The Great Bear Rainforest (GBR) is an ecologically significant area covering 6.4 million hectares of coastal temperate rainforest, and represents 25% of the world’s existing ancient coastal temperate rainforest (7). Our case study examines the present framework of governance of natural resources (specifically timber) and biodiversity within this area. Historically, a top-down governmental approach to resource management governed various aspects of forest production where state and corporate licensees dominated forest production. However since the 1990s this model has been challenged by alternative approaches that consider voluntary, community, and market governance approaches (4).

Currently, governance of forests in British Columbia is primarily by the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations, a sector of the BC provincial government responsible for the provincial Forestry Act (8). However with the creation of the Central and North Coast Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) (referred to collectively as the Great Bear Rainforest Agreements), there has been a shift to include multiple stakeholders in planning and governance processes. The development of the Central and North Coast LRMP was the product of numerous stakeholders and sectors, including the major forest companies, First Nations, tourism, conservation and environment, and community economic development (2).

Governance framework:

Global, international, and regional agreements:

Federal policies of forestry governance are increasingly constrained by globalization and internationalization, including regional trade agreements and activist groups (1). Institutionalization of change in governance practices may occur over time as a result of compliance with these agreements (1). Given the percentage of the world’s remaining old growth forest in BC, there has been significant international focus on BC forest practices since the 1990s. Regional trade agreement, in particular trade between the United States and Canada, has limited impact on the governance of BC forest ecosystems (1). International and regional trade agreements such as NAFTA restrict timber exports but the management of forest resources falls under provincial policy.

Federal, provincial, and local legislation:

Due in part to the emergence of sustainable forest management planning, Canadian forest policy is trans-jurisdictional and involves governance at various levels of government. The BC government has “constitutionally protected jurisdiction over the disposition of the resources on Crown lands” (Howlett, Rayner & Tollefson, 2009). At a provincial level, the Forestry Act and Forest and Range Practices Act govern the exploitation of forestry resources across the province. The government is able to issue tenure agreements of various lengths of time for Crown timber under the Forest Act to forest companies, individuals and First Nations (8).

Further provincial governance of the Great Bear Rainforest falls under the Central Coast and North Coast LRMPs (7). In a process that was led by the BC government, a planning committee made up of a range of stakeholders in the GBR created a plan that set land use objectives as amendments to the existing Forest Act. While the government remains responsible for the allocation of forestry permits, government decision makers are required to ensure that proposed licensees operate the ecological, social and economic boundaries stipulated by the plan and affected parties. These changes provide a legal framework under which the government can implement ecosystem-based management (4). Legal protection is also offered for areas within the GBR that are deemed to have significant cultural and natural values through the creation of parks and protected areas. Legislation that governs these areas includes the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, Park Act, Ecological Reserve Act, and Environment and Land Use Act (8).

Non-statutory (informal) institutions and cultural traditions:

First Nations represent a large portion of population living in the GBR, are among the most heavily influenced stakeholders by planning decisions, and yet are often underrepresented. The National Aboriginal Forestry Association (NAFA) points out the necessity for accommodating Aboriginal cultural and traditional uses of forestry resources when considering their governance (5). To address this gap, courts have established that governments are required to consult with and accommodate the interests of First Nations who possess aboriginal rights and titles to the land (7). A two tier process was adopted in the planning process of the central coast LRMP, whereby a draft plan was submitted by a first tier table comprised of all stakeholders and then a second tier table comprised only of government and First Nations that was responsible for finalizing the plan (7).

Governance practices:

The shift from hierarchal government structures of resource governance to one that incorporates different stakeholder interests is a promising step for forest policy in the GBR. By examining the transparency, accountability, and participation of the present framework, we can assess whether ‘good governance’ manages forestry resources in the GBR (3).

