community forests€¦ · introduction ... how can nova scotia be smart about how it creates...
TRANSCRIPT
Community Forests
A Discussion Paper for Nova Scotians
L. Kris MacLellan & Dr. Peter Duinker
June 2012
School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Nova Forest Alliance, Stewiacke
Community Forests 2012
2
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Background and Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 2
What are community forests? ................................................................................................................... 2
What uses are there for community forests? ............................................................................................. 2
When you refer to a community in this context, what do you mean? ...................................................... 2
You have defined ‘community’ – what about ‘forest’? ............................................................................ 2
Given the above, what is a community forest? ......................................................................................... 3
Conceptual Dimensions of Community Forests ....................................................................................... 4
Governance, Ownership, and Property Rights ......................................................................................... 4
Commercial Activity ................................................................................................................................ 4
Spatial Scale ............................................................................................................................................. 6
What challenges exist for a Nova Scotian community forest program? ................................................... 7
Examples of Community Forests ............................................................................................................... 9
Canada ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
Geraldton Community Forest ............................................................................................................... 9
North Cowichan Community Forest .................................................................................................... 9
Harrop-Proctor Community Forest .................................................................................................... 10
United States ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Europe ................................................................................................................................................... 10
United Kingdom – England ................................................................................................................ 10
United Kingdom – Scotland ............................................................................................................... 11
Sweden ............................................................................................................................................... 11
Italy .................................................................................................................................................... 11
Community forests in the developing world ...................................................................................... 12
India .................................................................................................................................................... 12
Korea .................................................................................................................................................. 12
Thailand .............................................................................................................................................. 13
Considerations for a community forest development agenda for Nova Scotia.................................... 14
How can Nova Scotia be smart about how it creates community forests? ............................................. 14
We can identify roadblocks – can we identify what might help us? ...................................................... 15
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 16
Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 17
Community Forest Example /Information Sheets ................................................................................. 20
Community Forests 2012
1
Community Forest Forum Discussion Paper
Introduction
In 2011, the Government of Nova Scotia
released a long-awaited natural resources
strategy. The document, entitled “The Path We
Share” detailed the position of the Government
in Nova Scotia. The strategy covers a wide
variety of issues, but the primary themes in the
document are biodiversity, forests, mineral
resources, and parks. An overarching framework
of principles guides the philosophical premise of
the document, among them a directive for
collaborative leadership. This directive includes
many specific courses of action, among them the
inclusion “of interested groups in planning and
decision making about natural resources”
(Government of Nova Scotia, 2011, p. 13).
The government continues on this line
of thinking in the forests chapter. After setting a
goal for shared stewardship in the forest sector,
the document states that the government will act
to “Explore ways to establish and operate
working community forests on Crown land
(Government of Nova Scotia, 2011, pg. 38).”
The concept of community forest management is
explored no further in the strategy, leaving
interpretations for how this goal might be
accomplished wide open.
The purpose of this paper is to explore
the concept of community forests for application
in this province. The Government of Nova
Scotia has opened a door to a thorough
examination of the concept. Hence, on June 27 at
Dalhousie University, the Nova Forest Alliance
has decided to do exactly this. A forum will be
held to explore nuances of community forests as
a conceptual idea. This paper is meant to
complement and seed discussion at the forum.
Participants will have this resource in advance of
the forum as a means to prepare for discussion
on the complexities of community forests.
Beyond a singularly academic discussion on the
merits of community forest, the forum is
intended to address the Nova Scotian situation
for the creation of community forests here.
Hence, the paper will also include relevant
contextual information to guide the discussion
back to the matter at hand: how can community
forests as a model for forest tenure best be
developed and applied in Nova Scotia?
The following pages will unpack the
conceptual dimensions of community forests,
including a look at governance issues, property
rights, commercial activity and spatial scales. A
brief history of some community forest projects
will be presented and examples from across
Canada and internationally will be explored.
Finally, considerations for what specific
obstacles or enablers might be anticipated for
community forests in Nova Scotia will be
examined. Examples of community forest
projects in places where the model has
flourished will likewise be considered – how
best might policy and decision-makers take heed
of the examples that already exist?
Community Forests 2012
2
Background and Definitions
What are community forests?
Community forests are difficult to
define in strict terms. Part of what makes the
model attractive – particularly in the developing
world – is its malleability. While many
characteristics can typically be associated with
community forest, the ability to mold the model
into useful forms designed to address local needs
is part of what has made community forests
successful. Indeed, one of the few defining
characteristics common among existing
community forests is diversity.
What uses are there for community forests?
Community forests are created and
managed for a range of uses, including (but not
limited to) timber, alternative forest products,
aesthetics, recreation, and fuel wood. Goals and
uses for community forests will be explored later
in this paper. Part of the challenge for those
interested in a community forest model lies in
teasing out definitions for both “community”
and “forest/forestry.” An attractive use for
community forests as they have evolved has
been their employment as an outdoor classroom.
Many, if not most, community forests in British
Columbia incorporate some form of educational
element to their portfolio of social services.
Some cater to school-aged children, while others
exist for the instruction of adults in many varied
fields, such as geographic information systems
(GIS), firefighting, or ecological integrity
research (British Columbia Community Forest
Association, 2012).
When you refer to a community in this context,
what do you mean?
A “community” is a thorny term in this
context. Uncertainty can result from its
misinterpretation, as a community can be
considered both in terms of community of
interest and community of place. Donald (1992)
characterized this distinction as “territorial[ity]
or non-territorial[ity].” In geographic terms, a
community can simply be seen as a group of
people living within a given area, though the
size of that area and the density of its population
may bring the entire assumption into question. A
city like Toronto is home to several million
people within a relatively small area. It would be
difficult to resolve ingrained notions of
community to include so vast a population. The
province of Prince Edward Island is home to a
population dramatically smaller than that of
Toronto, yet that population is so thinly spread
as to make calling the entire island a community
in the sense being discussed here unwieldy.
There are clearly limits to what a geographic
“community” represents in the context of
community forests.
Is a community of interest, then, a better
fit for this discussion? In an overview of
community forests in Canada, Duinker et al.
(1994) captured five categories of communities:
community as a way of life, geographic location,
social system, type of relationship, and a source
of energy. In dissecting the notion of community
so thoroughly, Duinker et al. (1994) stated that a
community cannot possibly be seen simply as
the sum of its parts. It is a complex, adaptive
system.
You have defined ‘community’ – what about
‘forest’?
In their examination of community
forests, Duinker et al. (1994) saw fit to broach
another difficult question: what is a forest
Duinker et al. (1994) tackled the question of
what actually constitutes a forest as being a key
part of understanding a community forest. They
found definitions that often shared attributes, but
differed in some key elements. One definition
Community Forests 2012
3
saw a forest as an extensive plant community of
shrubs and trees in all stages of growth and
decay with a closed canopy having the quality of
self-perpetuation or development into an
ecological climax (Webster, 1967). Another
found a forest to be a set of land parcels which
has or could have tree vegetation and is
managed as a whole to achieve tree-related
owner objectives (emphasis on management and
ownership) (Davis and Johnson (1987). Duinker
et al. (1994) preferred a simple definition,
agreeing with Hunter’s (1990) assertion that a
forest is an ecosystem dominated by trees.
Modern updates have been made to
many of these visions. Merriam-Webster (2012)
called a forest a “dense growth of trees and
underbrush covering a large tract.” This
definition – found online – aligns with the
collectively edited Wikipedia definition: an area
with a high density of trees (Wikipedia, 2012).
These definitions are all easy to visualize and
work with in an abstract context. This is
dramatically at odds with the definition used by
the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), which characterizes a
forest as an area of >0.5 ha with >10 % tree
canopy cover, with ‘trees’ defined as plants
capable of growing >5m tall (FAO 2001). Putz
and Redford (2010) point out that the FAO is
obliged to operate with so strict a definition, as it
has the responsibility of enforcing existing
international forest laws and hence must be
discerning in what it regards as a forest.
