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.