 
|
A
Case Study of Conservation in the Abitibi Region (Quebec–Ontario
Border)
ArborVitae Environmental Services, Boldon
Group
Alexandre Boursier, Lorne Johnson, Thomas Stubbs
|
 |
This case study has been commissioned as background research
for the NRTEE’s Conserving Canada’s Natural Capital:
The Boreal Forest program. The views expressed in the case
study are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent
those of the National Round Table, its members, or the members
of the program’s Task Force.
July 21, 2004
|
4 Findings and Analysis
4.1
Regional Goals and Objectives
We found that there were no clearly
defined sustainable development or land use goals and objectives
for the study region. When asked if there was a shared vision
for the region, all interview subjects replied in the negative.
This is not a surprising finding, given the bifurcated nature
of the study area and the lack of a mandate or a strong need for
the two provincial governments to develop a regional land use
or development plan for the study area.
Moreover, within the provincial government
and various industry organizations, there is not a great deal
of awareness or communication with counterparts on the opposite
side of the border. This represents a missed opportunity, since
there are many common problems and issues that might be better
handled if there were an exchange of ideas and experience.
It might be expected that the federal
government could or should play a role in attempting to provide
a greater level of cohesion in the study area. But with the area
firmly dependent on natural resources, and with provincial governments
owning and managing public land under the Constitution Act of
1867 (formerly the British North America Act),2 there is little
role for the federal government in land use planning or development
programs. The federal Canadian Forest Service does undertake some
research in the area and provides funding to the Lake Abitibi
and Waswanipi Model Forests, but beyond this it has little direct
interest. We did not review federal environmental assessment requirements
or trade issues, since these areas were either of little relevance
to the case study or were difficult to grapple with and/or of
very indirect local relevance. Aboriginal rights are very relevant
to the case study, but a discussion and analysis of these rights
and their implications is very complex and was beyond the scope
of the case study.
There are some organizations that do
operate on both sides of the border. Most obvious are the large
resource extraction and processing companies, such as Abitibi-Consolidated,
Domtar, Noranda-Falconbridge and Tembec, which have operations
in Quebec and Ontario. The Lake Abitibi Model Forest also stands
out for its numerous research collaborations involving people
from both provinces: interprovincial cooperation has been a key
goal of the LAMF that the Université du Québec at
Témiscamingue has bought into and supported. Finally, the
Cree and Algonquin also collaborate in both provinces. Snowmobile
and ATV trail networks were also identified as examples of networks
spanning the two provinces.
In a sense, therefore, although both
the Quebec and Ontario portions of the study area have many common
ecological characteristics, there are relatively few social and
institutional commonalities. This is not intended to be a criticism,
since the same situation, to a greater or lesser degree, would
be found on both sides of every provincial border in Canada. The
advantages of increased cross-border collaboration were recently
recognized in a proposed agreement between the governments of
Ontario and Quebec regarding transboundary environmental impacts,
which was posted for public comment on the Environmental Bill
of Rights Registry website (EBR registry number PA04E0006). This
proposal, initiated by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment,
proposes the formation of a joint task force to meet at least
once a year to encourage mutual understanding and cooperation
regarding air quality and atmospheric pollution, water, and environmental
conservation, protection and restoration.
There are some issues on which increased
cross-border collaboration would be beneficial in the Abitibi
region. These issues include caribou management, landscape-level
research and management, watershed planning and impact assessment
(especially with respect to Lake Abitibi), and access planning
and management. These are discussed more fully below.
Recommendation 1:
Organizations should step up efforts to meet with counterparts
in the other province to exchange ideas and experience. Greater
awareness is needed of the opportunities available under the proposed
agreement related to transboundary environmental impacts, as well
as of other issues. Examples include issues related to the economic
restructuring of resource industries and northern communities
and leveraging the advantages and resources of regional communities
and organizations.
Even though it does not make sense
to develop a regional land use plan for the study area, there
are stronger arguments for the development of regional land use
plans within Ontario and Quebec. In Ontario, the Lands for Life
planning process was undertaken at a very high regional level,
but it produced no substantive changes and was transformed into
a negotiation process between the parties that were willing to
make trade-offs. The intent had been to develop sub-regional plans
as a second stage, but this is no longer an active proposal. What
Ontario does have for land use planning is a set of District Land
Use Guidelines that were originally drawn up 25 years ago and
have occasionally been modified in the interim. However, they
do not adequately cover issues such as access, especially ATV
and snowmobile access, and remote or roadless areas. As a result,
it falls to the forest management planning process to handle forest
access roads and other use issues, especially those concerned
with remote tourism.
The Ontario government has recently
introduced the Resource Stewardship Agreement (RSA) mechanism.
Under an RSA, two (or more) private parties, usually a remote
tourism operator and a forest company, decide how to balance the
interests of both parties. The RSAs can be seen as an effort to
remove MNR from the role of intermediary and allow the parties
to work out a mutually satisfactory agreement. However, MNR becomes
involved when parts of an RSA have a bearing on forest management
planning.
In Quebec, local round-table initiatives,
usually called integrated resources management (IRM) tables or
tables de gestion intégrée des ressources (tables
de GIR), have been organized to exchange information about land
use. In addition, municipal strategies are coordinated in the
Quebec part of Abitibi through the IRM tables. One particular
Abitibi IRM table is organized by the Regional Development Council
of Abitibi-Témiscamingue. The Quebec Ministry of Regions
finances this IRM table through a fund that makes the table very
independent of the funder. The table has been one of the most
effective in the province, with 77 members, including outfitters,
ZECs, trappers, municipalities, MRNFP, industry and environmental
non-governmental organizations.
The Quebec Forest Act requires companies
to elaborate the management plan of each common area with the
input of the various stakeholders. However, the latter have been
overwhelmed by the process. In the Vallée de l’Or
municipality, for example, there are nine common areas, which
means nine pre-consultations and nine consultations must take
place when it is time to elaborate the management plans. There
are also the more regular meetings of the many IRM tables. Companies
have a hard time achieving a significant level of participation
because individual stakeholders and small organizations do not
have the resources to participate in all meetings. A proposal
by Vallée de l’Or municipality to channel all pre-consultations,
consultations and IRM tables through their IRM initiative has
been a success. They even have participation from one First Nation.
MRNFP Terres, however, the most relevant government partner for
IRM tables, is not present at regular IRM table meetings because
of insufficient resources and absence of legal recognition of
the tables. The Ministère de l’Environnement was
never present for the same reasons. The consultants conclude that
the Abitibi IRM tables are an excellent basis for beginning a
process that includes a decision-making element and goes beyond
socio-economic concerns.
Regional land use planning can advance
conservation in a variety of ways, chiefly by providing a forum
in which all interests come to the table with the same amount
of power. If the table is well managed—people are given
time to develop mutual trust and respect—and given suitable
direction, the results can be positive for conservation.
A second advantage is that many issues
are best resolved at a regional scale, which is broader than the
scales of many existing planning practices and management zones.
Examples of such large-scale issues are harvest intensity in watersheds,
access networks, and the placement of large disturbance areas,
remote or roadless areas and protected areas. Working at a large
scale also provides opportunities to trade wood supply between
different forest management units. As well, species with large
ranges, such as woodland caribou, wolves and wolverine, are best
served by strategic plans developed at a large scale. To be effective,
regional planning should be conducted at a scale that is broader
than individual forest licence areas, wildlife management unit
areas, provincial ministry administrative districts and a welter
of other overlapping zones.