However, Putz and Redford (2010) also
highlighted the need for a binding international
definition of forest – as inconsistencies continue
sow confusion worldwide. They provide
examples of these irregularities, such as in the
Philippines, where ‘forests’ do not legally occur
on slopes greater than 18 percent. For the
purposes of this paper, the simpler definitions
are both more helpful and in keeping with the
Nova Scotia Forest Act. This Act defines a
forest as a plant association consisting
predominantly of trees (Government of Nova
Scotia, 1989). The Act contains a number of
helpful definitions in the discussion of
community forests in Nova Scotia, including
“forest land” (land bearing forest growth or land
from which the forest has been removed but
which shows surface evidence of past forest
occupancy and is not now in other use) and
‘forest management’ (the practical application of
scientific, economic and social principles to the
administration of forest land for specified
objectives (1989)).
Given the above, what is a community forest?
Once the definitions of both a
“community” and a “forest” are understood, the
nuances that result from their use together can
be explored. While adaptability to local
circumstances may be a defining characteristic
of community forests, there are many common
features that bind the concept together into a
recognizable form. Typically, these include
variants on the following (Duinker et al. 1994,
Teitelbaum et al. 2006): community control,
local benefit, multiple-use management, and
sustainability. In an older document the United
Nations (FAO, 1978) defined community forest
as “any situation which intimately involves local
people in a forestry activity. It embraces a
spectrum of situations ranging from woodlots in
areas which are short of wood and other forest
products for local needs, through the growing of
trees at the farm level to provide cash crops and
the processing of forest products at the
household, artisan or small industry level to
generate income, to the activities of forest
dwelling communities” (FAO, 1978). For this
paper, and to serve as a starting point for
discussion, we present the definition offered by
Duinker et al. (1994): “a community forest is a
tree-dominated ecosystem managed for multiple
community values and benefits by the
community."
Community Forests 2012
4
Conceptual Dimensions of Community
Forests
Governance, Ownership, and Property Rights
For our purposes, we conceive of
governance simply “who decides what, and
how”. Governance is about influence and power
over decisions.
In Nova Scotia, in very rough terms,
about 50% of the forest land is owned in small
parcels, or woodlots, by individuals and small
family companies. About 20% is owned in
larger holdings by large firms. The remainder -
about 30% - is Crown land. In the eastern and
central parts of the province, most of the Crown
land is managed under forest license by
NewPage (or its successor) and Northern Pulp,
respectively. The rest of the forested Crown
land, mostly in the western region, is managed
by the Government of Nova Scotia, with timber
harvests undertaken under volume-utilization
agreements (VUAs) held by timber companies.
Very little forest land, in the conventional sense,
is owned by communities (i.e., other than
municipal lands such as local parks and
streetscapes).
To what degree do communities of place
have influence on what happens on the forest
land near or surrounding them, i.e., land not
owned by the communities? On woodlot land,
that influence is essentially nil (except if there
are applicable municipal ordnances). On
industrially owned forest land, that influence
may be substantial to the degree that the
industrial forest owners receive public input
about forest management as a consequence of
their own corporate policies or the requirements
of third-party forest certification. On Crown
land, given its public ownership, one might
expect that community influence over forest
management could be, in theory, greatest. Based
on our observations and experience with forest
management in Nova Scotia during the past
three decades, we are of the opinion that
community influence on forest management on
Crown land is quite variable, from lowest on
VUA lands to highest on NewPage’s licensed
forest.
If communities want to increase their
influence on management and use of the
surrounding forests, they have essentially three
options: (a) participate more vigorously in
public processes whenever opportunities arise;
(b) buy the land; or (c) obtain an agreement to
manage the land from the owner (a contract or
license). The first option - more vigorous
participation in public processes - has been
growing across Canada in the past decades. For
many communities, this may be enough. For
others, it may not, and stronger options may be
needed. There is some experience in Canada
with community ownership - e.g., the county
forests of Ontario. According to McIllveen
(2004), land ownership is the best avenue
toward control. By far the greatest experience
with community forests is when communities
obtain tenure rights over forest management on
Crown land. Making room for such tenure
rights to exist may require changes to the
statutes or regulations governing the disposition
of Crown forest land. The nature of the tenure
rights for communities is one facet of
governance that makes community forests both
interesting and challenging.
Commercial Activity
As has been discussed, the term
“community forest” defines a wide variety of
land uses and arrangements. Dependant on the
context in which a community forest might be
found, projects may seem unrecognizable from
one to another. Far from being formless, this is
an asset to the implementation of a community
forest model in Nova Scotia.
Around the world, community forests
have been used to support communities in many
Community Forests 2012
5
different ways. Foremost among them has been
timber production – the product that allows
some community forests to flourish and for the
concept to persist. Silviculture, and the
harvesting of trees for the production of useful
wood, feed the notion of sustainable land use –
as well as the economies of many small
communities that might benefit from a
community forest arrangement. This is of
particular importance to communities with a
history of single-industry dependence on the
timber industry. Global pressures on the timber
industry have likewise led to a new interest in
diversification in the Canadian context – a prime
enabler for the advent and proliferation of
community-level decision-making regarding
local resources.
Research for the forum has yielded a
vast assortment of uses for community forests –
in Canada and abroad. In many developing
nations, a community forest has historically been
seen as a tool for supplying basic necessities to
an impoverished populace. Importantly, this has
not often been directly for the creation of forest-
related employment, but instead for the
production of fuel wood. Examples of this are in
Korea and India, but are not likely to be the case
in the Nova Scotian context.
Planning will be a crucial dimension for
Nova Scotian community forests. Communities
will need to demonstrate that they are able to
appropriately conceptualize the ability of both
their workforce to harvest timber, and their
forest to produce it. An acceptable forest
stewardship plan must contain estimates for an
annual allowable cut (AAC) and knowledge of
the spatial scale for the proposed forest. This
process can be assisted by considering examples
from other provinces. For the purposes of this
discussion, numbers provided by the British
Columbia Community Forest Association (2012)
lend some insight into harvest and size on
Canada’s West Coast.
CF Name Volume(AAC) m3 Area (ha)
100 Mile House 20,000 18,000
Alberni Valley 18,156 47,592
Cheakamus 20,000 33,000
Cherryville 1,600 1,070
Cheslatta
Carrier 210,000 25,000
Creston Valley 15,000 18,159
Dungate 20,000 14,212
Harrop-Proctor 2,603 10,800
Khowutzun 10,000 1,786
Logan Lake 17,000 20,000
McBride 50,000 60,000
McLeod Lake 30,000 24,664
Mission 43,398 10,500
Powell River 25,000 7,100
Revelstoke 100,000 119,000
Xaxlip 4,900 24,500 Table 1.0 (British Columbia Community Forest Association, 2012)
British Columbia is a very large province, yet
their community forests are not all gargantuan in
scale. As these numbers show, any province can
host productive community forests of a wide
range of sizes, producing a likewise wide spread
of timber production models.
Are there non-extractive uses for community
forests?
It is likely that extractive industries of
some form will be the predominant motivator for
the initial creation of community forests in Nova
Scotia. Resource extraction in the form of
timber or biomass harvest has the highest
likelihood of creating an income sufficient to
support the community forest. This was the case
in North Cowichan (Municipality of North
Cowichan, 2012). But these exploitive directions
need not be the only model followed for a
community forest. Some domestic examples
found thus far have been at the outset inspired as
an exercise in ecological conservation, and
Community Forests 2012
6
hence the management paradigm used has been
one of maintenance for other human uses. Chief
among these have been recreation and education,
plus preservation of the visual landscape.
Community forests can be game preserves or
public parks – indeed, the latter may prove an
attractive option in the Atlantic Canadian
context. Geraltdon Community Forest, formally
incorporated in 1993, is now contracted for the
management of MacLeod Provincial Park from
the Government of Ontario [Geraldton
Community Forest Inc., 2012].
The Government of Nova Scotia
currently operates more than 120 parks,
including 100 day-use parks, 1,500 km of rail
corridor, and 163 park reserves set aside for
future use (Government of Nova Scotia, 2011).
While the parks generate more than $1 million
in revenue that amount falls well short of the
estimated $3 million needed to sustain the
system and make necessary improvements.
