Connecting High Conservation Value Forests

There are a number of challenges to implementing the continuous reserve network framework. One is that government structures and communicating management aspirations between forestry and parks sectors is challenging. Within the provincial government, cross-departmental integration of management planning policy is only beginning to occur under broadly mandated programs (Alberta Land Use Framework, Water-for-Life) together with organizational restructuring. Region-to-region, familiarity with EBM and its adoption in forest management circles is variable among parks staff. Parks management plans are incomplete or non-existent for some parks. Harmonizing management planning beyond protected area boundaries is part of Alberta Parks’ strategic vision, but the level of policy development to support its implementation is unknown.

This section is adapted from: Witiw, J., and Y. F. Wiersma. 2015. A Framework for Integrating Transboundary Values, Landscape Connectivity, and ‘Protected Areas’ Values Within a Forest Management Area in Northern Alberta. Conservation and Society 13:84–94.

Some parks and forest sector integration in cross-sector initiatives has, however, occurred in recent history (e.g.,Healthy Landscapes Program Highway 40 Demonstration project). This is perhaps a positive signal of opportunity and interest to explore broader EBM application, clarifying provincial scale conservation objectives and improved functional integration across administrations. 

Another challenge is ensuring that stakeholders and adjacent landowners are able to participate in the framework. DMI has introduced its key concepts to its current public advisory council (PAC),  (general public, forestry stakeholders, trappers, municipal governments, Alberta government). The intent was to explain the concept, but also to be transparent about the limited influence on other sectors operating on the shared landbase. DMI initiated this reserve network for its own business practices and in the interests of due diligence as part of a risk management strategy. While the company hopes that others will recognise the merits of a CRN and follow this strategy, the company cannot force others to respect or consider it. PAC response has been positive to the presentation of this network. However, the view of PAC is that others (beyond PAC) on the landscape should also be engaged and committed to it. 

It has been DMI’s experience that such discussion forums present a highly beneficial opportunity for the public to comment on industry forest management plans, forest policy, landscape management, and conservation. Yet the limited scope of these consultation exercises may not be as effective in influencing policy or broader implementation of EBM strategies as are land use planning forums initiated by the government. No discussions with the energy sector have occurred on the CRN concept. No known similar initiatives by that sector exist. In northern Alberta, the energy industry typically relies equally on both upland and wetland sites. It is uncertain whether they would be willing to explore or assess the value of such an initiative to their business practices, stewardship obligations or social license.

There are a number of parcels of land within and adjacent to the FMA that include First Nations or Métis Settlement areas-of-interest. The nature of partnerships between First Nations and the forest sector varies across Canada with recent development of co-management arrangements with companies. It is noteworthy that the Sustainable Forest Management Network (SFMN) in Canada has facilitated interactions between forest sector industry, government, academia, and Indigenous communities during past projects and conference discussions. In all areas of research relevant to forest management, particularly with respect to protected areas themes, SFMN participants have benefited from insights into alternative perspectives on stewardship. Insights suggest a cultural preference toward ‘whole-landscape’ stewardship that do not need to include ‘protected’ portions. Partitioning can convey a message that is offensive to some belief-systems, suggesting that other portions of the landscape are perhaps ‘not protected’ or are treated with lesser stewardship. 

DMI has a history of information-exchange with local First Nations and Métis communities. Indeed CCFM criteria, forest certification systems, and provincial policies all define certain expectations around public participation with particular attention to Indigenous communities forest management planning. The focus of these interactions has been on topics of interest raised by local communities, including: understanding EBM strategies and practices, reforestation, connections to long-range research, and operational approaches to harvesting technology. Through meetings, informal discussions, and field-tours, DMI has noted generally positive responses from Indigenous communities regarding EBM forest practices over traditional forest practices; sustained-yield focus, 2-pass clearcut harvest systems.