Participation is a central feature of the Great Bear Rainforest Agreements. The planning process of the GBR agreements involved the input of multiple stakeholder tables whose members reached consensus agreement through interest-based negotiations. These agreements were then reviewed for approval by the BC government (7). The two-tier process that recognized the importance of First Nations in planning is a sign of good governance (7). However with respect to First Nations titles, there is no guarantee that they will be upheld even if sufficient proof is provided for a title claim. These titles are in many ways informal however, and a wide variety of infringements can be made upon them (5). The chief justice has argued that certain provincial aims including forestry, mining, and economic development can justify the infringement of aboriginal title (5). Ambiguity in the role of First Nations in governance of forest resources has already proven problematic and compromises empowered participation (3).

Accountability of governments entrusted with the protection of the forest in cases where EBM restrictions are in place, as well as of the forest companies expected to operate within the parameters of the laws and regulations has been questioned. When the Forest Practices Board reviewed harvesting practices of TimberWest, it was found that the company was cutting old growth trees supposedly under the protection of EBM. However the board cited ambiguous classification of old growth versus old forests as reasons for it being acceptable practice under the law (6). Enforcement of legislation occurs on a varying scale of state-centred hard law and market-oriented soft law (4).

Accounts of the planning process and the present legislation are readily accessible to organisations and individuals (2; 8). Yet issues surrounding unclear and ambiguous wording leave gaps in public understanding and room for interpretation by forestry companies, as shown by the rejection of First Nations title claims and the dismissal of the TimberWest investigation. The planning process for the Central Coast LRMP developed over the course of ten years, ample time for new science to emerge surrounding ecosystems and biodiversity of the region (7). Amendments have been made to the Great Bear Rainforest Agreements in 2009, 2013, and again in 2015 to reflect evolution of the plan (9).

In conclusion

Ultimately the responsibility of governance and adoption of forestry legislation in the GBR falls to the BC provincial government. While they have taken steps to move from government to governance, they should be viewed as movement towards greater transparency and consistency rather than a solution (4; 10). Ambiguities in legislation, as well as a lack of accountability enforcement have been identified as major failures of governance that need to be addressed. Additionally, recommendations of stakeholder tables should be incorporated into finalized legislation in a more meaningful and empowering way.

References:

(1) Bernstein, S., & Cashore, B. (2000). Globalization, four paths of internationalization and domestic policy change: The case of EcoForestry in british columbia, canada.Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne De Science Politique, 33(1), 67-99. doi:10.1017/S0008423900000044

(2) British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. (2005) North Coast Land and Resource Management Plan: Final Recommendations. Retrieved fromhttps://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/ncoast/docs/NCLRMP_Final_Recommendations_feb_2_2005.pdf

(3) Darby, S. (2010). Natural resource governance: new frontiers in transparency and accountability. Retrieved from Transparency and Accountability Initiative website: http://transparencyinitiative.theideabureau.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/natural_resources_final1.pdf

(4) Howlett, M., Rayner, J., & Tollefson, C. (2009). From government to governance in forest planning? Lessons from the case of the British Columbia Great Bear Rainforest initiative. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(5), 383-391. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2009.01.003

(5) Howlett, M., 2001. Policy venues, policy spillovers and policy change: the courts, aboriginal rights and British Columbia forest policy. In: Cashore, B., Hoberg, G., Howlett, M., Rayner, J., Wilson, J. (Eds.), In Search of Sustainability: British Columbia Forest Policy in the 1990s. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, pp. 120–140.

(6) Hume, M. (2015, July 27). Report chides TimberWest over old trees in the Great Bear Rainforest. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/report-chides-timberwest-over-old-trees-in-the-great-bear-rainforest/article25716089/

(7) McGee, G., Cullen, A., & Gunton, T. (2010). A new model for sustainable development: A case study of the great bear rainforest regional plan. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 12(5), 745-762. doi:10.1007/s10668-009-9222-3

(8) Province of British Columbia. (2015). Forest governance in the Province of British Columbia. Retrieved on 2 November 2015 from http://www.hspp.ca/products/Fibre/forestgovernance.pdf