Indeed, according to “The Path We Share” –the
very same document to suggest exploration of
the community forest idea in Nova Scotia –
residents of the province “want more from the
parks than the Nova Scotia government can
realistically afford to deliver”( Government of
Nova Scotia, 2011, page 60). The document
specifically states Government priorities for the
parks system, among them shared stewardship,
far-sighted planning, education and recreation –
all priorities that coincide with management
strategies usually seen in community forests.
The province has expressed its interest in
divesting park lands and in creating community
forests – the goals are mutually compatible.
A final broad category of uses for
community forests is ecological. The impetus
for development of a community forest may be
as much for the preservation and wellbeing of a
valued local forest ecosystem as it is a tool for
economic development. The Harrop-Proctor
community forest in British Columbia was born
out of concern for the town’s watershed – a
common theme across community forest
projects nationally. Communities across the
developing world, as well as in Canada and
Europe, frequently emphasize their role as
stewards of regional watersheds. Community
forests that sprang from the Government of
Ontario’s Community Forest Pilot Program have
seen a particular need to diversify their mandate
in the face of global pressures. The Geraldton,
6/70 (Kapuskasing), W.I.K.Y. – Woodlands in
keeping with our youth (Wikwemikong) and Elk
Lake all expanded their original directives
within a few years of their creation. Elk Lake
developed a Resource Management Field
Worker Training Program. 6/70 expanded into
fisheries management. W.I.K.Y. moved into
value-added timber products (like fence posts).
Geraldton, in addition to its aforementioned role
in parks management, now provides extensive
forest-fire management services to the
Government of Ontario.
Spatial Scale
Community forests vary greatly in size.
As with almost every other measurable quality
of community forests, the shape, size, and
species makeup of these forests can be and are
remarkably different. This should be expected –
when the uses, values, appearance, location, or
social context of a community forest can all be
strikingly different, why should a factor as
universal as size or scale be somehow
preordained? This fact will almost certainly play
a role in the creation of community forests in
Nova Scotia.
A province such as British Columbia
has an immense amount of land with which to
try different approaches to forest management.
The province itself is over 95 million hectares in
size, almost 60% (55 million hectares) are
classified as forest land. There are about 60
communities at different levels of progress in
planning or operating a community forest.
Community Forests 2012
7
Among these, there is great variability. The
North Island Community Forest and the Cherry
Ridge Community Forest are 2,392 and 1,081
hectares in size, respectively (BCCFA, 2011).
Compare that to BC’s two largest community
forests in Ft St James and Toba Inlet, each of
which is larger than 100,000 hectares (Ft. St.
James particularly so, at 152,672 ha) (BCCFA,
2011).
The term “forest” brings to mind images
of a vast, green canopy. As in all other elements
of community forests, this preconception can be
challenged as well. The English system of
community forests – covered in more detail in
“Example of Community Forests” – could not
look more different than their Canadian cousins.
English community forests are in many cases
more akin to an association of small,
discontinuous forest ribbons and wedges. This
highlights the reason for the creation of English
community forests in the first place –
reforestation. A community forest need not
conform to any precondition for size – it need
only limit itself insofar as those charged with its
management are capable to do so.
What challenges exist for a Nova Scotian
community forest program?
The forest industry in Nova Scotia has
reeled from a series of successive blows in
recent years. Pulp-and-paper mill closures have
dominated the news cycle in the province over
the past year, and controversy has dogged efforts
to reinvent the industry. These closures, and the
layoffs that accompany them, have the potential
to create a pool of expertise actively looking for
employment in the forest field. Local
educational institutions like the Nova Scotia
Community College and the nearby University
of New Brunswick have renowned forestry
programs – it would appear that finding an
experienced workforce should not be the most
difficult task for Nova Scotia’s future
community forests.
Biomass and pelletized wood production
has met with mixed to negative public reaction
in Nova Scotia. Clearcutting – a longstanding
industry practice – has come under greatly
increased scrutiny in recent years. Industrial
timber harvesting in Nova Scotia, including both
the pulp-and-paper and sawmilling industries
has been characterized by the government as
outdated, and in need of an overhaul. Natural
Resources Minister Charlie Parker stated in May
2012 that Nova Scotians “want government to
change the way their natural resources are
managed to ensure that they are used sustainably
and these legislative changes will bring the long-
term stability needed in good forestry
management” (Department of Natural
Resources, 2012).
The private sector in Nova Scotia might
be expected to resist anything that introduces
new complexity to its operational environment.
Yet community forests should not be seen as an
onerous burden on the industry here, but instead
as a fresh start. A community forest tenure
license on Crown land in this province might
provide forest stakeholders with an opportunity
to rebuild their brand. Community forests
provide the chance to recast the image of the
forest sector from intrusive or exploitative to a
willing partner in co-managing the provinces
natural resources. In embracing this direction
rather than opposing it, forest stakeholders can
decisively change public perception of the
sector.
Another issue that will affect the
acceptance of community forests in Nova Scotia
will be the simple lack of experience in this
province in creating such a model. In “The Path
We Share” (Government of Nova Scotia 2011),
no funding is promised for community-based
research, and no incentives are offered for
interested parties to begin preliminary
preparations to rise to the government’s
Community Forests 2012
8
suggestion. The novelty of the concept here
could be a potential barrier, especially to those
who may see themselves as benefactors –
however slightly – of the status quo.
Sandberg and Clancy (1996) highlighted
a number of past trends among private
landowners in Nova Scotia that could be drawn
on to inform the community forest experience in
this province. These include past experiments
toward cooperative marketing boards and forest
federations, as well as cooperative efforts to
negotiate market access and encourage forest
stewardship.
Community forests can be a powerful
tool for realizing important environmental and
social goals. Be that as it may, it must be
addressed that any new government strategy (in
any field) will not be embraced unless it can be
implemented with acceptable costs. This is
especially so when accounting for the unsteady
economic environment that Nova Scotia finds
itself in today. Government austerity and global
economic unease weigh heavily on any
administration considering adopting a new
policy direction. A case will need to be made for
fiscal prudence and long-term viability of
community forests.
A careful balancing act will need to be
undertaken. Communities actively interested in
participating in a community forest arrangement
must understand that their forests will essentially
need to pay for their management. It is apparent
from the thriving examples of Cowichan and
Mission that operating a financially successful
community forest is far from impossible.
Evolution of the model in British Columbia has
yielded community forests that not only pay for
themselves, but find resources enough to fund
mentoring programs or community projects
(such as the McBride community hall).
There are two areas in which it might be
expected that the government will be needed to
play a role, albeit a limited one. First, the
government will need to play a part in the
implementation stages. These will likely include
a number of administrative roles, particularly in
preliminary stages as the forest-management
program matures. The government will also be
called upon to play a role in selecting which
communities are the best fit to host a community
forest, especially if Crown land is involved (see
the work of Matakala and Duinker, 1993).
Second, the government would be
required to assure interested communities that a
failure in managing a community forest need not
herald financial ruin or political ostracism.
DeYoung and Kaplan (1989) stated that it is
particularly important to explain this stability in
the initial stages. According to these authors
“the failure of explorations is an acceptable, and
even necessary, outcome of the process” (pg 79).
Additionally, they noted that “by understanding
the dynamics of the exploration-stability
relationship, it should become clear that failure
of an idea at the exploratory stage is information
vital to the system as a whole” (pg. 279).
Furthermore, as has been covered above, and
will be discussed below in greater detail in
“Examples of Community Forests,” the model is
supple. Community forests evolve individually
within their own lifetime, as the model itself
evolves as it is introduced to new settings. This
might be the most difficult aspect to unpack
without deeper exploration. The government
might find itself explaining a policy position that
might easily be misunderstood as tolerance for
incompetence. The position should instead be
seen as one of encouraging innovation, and
offering a safety net should the experimental
forest project prove unsuccessful (DeYoung and
Kaplan, 1989). Given the potential positive
results that may come from this policy change, it
should not prove difficult to examine how this
delicate exercise might be accomplished.
