Are community forestry principles at work in Ontario’s County, Municipal, and Conservation Authority forests?

Abstract

Ontario's County, Municipal and Conservation Authority forests have received little attention within the academic literature on community forestry in Canada. These "Agreement Forests", as they were once called, are a product of the early 20 th century and have been under local government management since the 1990s. Most are situated in Southern Ontario. In this article we investigate the extent to which community forestry principles are at work in these forests. Three principles-participatory governance, local benefits and multiple forest use-are analyzed using a composite score approach derived from survey data collected from nearly all of these forest organizations (response rate = 80%). Results indicate that most of these organizations do display attributes associated with community forestry principles, including a local governance process, public participation activities, local employment and multiple-use management. Traditional forestry employment is less strong than in similar studies of Crown land community forests; however, there is an important emphasis on non-timber activities. The article concludes that the County, Municipal and Conservation Authority forests represents a unique approach, which reflects the specific geographic and socio-economic context in which it resides.Key words: Community forestry, Ontario, Community-based management, local governance, community economic development, sustainable forest management RÉSUMÉLes forêts cantonales, municipales et des offices de conservation de l'Ontario n' ont reçu qu'une faible couverture dans la littérature scientifique sur la foresterie communautaire au Canada. Ces « forêts d' entente (Agreement Forests) », comme on les appelait avant, ont été créées au début du XX e siècle et gérées par les autorités locales depuis les années 1990. La majeure partie de ces forêts sont situées dans le sud de l'Ontario. Dans cet article, nous cherchons à voir jusqu'à quel point les principes de foresterie communautaire sont mis en application dans ces forêts. L' étude porte sur trois principes -la gouvernance participative, les bénéfices locaux et l'utilisation polyvalente de la forêt -qui furent analysés avec l'approche de résultats combinés utilisant les données d'un sondage effectué auprès de presque toutes ces organisations forestières (taux de réponse = 80 %). Les résultats indiquent que la plupart de ces organisations présentent effectivement certains attributs rappelant les principes de la foresterie communautaire, incluant un processus de gouvernance locale, des activités de participation du public, l' embauche locale et l'aménagement à des fins d'utilisation polyvalente. Les emplois forestiers traditionnels ont moins d'importance que dans les études similaires des forêts communautaires établies sur des terres publiques; par contre, on accorde beaucoup d'importance aux activités sans prélèvement de bois. L'article conclut que les forêts cantonales, municipales et des offices de conservation constituent une approche unique qui reflète bien le contexte g...

Community forestry research in Canada: A bibliometric perspective

“…Benner et al (2014), Pinkerton and Benner (2013), Teitelbaum (2014), Teitelbaum and Bullock (2012) provide recent notable examples in this regard. With respect to the number of publications released each year, there tends to be higher research output and interest when government initiatives are implemented and by extension when there is increased public debate.…”

“…Search terms included: "community fores*", "county fores*", "town fores*", "ecofores*", "community-based resource-management", "community-based environmental-management", and "municipal fores*", used in combination with "Canada" and the names of Canadian provinces and territories to identify publications that contained these phrases in their titles, keywords, or abstracts. Search terms were selected to account for terminology changes surrounding the community forestry concept over time (Teitelbaum and Bullock, 2012).…”

“…While the concept and practice of community forestry is not new in Canada, since about the 1990s practice and enabling policy have steadily evolved (Bullock and Hanna, 2012). For example, provincial policy changes have been made in the provinces of British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario, and most recently, Nova Scotia, to increase local and Aboriginal involvement in the forest sector MacLellan and Duinker, 2012;Teitelbaum and Bullock, 2012). Such reforms have unfolded alongside lively public debates as well as a growing body of academic research intended to probe, influence and inform community forestry policy and practice at different levels of scale.…”

Manitoba's forest policy regime: Incremental change, concepts, actors and relationships

“…The committees also show how change can tend toward incrementalism within the scope of existing institutionalized policy mechanisms. The advisory committees have improved public involvement and have included First Nations representatives, but they fall short of transformative change such as many forms of Aboriginal forestry (Wyatt et al 2013) or community forestry (Teitelbaum and Bullock 2012). Neither have they enabled progress on protecting land nor in settling land claims in traditional areas, particularly within forest management license areas.…”

Comparing polycentric configuration for adaptive governance within community forests: Case studies in Eastern North America

“…Despite some attention, the characteristics of community forest institutions in the Global North have been less systematically analyzed than for the Global South (Teitelbaum 2014). Moreover, most research on the topic is based on a single jurisdiction (McIlveen and Bradshaw 2009;Teitelbaum and Bullock 2012). Recent research has sought to improve the evaluation of performance and outcomes of community forestry initiatives in Canada, notably through case studies (Teitelbaum 2014;Bullock and Lawler 2015).…”