(9) Strategic Land and Resource Planning. (2015). Proposed 2015 Great Bear Rainforest Order and potential biodiversity, mining and tourism areas / conservancy designations. Retrieved from https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/TASB/SLRP/GBR_BMTA_LUOR.html

(10) Teisman, G. (2000). Models for research into decision-making processes: On phases, streams and decision-making rounds. Public Administration, 78(4), 937-956. doi:10.1111/1467-9299.00238

KEY RESEARCH THEME: How has / is ecosystem based management been / being used in the Great Bear Rainforest (GBR) to protect and manage biodiversity and old growth forests?

4 PEER REVIEWED REFERENCES:

Bourgeois, W.W. (2008). Ecosystem-based management: Its application to forest management in British Columbia. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 9(1), 1–11. Retrieved from http://www.forrex.org/sites/default/files/publications/jem_archive/ISS47/vol9_no1_art1.pdf

• Peer reviewed article appearing in the BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management. Main research question is the examination of the relationship between sustainable forest management and EBM in the province and how it may be applied in the future to attain further sustainability. Particular focus on the implementation of EBM with respect to the forest industry, which is important to our research regarding management of old growth forests. Also of relevance to us is the way Aboriginal forestry has been identified, as First Nations represents one of our major stakeholders. No methods have been specified in this paper. As with the preceding references, this paper lays out the basic components of EBM with respect to BC. It does not lend many new insights to the subject when the other two papers are considered. Much of the paper describes the planning process, as well as definitions around sustainable forest management. It would be considered a reliable source, as the information is accurate (albeit somewhat out-dated now). There is sufficient credibility, though not many claims are made.

McGee, G., Cullen, A., & Gunton, T. (2010). A new model for sustainable development: A case study of the Great Bear Rainforest regional plan. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 12(5), 745-762. doi:10.1007/s10668-009-9222-3

• This work bears many similarities to Ecosystem-based management in the Great Bear Rainforest (Price and MacKinnon, 2009). A peer reviewed article that describes the case study of the GBR as a successful example of collaboration in planning around natural resource management, with particular respect to the planning process (as opposed to the implementation process) as a model for sustainable development. Provides insight into how this process is effective given the regional factors and requirements. No methods have been specified in this paper. This paper appears to be largely once sided, arguing only the positive elements of the planning process and suggesting that it is a solution to the problems presented by management of resources in the GBR. While it does a good job of supporting the positive elements, it lacks any criticism of the process (as is included in other papers). News reports of the shortcomings of the plan with regard to vague wording suggest that there is room for criticism.

Price, K., Roburn, A., & MacKinnon, A. (2009). Ecosystem-based management in the great bear rainforest. Forest Ecology and Management, 258(4), 495-503. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.10.010

• Peer reviewed article that broadly examines the definition and implementation of EBM in the GBR. Provides a base understanding for our research of how EBM is being employed in the management of old growth forests and biodiversity in the area of study, and which elements are unique to the GBR. Noteworthy article due to extensive citation (by 49). Elements that are particularly unique to the area as outlined by this paper are power shifts and coalitions between various stakeholders, which ultimately contributed to the establishment of the LRMP.No methods have been specified in this paper. Contact information is provided for authors; article peer reviewed; extensive references provided. The aforementioned factors contribute to the credibility and support of this paper. A strength of this paper in relation to our research is the description of the individual elements of EBM and how they have been addressed through the current management plan.

Slocombe, D. S. (1998). Defining goals and criteria for ecosystem-based management. Environmental Management, 22(4), 483-493. doi:10.1007/s002679900121

• Peer reviewed article that establishes goals and criteria for ecosystem-based management. This work has been extensively cited (cited by 189) and has been used in the implementation and evaluation of various EBM projects. Article provides a framework by which we can analyze the effectiveness of EBM in the GRB, and isolate areas where improvements could be made in order to address the wicked problem of resource management and conservation in this area. Goals and objectives outlined by Slocombe (1998) combine elements from other literature (literature review). They approach the biophysical environment, community and society, and whole ecosystem, separating goals into substantive and procedural goals. This reference is reliable, given the extent to which it has been cited and its presentation in the Journal of Environmental Management. By combining these criteria with the evaluations of other references of EBM in the GBR, we can formulate a good understanding of the effectiveness of policy.