Finally, it is noted that with the
increasing intensity of forest use, greater extent of forest access
and the increased value of such attributes as roadlessness, regional
plans or land use guidelines developed even 10 years ago can be
out of date.
Recommendation 2:
Quebec and Ontario should initiate and facilitate regional land
use planning processes in their respective portions of the Abitibi
region.
4.2
Economic Barriers and Incentives to Conservation
The thesis of the NRTEE’s Boreal
Forest program is that there remains a window of opportunity to
get the right balance of conservation and development in the boreal
forest. The NRTEE believes (and the consultants agree) that there
are continuously increasing pressures for resource exploitation
and environmental degradation. The principles of sustainable development
can easily be sidestepped because long-term accountability is
often absent. Once implemented, a large-scale use or development
project based on optimistic or, worse, misleading projections
is not reversible, and many times the negative impacts cannot
be completely mitigated.
The Abitibi region, like most rural
areas in Canada, is experiencing a seemingly intractable economic
and social decline. As Table 1 shows, all non-Aboriginal communities
in the region have experienced a substantial attrition of their
population in recent years. This is largely because the economic
opportunities are not expanding and prospects are insufficient
to retain large numbers of young adults, especially ones with
a higher education. These communities are desperate to hold onto
existing jobs, let alone create new ones. In such a situation,
it is difficult for a community to reject a proposal that promises
to create local employment. There is also great pressure to maintain
the current levels of timber harvesting.
For these reasons, economic development
is often in opposition to conservation—or anything else
that will reduce employment or other economic benefits. During
the course of this case study, the consultants identified several
issues stemming from the fact that the impetus for economic development
was not adequately balanced by controls or safeguards. These issues
relate to hydroelectricity, protected area establishment, forest
certification and orphaned and abandoned mines.
4.2.1
Hydroelectricity
Hydroelectric power generation is widespread
in the Abitibi region. The water levels in many lakes and rivers
are regulated by dams, and the recent changes in the electricity
markets, especially in Ontario, led dam owners to use their legal
rights to maximize profits during the period of high electricity
prices and shortages in the summer of 2003. As an indication of
the extreme prices that could be received from power sales, Abitibi-Consolidated
was reported to have suspended daytime production at its pulp
and paper facility to sell power into the provincial grid.
As all power generating companies had
strong incentives to produce power at times of peak prices, water
levels were allowed to vary over ranges not previously seen during
summertime, when what are essentially gentleman’s agreements
to keep water levels steady were overridden. (As an example, Figure
3 shows the Ontario Power Generation operating limits prescribed
for Mattagami Lake, with a narrow range during summer and a wider
range of almost 5 m throughout the remainder of the year.) This
means that dams were opened up wide very quickly on occasion to
capitalize on a period of high prices, then closed again when
the price dropped. This played havoc with streamflow and lake
levels, affecting aquatic populations and recreationists. (Opening
a dam wide several times in succession can flush the majority
of fish out of small lakes.)
At the same time, many power leases
in Ontario are up for renewal and are being renegotiated. Water
management plans are required. According to one government staff
person, many people in the hydro sector feel that any drop of
water that is not used to drive a turbine is wasted: “It’s
like talking with the forest companies 30 years ago.” There
is a need for hydro managers to recognize the ecological impacts
of extreme water regulation methods and avoid them, but at present
there does not seem to be the means to legally require such conservation
efforts.
On the Quebec side of the Abitibi region,
the impact of water fluctuation due to hydroelectric production
is limited. There has been a case in the southern part of the
study area, in the north of La Vérendrye wildlife reserve,
where recreationists were complaining about the swift changes
in water level. The participation of Hydro-Québec in the
integrated resources management table of Val d’Or municipality
successfully resulted in decreased negative impacts of fluctuating
water levels on the park users.
4.2.2 Impediments
to the Establishment of Protected Areas
A second issue concerns the lack of
protected areas in the Abitibi case study area. Currently, it
is estimated that the amount of protected land in the case study
area will rise to approximately 2.5%, as Ontario moves to gazette
the protected areas identified through Ontario’s Forest
Accord. However, the consultants were unable to obtain exact figures
on which candidate protected areas were in the process of obtaining
protected status. Moreover, the Quebec government has indicated
that new protected areas will be announced in the fall of 2004,
and these will include areas in the Abitibi region.
The consultants recognize that representation
in the Abitibi region needs to be considered in the context of
planning processes that cover much larger areas. In particular,
Ontario’s Forest Accord has brought the total proportion
of protected area in Ontario to 12%. Quebec is also moving to
increase its protected areas. In 2000, Quebec protected areas
categorized as I, II or III by the IUCN (World Conservation Union)
represented about 2.8% of the province, with more than half of
this area in the tundra (1.6%). Of the 1,091 protected areas in
Quebec in 1999, 943 were less than 10 km2 in size, 117 were 10–100
km2 and 31 were larger than 100 km2, for a total area of 47,355
km2. Less than a quarter of these areas fall into IUCN categories
I or II. In 2002, however, the Quebec government announced the
creation of six parks and 11 territorial reserves of protected
area in the boreal forest and on the North Shore. These will increase
the total protected area of Quebec territory from 2.8% to 4.8%.
This announcement was part of the Quebec Action Plan, whose objective
is to protect 8% of the total area of Quebec by 2005.
Nevertheless, the consultants note
that even with these considerations, the proportion of protected
area in the case study region is well below common benchmarks.
While this case study is mainly concerned with the non-reserved
portion of the land base, a protected areas network forms the
backbone of any sustainable forest management strategy. The small
extent of many of the protected areas, coupled with the lack of
connectivity between them, means that they make a negligible contribution
to overall conservation in the Abitibi region, particularly given
the scale of natural disturbances, patch sizes and wildlife ranges.
A noteworthy recent development is
the establishment of the Boreal Forest Conservation Framework,
spearheaded by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS)
and WWF Canada. The Canadian Boreal Initiative calls for the protection
of at least 50% of the boreal region in a network of large interconnected
protected areas. Signatories to the Framework include Alberta-Pacific
Forest Industries, CPAWS, the Deh Cho First Nations, Domtar Inc.,
Ducks Unlimited Canada, Forest Ethics, the Innu Nation, Poplar
River First Nation, Suncor Energy Inc, Tembec Forest Industries
and WWF Canada.
In view of these findings, and given
the Quebec government’s intention to increase the protected
area within the province, we make the following recommendation.
Recommendation 3: The
Abitibi area should be a high priority region for the establishment
of additional protected areas.
The consultants note that the Ontario
Forest Accord contains a mechanism called “Room to Grow.”
This mechanism prescribes that the expansion of any new wood supply
be tied to an equivalent expansion of protected areas in the province.
It is suggested that the Room to Grow mechanism would be an appropriate
way to increase protected areas in Ontario, given that the Forest
Accord was intended to substantially complete Ontario’s
protected areas network. As mentioned above, the Quebec government
is in the process of increasing the protected areas in Quebec,
and this provides an opportunity to address this recommendation
on the Quebec side of the study area.
4.2.2.1
Public Opinion
We believe that one reason for the
low proportion of protected areas in the Abitibi is a lack of
local support. However, in our interviews, this perspective came
primarily from industry (including the tourism sector) and municipal
governments. The local public seems to be supportive of more protected
areas, as evidenced by comments at the workshop held in Rouyn-Noranda.