Community Forests 2012
9
Examples of Community Forests
Canada
Canada has a mixed history of
experimentation with community forest
initiatives. In recent decades there has been a
series of high-profile efforts in Ontario and
British Columbia to reform their respective
forest tenure licensing. This is in part reflective
of a process underway in Nova Scotia today – a
process in which large scale reforms are
planned, but in which community forests are
hoped to play a role. The community-forest
pilot projects conducted in Ontario and BC
dominate the literature on the subject in
Canada. However, there have been other forays
into the realm of community forests in other
provinces. The Royal Commission on Forestry
in Newfoundland in 1955 suggested a tenure
model very much resembling the modern
understanding of a community forest. This was
one of the earliest such examples in Canada,
though the proposition was never applied in
Newfoundland, nor elsewhere until many years
later (Roy, 1991). The projects resembled
community forest management structures found
in the developing world, a community-inclusive
structure designed to counter domestic
overharvesting and ecological deterioration
stemming from rampant highgrading. This
“awkward situation,” arising from a curious
blend of tradition, modern technology and
increased demand closely resembles the fuel-
wood producing community forests of the
developing world (Roy, 1991).
Though community forests in
Newfoundland never materialized, successive
attempts were made with varying degrees of
success elsewhere in Canada. Ontario remains
one of the most enduring examples of
community forest implementation. In the early
1990s, the Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources and four partner communities
developed and set up four community-forest
pilot projects (Harvey, 1995). The projects
varied in size and in the activities pursued within
them. The host communities represented a
varied socioeconomic background, and the
community forests themselves reflected this
difference. The following sections will explore a
number of example community forest projects in
Canada, starting with one of the four pilot
projects, Geraldton Community Forest.
Geraldton Community Forest
Located in Northwestern Ontario, the
Geraldton community forest initially covered
almost 49,000 hectares (Harvey, 1995). The
forest project was designed to foster a range of
silvicultural activities, and eventually included
the absorption of MacLeod Provincial Park – a
park that had been scheduled to be closed by the
provincial government. The Geraldton
community forest project was successful insofar
as it created an environment that allowed a wide
range of forest activities to flourish under an
intensive forest management regimen. These
included (but were not limited to) wood sales,
snowmobiling, training programs, and tree
planting (Geraldton Community Forest, 2012).
North Cowichan Community Forest
Located in British Columbia, the North
Cowichan community forest is a 4800 hectare
community forest project created in 1946
(Teitelbaum, 2006). The lands that are currently
managed as a community forest were acquired
from the government privately as a strategy for
non-payment of taxes, though the community
forest management plan was not instituted until
the 1960s. Today, North Cowichan remains one
of the most notable examples of successful
community forests in Canada, creating 12 person
years of work annually under a budget of $1.4
million (Municipality of North Cowichan,
Community Forests 2012
10
2012). This project is notable for its financial
stability as much as for its emphasis on First
Nations involvement.
Harrop-Proctor Community Forest
The Harrop-Proctor community forest
was created directly in reaction to perceptions of
citizen helplessness in the face of industrial
forest activity. Located in Proctor, British
Columbia (near Nelson) the Harrop-Proctor
Community forest evolved from decades of
community activist groups working to gain an
official measure of protection for the Harrop
Creek watershed. After a series of small
victories, the community was offered the
opportunity to apply for an 11,000 hectare
community forest pilot project – which was
approved in 1999. Today, this model forest is
managed for production of timber, but also for
protection of soil, viewscape, fisheries,
recreation, tourism, heritage, and botanical
forest products (Harrop-Procter Watershed
Protection Society, 2009).
United States
The systems by which Canada and the
United States award forest tenure are quite
different. Crown land, inherited by Canada’s
provinces from the British crown following
confederation has created a situation in which
the majority of forest land in Canada is publicly
owned. This is a stark contrast to the American
case, in which private ownership is
overwhelmingly the majority (Berry 2006).
Canada’s provincial organizational system
allows for two types of tenure agreements, long-
term area-based tenure and short-term, volume-
based tenure. These land use agreements
generate revenue for the province in which they
are located. This distinction allows for the
freedom and flexibility to create multiple-use
tenure agreements like the myriad community
forest projects found in Canada on crown land.
In the United States, a government agency
follows a tendering policy in which a timber
harvest is contracted privately, but the resulting
product is sold to the highest bidder. In this case,
contractors have little to no role in preserving
ecological integrity or forest stewardship (Berry,
2006).
This confluence of factors has made the
creation of community forests in the United
States a challenge. As in many countries, there
are some historical examples of “town forests” –
mostly in New England – that are experiencing a
resurgence and modernization on municipally
owned land. Co-operative ownership is being
slowly embraced as a model for small woodlot
owners in North-Eastern states to sustainably
manage local forest resources while directing the
benefits of such a project back to local
economies. As is customary with community
forests, the benefits that can be reaped from
services rendered by a community forest are
often those that have little or no recognized
value in the marketplace. These would include a
range of benefits like clean water, wildlife, and
recreation (Vermont Town Forest Stewardship
Guide, 2010).
Europe
United Kingdom – England
Beginning in the early 1990s, the
English government embarked on a strategy of
environmental renewal, of which Community
Forests played a role. The English community
forest system – really an afforestation-based
regeneration program – stretches the definition
of community forests established in this paper
considerably. The forests (twelve in total) are
typically quite small, and many of them have a
distinctly urban character (England's
Community Forests, 2005). Many of the English
community forests are not a contiguous forest
Community Forests 2012
11
area, but rather an area designated as falling into
a community forest zone for the purpose of
increasing forest cover. In addition, the
administration of these forests happens as
partnerships across multiple levels of
government – including the Forest Commission
of Great Britain. This is not to say that the
projects have been unsuccessful in other areas
relevant to “conventional” or “typical”
community forests – if such a designation can
exist. England’s community forest project
claims to have planted 10,000 hectares of new
woodland, and brought 27,000 hectares of
existing woodland under management. The
projects also boasts of having opened up
considerable aesthetic green space, installed
thousands of kilometres of bicycle and foot
paths, and engaged the public at high levels in
the decision making process (England's
Community Forests, 2005).
United Kingdom – Scotland
Scotland’s efforts to establish
community forests fall more closely in line with
the North American model. Like their English
cousins, the Scottish projects were born out of a
desire to see tracts of forested land return to the
Hills of Scotland and are hence reforestation
projects first and foremost. This difference is
largely due to Scotland’s overwhelmingly rural
population base. The community woodlands (as
the Scots refer to them) are numerous, and vary
widely in size and composition. Morven
Community Woodland, for example, is eight
hectares in size, whereas Kilfinan Community
Forest is more than four hundred. The Scottish
community woodlands are more locally-oriented
in their administrative organization. Each has a
different design, but all incorporate a
membership base, which is in turn offered
voting rights on some management decisions.
Beginning in the 1990s, non-governmental
organizations such as Reforest Scotland
supported the idea that Scotland’s forests were
better managed specifically for multiple uses,
not solely for timber production. This shift
coincided with the Rio Earth Summit, and
greater public realization that Scotland’s forest
had been badly degraded. The community
woodlands movement achieved tremendous
political success in their movement to reform the
Scottish land tenure system, and today the total
number of community woodlands exceeds 200
(Calvert, 2009).
Sweden
If there is a common thread throughout
the literature on community forests, it is the
discussion on the Swedish experience. Sweden
has one of the longest histories of community
forests on Earth, stemming from a century old
initiative to designate forest lands as “common
pool resources.” Today Sweden has a modern,
competitive forest sector. The Swedish forest
industry consistently scores highly in terms of
sustainability and productivity. The forest
commons encompass 730,000 hectares spanning
the entire country (though predominantly in the
north). Each forest is managed by an assembly
of shareholders, who in turn elect a board. The
forests are also required to staff a professional
forester. Perhaps the most astonishing thing
about the Swedish community forest system is
the degree to which the management framework
has remained unchanged in the hundred years
since they were first introduced (Carlsson,
1999).
Italy
Not all of the countries of Western
Europe have appropriately forested land to
sustain a large scale community forest of the
type found in British Columbia or Ontario. Italy
is a country that dodges this trend, for it is home
to the Magnifica Comunita di Fiemme (MCF).