2 GREY LITERATURE REFERENCES:

Group, K. R., & desLibris – Documents. (2014). Status report on ecosystem-based management (EBM): Policy barriers and opportunities for EBM in Canada. Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. Retrieved from http://cbfa-efbc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/EBM_in_Canada_CBFA_July_2014.pdf

• This is a status report prepared for the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement group by KBM Resources group. The main research question of this report is to determine whether the forestry practices of various provinces are aligned with the EBM criteria. Included in this is a summary of the policy gaps, barriers to implementing EBM in Canada, and opportunities for advancing EBM in Canada. “Report findings are based on literature reviews, interviews and review by practitioners in the jurisdiction of interest” (Group & desLibris, 2014). The project was undertaken by the KBM resources group, with collaboration from biologists, ecologists, academics, and forestry professionals. Literature review is an effective way of assimilating an extensive range of data, and incorporation of ideas from practitioners in the area of study further contributes to the appropriateness of the methods. While this study reflects the findings and evaluation of only one group, it provides good insight as to how effectively BC aligns with EBM criteria. Individual criteria are evaluated, and issues that arise within each criterion are raised. This is useful in understanding how EBM can / has been used within BC and the GBR, as well as how it can be used more effectively in the future given that we have already established that there are still issues with this style of resource management. Given that a privately contracted firm produced the report, there may be issues of credibility, however the incorporation of consultation from various professionals lends credibility to this source.

McAfee, B., & Malouin, C. (2008). Implementing ecosystem-based management approaches in canada’s forests: A science-policy dialogue. Canadian Forest Service (Natural Resources Canada). Retrieved from http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/28282.pdf

• Report on the “discussions at a science-policy dialogue where participants from governments, industry, and non-governmental organizations shared their experiences with implementation of integrated solutions for managing natural resource and environmental issues” (McAfee & Malouin, 2008). Includes a case study of EBM in the Central and North Coast areas of BC (page 53 to 56). Focus of this report is on the use of scientific research in enacting frameworks for natural resource management. This reference has been cited by 6 papers, and highlights how EBM can be used to address protection of species at risk and take a systems approach to resource management. This report is a collaboration between various contributors, each of whom has produced a different article approaching a different element of EBM. Methods vary between articles; most employ literature review methodology. Articles contain references, and contact information for all contributors has been provided. Contributors are considered experts in their fields, and information regarding their positions and titles is given along with their contact information. The linkages between science and policy are the feature of this article that are most relevant to our research, given the issues that arise when scientific information is divided that may result in a wicked problem. One weakness is the divergence in the report from practices specific to BC. That said, by examining the way in which other provinces have employed EBM we may be able to refine and improve the way that it is approached in this province.

2 RAW DATA REFERENCES:

British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. (2005) North Coast Land and Resource Management Plan: Final Recommendations. Retrieved from https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/ncoast/docs/NCLRMP_Final_Recommendations_feb_2_2005.pdf

• This is a land and resource management plan, created by the North Coast LRMP planning table. Focus for this annotated bibliography is on tables 4 – 7 (pgs 54 to 58). These tables outline the recommended land use designations (protection areas, biodiversity areas, special forest management areas, and EBM operating areas) for the plan area. These tables quantify the scope of the protected areas, and make distinctions between the different designations. Understanding the different land use designations and the scale of each designation is central to interpreting the effectiveness and appropriateness of EBM in the GBR, and for understanding how this management approach is being employed in the GBR. The land use designations in tables 4 – 7 were created by the NCLRMP planning table, which included representatives of nine public sectors, eight First Nations, local governments and the provincial government (BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, 2005). Information and technical resource analysis was done in collaboration between the Government Technical Team (GTT) and the Coast Information Team (CIT). This inclusive method of data collection is very appropriate, as all stakeholders were included in the planning process. The collaborative nature of this project, the objective nature of the land use designations and boundaries, and the publishing body (BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management) suggest that these tables are credible and reasonable. There is a possibility that these designations do not represent current designations, as it was published in 2005 and a number of amendments have been made to the plan in subsequent years. In the introduction it is written that the land use designations are ‘recommended’, and therefore may not reflect the actual adopted boundaries.