The Canadian Boreal Initiative kindly
provided the consultants with excerpts from public opinion research
undertaken in April 2003 by McAllister Opinion Research. Separate
sub-polls were done in each of Ontario and Quebec. The Canadian
Boreal Initiative summarized relevant results as follows:
The Ontario sub-poll3 found that 60%
of Ontario residents would strongly support, and 30% would somewhat
support, the creation of more protected natural areas in the province
where industrial activities like logging and mining would be prohibited,
although recreational activities like camping and fishing would
be allowed. The poll also found that 68% of respondents believe
that before any new industrial development is allowed in the boreal
region, land use plans should be created to set out which areas
will remain protected as wilderness and which areas can be used
for industrial activities like logging or mining. Only 28% of
respondents believed that decisions about industrial development
in the Boreal region should be made on a case-by-case basis, without
waiting for land use plans.
In Québec, 76% of respondents4
would strongly support the creation of more protected areas in
Québec where industrial activities like logging or mining
would be prohibited, although recreational activities like camping
and fishing would be allowed. When asked to weigh the trade-off
between creating more protected areas in Québec’s
boreal region to conserve natural ecosystems, or maintaining jobs
and investment by NOT increasing protected areas, 87% of respondents
indicated that the Québec government and industry should
create more protected areas.
The results of this polling work also
support the contention that a substantial proportion of the general
public favours increased protected areas, although it should be
emphasized that these polls were conducted among the population
as a whole and were not specifically targeted at the Abitibi case
study region.
4.2.2.2
Mining Claims
Another reason for the lack of protected
areas in the case study area is, the consultants believe, the
strong legal protection given to mining claims. Under the mining
acts of both provinces, a “mining claim” means a parcel
of land, including land under water, that has been staked and
recorded in accordance with the mining acts and their regulations.
The mining acts stipulate where claims may be staked and the rights
of a claim holder. The basic principle is that the mining claim,
once it is patented, has a very high legal standing. Because the
Abitibi region has such high mineral potential, most of the area
is staked out, making it very difficult for the provincial governments
to override or have a forced buy-out of the claim holder. This
difficulty is exacerbated by provisions in the Abitibi Mining
Act, which allow a claim holder to maintain a claim for an extended
period of time, provided the conditions set out in the Act are
met. We were informed that many of the Living Legacy protected
areas that have not yet been gazetted have been held up by negotiations
over mining claims.
Comments at the workshop held in Rouyn-Noranda
suggest the case study region may not be a representative, nor
fair, example of the impact that mining has on the establishment
of protected areas: the study area coincides perfectly with the
Abitibi geological area, the most important target for the mining
industry in all of Quebec. “Of course this region will be
more impacted,” said one participant, at the same time pointing
out that, in Quebec as a whole, only 4.5% of the territory is
under mining claims. A large proportion of these claims relate
to diamonds (i.e., they are in the Far North).
The mining industry generally feels
that its economic contributions are undervalued in land use planning
and in general. At the heart of the valuation issue is the difficulty
of assessing the present net worth of mineral potential in given
area: while the probability of finding a mineable deposit is very
low on any given hectare, if a mineable deposit is found the benefits
will be very large. Because the probability of mine development
on a given hectare is low, the expected value per hectare is low.
When incorporated into a land use planning framework, this valuation
puts mining near the bottom of the list of “valuable”
land uses. The consultants agree that this is something that causes
a divergence of perspectives regarding the valuation of mining
claims. However, the industry cannot expect to have such a high
priority for use of the land that other potential land uses, including
protected areas, are effectively blocked.
The consultants suggest that a middle
road may be to revise the standing of mining claims that are essentially
inactive. It may be that the legal definition of what constitutes
“a required level of activity” on a mining claim needs
to be changed. Alternatively, it may be fair to steeply increase
the cost of claim renewal, which would provide a disincentive
to hold a claim without actively investigating it. It may also
be appropriate to make it easier for the government to buy out
claims in areas that are designated as conservation reserves.
Recommendation 4:
The provincial governments should review the legal requirements
of mining claims holders, including renewal provisions, to ensure
that claims are actively investigated in an expeditious manner
and inactive claims do not block land use decisions.
4.2.2.3
Annual Allowable Cut
The consultants were also informed
that there is a great deal of pressure coming from provincial
governments to maintain the existing annual allowable cut (AAC).
This pressure appears to be especially strong in Quebec, and it
may be another reason why the proportion of protected areas in
Quebec is low relative to national standards and benchmarks. The
pressure comes from the desire to maintain employment in remote
areas, support the Canadian forest industry (which is facing a
number of challenges at present) and, perhaps secondarily, maintain
stumpage royalty income. Industry also sees maintenance of the
AAC as an element of both profitability and company size, which
is viewed as beneficial when competing against other large multinational
companies in the sector. In Quebec, the Commission d’étude
sur la gestion de la forêt publique québécoise
(task force on the management of Quebec’s public forests)
is examining these and other issues. The Commission, headed by
Guy Coulombe, was triggered by a provincial auditor general report
that found Quebec’s method of harvest determination to be
outdated and prone to overestimation. The Commission is expected
to report in December 2004.
AACs in many Ontario forest management
units have been declining in recent years, and both the government
and industry feel pressure to maintain harvest levels. In both
Ontario and Quebec, static or declining harvest levels can be
attributed to recent environmental protection guidelines (especially
those that increase the amount of timber retained on harvest blocks
and those pertaining to leaving large forested blocks for habitat
purposes) and changes in the age class structure of the forest.
In the forests of the study area, there is a great deal of old
timber and a lesser amount of younger and intermediate-aged timber.
As the mature timber is harvested and the area of up-and-coming
timber contracts, the AAC declines. However, one of the key ecological
issues is how much old timber should be retained in the forest.
Evidence suggests that in the absence of harvesting, more than
55% of the clay-belt forest would be older than 100 years, and
studies of two areas of 825,000 ha and 1,580,000 ha reveal a current
average age of 172 and 139 years, respectively (Lefort 2003).
This is due to the relative lack of disturbance in the area following
a series of large fires in 1923. Suffice it to say, however, that
many conservation gains will come at some expense to the current
AAC unless mitigative measures are taken.
One of the more obvious mitigative
actions is to intensify forest management. While the conservation
benefits of intensification may seem counterintuitive, an approach
known as the “triad” approach has been advocated and
adopted in some jurisdictions. At its simplest, the triad conceives
of three intensities of forest management on the land base: intensive
management on some areas, low intensity or extensive management
on others and no forest harvesting (i.e., protected areas) on
the remainder. The concept can be applied in many ways with many
variations, but typical applications may allow 10% to 15% of the
land base to be managed intensively, the same amount to be protected,
and the other 70% to 80% to be managed extensively. The triad
essentially takes advantage of the potential for intensive management
to at least double conventional mean annual timber yields, allowing
for an increase in protected areas and a relatively low intensity
of management on the remaining area. The triad underlies the Ontario
Forest Accord.
It is important to note that the triad
approach is not painless, since it involves increasing forest
management expenditures. There is a question of who will pay.
There is also a concern on the part of industry that tenure is
not sufficiently secure. This lack of security has long been cited
by industry as a primary reason for the relative lack of intensive
forest management investments in Ontario and Quebec, although
the consultants feel the problem has been overstated by industry
on occasion.
Recommendation 5:
The triad approach should be adopted in Quebec and implementation
through Ontario’s Living Legacy should continue.
