal criteria.

21. Who makes the decisions and who benefits? Multiple scenarios

22. Hypothetical Decision-Making Dimensions of Three Forest Management Systems Industrial ForestCommunity NIPF Locus of International,Local Individual Decision-Making NationalHousehold Control Structure of HierarchicalConsensual Individual Decision-making Scope ofNarrow BroadBroad Management Objectives

23. Problems with definitions Cause and effect. Sometimes an implicit assumption that local control will lead to more jobs and income, better environmental stewardship, and a wider range of values in the management mix. M’Gonigle – “In Canada, community tenures are rare and none exists that combine these three components”

24. Some Examples Westwind Forest Inc. – Ontario Moncton Municipal Forest – New Brunswick

25. Westwind Forest Stewardship Inc. Westwind Forest Stewardship is a multi-stakeholder not-for-profit forest management company that in May 1998 became the first such organisation to receive a Sustainable Forest Licence (SFL) from the Ontario government. The SFL puts Westwind in charge of timber harvest, tree-planting, operations monitoring and forest management planning for 540,000 ha of public forests in Muskoka-Parry Sound, central Ontario. The movement to form Westwind as a non-profit corporation started in 1996, with the objective of taking over responsibility for Crown Land forest management. The wide variety of users in the Muskoka-Parry Sound forests provided the impetus to make Westwind a community-based company, an innovative approach in Ontario. In this community-based model, logging contractors and forest companies still provide all of the funding for forest management, but don’t hold all the decision-making power.

26. Westwind continued Westwind is run by a board of seven directors: three representing the local forest industry and four with no ties to the industry at all. The community directors are selected through a public advertisement and interviewed by a nomination review committee. They require a good knowledge of the forest, business acumen, dedication and respect for forest users, all tempered with a desire to maintain an active and sustainable forest economy. Westwind is currently progressing towards becoming a Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified Forest, an achievement targeted for summer 2001. It would be the first large public forest to be FSC certified in Ontario. Other activities include producing a series of educational conferences called ‘Your Forest – Your Choice’, and twice annual meetings with forest operators. High-grade logging in the two districts was rampant from the mid-1800s for some 60 or 70 years, first for white pine, then for other species in succession. In the 1970s the decline was halted with the implementation of a careful multi-objective tree marking system. Now, under the guidance of Westwind, forest operators are committed to sustainable forest management.

27. Westwind Forest Stewardship Inc. Is this a community?

28. Moncton Municipal Forest The Moncton Municipal Forests comprise 3 areas totaling 6000 ha (15,000 ac), and are primarily managed to protect the municipal water supply. These areas include: Irishtown, a 890 ha (2200 ac) forest which has been owned by the City since the 1800's; McLaughlin Forest, which is 400 ha (3500 ac), bought in the 1960's; and Turtle Creek, which is 2800 ha (7000 ac) and was purchased around 1970. Although the City of Moncton is one of the partners with the Fundy Model Forest, none of its forest lands are within the Model Forest boundaries.

29. Moncton Municipal Forest An old sugar bush, which was operated in the 1950's and 60's was re- established last year, with the long term goal of producing 400 gallons of syrup annually. A local syrup producer provided technical advice to help install approximately 1200 taps in about 800 trees. The primary purpose of starting the sugar bush is part of the integrated public information and education program the city is trying to initiate. Successful, hands-on, school tours were carried out to introduce city kids to maple syrup production, from start to finish. The kids helped collect the sap, boil it down and taste the final product, and finally made maple candy in the snow! The experiment was a resounding success, and received rave reviews. Most of the current forest is mature, with large sections of overmature balsam fir, which are falling down and are seen as a budworm and fire hazard. Efforts are concentrated on keeping the forest diverse in species and age structure, with a wide range of hardwood and softwood species being managed for long term forest health. Some sections of old forest will be left to supply that habitat component and for recreational opportunities in the future. Most of the first interventions are to remove overmature balsam fir which has begun to blow down, as well as to decrease the risk of future budworm epidemics.

30. Additional Examples Pictou Landing – Nova Scotia Menominee Reservation – Wisconsin North Cowichan Municipal Forest – BC Mission Community Forest – BC Community Forest Pilot Projects – BC Community buyouts (Pine Falls, Kapuskasing, Temiskaming, Meadow Lake) Bas St. Laurent Model Forest None of these have all three criteria

31. Luckert’s Critique of Community Forestry Would community forests create smaller operations that would be more labour intensive and thereby provide more jobs than large, industrial firms? Luckert says no, same global market pressures exist on community forests Rebuttal – only if fiber is the primary management objective and creation of profit is the point of fiber management

32. Luckert’s Critique continued Are the objectives of communities more in line with sustainable forest management than objectives of large industrial firms? Luckert says no. Rural communities with traditions of resource dependence may simply consume the fiber faster for shorter term returns Crown land belongs to the entire public, not just the rural public. Rural values are more utilitarian. Rebuttal – no one really suggesting that Community tenures are fee simple ownership and free of any government control or regulation.