Community Forests 2012
12
This community forest is yet again another
example of the many faces of community
forests. The MCF covers nearly 20,000 hectares
of (non-contiguous) forest land dominated by
Norway spruce. Something unique about the
MCF is the inalienability of member status in
the common ownership of the land – as long as
one resides in the nearby community they are
automatically considered a member. Today there
are many thousands of members in the MCF –
an unthinkable number for many community
forests in Canada. According to Duinker and
Pulkki (1998), who toured the forest in 1997, the
MCF is running a superb operation when
accounting for the project’s ecological footprint
and adherence to many common community
forest principles. The forest was found lacking
in terms of its monitoring capabilities – namely
in gathering information on the forest’s societal
benefits and environmental assessments.
Furthermore, the Italian’s propensity to clear the
forest floor of most course woody debris and to
rapidly salvage any fallen trees created an
unnatural, “park-like” experience to a visitor, a
fact somewhat at odds with most common
community forest practices (Duinker & Pulkki,
1998).
Community forests in the developing world
As has been discussed before,
community forests in the developing world often
formed out of practical necessity. Until
relatively recently nations (outside of those
privileged few with great wealth) had few
options with which to access markets for goods
like timber, let alone oil, coal, steel or
aluminum. Couple this with historic realities like
the absence of global telecommunications or
even widespread electricity grids, and what will
be found is an environment ripe for the birth of a
community forest. These developing world
community forest projects existed to provide
local people with the necessities of life, largely
for direct consumption close at hand (United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization,
2012). The FAO actively supported community
forest projects across Asia and the Pacific for
much of the cold war era as a means for
alleviating poverty and creating local
employment. These early community forests
were created largely to supply communities with
a source of badly needed fuelwood. This need is
a dire one for residents of many developing
nations. The FAO estimates that roughly 20% of
all energy in Asia and Latin America, and about
50% of all energy in Africa is generated by
burning wood (FAO, 2012). Initial projects
spanned across disparate countries, and met with
mixed success.
India
The West Bengal region of India
remains a famous example of community forests
“going native” and adapting rapidly to local
circumstance. Funded by a $29 million loan
from the World Bank, the project (now often
referred to as the nascence of India’s Social
Forestry movement) aimed to provide fuelwood
to local communities through the planting of
93,000 hectares with various trees (Charterjee,
1985). As the project evolved, it began to supply
those same communities with bamboo, small
timber, fodder, fruit, oilseeds, and other minor
products (Charterjee, 1985).
Korea
South Korea is a nation with a long
history of fierce self-determination. The
aftermath of the Korean War (1950-1953) left
vast swathes of the country stripped of forest
cover, and the hardships of that conflict left
lingering social effects. Among them was a
desperate need for fuelwood. Korean winters are
cold, and the country’s climate and mountainous
terrain caused the newborn South Korean
Community Forests 2012
13
postwar state to strain to provide basic
necessities. After a decade of trial and error, the
South Korean government struck upon a
working formula of community governance and
rural economic development that began to take
off in the 1970s and accelerated in the 1980s.
This trajectory would make South Korea the
wealthy, highly developed nation that it is today.
The Saemaul Undong (as the rural development
project was known) met with unprecedented
success and unpredictable results (Oh, 1985).
The strategy of regenerating despoiled forests
and rehabilitating badly denuded lands
organized from a community level reduced
poverty, eased soil erosion, increased freshwater
supply, and boosted agricultural productivity.
The ambitious Korean people, no longer
scraping by with the bare necessities, began to
build a complex domestic economy. As paved
roads began to snake their way to the recesses of
the country, migration to the urban centres
became a major demographic pattern. This
change began to ease pressures on the forest for
the provision of fuelwood, and the community
foresters worked themselves out of a job. The
community forest projects of Saemaul Undong
were closed and brought under central
management in the 1990s as Korea became more
heavily industrialized. The effort left much of
the country reforested, and remains a point of
pride among Koreans (Oh, 1985).
Thailand
As home of the FAO, Thailand saw a
number of community forest projects arise. The
government of Thailand in the 1970s sought to
diversify the economy of their rural countryside.
Supported by the FAO and the World Bank, the
Thai government established a policy of
introducing community organized agroforestry.
In a prime example of community forests having
disparate social benefits dependant on their
location, the plan was seen as having the
additional advantage of reducing the land
available to opium producers. Furthermore, the
government foresaw their program creating
sustainable employment opportunities in the
rural countryside, a primary benefit of which
would be suppression of revolutionary sentiment
and domestic insurgency. The Thai government
expected to turn vast areas of hilly, deforested
agricultural land into productive woodlots and
coffee producers. This did not succeed as
expected. Among other planning problems, the
government neglected to account for the
corresponding drop in small scale local food
production that would result from converting
rice patties to forests. The underfed population
found little motivation to carry the program
onwards. The reforestation goals of the program
failed spectacularly, and the monocropping that
took place did little to ease, or did in fact
exacerbate, concerns over soil erosion (Hoare &
Larchojna, 1985).
Community Forests 2012
14
Considerations for a community forest
development agenda for Nova Scotia
The process of creating community
forests in Nova Scotia will have the freedom to
apply the model in a way that best fits local
convention, economic realities, and natural
restrictions. If anything should be clear at this
point, it will be that community forest is an
elastic idea well suited to customization. The
possibilities are endless, and that fact will make
the eventual planning stages an exciting
exercise. The recent proliferation of community
forests in British Columbia has given the world
of community forests a welcome refreshing. As
new projects meet with preliminary successes,
they have established an online presence and
spurred study of the newly diversified forest
portfolio in that province.
How can Nova Scotia be smart about how it
creates community forests?
Documents found from BC that describe
the lived experience of community forest
managers are brimming with enthusiasm about
the community forest. However, they are also
fairly uniform in their affirmation that their
model might not fit elsewhere. This speaks to
the real challenges that might face those
embarking on this direction. The lists of lessons
learned are many and can soundly inform the
experience of Nova Scotians who may consider
entering into community forest arrangements.
The British Columbia Community
Forest Association’s (British Columbia
Community Forest Association, 2004) “The
Community Forestry Handbook” detailed seven
primary lessons as Characteristics of Successful
Community Forests:
passion
dynamic leadership
First Nations participation
sense of community
pragmatism
local knowledge / traditional ecological
knowledge
holistic viewpoint
Next, it characterized An Effective Community
Forest Organization as having
trusted representation
shared vision
business sense
capital/ political support
Many of these simple terms would need a
thorough unpacking to truly understand the
context. In place of this, a comparison to other
similar lists is in order.
Anderson and Horter (2002) produced a
lengthy document for British Columbia’s
Dogwood Initiative to explore similar aspects of
community forests. In their relevant section,
they highlighted the following list of lessons
learned regarding implementing community
forests “on the ground”
a thorough business plan and sound
business skills
an effective general manager
strong relationships and beneficial
partnerships
support from local industry
maximizing value-added processing
within the community
diversification into new revenue streams
balancing “do it ourselves” with
contracting out
access to financial capital
To someone looking to create a community
forest, this is a more technically specific list
from which to draw practical knowledge. The
Anderson and Horter (2002) paper goes into
Community Forests 2012
15
exhaustive detail to make their resource a
definitive “how-to” manual for future
community-forest ventures. In addition to
lessons learned, they also touched on a selection
of specific challenges that might obstruct or
hinder the creation of community forests. These
two facts – limited human capacity and political
and policy obstacles – are commonly cited as
recurring cautionary elements when considering
community forests. On the human capacity
issue, Nova Scotia would well take heed. Highly
skilled people might proliferate in the near term,
owing to tumult in parts of this province’s forest
sector. Nova Scotia does have an active
association of professional foresters – The
Registered Professional Foresters Association
of Nova Scotia (RPFANS) – upon which to
draw when the time comes.
We can identify roadblocks – can we identify
what might help us?
McIlveen (2004) took the “identify
obstacles” technique a step further. She
presented a list of specific constraints and
enablers to the implementation and functioning
of British Columbia’s community forest pilot
program. These factors can exist at multiple
levels simultaneously, traversing the
municipal/local, provincial and even federal
jurisdiction. Her constraints:
a lack of forestry knowledge
conflict within the community
a lack of financial support for start-up
costs
restrictive revenue appraisal system
severe forest health concerns
countervailing duties
international trade agreements
McIlveen’s (2004) enablers:
community enthusiasm and support for
the community forest
experience in and knowledge of the
forest industry
adequate transfer of authority to the
community
collaboration with First Nations
access to niche markets.
