Community Governance of Local Forests: An Emerging Reality?

Sara Teitelbaum, PhD CandidateFaculty of Forestry and Environmental Management

University of New BrunswickOctober 15th, 2004

Outline

• Who governs our forests?• Questions driving this research• Project objectives• Defining community forestry• Survey methodology• Survey results

Who governs our forests?

• All provinces allocate large-scale industrial tenures over Crown land

• Last few decades, other stakeholders agitating for change – ‘publics’ wanting a greater say in forestry decision making

• Driven by concerns about the state of the resource, issues of access and the distribution of benefits from the forest

Who governs our forests?

• Governments have made modest changes - public involvement processes, Aboriginal tenures, pilot projects

• Advocates of community forestry visualize something very different

• Searching for models that:– valorize local input and decision-making– generate local revenues– manage forests sustainably

Questions driving this research

• What does the Canadian landscape look like in terms of community forestry?

• What are their objectives?

• How are they organized?

• Are they different from the corporate model of management?

• How are they faring?

• What are their strengths and weaknesses?

Project Objectives

- To provide a national portrait of community forestry in Canada

- To undertake 4 case studies in order to understand if, and how, they are working to achieve the common objectives described in the literature

Defining Community Forestry

Defining Community Forestry

• Literature commonly includes the following elements– Generation of local benefits– Community decision-making and input– Management for multiple forest values– Sustainable forest management

• On the ground, more of a continuum exists

Defining Community Forestry

Project definition:

“a public forest area, managed by the community as a working forest for the benefit of the community”

Survey of Community Forests

• Objective: to identify initiatives and describe the main models of community forestry in Canada

• Initiatives identified through literature, web searches, word-of-mouth

• Survey administered by email and telephone

• 64 initiatives surveyed so far, approximately 80 identified total

Survey Questions

Name Type of tenure

Province Administrative structure

Objectives Decision-making structure

Year Started First Nation participation

Type of landbase % of operating funds from different sourcesSize of landbase

Location of Community Forests

26

19

18

1

OntarioQuebecBCNB

Age of Community Forests

17

33

6 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

<5 5 to 10 11 to 20 > 20

years in operation

num

ber

of c

omm

unit

y fo

rest

s

Type of Landbase of Community Forests

36

9 9 8

0

10

20

30

40

Cro

wn

Mun

icip

al

Con

serv

atio

nA

utho

rity

Cou

nty

type of landbase

num

ber

of c

omm

unit

y fo

rest

s

Size of Landbase of Community Forests

8

22

810 10

2 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

hectares

num

ber

of c

omm

unit

y fo

rest

s

Administrative Structures of Community Forests

1011

9 98

5

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Par

a-m

unic

ipal

Con

serv

atio

nA

utho

rity

Cor

pora

tion

Cou

nty

Mun

icip

alit

y

Non

-pro

fit

Coo

pera

tivenu

mbe

r of

com

mun

ity

fore

sts

A Few Additional Findings

• 20% of community forests have formal participation of First Nations

• Approximately 50% operate on revenues alone, the rest are dependent on some level of external funding

Models of Community Forestry

1. Municipal-type organization with own landbase– Municipalities, conservation authorities,

counties, etc.– Land owned outright, few tenure restrictions– Decision-making rests with council

Models of Community Forestry

2. Municipal-type organization with Crown allocation

- Administrative structure same as first- Crown land, limited property rights, tenure

restrictions

Models of Community Forestry

3. Forest management organization– Organization created specifically to

manage forests– Includes non-profits, corporations,

cooperatives– Elected/appointed/nominated board made

up of community representatives– Crown land, tenure restrictions,

management objectives vary

Conclusions

• There are a variety of local institutions managing public land

• Most operating on a very small scale compared to corporate model of forestry

• Most of community forests in range of 5 to 10 years old, majority are connected to municipal-type organizations

• Models are useful but diversity of approaches transcends administrative models – that’s the next stage of this project!