4.2.3
Forest Certification
Over the past 10 years, forest certification
has evolved from a concept to a point where forest managers have
a real choice of whether to certify their forests or not. Forest
certification is conferred by third-party organizations on forests
that have put in place management systems and approaches that
meet high standards, which are codified. There are four certification
options in Canada:
-
the Z809 Sustainable Forest Management
System Standard of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA);
-
the Boreal Forest Standard of the
Forest Stewardship Council Canada (FSC);
-
the Sustainable Forest Initiative
Standard of the American Forest & Paper Association (SFI);
and
-
the ISO 14000 standard tailored
to forest operations.
Each of these four standards differs
in its scope and rigour. The CSA, FSC and SFI standards are broad
in scope, covering ecological, social and economic dimensions.
They contain a number of elements that go beyond their minimum
requirements and represent excellence in forest practices. ISO
14000 is compliance-oriented and more narrowly focused on the
existence of a management system.
Certification is primarily of interest
to companies that sell forest-based products to consumers, as
well as forest companies that are anxious to maintain their “social
licence” to operate and differentiate themselves from the
remainder of the industry. Eventually, certification can be expected
to raise overall standards within the industry. Ontario has recently
announced that all forest licensees in that province will be required
to be certified to the CSA, FSC or SFI standards by 2007.
While there are many questions concerning
the extent of demand for certified forest products, and the willingness
of customers to pay a premium for certified products, most forest
companies are currently pursuing at least one certification standard.
In the Abitibi region, the Gordon Cosens Forest has recently been
audited for FSC certification and the Romeo Malette Forest is
about to be audited; Tembec has made a commitment to have all
of its forest licence areas certified by the end of 2005. The
Iroquois Falls Forest and the Nighthawk Forest of the Abitibi-Consolidated
Ontario East Woodlands have been recommended for certification
to the CSA Z809 standard. Abitibi-Consolidated has already obtained
CSA Z809 certification for 1.6 million ha of forest in the Quebec
portion of the Abitibi region. Another 3.4 million ha is certified
under SFI for other companies. With 8% of its forest area certified
under one of the three major certification schemes (FSC, CSA and
SFI), Quebec is still below the 25% Canadian average, although
much of this area is under the ISO 14000 standard.
There are several key points relevant
to this study. The first concerns the role that the provincial
governments may play with respect to company certification. While
the onus is currently on companies to do what is required to become
certified, certification standards concern the forest as a whole
and not a particular company. Since provincial governments are
responsible for managing the non-timber parts of the forest resource
(e.g., wildlife), they can be an obstacle to certification if
they fail to meet this responsibility.
The second point concerns the costs
of certification. One study, which assessed the potential impacts
of certification on two forest management units (one of which
was located in the Abitibi region), estimated that the wood supply
would be reduced by between 10% and 30% (Callaghan and Associates
2003). Complying with certification requirements also results
in significant additional costs per cubic metre of wood harvested.
The final point is that some tenure
arrangements do not lend themselves to supporting certification.
An example is the common tenure areas in Quebec, which are defined
areas in which different companies operate but no company has
primary responsibility. The tenure arrangements provide for a
volume of timber that can be harvested. In this situation, because
there is no controlling licensee, it is in no one’s interest
to go beyond the minimum requirements because there is no certainty
of capturing the future benefits of adopting higher standards.
Although the CSA specifically addresses the requirements for becoming
certified under volume-based tenure arrangements, there is no
question that achieving certification is more difficult than in
situations in which a single company is licensed to operate on
a prescribed area. The consultants note that British Columbia
until recently had a number of areas managed in a similar manner
(known as Timber Supply Areas), but these have been allocated
on an area basis to specific companies, partly because of certification.
Recommendation 6:
The provincial governments should support forest companies’
efforts to become certified by removing institutional obstacles
to certification, fully meeting their management obligations and
providing incentives, such as streamlined operational planning
requirements and reduced stumpage rates, for companies to become
certified.
4.2.4
Orphaned/Abandoned Mines
The mining industry is required by
law to decommission and rehabilitate mine sites once they are
closed, in order to remove public safety hazards and reduce environmental
risks. Companies are required to file a closure plan and provide
financial assurance of their ability to fund the plan. This is
relatively recent legislation, however, and there are numerous
old mine sites and tailing ponds in Abitibi that originated prior
to current closure requirements. These old sites can pose both
safety and environmental risks, and dealing with them has recently
migrated to the top of many governments’ environmental agendas.
Nationally, the National Orphaned/Abandoned Mines Initiative was
established in 2002 and has begun the process of dealing with
issues such as cost-sharing for cleanup, prioritization of sites
for rehabilitation and legislative issues (see www.abandoned-mines.org).
The Quebec government has been very
active on this issue for many years.5 By 1985, an inventory of
hazardous mine openings had been developed, with 1,650 sites identified.
More were added in subsequent years. In Abitibi-Témiscamingue
alone, 1,157 such sites were identified. As of 2001, 1,129 openings
had been secured and 200 remained to be dealt with. The government
has also been active cleaning up mine waste, especially old tailings
ponds. In 1982, an inventory of tailing ponds in Abitibi-Témiscamingue
resulted in the identification of 50 sites; 423 have been identified
throughout the entire province. Cleanup efforts started in 1989,
and spending increased rapidly to the point where, between 1994–95
and 2001–02 (year of most recent data), an average of more
than $2 million per year was being spent. Total public and private
spending to date is $40 million; an estimated $75 million is required
to clean up the remaining hazardous sites.
4.3
Conservation of Biological Diversity
Within the past two decades, the conservation
of biological diversity has become a key element of sustainable
development in general and sustainable forest management in particular.
The federal government has sponsored
the development of a National Forest Strategy and a Canadian Biodiversity
Strategy. Both of these strategies support the conservation of
biological diversity but did not have any real regulatory leverage
until the passage of the federal Species at Risk Act. Ontario
and Quebec both attempt to conserve biological diversity on the
non-reserved part of the forest through control over forest management;
conservation of biodiversity at the landscape level is most apparent
in the long-term forest plans that are developed on forest management
units within each province. The two provinces, however, have taken
very different approaches to landscape-level biodiversity.
4.3.1
Biodiversity at the Landscape Level
In Ontario, the Crown Forest Sustainability
Act mandates that the sustainability of the forest is the primary
goal of forest management on Crown land. MNR requires that forest
management plans (FMPs) develop direction at the landscape level,
and landscape-level considerations have come to play a major role
in forest planning. MNR has prepared forest management guidelines
regarding natural disturbance emulation and the provision of caribou
and marten habitat. These guidelines contain direction, including
minimum acceptable levels of habitat that are required in all
20-year forest management plans. The natural disturbance emulation
guideline seeks to continue the “natural” pattern
of patch size, location and structure, as a coarse-filter approach
to biodiversity conservation. One of the impetuses for this guideline
was the recognition that fire suppression and limits on harvest
block size had reduced the average size of patches being created
in the forest, making them far smaller than those produced by
natural processes. Although the science behind these guidelines
is still emerging, they do represent the best available information.
Nevertheless, questions remain about the impact of the measures
in the guidelines and about the benefits and costs of these measures.
(Note that the caribou guideline applies only to northwestern
Ontario; there is no equivalent in northeastern Ontario.)
