Journal of Environmental Management 132 (2014) 257e267
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman
Criteria and indicators for the assessment of community forestry outcomes: a comparative analysis from Canada Sara Teitelbaum* Department of Sociology, Université de Montréal, Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, C.P. 6128, Succ. Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3J7 Canada
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 3 February 2012 Received in revised form 17 October 2013 Accepted 5 November 2013 Available online 8 December 2013
In Canada, there are few structured evaluations of community forestry despite more than twenty years of practice. This article presents a criteria and indicator framework, designed to elicit descriptive information about the types of socio-economic results being achieved by community forests in the Canadian context. The criteria and indicators framework draws on themes proposed by other researchers both in the field of community forestry and related areas. The framework is oriented around three concepts described as amongst the underlying objectives of community forestry, namely participatory governance, local economic benefits and multiple forest use. This article also presents the results of a field-based application of the criteria and indicators framework, comparing four case studies in three Canadian provinces. All four are community forests with direct tenure rights to manage and benefit from forestry activities. Results reveal that in terms of governance, the case studies adhere to two different models, which we name ‘interest group’ vs. ‘local government’. Stronger participatory dimensions are evident in two case studies. In the area of local economic benefits, the four case studies perform similarly, with some of the strongest benefits being in employment creation, especially for those case studies that offer non-timber activities such as recreation and education. Two of four cases have clearly adopted a multiple-use approach to management. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Community forestry Community-based forest management Local governance Evaluation Social sustainability Canada
1. Introduction Community forestry is an established approach to the management of forests worldwide. Sunderlin et al. (2008) estimate that 27% of forests in the developing world are either owned or accessible by community groups. In the developing world context, political reforms in favor of community forestry have come about as a response to the struggles of rural and Indigenous populations collectively seeking to combat escalating rates of deforestation and social exclusion. Since the 1980s, intergovernmental organizations as well as international development organizations have also supported the implementation of bottomeup approaches such as community forestry as a means to reduce poverty and address environmental degradation (Brosius et al., 2005). In industrialized countries, the adoption of community forestry approaches has been slower (Sunderlin et al., 2008). In Canada, the focus of this paper, public land continues to be allocated almost exclusively to the private sector in the form of long-term tenures. In return, forest companies are required to invest in processing
* Tel.: þ1 514 343 6111x49083; fax: þ1 514 514 343 5722. E-mail address:
[email protected]. 0301-4797/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.11.013
facilities and pay stumpage fees to provincial governments (Howlett and Rayner, 2001). However, there is evidence of a public appetite for community forestry, emanating from rural-based constituents and organizations, academic milieus and civil society organizations (Smith and Palmer, 2012; NOSCP, 2010; Bouthillier and Dionne, 1995). And indeed, over the years, there have been modest political reforms in favour of devolving forestry rights to communities, most since the 1990’s. Two provinces, Quebec and British Columbia have established legal tenures, which allow community organizations (including municipalities, Indigenous communities and non-profits) to manage and benefit from public forest resources. In the province of Ontario, there is a long history of municipal forest management (Teitelbaum and Bullock, 2012). However, it appears that community forestry in the sense described in this paper, of community-based organizations which hold a direct tenure to manage and benefit from a public forest, comprise less than 2% of all public forests in the country (Teitelbaum et al., 2006). The impetus towards establishing community forests in Canada, a country wherein 94% of forests are publicly owned, is multifaceted but has been linked to public dissatisfaction with the legacy of topedown and centralized management as well as broadly expressed concerns with the impacts of industrial forestry practices
258
S. Teitelbaum / Journal of Environmental Management 132 (2014) 257e267
on the environment (Bullock and Hanna, 2012; Bullock et al., 2009; Pinkerton et al., 2008). There is an economic dimension to this critique as well, as provincial tenure allocation practices are described as resulting in the consolidation of activities amongst a few corporate players, thereby restricting entrepreneurial opportunities in communities (Krogman and Beckley, 2002; Howlett and Rayner, 2001; Clapp, 1998). Thus, the discourse surrounding community forestry tends to present it as a counterpoint to the status quo. For example, community forestry is commonly described as an approach with the potential to foster more participatory approaches to decision-making, create locally-centered economic development strategies and enhance environmental outcomes (Furness and Nelson, 2012; Tyler et al., 2007; Beckley, 1998; Burda and M’Gonigle, 1996). Despite more than two decades of community forestry implementation in Canada, there is little empirical research examining linkages between community forestry practice and the goals underlying this approach. This stands in contrast to the developing world, where a substantial literature has emerged focused on evaluation, including several international studies and metaanalyses (Bray et al., 2008; Pagdee et al., 2006; Glasmeier and Farrigan, 2005; Carter and Gronow, 2005; Shackleton et al., 2002; Kellert et al., 2000) as well as national and regional comparisons (Hajjar et al., 2012; Lawrence et al., 2009; Malla et al., 2003) There is also methodological work available to guide