 The Nootka Sound Stability Coalition:Co-Management of Natural ResourcesDesmond M. ConnorThe Nootka Sound area, some 400,000 hectares of old growth and replanted forest on the northwest coast of Vancouver Island in British Columbia, supports three small communities, three native bands and Pacific Forest Product's two new sawmills and Avenor's pulp and newsprint mill. Recent and proposed reductions in the Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) by the B.C. Ministry of Forests threatens the livelihood of 4,000 area residents, the viability of the three municipalities and the financial survival of a corporate investment of over $600 million made during the last six years. Avenor's operations in Nootka Sound, which includes the newly formed Pacific Forest Products, are part of a $3 billion corporation whose head office is in Montreal; sales of newsprint, pulp and wood products amounted to $1.8 billion last year, 75% through exports. The company has access to 11 million hectares of forest in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and British Columbia. Some 25% of the company's timber supply in B.C. is privately owned, an unusually high ratio for a Canadian firm; its remaining area is held through a Tree Farm Licence, Forest Licences Timber Licences and a share in a Timber Supply Area. Nootka Sound is located immediately northwest of the controversial Clayoquot Sound. Pacific Forest Products Ltd., was incorporated in 1993 to own and manage the timber and lumber operations of CP Forest in B.C.; while 51% owned by the parent company, its head office is located in Vancouver, providing visible local authority for ongoing operations. This deals positively with an issue raised by many of the contributors to the social profile at the outset of the project (see below). The seemingly arbitrary reduction of the AAC announced in 1992 and the later decision to increase the area of parkland from 6% of the province to 12% without considering the social and economic impacts of these actions on residents, municipalities and the company, has led to a joint commitment to action. In August of 1992, the chief forester of the company and the mayor of the largest community made a joint presentation to the new NDP government's Commission on Resources and the Environment (CORE) seeking its support for a proposed Nootka Sound Stability Zone with a goal of long term social, economic and environmental stability for the area. CORE declined to become involved, so a Steering Committee was formed consisting of the company's chief forester, the mayors of the three municipalities and a chief of one of the native bands. The following program was authorized by the Committee and paid for by the company.
In December, we prepared a social profile of the three municipalities and three native bands, identifying key features of the communities including their attitudes to the company and the proposed Zone. Copies were distributed to all members of the Steering Committee. We also prepared and distributed an informative brochure about the Zone to every household; the brochure included a reply-paid postcard soliciting residents' views. In February, Open Houses were held in the three communities; planning workshops were held in March and April in each community and in the Band Council office of the co-operating Mowachat-Muchalaht band. (Continuing overtures have been made to leaders of the other two bands.) In May, three representatives from each municipality and from the native band came to the first plenary workshop. At the second plenary workshop in June, the chief of the Ehattesaht band also participated; the Nuchatlitz band, despite numerous attempts to involve it, remains outside the Coalition. (All three bands are part of the larger Nuu-Cha-Nuulth band.) During the next 12 months, the Coalition through its approximately monthly plenary meetings and monthly Community Task Force meetings:
The social profile provided the social data base through which to plan and manage the program; it also helped to build rapport. The strong union structures in each community are notable; attitudes to the company show the effects of some recent cutbacks and dislike that the headquarters is in distant Montreal. The brochure was distributed by area residents door-to-door; 137 postcards were returned. A further 141 checklists were obtained from the four Open Houses which attracted over 300 people. In response to a question about the Zone, 87% support the concept, 7% are undecided and 6% oppose it, though most of these (from their comments) appear to be opposing Ministry of Forests cuts in AAC rather than the Zone. These results were fed back to residents through the two local newspapers which serve the three communities - Gold River, Tahsis and Zeballos. The community workshops provided an opportunity for a broad range of opinions, including the need by some participants to berate the company for past errors. Each ended with the formation of a community Task Force to pursue the issues in more detail; most of the workshop participants became members of the Task Forces which, with the mayors, selected the participants for the first plenary workshop. Anonymous evaluations at the end of each workshop were fed back with the minutes to each of the participants before the next workshop, thus fostering co-management. At the first plenary workshop in May, each Task Force simultaneously posted lists of key points and work in progress; participants changed the name from Zone to Coalition. They formulated and endorsed a mission statement, set five goals and agreed to explore incorporation under the Societies Act. They also decided to support the company in a court case against the Ministry of Forests for failure to carry out the legal requirements of the Forest Act in connection with a delayed application for a Tree Farm Licence. Further, the Coalition sought exemption for Pacific from the reduction in AAC based on the company's financial commitment to the area, as opposed to other companies which operate in the region but make no financial investment in the Sound. The Coalition also challenged the decision of North Island College to remove service from one community and reduce its services and hours in the two others. i.e. the Coalition is concerned with issues other than forest management. At the second workshop in June, the chief forester reviewed various forms of forest tenure at the group's request; the Coalition decided to write the Minister of Forests to request a comprehensive analysis of the 5% Small Business Allocation of forest resources and to ask for his presence at the next meeting. The group is contacting other communities which, they understand, are moving in a similar direction. The native band is working on a logo for the Coalition; the Ministry of Economic Development is being approached for support. The activities carried out during the next 12 months had the following effects:
The Commission on Resources and Environment was established in July 1992 under the leadership of former ombudsman Stephen Owen to develop, with the participation of the public, a province-wide strategy for resolving land use and related resource and environmental management issues on a regional basis. Vancouver Island is the first of a series of regional studies. The Vancouver Island Table, consisting of 14 sectors representing a wide range of government and non-governmental interests, met for 47 days of negotiations and also held 70 public meetings from November 1992 to November 1993. The Table itself was unable to reach consensus on a land use plan for the Island in the time available, partly because the participants took seven meetings to draft a Process and Procedure Agreement instead of letting the trained mediators determine the process. Commissioner Owen took the work of the Table and used his own judgment to arrive at the following substantive recommendations in the published CORE Report of February 1944:
While some of the 14 sector representatives kept in constant touch with their constituents e.g. Forest Companies, Pulp and Paper Unions, others did not and some had no connection e.g. one of two Youth representatives, who were paid a per diem and travel expenses, turned out to be an employee of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee with no affiliation to any youth organization. The failure to link all the Table participants with not only all their constituents, but with the public at large, meant that there was a predictable Island-wide uproar when the CORE Report was published, following weeks of rumours when it was known that the Table process had broken down. The Vancouver Island Community Coalition, based on a major segment of the Table participants, drew up a counter proposal, stressing that 12% preservation (as promised by NDP policy and a UN recommendation) was enough and that nine more parks could be created with far fewer losses in direct and indirect jobs and government revenues. Community meetings across the Island and the March 20 rally of 25,000 in Victoria led the government to realize that the CORE recommendations would need to be revised. In June of 1994 , the government announced that 13% of the land area would be preserved, the Regionally Significant Lands become Areas for Low Intensity Use (whose boundaries and uses would be negotiated with local communities. Over $50 million of new money from recently increased stumpage charged to corporate licence holders has been allocated to a new Forest Renewal Fund. It will have $2 billion over the next five years. Just how this will work out in practice remains to be seen. As an experiment in shared decision-making, intended to give the public more significant and meaningful involvement in land-use decision-making, CORE has been an expensive ($750,000 direct costs) failure which has traumatized thousands of resource-community residents across Vancouver Island, especially during May and June of 1994.
The Coalition aims to change the Forest Act so that it may take over a number of the functions of the Ministry of Forests to provide local control of local resources; this would involve the relocation of a number of government staff from the regional centre of Campbell River to the local area. They would be employed by the Coalition rather than the Ministry. In 18 months, this action program has moved from rumour to reality, leading the participants to set aside some often competitive or conflicting relationships; the cost of the participation program to date is $80,000. At least one other group on Vancouver Island and two others on the B.C. mainland are forming coalitions. Perhaps co-management is a new and positive trend. The CORE process invited designated groups to send representatives to the Table and provided them with a partly structured process to follow. No systematic efforts were made to link sector representatives to their constituencies and/or to the general public. The CORE report was released in an environment of public ignorance and anger, leading to an unprecedented rally of some 25,000 protesters in the capital, Victoria. Several months later, the government's CORE-based Vancouver Island Land Use Plan has encountered more skepticism than support. By contrast, the Nootka Sound process invited ordinary individuals to become informed and interested; through its introductory brochure mailed to all households, its open houses and workshops leading to community Task Forces and news coverage in the weekly press, there is a constant flow of questions and information involving the general public. More residents are becoming involved through the second brochure which outlines the Coalition's goals, accomplishments, funding and "Why do YOU need the Coalition?" and "Why the Coalition needs YOU?" All of the Coalition's meetings are open to observers and the media. This process has been employed on large-scale province-wide projects e.g. Saint John River Basin, N.B., in the mid-l960s. With the recent news that the second CORE process in the Interior has failed to reach a conclusion, it is time to examine this model and question if a more genuinely participative and representative program like the Nootka Sound experience would be more effective. For an American parallel, review the results of the crash program ordered by President Clinton in the Pacific Northwest - the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). For a summary and critique, see the special issue of the Journal of Forestry (April 1994). In summary, there appears to be four options:
What's YOUR choice?
Connor, Desmond M., Constructive Citizen Participation: A Resource Book, Sixth Edition, Development Press, Victoria, B.C.; 1997; 220 pp.; $49.00. "How to Prevent and Resolve Public Controversy", a 25-minute instructional video produced in 1991 by Connor Development Services Ltd. 5096 Catalina Tce., Victoria, B.C., V8Y 2A5 ; 250-658-1323; fax 658-8110; E-mail: connor@islandnet.com Journal of Forestry, Vol. 92, No.4, (April 1994). Vancouver Island Land Use Plan, Commission on Resources and Environment, Victoria, B.C., February 1994. (3 volumes) The Vancouver Island Land Use Plan, Government of B.C., Victoria, B.C., June 1994.
Acknowledgements
Biographical Note
|