While this list was written to accommodate the
process as it evolved on Canada’s west coast,
many of the items discussed sound as though
they could just as easily fit into the Nova Scotian
context. As government takes steps toward
creating Nova Scotian community forests, they
would be wise to examine these past
experiences. It would also be remiss not to
identify what constraints and enablers might
exist that are unique to Nova Scotia.
Community Forests 2012
16
Conclusions
The Government of Nova Scotia has
given its citizens and communities a special gift
by officially opening the door to the concept of
community forests. Accompanying that are no
dictates or terms and conditions - just an open
door. Now it is time for forest stakeholders to
seize the moment and develop a made-in-Nova-
Scotia agenda for implementation of the
community-forest concept. Rigid rules and
narrow conceptions will stifle progress - local
leadership, energy and innovation can flourish if
people have an appetite for community forests.
Let us begin the journey together with
open and creative minds. The forum on June 27
represents a unique opportunity to learn together
and shape a common agenda. We do not need to
rush headlong into things but rather to offer and
build upon diverse ideas in a deliberative
dialogue. The kinds of questions we address at
the forum could be these:
(a) How should we think about community
forests in Nova Scotia?
(b) What models or arrangements should be built
and tried?
(c) Where and under what circumstances would
success be most likely?
(d) What roles should we expect the various
stakeholders to play?
(e) How might we get started?
At the forum, participants will refine
these discussion questions and make a start at
addressing them. We will create and circulate a
report of the forum’s findings, followed by some
preliminary proposals to be communicated from
the Nova Forest Alliance to the Government of
Nova Scotia.
Imagine this - the year is 2021. We are
gathered together at the 10th Annual NS Forum
on Community Forests. We have much to
celebrate, and much stock-taking to accomplish.
What do our successes look like? How is the
forest sector thriving with its community forests
in place? What further progress will we plan for
as we look forward to the 20th annual forum?
The future is what we make it, so let’s make a
good one!
17
Literature Cited
Ambus, L., & Hoberg, G. (2011). The evolution of devolution: a critical analysis of the
community forest agreement in British Columbia. Society & Natural Resources, 24(9), 933-
950. doi:10.1080/08941920.2010.520078
Anderson, N. G., & Horter, W. (2002). Connecting Lands and People Community Forests in
British Columbia. Dogwood Initiative. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Berry, B. Y. A. (2006). Branching out : case studies in Canadian forest management. Property
and Environment Research Center. Bozeman, Montana.
Beckley, T. M. (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.
B.C. Ministry of Forests, Mines and Lands. (2010). The state of British Columbia’s forests.
Retrieved from Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication website:
http://www.bccfa.ca/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&layout=item&id=98&Itemid=
31
British Columbia Community Forest Association. (2011).Status of community forestry in bc.
Retrieved from http://www.bccfa.ca/index.php
Chatterjee, N. (1988). Schoolchildren and community forestry: the experience of West Bengal,
India. In Y. S. Rao, M. W. Hoskins, N. T. Vergara, & C. P. Castro (Eds.), Community
forestry: lessons from case studies in Asia and the Pacific Region, 9-20. FAO RAP and
East-West Center.
Carlsson, L. (1999). Still going strong, community forests in Sweden. Institute of Chartered
Foresters, 72(1), 11-26. doi:10.1093/forestry/72.1.11
Calvert, A. (2009). Community Forestry Scotland. Forest Research, (April), 1-53.
Davis, S.L. and K.N. Johnson. 1987. Forest management. 3rd Edition. McGraw Hill Book Co.,
New York. 790 pp.
Department of Natural Resources. (2012).Forestry law changes meet strategy goal. Retrieved
from http://www.gov.ns.ca/news/details.asp?id=20120509005
Duinker, P. N., & Patrick, W. (1994). Community forests in Canada : an overview. The Forestry
Chronicle, 70(6).
Duinker, P., & Pulkki, R. (1998). Community forestry, Italian style: The Magnifica Comunita di
Fiemme. The Forestry Chronicle, 74(3), 385-392. The Forestry Chronicle. Retrieved from
http://pubs.cif-ifc.org/doi/abs/10.5558/tfc74385-3
18
England's Community Forests. (2005). About England’s community forests. Retrieved from
http://www.communityforest.org.uk/aboutenglandsforests.htm
Forests Act, RSNS 1989, c 179. Consolidated Statutes of Nova Scotia – Nova Scotia
Government of Nova Scotia. (2008). Social Trends in Nova Scotia. Retrieved October 26, 2011,
from http://www.gov.ns.ca/ coms/department/backgrounders/
poverty/SocialTrendsinNovaScotia-2008.pdf
Haley, D., & Nelson, H. (2007). Has the time come to rethink Canada’s crown forest tenure
systems? 83, 630-641.
Harvey, S. (1995). Ontario community forest pilot project - lessons learned 1991 - 1994. Taking
stock of Ontario’s community forestry experience. The Community Forestry Group
Harrop-Procter Watershed Protection Society. (2009).Harrop proctor community forest. from
http://www.hpcommunityforest.org/about/aboutUs.html
Hoare, P., & Larchrojna, S. (1988). Change in traditional management of forests - a study of
Thailands Karen Hill people. In Y. S. Rao, M. W. Hoskins, N. T. Vergara, & C. P. Castro
(Eds.), Community Forestry lessons from case studies in Asia and the Pacific region. FAO
RAP and East-West Center.
Hunter, M.L., Jr. 1990. Wildlife, forests, and forestry: Principles of managing forests for
biological diversity. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 370 pp.
Matakala, P. and P.N. Duinker. 1993. Community forestry as a forest-land management option
in Ontario. In: Forest Dependent Communities: Challenges and Opportunities. (David
Bruce and Margaret Whitla, eds.). pp. 26-58. Rural and Small Town Research and Studies
Program, Mount Allison University, Sackville, NB.
Mcllveen, K. (2004). British Columbia’s community forest pilot project: can a localized trend
survive in an increasingly globalized forest sector? Simon Fraser University, (January).
Municipality of North Cowichan. (2012). Forestry. Retrieved from
http://www.northcowichan.ca/ siteengine/ActivePage.asp?PageID=93
Merriam-Webster. (2012). Forest. In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Merriam-Webster
Incorporated. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forest
Natural Resources Education Centre. (2012). Online lesson - forest sustainability. Retrieved
from http://www.gov.ns.ca/natr/Education/NREC/lessons/sustain/intro1.asp
Northern Forest Alliance. (2010). The Vermont town forest stewardship guide: A community
users’ manual for town forests. Retrieved from http://www.communitiescommittee.org/
pdfs/TownForestStewardshipGuide.pdf
19
Oh, Ho-Sung. 1988. Economic development and changing forest problems and policies: the case
of Korea. In Y.S. Rao, M.W. Hoskins, N.T. Vergara & C.P. Castro, eds. Community
forestry: lessons from case studies in Asia and the Pacific Region, pp. 135-147. Bangkok,
FAO and East-West Center.
Pagdee, A., Kim, Y.-su, & Daugherty, P. J. (2006). What makes community forest management
successful: a meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Society & Natural
Resources, 19(1), 33-52. doi:10.1080/08941920500323260
Poole, K. G., & Mowat, G. (2001). Mountain caribou in the Harrop Procter Community Forest
area. Harrop Procter Community Co-operative, 22(July).
Putz, F. & Redford, K. H. (2010). The importance of defining “forest”: tropical forest
degradation, deforestation, long-term phase shifts, and further transitions. Biotropica, 42(1),
10-20.
Roy, M. (1991) Towards Community Forestry in Newfoundland, in Whitmore, G. And P. Smith,
eds. Community Forestry: 23rd
Annual Symposium of the Lakehead University Forestry
Association. Centre for Northern Studies, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, 65 pp.
Roberts, E., & Gautman, M. (2003). Community forestry lessons for Australia : a review of
international case studies. The Australian National University, (February).
