Overview
EBM is one of those great ideas that has struggled when it comes time for the rubber to hit the road. In the early 2000s, the government of Newfoundland created policies for EBM of their forests riding a wave of interest in more sustainable harvest management. But despite policy success, industry, government and cultural entrenchment has prevented implementation. This is thought to be the result of established cooperation between government and industry in setting management direction.
Background
In 1610 Newfoundland issued the first written forest policy statement in North America when John Guy was informed that “no person shall set fire in the woods”. This statement not only contradicted centuries of indigenous forest management, but also launched a 375 year arc of forest management for timber values in Newfoundland. Their adoption in policy of Sustainable forestry and Ecosystem Based Management in the 1990s and early 2000s is the latest phase in that trajectory.
This shift in focus towards ecological integrity and EBM was intended to increase productive capacity, resilience and biodiversity, include more than just the forestry industry in forest landscape management, improve public involvement, promote adaptive management and enforce conservation laws with respect to managing ecosystems.
This shift was accompanied by legislation in 1990 that mandated sustainable forest management plans for industries with timber rights for public lands. Responsibility for guiding this process was given to the provincial forests department and foresters were reclassified as ecosystem managers. The plans described a 20-, 5- and 1-year operating plan for a continuous timber supply consistent with other resource management objectives and sound environmental practices.
In principle, this program established a planning process that included the science of forest dynamic biodiversity and social values. In its implementation, concrete changes, including improved consultation, occurred. However, full implementation has not occurred.
Innovation
As in other Canadian provinces, the government has taken the lead on EBM in Newfoundland. Particularly in a province with declining industries in several resource extraction sectors, shifting from traditional to EBM forestry is an innovation. EBM and sustainable forest management was viewed as an opportunity given few commercial interests in the province and abundant international knowledge resources to assist implementation.
Discovery
EBM has never been fully implemented in Newfoundland. Although the reasons for this are complex, a tight relationship between the government department and industry where change was unwelcome is seen as a determining factor.
The forestry department had a powerful land use planning role within the government. This meant the department played a role in supporting private sector forestry jobs as well as public sector jobs focused on forest management. Within the department, expertise and training were focused on timber management, and implementing EBM would have required different expertise that did not exist among incumbent foresters.
Indeed, policy mechanisms were never created to realize EBM which enabled the status quo, to be maintained.
Where in the wheel?
With the policy embedded in legislation, implementation plans have been suggested by several authors. These include the following recommendations:
– Partner with third parties to consult and implement, including a return to a model forest approach to a national knowledge network for forestry practices.
– Reduce the focus on industrial job creation and subsidies, shifting the focus to tourism, restoration and small scale forestry.
– Use science effectively to advance the EBM program including ties to universities to experiment on EBM and biodiversity, compel industries to demonstrate utility of practices (proof of concept), plan and fund a monitoring program, and implement adaptive management.
– Use an existing forest certification standard as a framework to monitor, audit and report on EBM implementation.