Conservation biology, which has emerged
as a discipline in the last two decades, has provided forest managers
with a working set of principles that will go a long way to conserving
biological diversity if implemented. While proof that these principles
are effective is some decades away, they are widely supported
and form part of the framework for SFM certification standards,
criteria and indicators. Ontario has incorporated a number of
landscape-level planning requirements that are among the most
forward-looking in the country. However, few of these ideas, especially
with regard to landscape-level planning, have entered forest planning
requirements in Quebec. Furthermore, long-term wildlife planning
and spatial modelling are not being done in Quebec, even though
they have been in place in other jurisdictions for many years.
Specific landscape-level planning requirements
have been selectively introduced at the forest management unit
level in Quebec. Most prominently, MRNFP is using mosaic cuts
as a coarse-filter approach to providing wildlife habitat management
(as well as establishing protected areas and maintaining late
seral stage forests). Although there is scientific evidence on
how mosaic cuts affect on biodiversity in some regions, the impact
has not been established in the Abitibi region. There is concern
among researchers that mosaic harvests could significantly modify
natural distribution and configuration patterns of the future
forest and increase fragmentation. Most importantly, the practice
does not emulate the natural landscape patterns, patch sizes and
configurations of the Abitibi forest. On the other hand, most
interviewees agreed that the practice has positive impacts on
visual aspects and wildlife.
A constraint on the effectiveness of
landscape-level planning is that plans are developed for individual
management units (average size about 750,000 ha). The Ontario
caribou guideline recommends habitat assessment at a scale of
700,000 ha, and the marten guideline recommends that 10–15%
of the forest in a management unit should be in blocks of 3,000
to 5,000 ha. Maintaining this proportion of the forest in large
blocks of mature conifer creates significant constraints for planning,
and it has the effect of reducing the AAC. Planning to create
very large blocks of forest may best be done at a scale greater
than a single management unit, because individual management units
are too small to provide leeway in meeting both habitat and harvest
requirements. Similarly, the natural disturbance emulation guideline
envisages planning at a sub-regional level.
When planning for such large landscape
blocks in areas near the provincial border, it would be beneficial
to consider the landscape in the adjoining province.
Recommendation 7:
The provincial governments should develop methods for forest planning
at scales larger than the individual management unit.
Fragmentation is a common and widespread
threat to biological diversity, and it is of some concern in the
boreal forest; the Ontario marten and caribou guidelines both
require connectivity. Fragmentation and connectedness indices
are monitored in FMPs; however, the interpretation of index values
is subject to debate. In general, the consultants feel that fragmentation
is not an important issue in the Abitibi region—other issues
are more pressing at this time.
Finally, increased attention is being
given to old forests of all types. Most forest plans now have
targets to maintain certain proportions of the area of each working
group in old and very old stages, with the target proportions
often based on fire models. The “oldest first” harvest
principle has fallen out of use. In Quebec, there is still direction
given to create a forest with a roughly equal area in each age
class (i.e., a normalized forest). Because strict adherence to
this strategy would lead to the elimination of old growth, Quebec
has set new objectives for the maintenance of 33% of historic
old growth proportions in each management unit. This objective,
which will be effective in the next general management plans (due
in January 2006), will be gradually implemented over a 15- to
20-year period in order to mitigate its socio-economic impacts.
Many groups have argued that this timid objective would not stop
the current decrease in the proportion of late seral stage forests.
4.3.2
Biodiversity at the Species Level
A second scale of biodiversity is
the level of the individual species. There are several broad approaches
taken to conserving species diversity, in addition to the landscape
level measures described above. One concern is species at risk,
which have degrees of legislated protection at both the federal
and provincial levels. The federal Species at Risk Act (SARA),
which was given royal assent in December 2002, prohibits the killing,
harming, harassing or capturing of listed species. The act is
limited to species under federal jurisdiction, which means that
it applies to all navigable waters (which come under Department
of Fisheries and Oceans regulation). However, the provinces are
largely responsible for species protection on Crown and private
lands. Ontario has an act similar to SARA—the province’s
Endangered Species Act prohibits the wilful destruction of regulated
endangered species and their habitat.
In forest management planning in Quebec
and Ontario, fine-filter (i.e., species-specific) strategies are
required for species at risk and others. In Ontario, the FMP is
required to discuss the contribution of the management unit to
the provision of habitat for vulnerable, threatened and endangered
(VTE) species. In both provinces, the FMP values database is required
to include information on important habitat for VTE species. In
the Abitibi region, the most notable designated species are woodland
caribou, wolverine and bald eagle, as well as possibly the eastern
cougar. There is a forest management guideline for bald eagle
nests and caribou guidelines that were developed for northwestern
Ontario. Fine-filter guidelines are applied in Quebec for other
VTE species such as the wood turtle and peregrine falcon. Guidelines
are being elaborated for several other VTE species.
Other forest management guidelines
are directed toward non-VTE species, including marten, moose,
raptors (other than the bald eagle) and herons. In addition, in
Ontario the silvicultural guideline prescribes measures for tree
species at the extremes of their ranges. Individuals at the extremes
are likely to have genetic characteristics that are different
from those of the median individual in the population and will
be critical in enabling species to migrate as climate change takes
hold.
4.3.3
Biodiversity at the Genetic Level
The conservation of genetic diversity
is perhaps the most difficult aspect of diversity to monitor and
conserve. The landscape- and species-level measures are also intended
to support genetic diversity conservation. In addition, tree ranges
have been divided into seed zones that constrain seed movement.
4.3.4
Biodiversity Summary
The desire to conserve biological
diversity has shifted the primary goal of forest management. Rather
than the production of flows of products, the emphasis now is
on conserving the ecological health and integrity of the forest
and utilizing the products that such a forest is capable of producing.
While conservation biology is still developing, and the effectiveness
of measures taken thus far remains unknown, the principles of
biodiversity conservation have been translated into practices
on the ground at multiple scales. The measures that have been
taken appear to have limited the ability of the forest industry
to expand. They have also banned mineral exploration in various
areas. Perhaps these measures will stabilize biological diversity
at present levels. However, when the underlying causes of scarcity
of some species include sensitivity to human activity and access,
it is not clear that the sacrifices required to conserve those
sensitive elements of diversity will be made.
In addition, it is an operating assumption
that new approaches to designing harvest interventions will provide
ecological conditions similar enough to those that would be present
if fire and insect infestations were less well controlled. This
is a strong assumption, and the degree to which it is accurate
will go a long way in determining future health of the resource.
4.4
Conservation of Water Resources
Water quality is a critical element
of sustainable management and one that is growing in importance
and public profile. The forest industry has been subject to a
great deal of regulation and strong enforcement action in this
area. There is anecdotal evidence that mining companies are less
tightly regulated (or enforcement is lax) when it comes to crossing
streams and working around water bodies, while agriculture is
able to undertake practices that would not be permitted within
other sectors. The impact on water quality of orphaned or abandoned
mines is also under assessment. Water regulation by hydro generators
also arose as a conservation issue in the Abitibi region; these
were described in section 4.2.
In forestry, the major water quality
conservation measures include leaving buffers along waterways
and lakes, as well as careful planning and construction of water
crossings and culverts. Companies are also beginning to consider
upper limits on the proportions of watersheds that can be in a
recently harvested state at any point in time. On the other hand,
the pressure to maintain the harvest level is leading companies
to consider partial harvesting in the riparian buffers. Such harvesting
is rarely practised but currently allowed in circumstances where
impacts on the water body are expected to be negligible (such
as areas with flat banks and stable shorelines). To date, many
companies in Ontario have avoided cutting riparian areas because
the cost per cubic metre is higher than average and because it
could provoke public complaints.