33. Luckert’s Critique continued Are local communities the primary segment of society affected by forestry? Luckert says no. Canada is 80% urban. How would urban values be incorporated into management of community forests on Crown land? Rebuttal – through the regulatory framework that puts some boundaries on what the things that matter most to people. (The irony of AAC).

34. Luckert’s Critique continued Should sustainable communities be a key objective of sustainable forest management? Luckert says no. Other social units are equally as valid. Why not sustain households, or individuals, or regions? What is sacred about communities? Rebuttal – Much of our identity is wrapped up in our communities, though our primary allegiances are probably to our families. Regions often lack strong identity and make face-to face relations difficult. Accountability issue – more possible at community level

35. The politics of community forestry in New Brunswick McAdam – bid to obtain a community license for former Georgia Pacific Lands (400,000 acres in SW New Brunswick). Miramichi Woodlot Owners – lobbying for access to individual, small parcels of Crown land for employment stability and income. YSC/CFS Forest Tenant Farmer project What do they all have in common? NBDNRE denied every one.

36. YSC/CFS/UNB partnership proposal Interest in the possibilities of the Bas St. Laurent Model Forest tenant farming project as they relate to New Brunswick. CFS/YSC/NBDNRE/Fundy Model Forest Obtained funds from Canadian Rural Partnership program (federal) to do a feasibility study. Letter of support from the Minister, DNRE

37. Forest tenant farmer project Convened an “expert skeptics” panel Held focus groups/interviews with key informants from the forest sector Reviewed data from other experiments Field trip to Bas St. Laurent Regular steering committee meetings for a year Draft report and recommendations

38. Underlying philosophy: Continuous improvement Intensifying the forest management effort Creating more equity in the benefit stream Diversifying the forest sector Promoting entrepreneurship and innovation in a controlled setting

39. Recommendations That a 5-year Crown Woodlot License Pilot Program be initiated, consisting of a minimum of 10 licenses up to 600 ha. each

40. The Anticipated Benefits of a Crown Woodlot Pilot Project Stand level benefits Firm level benefits Human resource benefits Social and economic benefits Political benefits

41. The pilot project will result in a greater intensity of management on the defined land base. More values managed for More interventions Greater incremental volume of wood available over a single rotation Resulting in a healthier, better stocked forest Improving the forest through intensive forest management

42. Achieve greater wood volume through intensive management Data from UNB Woodlot studies show that incremental gains in wood supply may be achieved through more harvest interventions. Data from UNB woodlot studies show that one can improve forest health, increase stocking rates, create greater value while harvesting more volume through “low-grading”, and partial cutting methods.

43. UNB Woodlot study comparing partial and clear-cut methods

44. Firm level benefits (to Crown woodlot operators) Security of tenure helps in long term planning may help to secure financing promotes a stewardship ethic Encourages entrepreneurship non-timber products or specialized markets

45. Human Resource Benefits An improved forest workforce. Certified Forest Manager Training would help “raise the bar”. Top contractors are calling us because they feel this is an opportunity to gain access to Crown Land, but more importantly to practice stewardship. Not “open access” or “political patronage”, but rather a group of carefully selected experienced woods workers.

46. Selection criteria for woodlot license holders Applicant suitability, 55% Education/training Forest Mgmt experience Logging experience Silviculture experience Entrepreneurship Other related experience Proximity of residence Business experience Community involvement Management intent, 45% Management proposal and letter of intent Past management practices referrals from satisfied landowners, or… demonstration of management on personal property

47. Social and economic benefits - Background Rural areas in NB depopulating youth, in particular, are leaving Employment instability and seasonality Lower average incomes Overcapacity in contracting labour force

48. Social and economic benefits Increasing wood volume per unit of land (UNB Woodlot study) Increase labour per unit of wood volume, and per unit of land area managed Resulting in more jobs All forestry dollars are not equal Payroll dollars (wages) get re-spent locally greater multiplier effect Dollars invested in equipment and machinery contribute to non-local banks and financial institutions Highly mechanized, low labour operations contribute to non-local large banks

49. Declining human resource inputs in forestry in New Brunswick

50. YSC data on M 3 /Person/Year 400,000 M 3 total 276 FTE operators 140 part-time @ 100-500 cord/yr 427 part-time @ > 100 cord/yr An estimated 365 FTE/yr Average of 1100 M 3 /Person/Year

51. M 3 /Person/Year for 7 top YSC producers

52. Political benefits Crown Lands and Forest Act review never happened. Expectations were raised. Widespread perception that “little guys” have poor access to Crown timber, and that is where the best opportunities lie. Significant and growing interest in retaining benefits of local Crown forests locally (e.g. McAdam, Miramichi)

53. Political Benefits Proposed Crown woodlot model could be viewed as an experiment in community-based forestry. More jobs per unit of wood, unit of land Wood volumes guaranteed to licensees Would demonstrate a willingness to experiment and provide some access to small, community-based operators. Controlled environment, research component, strict guidelines.

54. Current situation Partnership is no longer active 2nd proposal to CRP program was successful Sent money back for lack of land base to work with At the request of the Department we haven’t promoted the idea widely, but through our interviews and focus groups there is growing interest in applying Jakko Poyry recommends an intensification of the management effort but with different benefit distribution scheme.