Sharing the socioeconomic benefits of Community Forests: A British Columbia case study

Anne MacLeanNatural Resources Institute

University of Manitoba

Social Equity

• Refers to equivalency rather than sameness regarding distribution of goods in society (Rawls, 1971)

• Sustainable development – brings together environmental quality and social equity

• BC CFA tenure as a way to address issues of social equity in resource development, in relation to sustainability

Sustainable Forest Management

• SFM in response to forest degradation– 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development– Canada: 6 criteria and 46 indicators for SFM

• Canada has 6 criteria and 46 indicators for SFM (CCFM, 2008)– Biological diversity– Ecosystem condition– Soil and water– Role in global ecological cycles– Economic and social benefits– Society’s responsibility

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/BCTS/images/CSA-Diagram.jpg

Community Based Forest Management

• Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) as a means to manage forests for multiple goals (ecological, social, economic and cultural)– Participatory approaches– Direct involvement– Local social and economic benefits– Improved ecological outcomes

BC Context

• BC forests 95% Crown land, owned by province

• Industry dominated tenures• Community Forest

Agreement added to forest tenure system in 1997

• Currently 56 CFs in operation, contributing 2% of annual province harvest

http://bccfa.ca/index.php/about-us/community-forest-indicators-report-2104

Social Enterprise• Market strategies to fund social or ecological

goals• Varying, contested definitions

Financial self-sufficiency and creation of socioeconomic benefits.

Local context and wider participation in governance and local control of resources

Innovative organizational structures and practices that allow for new strategies and approaches

Research Purpose

• To explore how CBFM operational and revenue streams are shared and distributed locally

• To examine outcomes of benefit sharing in CBFM in relation to markers of SE

Lntcfs.org

Case Communities

http://visitbarriere.com/plan/

Methods

• Document review• Participant observation • Interviews – forest managers, board members, local

contractors, stakeholders, grant recipients and Provincial and local government representatives.

Structures

• Socioeconomic benefits through:• Operations

– Transparent forestry businesses following BC forestry laws– Extra investment into silviculture – Clear policies and evidence for hiring local contractors for

operations.– Job training

• Revenues – Numerous grants to non-profit groups for infrastructure,

social programs, equipment, recreation, and education.Financial self-sufficiency and creation of

socioeconomic benefits.

Local Control and Self-Determination

• Local governance and participation in CF through board members, consultation, public meetings, and educational events.

• Incorporation of community values into operations and revenues

• Improved forest management, profits staying local, higher level of trust.

Local context and wider participation in governance and local control of resources

Outcomes/Innovation• Greater investment in land base:

– Forest Stewardship Fund, fertilization, Silviculture and Tactical Plan

• Networks: Strategic partnerships between the community forests, local government, and other non-profit societies – Accessing and leveraging outside funds for larger community

projects and programs • New roles: Advocacy and economic planning for the area• Empowerment - people taking responsibility for well-

being of community and future Innovative organizational structures and practices that allow for new strategies and approaches

Summary

• Strengths: – Clear socioeconomic benefits– Collaboration and partnership– Local control of operations and revenues– Self-determination: Responsibility and ownership

• Challenges:– Competing social and economic values– Global markets and changing gov policy– Sustained engagement with wider public– Innovation beyond conventional forestry

References• 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. • Benner, J., Lertzman, K., & Pinkerton, E.W. (2014). Social contracts and community forestry: How can we design forest

policies and tenure arrangements to generate local benefits? Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 44(8), 903-913.• Bowler, D.E., Buyung-Ali, L.M., Healey, J.R., Jones, J.P.G., Knight, T.M., & Pullin, A.S. (2012). Does community forest

management provide global environmental benefits and improve local welfare? Front. Ecol. Environ. 10: 29–36. • British Columbia Community Forest Association. (2015). Community forest indicators 2014: Measuring the benefits of

community forestry. Retrieved from http://bccfa.ca/index.php/about-us/community-forest-indicators-report-2104• British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO) (2011). Government's Objectives

for Community Forest Agreements. Retrieved from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hth/timber-• Bullock, R., & Hanna, K. 2012. Community forestry: local values, conflict and forest governance. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK.• Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. (2008). Measuring our progress: Putting sustainable forest management into

practice across Canada and beyond. Retrieved from http://www.sfmcanada.org/images/Publications/EN/MeasureOurProgress_EN.pdf

• Furness, Harshaw, & Nelson. (2015). Community forestry in British Columbia: Policy progression and public participation. Forest Policy and Economics, article in press.

• Haley, D. (2002). Community forests in British Columbia: the past is prologue. Trees and People, 46, 51-54.• Lower North Thompson Community Forest Society. (2016). Who we are. Retrieved from https://lntcfs.org• Madill, J., Brouard, F., & Hebb, T. (2010). Canadian social enterprises: An empirical exploration of social transformation,

financial self-sufficiency, and innovation. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 12(2), 135-151. • Teitelbaum, S. (2014). Criteria and indicators for the assessment of community forestry outcomes: A comparative

analysis from Canada. Journal of Environmental Management, 132, 257-267.• Wells Gray Community Forest. (2016). Wells Gray Community Forest Corporation. Retrieved from http://wgcfc.ca/wp/

Thank you to:

• LNTCFS and WGCFC participants• University of Manitoba• Government of Manitoba• SSHRC Canada