Geraldton Community Forest Inc. (2012). Geraldton community forest. Retrieved from
http://www.gcfi.net/Home.aspx
Government of Nova Scotia (2011). The Path We Share: A Natural Resources Strategy for Nova
Scotia. Accessed through http://www.gov.ns.ca/natr/strategy/pdf/Strategy_Strategy.pdf
Teitelbaum, S., Beckley, T., & Nadeau, S. (2006). A national portrait of community forestry on
public land in Canada. The Forestry Chronicle, 82(2004), 416-428.
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. (2012).Community forestry. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/u5610e/u5610e04.htm
Webster, N. 1967. Webster's third new international dictionary. G& C Merriam Co. Publishers,
Springfield, MA.Wikipedia. (2012). Forest. Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest
20
Community Forest Example and Information Sheets
21
The Bamfield/ Huu-ay-aht First Nations community forest began as a
woodlot license proposal created in 1998. When the Government of
British Columbia requested applicants for a community forest,
Bamfield/ Huu-ay-aht promptly applied. A pilot program was awarded
in June 1999, and a management plan was signed in April 2003. A
cutting permit was approved in April 2004.
Bamfield/ Huu-ay-aht is administratively organized as a society (as
compared to a corporation or a co-operative). This means that the
forest is a not-for-profit organization that holds all of the powers of an
individual while remaining separate and distinct from its members. All
funds or profits must be used only for the purposes of the society itself.
The Forest is run by a nine-member board of directors – four for
Huu-ay-aht, four for Bamfield, one reserved for Regional District
Director. The community forest society’s mission states that it is
“geared towards sustainable forest practices within a rural community,
giving local residents opportunities for management, employment, and
education.” Aside from the predominant practice of timber harvest,
Bamfield/ Huu-ay-aht has been keen to diversify their community
Key Information
420 hectares
Established 2011
Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
Project is co-managed by a First Nations group
Initial pilot agreement set to last for 5 years
Main objective is timber production
Botanical harvesting and
value added products encouraged
High proportion of western hemlock, lower proportion of cedar and Douglas-fir
Safety is reported as the #1 guiding principle
Start-up costs - $1,018,361
Stumpage revenue to people of BC is an average of 16,992 m3 per year
Committed to strengthen relationships between Aboriginal and non‐Aboriginal communities
www.huuayaht.org
Bamfield/ Huu-ay-aht FN
forest uses. These
uses include wildlife
and biodiversity
conservation, as well
as human recreation
activities such as
camping, swimming,
fishing and boating.
22
The community forest in Burns Lake, British Columbia, exists to
“manage and operate in a manner that will enhance the forest resource
while respecting the principles of integrated use, environmental
stewardship, and public consultation.” Created in 2005, this CF project
was awarded a 25 year CF agreement on which to operate. Beyond
timber production, Burns Lake CF fosters a wide range of forestry
training and educational initiatives. These range from log home
building courses to visiting local school children. Employees of the
Community Forest have also conducted extensive ecosystem research
and have complied new inventories of timber and non-timber
resources. Recreation remains a central element to the Burns Lake
community forest. To date $100,000 has been donated to the creation
of local mountain bike trails. 23 kilometres of hiking trails have been
established, and 20 kilometres of snowmobiling trails have been
created in partnership with the Burns Lake Snowmobiling Club.
Initially, much of the harvesting done in Burns Lake was related to
devastation caused by the spruce bark beetle and mountain pine
beetle, which still presents a significant ecological threat.
Key Information
92,326 hectares
Established in 2000, awarded BC’s first long term contract in 2005
Interior British Columbia, Canada
Management co-op has 114 members
Decisions are made by consensus at a board level.
Created hundreds of thousands of employment man hours
Management strategies
are developed in consultation with community members, including first nations
Forestry company follows sustainable forest management principles
85% of the forested land consists of lodgepole pine
Remainder is spruce,
some balsam
Annual allowable cut for 2011-2013 is 250,000 cubic metres
2,349,592 hectares harvested to date
10,065,211 seedlings planted to date
www.blcomfor.com
Burns Lake
Today, the primary
goal of the Burns
Lake CF is to
continue improving
the land base, and to
benefit all residents
of the Lakes Timber
Supply Area.
23
The Creston community forest was created in 1997 as a volume-based
license with an allowable annual cut of 15,000 cubic meters per year
over a 15 year period. In 2008, Creston was awarded an area-based
Community Forest Agreement. The Creston Valley Community Forest
Corporation is governed by five equal shareholders. The current
shareholders include: the Town of Creston, the Regional District of
Central Kootenay, Wildsight (a Rocky Mountain region NGO),
the Erickson Community Association, and the Kitchener Valley
Recreation and Fire Protection Society Each organization. Each
selects a representative, who in turn each selects an additional director
from the local community. Watershed protection is deemed to be of
particular importance to the Creston Community Forest. The Arrow
Head Watershed is the source of water for Columbia Brewery, maker of
Kokanee beer and a major local employer. The forest also protects
portions of Russell Creek, Okell Creek watershed, and portions of the
Skimmerhorn range from Sullivan creek south to the U.S. Border. The
community forest, and the corporation that manages it, were created in
response to the closure of a central sawmill in 1991, an action which
Key Information
19,159 hectares
Established 2008
Interior of British Columbia, Canada
Managed by a community corporation on a 15 year non-replaceable forest license
195,000 m3 of timber harvested in first eleven seasons
19 different cutting blocks in total
75% of logs sold regionally or locally
All high value logs sold
within British Columbia
Average of $1.1 million added to the Creston economy annually
Creates 10+ jobs during the year
Follows an ecosystem-based management philosophy
Extensive use of GIS mapping for ecosystem management
www.crestoncommunityforest.com
Creston Valley Forest Corp.
resulted in local
timber harvest being
shipped to other
parts of the province
to harvesting. The
closure spurred local
stakeholders to
mobilize as a means
to save their local
industry.
24
Geraldton was part of the Ontario Governments initial four Community
Forest Pilot Projects. This forest was designed to foster a range of
silvicultural activities, and eventually included the assumption of
MacLeod Provincial Park – a park that had been scheduled to be
closed by the provincial government. The GCF project was successful
insofar as it created an environment that allowed a wide range of
forestry activities to flourish under an intensive forest management
regimen. These included (but were not limited to) wood sales,
snowmobiling, training programs and tree planting. Geraldton provides
the Province of Ontario with firefighting services, as well as
professional training and forestry expertise. Thanks to the Government
of Ontario’s community forest pilot program, Geraldton has become a
central hub for study on community forests in Canada. Like Mission
and North Cowichan, Geraldton has reached out to local educational
institutions for the purposes of forestry research, development and
education. The forest was designed to be a node for those seeking the
introduction of smaller scale, more benign methods of timber harvest.
Geraldton was created to serve as a long-term, integral part of the
community in which it exists, and in this capacity it has succeeded.
Key Information
50,000 Hectares
Established 1993
Northern Ontario, Canada
Employs 200 workers
Board of directors seats eleven
Four seats representing industry and municipal government guaranteed
Remaining seven seats elected from GCF membership annually
Stated mandate for environmentally sustainable management
Recreational activities are many, including geocaching, adventure trails, canoeing, fishing and swimming
Geraldton interpretive
centre attracts hundreds of tourists each year
Wide range of services offered to the government of Ontario, including GIS, information technology, firefighting, and forestry
Tree planting has been ongoing since 1994
www.gcfi.net
Geraldton
Geraldton also remains
a prominent example of
community forests
helping to alleviate the
pressures on single-
resource rural
communities in
Canada’s more remote
areas through
diversification.