Sierra Club British Columbia. (2009b). State of British Columbia’s coastal rainforest. [map]. 1:1,000,000. Retrieved from http://sierraclub.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/State-of-British-Columbias-Coastal-Rainforest-1.pdf

• This reference is a raw data reference (geographic information file). It depicts the forest ecosystems in British Columbia’s coastal rainforests that are at risk of species loss, and the degree of loss to which they are susceptible. This map is particularly useful in providing a visual representation of the spatial distribution of old growth and biodiversity within the GBR (North and Central Coast) as of 2009. Maps represent “how much old growth remains in groups of ecosystems defined by using a combination of site productivity and climatic units” (Sierra Club BC, 2009a). This map is an Albers projection. It was included in a larger report by the Sierra Club of BC entitled ‘State of British Columbia’s Coastal Rainforest: mapping the gaps for ecological health and climate protection.’ This map is published by the Sierra Club of BC, a widely respected and credible non-profit organization. They have been involved and continue to be involved in the creation and evolution of the NC and CC LRMP and the protection of the GBR. It appears to be accurate in that it is up to date (published in 2009). The contrast shown between the loss of biodiversity on Vancouver Island and the South Coast provides evidence for the necessity of protection of the remaining old growth forest. A possible limitation is the scale of the map, which includes all of the BC coastal forests. It may be more beneficial to have a smaller scale map of just the target area of the North and Central Coast.

REFERENCES:

Bourgeois, W.W. (2008). Ecosystem-based management: Its application to forest management in British Columbia. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 9(1), 1–11. Retrieved from http://www.forrex.org/sites/default/files/publications/jem_archive/ISS47/vol9_no1_art1.pdf

British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. (2005) North Coast Land and Resource Management Plan: Final Recommendations. Retrieved from https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/ncoast/docs/NCLRMP_Final_Recommendations_feb_2_2005.pdf

Group, K. R., & desLibris – Documents. (2014). Status report on ecosystem-based management (EBM): Policy barriers and opportunities for EBM in Canada. Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. Retrieved from http://cbfa-efbc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/EBM_in_Canada_CBFA_July_2014.pdf

McAfee, B., & Malouin, C. (2008). Implementing ecosystem-based management approaches in canada’s forests: A science-policy dialogue. Canadian Forest Service (Natural Resources Canada). Retrieved from http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/28282.pdf

McGee, G., Cullen, A., & Gunton, T. (2010). A new model for sustainable development: A case study of the great bear rainforest regional plan. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 12(5), 745-762. doi:10.1007/s10668-009-9222-3

Price, K., Roburn, A., & MacKinnon, A. (2009). Ecosystem-based management in the great bear rainforest. Forest Ecology and Management, 258(4), 495-503. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.10.010

Sierra Club British Columbia. (2009a). State of British Columbia’s coastal rainforest: mapping the gaps for ecological health and climate protection. Retrieved from http://sierraclub.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CoastForestReport2009_email_corrected.pdf

Sierra Club British Columbia. (2009b). State of British Columbia’s coastal rainforest. [map]. 1:1,000,000. Retrieved from http://sierraclub.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/State-of-British-Columbias-Coastal-Rainforest-1.pdf

Slocombe, D. S. (1998). Defining goals and criteria for ecosystem-based management. Environmental Management, 22(4), 483-493. doi:10.1007/s002679900121