Community forestry and its implications for Northern Ontario

Abstract

Community forestry is becoming an increasingly important policy issue for provincial governments in Canada. Many single-industry communities in the northern parts of the provinces, surrounded as they are by forests, are looking to forest resources for possible economic diversification and stability. At the same time as there is increasing interest, there is little understanding about what community forestry could and should be for communities surrounded by Crown land forests. This paper looks at some definitions and dimensions of community forestry, as well as reviewing briefly some experiences with it. We examine various ways in which community forestry might be different from provincial government forestry and industrial forestry, and reflect on whether community forestry could lead to improvements in forest management. We conclude with some thoughts on potential future directions for community forestry in Ontario. Key words: community forestry. Crown land forests, single-industry communities, land tenure, local involvement, economic stability, Northern Ontario

Learning from community forestry experience: Challenges and lessons from British Columbia

“…The optimal forest for community forestry would be diverse in terms of tree species and age class, have ample good quality timber, a variety of landforms, and good site quality in terms its soils and productivity (Duinker et al 1991, Matakala and Duinker 1993, Allan and Frank 1994. However, forest lands of this sort are increasingly difficult to find near communities.…”

“…ing the 1990s (e.g., Duinker et al 1991Duinker et al , 1994Allan and Frank 1994;Dunster 1994;Beckley 1998). As implementation has advanced so too has the discussion concerning issues like inclusiveness and representation in policy processes, local decision-making and knowledge production, the potential for and distribution of local benefits, and operational attributes linked to performance and "success" (e.g., Bradshaw 2003Bradshaw , 2007McCarthy 2006;McIlveen 2006, 2007;Teitelbaum et al 2006;Ambus et al 2007;Bullock 2007;Bullock and Hanna 2008).…”

Community forestry in developed and developing countries: A comparative study

“…Therefore, the principal objectives of CF in developed countries would be to enhance sustained timber supply, facilitate and promote recreation and tourism, preserve wildlife, etc. (Duinker et al 1991, Dunster 1989.…”

“…In recent years, it has become increasingly evident that the IF approach to timber harvesting and regeneration is neither ecologically nor economically sustainable. This is particularly the case in nutrientpoor sites in North America and overpopulated developing countries (Duinker et al 1991, Grewal et al 1990Mallik andRahman 1991, Murthy 1990). As an alternative to IF, many developing countries have revitalized their traditional practice of CF (Adhikari 1990, Cornte 1980, Rao 1985, Singh et al 1985.…”

“…3). Nevertheless, a number of CF initiatives have recently been undertaken in Canada and the U.S. (Duinker et al 1991, Dunster 1989.…”