25
Most community forests in British Columbia are born out of a desire to
exploit the natural bounty of their local forest first, and to protect the
environment second. The Harrop-Proctor Community Forest (HPCF) is
somewhat different, in that it was created primarily in reaction to
perceptions of citizen helplessness against industrial forestry. Located
in Proctor, British Columbia (near Nelson) the HPCF evolved from
decades of community activist groups working to gain an official
measure of protection for the Harrop Creek watershed. After a series
of small victories, the community was offered the opportunity to apply
for an 11,000 hectare community forestry pilot project – which was
approved in 1999. The forest is managed for production of timber, but
also for protection of soil, viewscape, fisheries, recreation, tourism,
heritage, and botanical forest products. Watershed protection remains
the top priority for community forest managers. Because of this,
Harrop-Proctor excels at the production of alternative (non-timber)
forest products such as herbs, teas and tinctures. In addition, Harrop-
Proctor successfully negotiated with the provincial government for a
lower annual allowable cut (AAC), to minimize potential watershed
impacts and reduce logging intensity.
Key Information
11,000 Hectares
Established 1999
Interior British Columbia, Canada
Management co-op has 114 members
Operates on a one-member one-vote system
Not-for-profit model
Operates through committees comprised of directors and interested community members
Volunteerism plays a crucial role in operations, contributing 200 hours monthly
Focus on forestry and value added production, as well as eco-tourism
Forest co-op supports two local businesses, Sunshine Bay Botanical and Harrop-Proctor forest products.
Heavy reliance on volunteers, who supply as much as 350 hours of work per week
www.hpcommunityforest.org
Harrop-Proctor
Today, the Harrop-
Proctor community
forest is thriving. It’s
not-for-profit
cooperative model has
grown from 98
members in its first
year to 114 today.
26
The Magnifica Comunità di Fiemme (MCF) is a community forest
located near the city of Trento, Italy. The forest management is a mix
of both private and public actors, though it has no direct affiliation with
any particular government body. Membership for individuals in nearby
communities is remarkably different than in a North American
community forest. Whereas involvement and the ability to influence or
exert control in most community forests is an applied-for privilege, the
MCF extends membership to every citizen nearby. The membership is
inalienable, and can only be lost when that citizen moves away. This
membership does not give the citizen direct input on the forest
management, but instead bestows the right to become involved in the
management organization. The forest is managed to provide maximum
benefit to its members (a common community forest attribute) and for
long term ecological sustainability. However, the MCF differs from
many of its cousins in its practice of forest clearing. The removal of
course woody debris and deadfall from the forest floor has created a
very “park-like” feel, distinguishing the MCF from other similarly-
designed community forests. The MCF employs two professional
Key Information
19,600 hectares in size (non-contiguous)
Located in Northern Italy
Community forest area includes 11,000ha of forest, 7,000ha of alpine meadows, pasture and rangeland
Tree heights typically over 30m, some stands reaching 40 – 50m
Growing stock estimated at 3.7 million m3
Forest is dominated primarily by Norway spruce, but also includes Larch, Scotch pine, and Swiss stone pine
Area economy long dominated by agriculture, forestry – tourism growing
Popularity of skiing is increasing in this area
Local population numbers
approximately 20,000
Forest is meticulously cleared, “naturalness” not among key objectives
Average rainfall 1,000-2,000mm
www.mcfiemme.eu
Magnifica Comunità di Fiemme
foresters. Timber
management is
focused mainly on the
Norway spruce, and
the annual allowable
cut has been
estimated to be
47,000m3 per year.
27
Located in British Columbia’s Robson Valley, the Community Forest in
McBride serves the community in a number of ways. The area had
been hard hit by a period of economic stagnancy, and the CF project
was initially seen as an economic stimulus tool. Created as part of
BC’s pilot CF strategy, McBride successfully implemented many
aspects of its lengthy management plan. The result was the awarding
of a 25 year term license, which the management board sees as an
opportunity to implement an ambitious, multi use strategy. Timber is
the clear economic driver for the McBride CF, with spruce, subalpine
fir, and cedar as the dominant species within the harvest area. McBride
is notable for its emphasis on supporting value-added wood product
projects within the valley area. Panels for hardwood flooring are of
particular importance. McBride donates a great deal of wood to large
scale community building projects. As is common with British Columbia
Community Forests, McBride considers itself an important steward of
the regions many watersheds. McBride also diverts significant
resources toward Caribou habitat protection. Recreation has been
another success story in McBride, as a network of cross-country ski
trails and mountain biking trails have surged in popularity. Planning is
currently underway to construct a research facility in conjunction with
the University of Northern British Columbia.
Key Information 60,000 hectares
Established 2007
Interior British Columbia,
Canada
Project was designed to be multi use from the outset
Initial pilot agreement (probationary license) set to last for 5 years
25 year agreement offered based on success of initial tenure
Objective was to create
one full time job per 1,000 cubic metres
Most timber harvest done as partial harvest or single tree harvest
Achieved 50,000 m3 in first year of harvesting.
Actively supports habitat research, including aerial surveys
Long-term harvest level projected to be 29 000 cubic metres per year after six decades
Bi-annual public meetings held to solicit community input
Commitment to adaptive management, continual improvement
www.mcbride
communityforest.com
McBride
trails and mountain
biking trails have
surged in popularity.
Planning is currently
underway to
construct a research
facility in conjunction
with the University of
Northern British
Columbia.
28
The Mersey forest is one of twelve community forests created by the
British government in the 1990s in an effort to effect reforestation in
that country. In the Mersey forest alone over 8 million trees have been
planted. Starkly different than Canadian community forests, extractive
activities are less important to the operation of these English forests. A
characteristic of England’s foray into community forest stewardship is
the lack of continuity within the form of the forest itself. The Mersey
covers more than 500 square miles (approx 129,500ha), but much of
that space is interspersed with mixed rural/urban human residential
and commercial property. Because of this urban/rural forest dynamic,
the Mersey forest has a range of responsibilities not typically
associated with community forests in (for example) British Columbia,
such as the planting of street trees and creating green infrastructure
projects. The Mersey Forest takes great pride in its community
engagement endeavors, which are broadly framed as initiatives
intended to reconnect the English people with their forest. Tree
planting events and “friends of the woodlands” groups proliferate, as
do forest walks and running groups. There are a number of economic
Key Information
Largest of England’s community forests
250 hectares of trees planted every year
Located in North West England, United Kingdom
Supports local community groups, in the form of volunteers of planting trees
Offers educational opportunities for local schools
Produces a range of free resources for distribution to community groups and schools
Actively involved in projects to reintroduce native English species
75% of logs sold regionally or locally
60% of local people use
the woodland – 20% visit at least once a week
Forest was created by a partnership of seven local authorities
www.merseyforest.org.uk/
Mersey Forest
benefits captured by
the Mersey forest as
well, ranging from
attracting investment,
increasing land value,
timber, tourism, and
flood water alleviation
and management.
29
northnorth cowichan community forest cowichan community forest
The lands at North Cowichan that are currently managed as a
community forest were acquired from the government privately as a
strategy for non-payment of taxes, though the CF management plan
was not instituted until the 1960s. Today, North Cowichan remains one
of the most notable examples of successful community forestry in
Canada. This project is notable for its financial stability and for its strong
emphasis on First Nations involvement. The North Cowichan
Community Forest has also taken steps to set ecologically sensitive
areas aside for special protection, including Mt. Prevost Cairn and
Wildflower Reserve, Mt. Tzouhalem Ecological Wildflower Reserve,
and the Maple Mountain Preservation Management Zone. The North
Cowichan Community Forest is managed by a Forestry Advisory
Committee, which is made up of three elected officials, three appointed
volunteer foresters, and three municipal staff. The working forest is
divided into separate areas for multiple uses, including the harvesting
of forest crops, recreational uses, forest education, domestic water
supplies, economic development, and as a revenue source. The past
uses of the land that now comprise the community forest have
Key Information
5000 Hectares
Established 1946
Vancouver Island, Canada
Creates 12 person years of work annually
Consists of six major land holdings
Operating Budget is $1,425,000
Contributed $270,000 to a Forest Legacy Fund for special projects
Offers $1,200 scholarship and two $600 bursary programs
Manages a network of green spaces and recreational hiking trails
Area also provides
extensive opportunities for running, snowshoeing, and horseback riding
Forest has an aggressive plan for the management of invasive alien species
Cowichan forest hosts an annual woodworking contest and firewood draw for local charities
www.northcowichan.ca
North Cowichan
a history of intensive
management.
Today, logging
practices are patch
cut, and all
harvested areas are
subsequently
replanted.