Part 3 – Land to the tiller, forests to the communities – “Re-connecting to the land”
By Peter Ewart & Dawn Hemingway
Wednesday, February 25, 2009 03:46 AM
By Peter Ewart and Dawn Hemingway
This is the third and final article of a three part series. The first article can be accessed at: “Land to the tiller, forests to the communities – Part 1.” The second article can be accessed at: “Land to the tiller, forests to the communities – Part 2.”
* * *
In essence, under the present system of forest management, the “tillers” of the forest, whether these be workers, contractors, businesses, First Nations or local communities, are alienated from the very forests that surround them.
We need new arrangements that will re-connect communities to the land and give them a form of ownership and stewardship of the resource. Thus the slogan: “Land to the tiller, forests to the communities” is an appropriate one.
There have been indications that the big forest companies in the province are not in favour of expanding community forests. Does this mean that somehow community forests will eliminate the role of big companies?
The answer is clear. Working in the interest of all British Columbians, community forests would grant timber licenses to those companies and organizations that will benefit the community, the region and the province the most. That may be a big company. Or a medium or small one. Or a worker or entrepreneurial cooperative of some kind, which is another form of ownership that needs to be further explored as a means to deal with the current problems in forestry.
The point is that the large mills in rural areas are an important asset to be saved, not dismantled or let go. We live in times when manufacturing facilities must be held on to like treasure. This, of course, means that these facilities must have secure tenure, which communities could ensure just as well as the province does now, or, in fact, even better.
However, if these mills are abandoned by their owners, as some have been, then communities can put their heads together to work out alternative plans of one kind or another, for when the market for wood products improves again. In addition, provisions could be in place so that abandoned or long inactive timber licenses were transferred to the adjacent community forests, and then put up for re-tender or auction.
If community forests are expanded substantially to the point that they become the dominant form of forest management, appurtenancy, in its old form, will no longer be necessary. Instead, communities will be making decisions about the forests that are in their best immediate and long term interests.
Will community control of forestry eliminate the influence of the big companies? No, it will not. But at least the issues of who has influence and who doesn’t can be thrashed out at the local level, rather than far away in some government office in Victoria. Such issues would undoubtedly be on the agenda of municipal council meetings and elections. That fact alone would mean greater involvement and participation of the citizenry in deciding what happens to their forests and making their voices heard.
An added benefit of community forest expansion is its effect on the deep rural alienation and regional disparity in the province. It is a fact that, under the current governance structure of the province, the municipal levels of government are weak, are virtually the handmaids of the provincial government. In effect, a kind of “colonial” relationship exists between provincial and municipal levels of government. The substantial expansion of community forests could help to re-balance this unequal relationship, and, among other things, provide a new revenue stream for municipalities.
Of course, community control of the forests is not a panacea for all of the problems facing the province. While alleviating some problems, it will pose new ones. Nonetheless, it will mean a positive shift away from the existing outmoded provincial power structure and a step in the right direction towards more community empowerment.
Certainly, it will devolve more power to the municipal and community levels, and this could go a long way towards overcoming the deep seated alienation in rural areas and the North. In effect, it could kill two birds with one stone - help diversify the forest industry and, at least to some degree, alleviate rural alienation.
Prince George researcher Rob van Adrichem has developed a concept for community development and diversification which he terms “knowledge appurtenancy ” and which speaks to the issue of rural alienation from another angle. Knowledge appurtenancy proposes that, in today’s world, the economic and social development of rural communities (both large and small) is necessarily linked to having close access to post-secondary education and research facilities.
This concept, of course, applies very much to forestry-based communities throughout British Columbia. In that respect, the provincial government’s recent announcement to establish a Wood Innovation & Design Centre in the North is a positive development.
Given the highly partisan nature of BC politics, there is a surprising and growing consensus in support of expanding community forests in the province. This support ranges from forestry analyst Ben Parfitt, who has written a number of excellent articles on this topic; to Minister of Forests and Range Pat Bell, and other northern Liberal MLAs; to Bob Simpson, NDP MLA and Carole James, Opposition leader, as well as various municipal and community leaders.
In addition, in previous years, the BC Coalition for Sustainable Forestry Solutions, a large coalition of labour, First Nations, community and environmental groups, has put forward ideas in a similar direction. For its part, the British Columbia Community Forest Association, which supports “Local forests, local people, local decisions,” has 45 member organizations across the province.
This broad support is not surprising given the current disarray of the forest industry. However, the issue is to take the concept of individual community forests and expand it into a mechanism that will fundamentally devolve forestry management and decision-making to communities and thus strengthen the municipal level of governance, and allow a greater role for citizen participation.
In that respect, municipal leaders must play a key role in pushing for community forest expansion, and their direct or indirect involvement in the management of these forests. And the time to do that is right now, while the window of opportunity remains open.
As a province, we need to explore new ways of managing and utilizing the forest resource. These are new times. We need a new vision that re-connects our communities to the great wealth of forest that surrounds us.
What is good for rural communities is good for British Columbia.
Peter Ewart is a writer and instructor, and Dawn Hemingway is a writer and professor. Both are based in Prince George, British Columbia, and can be reached at hemingwa@unbc.ca
Previous Story - Next Story
Email
Print
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Del.icio.usReturn to Home
Posted by: Windigo on February 25 2009 12:28 PM
That said I would love to be wrong and see him support expansion of community forests and devolving local forest policy and taxation to the local governments. Facts are Mr Bell is a party politician, and the political parties are focused on what is good for the Vancouver-Victoria majority... not small forestry dependent communities. The party people (ndp and liberal) in no way will want to give up their monopoly on the policy and the tax generation it enables for their policy objectives. Pat Bell likes being a politician more than good policy for his constituents is my bet.