The value of leaving buffers and the
impacts of fully or partially cutting in riparian areas are somewhat
contentious. Few dispute that the buffers provide a high level
of protection. However, wildfire often burns to the shore and,
in a policy framework where mimicking natural processes is desirable,
some cutting to shore would be consistent with this general direction.
In addition, riparian buffer strips often blow down fairly soon
after they are created. The wood quality in riparian areas is
often high, which is an added incentive for cutting. The challenge
here is to determine when harvesting in riparian areas creates
a high risk of ecological degradation, bearing in mind that the
buffers often provide connecting routes across the landscape for
wildlife. Where a water body has recreational value, visual impacts
should also be considered.
4.5
Access Management
Roads and trails pose one of the greatest
resource management challenges across the boreal forest, and the
situation is no different in the Abitibi region. Technically,
there are two parts to the issue: the construction of access roads
and the regulation of their use. However, in practice, these aspects
are almost inseparable.
Access controversies stem from the
fact there are many different impacts, interest groups and perspectives.
Some First Nations and stakeholders (such as remote tourism outfitters,
backcountry recreationists and environmental groups), prefer access
to be limited and use restricted. As more and more remote areas
are accessed, remoteness (often equated with roadlessness) becomes
more valued. Many other recreationists, some First Nations and
other forest users prefer more roads and unregulated use. These
have formed a strong and vocal lobby for unfettered motorized
access to public land where roads exist, and a sub-group among
them flouts efforts to control the use of access roads. The use
of snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles is particularly difficult
to regulate effectively. Even winter roads and trails can be used
by snowmobiles and ATVs, so once a road or trail is built it is
difficult to prevent it from being used and kept open.
In both provinces, timber access roads,
which constitute the majority of new and existing access in the
Abitibi region, are planned through the forest management planning
process. Mineral exploration activity may also create new access,
but exploration crews tend to use existing roads until a potential
deposit is found, at which point any desired new access is more
likely to be built. Trails are often cut through the bush for
exploration, but these are usually rough and not suitable for
vehicles, except perhaps ATVs and snowmobiles.
Forest access is generally planned
and constructed as required and must pass through the public and
stakeholder consultation components of planning. However, there
is no strategic access planning process, even within the forest
management plan, to develop a comprehensive access strategy that
would serve all interests. Access decisions are primarily based
on the amount of timber involved, cost and ability to minimize
impacts on values. In Quebec, all access roads become the property
of the provincial government, and there is no restriction on their
use, except for fire prevention measures. Ontario now requires
new access roads to have a life cycle plan, which includes decommissioning
if the road is temporary. Decommissioned roads may eventually
become impassable to trucks but can usually still be used by ATVs
and snowmobiles.
Efforts to develop comprehensive access
strategies have been largely unsuccessful. One partial exception,
which is within the case study area, is the Cochrane District
Remote Wilderness (Tourism) Strategy. This strategy was developed
between 1993 and 1997 in response to an environmental assessment
“bump-up” (under provincial legislation) during one
of the forest planning processes and the general complexity of
issues in the area. It identified a zone within the Cochrane District
where remote tourism is the primary activity. In this zone, logging
is prohibited and public hunting and fishing are by traditional
access only. The strategy details how access to individual lakes
within the district will be classified and managed. This seemingly
sensible approach has not been applied elsewhere. Possible reasons
include its time-consuming nature and resistance from tourism
operators. More recently, tourism operators have begun to see
benefits and to view the strategy more positively.
Unregulated access has a number of
potential ecological effects, all of them negative. These include:
-
rapid depletion of fish stocks—this
occurs when access is extended into areas with hitherto unaccessed,
small to medium-sized lakes;
-
over-exploitation and persecution
of furbearers and carnivores;
-
human disturbance of species that
are sensitive to human influence, notably (in the Abitibi region)
caribou;
-
entry of predators and competitors
into new areas;
-
entry of exotic and invasive plants
and pests into new areas; and
-
increased fire ignitions through
human carelessness.
Noss (1995) commented: “If I
had to choose one indicator to assess and compare the ecological
integrity of woodlands, it would be road density, as roads make
most other human disturbances possible and have cumulative effects
that persist as long as the roadbed is in place.”
Recommendation 8:
Provincial governments should provide forest land managers with
adequate tools to regulate road use and road density, as well
as provide adequate enforcement.
Various measures can be applied to
regulate access where appropriate, including the use of signage,
gates and obstacles such as berms on the road. Bridges can also
be removed. In many situations, these measures can be considered
to be largely effective if they prevent vehicular traffic from
passing—snowmobiles and ATVs are more difficult to stop.
The choice of bridge location on a road that will later be decommissioned
should be made with the effectiveness of the decommissioning process
in mind. Access regulation should be accompanied by awareness
programs (e.g., to explain why the government is limiting access).
Moreover, it is helpful if there is a local forest advisory committee
or integrated resource management table that agrees with the approach
and has helped to design its implementation. A reasonable amount
of enforcement is also necessary in some cases.
Recommendation 9:
Comprehensive regional access strategies should be developed,
preferably as part of regional land use plans but, in the absence
of those, as stand-alone plans.
While development of comprehensive
regional access strategies will not solve all of these issues,
it represents a useful starting point. At a minimum, a regional
access strategy would require a comprehensive decision-making
process, and ideally it would identify goals and objectives, access
zones (including remote areas), preferred or allowable access
control measures, and planning approaches to improve the functionality
of permanent roads. Without this, access decisions and disputes
will continue to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, which
obscures the cumulative and strategic aspects of access.
4.6
Cumulative Effects
Much of the Abitibi region is managed
through forest tenures. There is a long history of mineral extraction,
rivers are managed to produce hydroelectric power, and fisheries
and wildlife are exploited by local residents and tourists. While
each of these (and other) uses is regulated independently and
monitored to various extents, there is no process that explicitly
considers the effects of other uses in identifying a resource-specific
management regime, or attempts to consider the effects of management
in identifying an integrated management approach for the resources
of the region. Concerns have been expressed that the cumulative
effects of the resource management industries have not been assessed
and are not taken into account in any management planning process.
Frameworks for cumulative effects assessment exist, but have not,
to the knowledge of those with whom we spoke, been applied in
the Abitibi region.
The consultants view the concern over
cumulative effects as being the other side of the “integrated
land use planning” discussion. The major reason for integrating
planning is to enable planners to consider all impacts. Where
cumulative effects assessment may be more explicit is in the temporal
dimension—the accumulated effects from all sources should
be considered over time.
In decision making, one ideally wants
to assess the cumulative effects of activities taking place in
a variety of sectors over long time periods. This would be one
of the characteristics, and benefits, of a well-designed regional
planning process that brought the range of relevant interests
to the table. Conducting access planning on a case-by-case basis,
without the benefit of an overall guiding document, is an excellent
example of the disregard for cumulative effects.
Recommendation 10:
When environmental assessments are undertaken in the region in
the future, they should take into account the cumulative environmental
effects of existing and proposed development activities.
4.7
Aboriginal Peoples
The key themes of the sixth SFM criterion
developed by the CCFM (see Table 5) are respecting Aboriginal
values and incorporating them into decision making. This entails
encouraging and facilitating the involvement of Aboriginal peoples
in aspects of resource management ranging from planning to harvesting
agreements and licences. Many Aboriginal people would also like
to receive some share of resource royalties. Most Aboriginal people
believe that respect for Aboriginal and treaty rights should be
paramount in any resource decisions and agreements—a view
underscored through their participation in the development of
the Forest Stewardship Council’s national boreal standard.
