Institutional vacuums in Canadian forest policy: Can criteria and indicators and certification of sustainable forest management fill the void?

Abstract

This paper discusses the potential of certification and criteria and indicators (C&I) of sustainable forest management (SFM) for filling voids in forest policy in Canada. These processes have promised advances towards SFM that the current property rights conveyed on the forest industry, through existing systems of tenures, may simply not allow. In general, the broad social welfare approach that current thinking in sustainable development supports, and that certification and criteria and indicators appear to employ, is not consistent with the incentives, rights, and responsibilities that private forestry firms currently hold. There is a fundamental mismatch between the property rights that have been conveyed to private firms operating on public forest lands and what the policy frameworks of certification and C&I are expected to deliver. The conclusion is that if the voids in forest policy are to be successfully filled by certification and C&I, the underlying property rights currently held by firms will need revision.Key words: sustainable forest management, criteria and indicators, certification, Canadian forest policy, forest tenures RÉSUMÉ Cet article discute de la possibilité d'utiliser la certification et les critères et indicateurs (C&I) de l'aménagement forestier durable (AFD) pour remplir les espaces incomplets des textes des politiques forestières au Canada. Ces processus ont permis d' enregistrer des progrès en matière d' AFD que les droits de propriété actuels accordés à l'industrie forestière par l' entremise des systèmes de tenure en place ne pouvaient tout simplement pas permettre. En général, l'approche globale de bien-être social que le courant actuel de pensée en matière de développement durable appuie et que la certification et les critères et indicateurs semblent utiliser, ne se raccorde pas aux incitatifs, aux droits et aux responsabilités que les entreprises forestières privées détiennent présentement. Il existe une divergence fondamentale entre les droits de propriétés qui ont été accordés aux entreprises privées en activité sur le territoire forestier public et ce que le cadre de référence des politiques de certification et des C&I devrait permettre. La conclusion est qu'advenant que les espaces incomplets des politiques forestières puissent être complétés avec succès par la certification et les C&I, les droits de propriété sous-jacents présentement détenus par les entreprises devront être révisés.

Promising resilience: Systems and survival after forestry's ends

“…Many had already met at other CEF-related events the previous year. Nearly everyone complained about the challenge of obtaining useful data as government ministries devolved analytical tasks to developers (Luckert and Boxall 2009). Each group, though, articulated the sense of loss they associated with these transitions in strikingly different ways.…”

“…In the years that followed, researchers' complaints about the transition largely diverged into two registers. In newspaper editorials and public speeches throughout the rural northwest, many scientists clamored for the BC Forest Service and other ministries simply to rehire fieldworkers lost to downsizing (Luckert and Boxall 2009). Other researchers, however, argued that both current and future contractions should be countered by steering existing resources through elaborate systems for prioritizing conservation objectives, research questions, and physical locations for research (Price and Daust 2009).…”