Respect for Aboriginal and treaty rights,
coupled with meaningful Aboriginal participation in resource-based
economic opportunities, would contribute to conservation on several
levels. For example, it would promote the sustainability of Aboriginal
communities by helping to address the high unemployment and social
dysfunction present in many of these communities. It would also
contribute to the conservation of natural heritage, since Aboriginal
people are major harvesters of fish and game—over the long
term, they need to be involved in wildlife management. Finally,
many Aboriginal people have traditional knowledge that, if integrated
into forest planning and use, would help to improve improve the
overall quality of management.
Within the forest sector, there have
been incentives to include Aboriginal communities in forest planning
and management and encourage their entry into the forest sector.
These incentives include certification requirements, legal requirements
and provincial government direction. However, as one Aboriginal
representative mentioned at the Rouyn-Noranda workshop, there
are major differences in how the two governments are moving to
address First Nation issues.
Since 1998, the Quebec government has
signed several agreements with Aboriginal communities, most notably
the James Bay Cree, and a trilateral agreement with the Barriere
Lake Algonquin community (in the Outaouais) and the Canadian government.
Small parts of the territories covered by both these agreements
overlap with the Abitibi region. For this reason, and because
these accords represent an interesting precedent that could lead
the way to similar agreements with the Aboriginal communities
of the Abitibi, we will briefly describe the most substantial
of these accords: the James Bay Cree accord.
The Paix des Braves is the biggest
agreement between First Nations and government in world history:
$3.5 billion over 50 years plus a share of the benefits from natural
resources taken from Cree land. Nine Cree communities in Quebec
voted to accept this deal on January 30, 2002. On one hand, the
massive extension of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement
promises more Hydro-Québec development and jobs for the
Cree people north of the present study area of Abitibi. On the
other hand, the required diversion of the Rupert River and construction
of the Eastmain 1,200-MW power plant will decimate certain Cree
trap lines and disrupt lives, some believe at significant cost
to the Cree traditional way of life.
The provisions of the agreement regarding
forestry aim, among other things, to establish a concrete, adapted
forestry regime that establishes particular rules and procedures
to better reconcile forest activities with the hunting, fishing
and trapping activities of the Cree. The special measures imposed
by this accord will have a direct impact on the Quebec forest
industry. Close to 2 million m3 will be subtracted from the actual
AAC. On top of that, 350,000 m3 will be transferred from the industry’s
current forest licences and given to the Cree. The industry estimates
these changes will cost it an additional $1.25 million per year
(the Cree are expected to sell the 350,000 m3 of wood back to
the industry at a profit).
Wood volumes have been allocated to
many First Nation communities in other parts of Quebec. For example,
a joint forestry plan has been elaborated with the Manouane Atikamekw,
and a fauna–forest management accord has been reached with
the Gesgapégiag Micmacs. Excluding the 350,000 m3 allocation
given to the Cree under the Paix des Braves agreement, the volumes
allocated to Quebec First Nation communities and corporations
went from 247,000 m3 in 1998 to 651,000 m3 in 2003. These volumes
do not include the contracts given to First Nation communities
by various forest industries for harvest, transport, road construction
and silviculture interventions.
Finally, the Quebec government has
been negotiating with the Innu, the Montagnais and the Atikamekw
to clarify their traditional rights and allow them to better develop
socially and economically. An accord was reached in 2002 with
the Innu to increase their territory, recognize the autonomy of
their government and return them 3% of royalties paid from natural
resources extracted in the Nitassinan (their traditional land).
The Ontario government has taken a
very different approach to working with First Nations. Rather
than negotiating agreements like those in Quebec, Ontario is moving
toward issuing sustainable forest licences to Aboriginal communities
such as the Moose Cree in the area north of the existing licensed
forest area. Because the area of interest is well north in the
province, most Aboriginal groups in Ontario will not benefit or
have a role in these developments. In 1994, the Class Environmental
Assessment of Timber Management produced Term and Condition 77,
which required forest managers to make efforts to increase the
participation of Aboriginal people and communities in the forest
sector. Some positive developments in the Abitibi region include
the creation of an active and successful logging business by New
Post First Nation and the participation in the Lake Abitibi Model
Forest to varying degrees by the Wahgoshig First Nation. The forest
management planning process also includes provisions for a special
Aboriginal consultation process. However, Ontario’s efforts
to work with Aboriginal peoples have been a relatively low priority
for the provincial government and have yielded few solid achievements,
especially compared with Quebec.
Recommendation 11:
There is a need to accelerate the progress that has been made
to provide Aboriginal communities with meaningful involvement
in resource management, especially in Ontario.
At the Rouyn-Noranda workshop, one
working group recommended the formation of an Aboriginal Table
of Forests, suggesting that it would be an important champion
for landscape-level planning and management. The consultants feel
that such a table would likely be redundant, since at the level
of the case study area, individual First Nations and tribal councils
are able to play this role. Provincially, such a table would likely
founder on regional differences; the National Aboriginal Forestry
Association is an effective national voice. Moreover, the consultants
feel that the Ontario provincial government’s reluctance
to make serious concessions is the main obstacle in the case study
area.
4.8
Lack of Capacity
A pervasive concern in the forest
sector is lack of capacity. This comes to the fore most prominently
in the case of provincial governments and First Nations.
4.8.1
Aboriginal Communities
Lack of capacity within Aboriginal
communities is a major obstacle to their advancement. Many Aboriginal
communities are small, and typically there are about a dozen people
who do the bulk of the administration, development and negotiation
work. These people are overtaxed, with the result that communities
must be very selective about what processes they engage in. While
there is a new generation of well-trained and educated people
coming of age, their impact will take time to become apparent
to outsiders. In the meantime, many processes that would welcome
First Nation representation do not receive it.
Many Aboriginal communities also lack
the funds required to fully participate in many processes. This
is another significant limitation and one reason why Aboriginal
people would like timber licences and allocations, if not outright
resource ownership.
A number of sources of assistance are
available for First Nation business start-ups and entrepreneurs.
Within Quebec, the Aboriginal Tourism Corporation helps Aboriginal
enterprises involved in tourism by providing advice on issues
such as marketing and product development. The Association is
supported by the Assembly of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador,
Tourisme Québec and the Canadian Tourism Commission. The
website (www.staq.net) lists one operation in the Abitibi region,
a tourism operation based in Pikogan. In Ontario, the equivalent
organization is the Northern Ontario Native Tourism Association
based in Thunder Bay. More widely, the Aboriginal Business Program
of the federal government is intended to provide assistance related
to business planning, feasibility studies, product development,
marketing and management.
4.8.2
Provincial Government
An extended period of fiscal restraint
by the Ontario and Quebec provincial governments has substantially
reduced the resources provided to government departments. Recent
provincial budgets clearly indicate that restraint will continue
for the foreseeable future. In both Ontario and Quebec, the natural
resources ministries have limited resources. Cost cutting has
been achieved in part by transferring forest planning and operational
tasks to the licensees. The ministries retain responsibility for
policy setting and regulation, planning approval, and wildlife
and recreation management.
Both MRNFP and MNR appear to lack the
capacity to effectively meet their retained responsibilities.
The auditor general of Quebec identified MRNFP’s management
weakness in his 2001 report. A number of interview subjects observed
that both MNR and Ontario conservation authorities need more funding
to ensure adequate levels of staff and adequate resources to invest
in management. In Quebec, industry foresters remarked that MRNFP
does not have the capacity to analyze and use all the data from
the public consultations and resource inventories carried out
by industry to comply with provincial norms and regulations. Senior
MRNFP employees confirmed that the ministry needed more funding
to better address these issues. Provincial government researchers
also lack funds to undertake major studies: they must rely on
multi-party approaches. Under-funding has meant that government
has difficulty fulfilling its obligations, turnaround times are
slow, and there is little capacity for non-mandatory analyses
and investigations. For example, independent forest audits regularly
cite MNR’s under-funding of values collection, which leads
to more time-consuming revisions later on; delays in the provision
of new forest inventories by MNR are not uncommon.
Industry staff and others felt that
a better allocation of present resources could improve this situation.
In their view, the problem is not lack of financing but the heavy
reliance on process and overly strict standards. For example,
MRNFP’s requirements will force the industry to provide
a lot of inventory data for regions of high homogeneity. We agree
that there may be opportunities, especially in longer term with
the increase in forest certification, to reduce administrative
time. However, we also think that MNR and MRNFP have insufficient
resources to adequately meet their obligations.
As government has assumed a greater
regulatory role, a greater emphasis on process is to be expected.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. A well-designed and well-applied
process can help provincial governments efficiently and consistently
meet standards. Indeed, we and others view the long-term forest
planning processes as a strength. However, some interview subjects
felt that the need to follow process had reduced content quality
and that some annual operational planning and revision processes
had become unnecessarily onerous. They felt that an excessive
use of process had exacerbated capacity shortages at the provincial
government agencies. Furthermore, the consultants have observed
that few provincial government staff are able to get out into
the field: it is common to find district foresters who get out
into the field no more than two or three days in a year.
Recommendation 12:
Provincial governments should consider streamlining selected administrative
processes for licensees that consistently meet or exceed standards.
This is frequently identified as a potential incentive that can
be offered to managers of certified forests.
4.9
Carbon Management
Management of forests as carbon stocks
is in its infancy, and there are no regulations or requirements
yet in place. The Forest Products Association of Canada has negotiated
a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the federal government
on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The MOU includes provisions
for the development of forest-based carbon offsets. The rules
of the federal government’s Offset Trading System are currently
in development, and forest carbon offsets will be a component
of the system when it is launched in 2006. Thus, there are excellent
opportunities to implement clever and innovative approaches that
will support conservation. For carbon management, the dictum “think
globally, act locally” applies in spades. While the extent
of Canada’s commitment to the Kyoto Protocol is questionable,
it is not a necessary condition to advancing carbon management.
Some certification standards already contain indicators related
to carbon management.
The more important obstacles to greater
carbon management include:
While there are many science-related
questions and uncertainties, these tend to be related to quantification,
measurement technology and sampling procedures, and understanding
the details of biophysical processes. In the view of the consultants,
the existing base of scientific knowledge is functional.
Forest managers are beginning to understand
that carbon sequestration is a real value and that, once ownership
rights over carbon credits are established, it will begin to figure
more prominently in forest management. Carbon sequestration is
strongly aligned with conservation, especially biodiversity conservation,
and the consideration of carbon value has the potential to profoundly
reorient forest management in a region where there is abundant
carbon in the humus and soils and the economic returns from timber
production cannot be high. Gorham (1991) estimated that northern
peatlands contain one-third of the global soil carbon, and Rouse
et al. (2001) found that boreal forests in the Hudson Bay Lowland
are carbon sinks while fens are carbon sources. The forest sequestered
three times as much carbon as was emitted by the fen, per unit
area.
Recommendation 13:
The provincial governments should resolve issues of carbon credit
ownership in Crown forests. At the same time, they should look
for ways to provide suitable incentives for forest managers to
consider carbon values in forest management decision making.
4.10
Caribou Management
Caribou management is the headline
conservation concern in the Abitibi region, and it crystallizes
many of the issues and obstacles identified in this paper. We
believe that the management of caribou is a litmus test of society’s
seriousness about conservation. Many of our interviewees expressed
concern that we as a society are not willing to make a serious
effort to maintain caribou in their current range.
Woodland caribou populations have been
declining across North America since the 1800s, and during this
period their range has shifted northwards. However, there is controversy
over the reasons for these declines. Forest management has been
strongly implicated, in concert with shifts in the densities and
distributions of moose and wolves (facilitated by access construction).
Woodland caribou are designated as a threatened species by the
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.
In the northern part of the Abitibi
region, woodland caribou occur in reasonable numbers, but their
long-term survival prospects are not encouraging. Caribou are
widely considered to be very sensitive to human influence, suggesting
that intensifying resource use and increased access will drive
continued loss of range. Recent estimates by MNR indicate that
their population is declining, and there is concern that the area
to which they are now relegated may be marginal habitat in the
context of their original distribution.
The elusiveness of caribou contributes
greatly to the relative lack of knowledge about them (lack of
provincial government capacity and non-involvement of First Nations
in management are factors here). In fact, a sizable herd was discovered
in the Detour Lake area less than 10 years ago, and the range
of this herd is now known to include parts of both Ontario and
Quebec.
The Ontario government has developed
a set of landscape-level forest management guidelines for the
conservation of woodland caribou. These guidelines are based on
the philosophy that the species is best managed by providing a
continuous supply of large intact areas (at least 10,000 ha in
size) of winter and summer habitat, taking account of current
habitat usage and future requirements (OMNR 1999). Preferred winter
habitat, which is particularly crucial, consists of mature, open
coniferous forest, with abundant lichen cover. In essence, the
approach for managing caribou involves concentrating operations
on a relatively few blocks of forest, while undertaking no operations
and limiting access in the remainder of the forest. One-kilometre-wide
no-harvest buffers should be placed around calving areas. Forest
access roads should be temporary when constructed in significant
habitat tracts. Once harvesting is complete, access to the blocks
should be removed, and the blocks left undisturbed for at least
100 years; in this manner, operations will rotate around the forest
over a 100- to 120-year period. This approach contrasts strongly
with the more common management approaches whereby operations
are widely dispersed across the forest to minimize overall disturbance
in any particular area.
The Ontario guidelines are applicable
to northwestern Ontario; a set of guidelines appropriate for northeastern
Ontario and northwestern Quebec might differ in some details,
due to ecological differences, but the main approach would not
change. Currently in northeastern Ontario, only selected high-value
sites, such as calving grounds, are protected.
A landscape-level conservation approach
to caribou management provides many additional conservation benefits
besides simply conserving caribou. For this reason, the caribou
is an example of an umbrella species: if caribou are protected,
a wide range of other species will also be protected (under the
umbrella of caribou conservation). For example, in northwestern
Ontario, preferred caribou wintering areas are typically large
expanses of forest dominated by mature conifers on less fertile,
dry, outwash plains, eskers, sand dunes and areas of thin, rocky
soils. Caribou also do well where alternative ungulate prey are
scarce, predator densities are low and road densities are low
or nil. Thus, examples of other values that would be protected
under a caribou management strategy include marten, wolverine
and many boreal bird species. Remote and/or roadless areas would
also be a value that would accompany a caribou management strategy.
Management goals regarding caribou
populations are oriented toward limiting future declines, rather
than reestablishing populations. Resource managers and society
in general face some hard choices given the seeming incompatibility
of caribou with resource management and development. The key issue
may be whether society is willing to limit development opportunities
in order to spare caribou.
Recommendation 14:
An integrated, regional caribou management strategy should be
developed in the Abitibi region.
|