evaluation (Maryudi et al., 2012; Ritchie et al., 2000). This literature allows for a level of generalization not yet seen in Canada, pointing to lower-thanexpected performance in both socio-economic and ecological areas, which is linked to a number of constraints stemming both from the community level, due to such things as limited capacity, insufficient democratic accountability and corruption (Ribot et al., 2006; Larson and Ribot, 2004), and from the state level, where there is evidence of insufficient devolution of rights, resources and institutional support (Agrawal et al., 2008; Wollenberg et al., 2008; Shackleton et al., 2002). In Canada, there is a growing literature on community forestry, which, while not explicitly oriented towards evaluation, does provides an indication of how these initiatives are faring. This research describes a number of social benefits, such as enhanced networking and collaboration amongst stakeholders (Leclerc and Chiasson, 2013; Bullock and Hanna, 2012; Chiasson et al., 2005) and the adoption of more integrated and/or diversified approaches to forest management (Teitelbaum and Bullock, 2012; Tremblay, 2009; Gélinas, 2001). Other descriptive accounts indicate that it has proved challenging for community forest organizations to manifest strong practices of social inclusion and economic differentiation, due to institutional barriers, insufficient local capacity and challenging economic contexts (Ambus and Hoberg, 2011; McIlveen and Bradshaw, 2009; Pinkerton et al., 2008; Ambus et al., 2007; McIlveen and Bradshaw 2005/2006). However, these findings are based on a limited number of case studies and preliminary program review, thus it is difficult to draw clear conclusions. Furthermore, there is little specific social, economic and environmental data being generated about community forestry performance and outcomes. As a result, it remains challenging to assess the impacts of this approach, compare the strengths and weaknesses of different models and generalize about links to the social well-being of adjacent communities. Given the strong ideological underpinnings of community forestry, and the attention it has received both from civil society groups and policy-makers in Canada, there is clearly an opportunity to contribute new research in the area of evaluation. This paper aims to contribute to the development of methodology for evaluating progress in community forestry in a Canadian context, while adding to available baseline data concerning community forestry
practice. In the first part of the paper, we present a structured method, namely a criteria and indicators framework, designed for the presentation of community forestry outcomes in relation to three concepts often described as amongst the underlying objectives of community forestry in a Canadian context, namely participatory governance, local economic benefits and multiple forest use. The framework draws on research and metrics proposed by other researchers both in the field of community forestry, in Canada and internationally (Reed and McIlveen, 2006; Foothills Model Forest, 2003; Ritchie et al., 2000), and related areas such as collaboration (Leach, 2004; Mascarenhas and Scarce, 2004; Innes and Booher, 1999) and sustainable forest management (CCFM, 2006; FSC, 2004). In the second part of this paper, we present the results of a field-based application of the criteria and indicators framework, which occurred between 2004 and 2006 comparing four community forest organizations in three Canadian provinces e British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. In this exercise, we used a combination of socio-economic data gathered at the case study organizations (annual reports, forest management reports, etc.) and interviews with key informants within each organization, in order to provide a descriptive comparison of outcomes. 2. Conceptual dimensions of the evaluation: participatory governance, local economic benefits and multiple forest use It is frequently observed that it is difficult to provide a single definition of community forestry, due to the context-specific and locally-defined nature of objectives and practices. However, there are a series of underlying principles which distinguish this approach, perhaps most central being those of enhanced local participation in decision-making and improved social equity (Hajjar et al., 2012; Glasmeier and Farrigan, 2005). For example, McDermott and Schreckenberg (2009) define community forestry as “the exercise by local people of power or influence over decisions regarding management of forests, including the rules of access and the disposition of products” (p.158). Concern for the state of the environment is another common theme (Maryudi et al., 2012, Muñoz-Erickson et al., 2007). These and other objectives have been used to evaluate progress in community forestry. For example, in the Global South, studies examining the relationship between community forestry and poverty alleviation are common (McDermott and Schreckenberg, 2009; Dhakal et al., 2007; Glasmeier and Farrigan, 2005), In the North, considerable attention has been paid to the collaborative potential of community forestry, including in conflict resolution (Bullock and Hanna, 2012; Chiasson et al., 2005; Carter and Gronow, 2005). This study follows in this tradition of comparing community forestry outcomes to goals, through the analysis of multiple efforts (Charnley and Poe, 2007; Conley and Moote, 2003; Kellert et al., 2000). We selected three concepts which appear to be relevant to the Canadian context, as they appeared both in the research literature and in the written objectives of specific initiatives, namely: 1) local and participatory governance, 2) local economic benefits, and 3) multiple forest use. Clearly these three concepts by no means provide a comprehensive evaluation of community forestry practice, and indeed, this was not our objective. The first concept, local and participatory governance speaks to the need for local involvement and influence over decision-making (Glasmeier and Farrigan, 2005; Ritchie et al., 2000; Brendler and Carey, 1998). In a sense, it is both a defining feature of community forestry and a desired outcome. Implementing local and participatory governance is multi-faceted, requiring not only efforts towards creating inclusive and accountable institutions at the local level, but also the presence of a sufficient level of authority to ensure that decisions have bearing. The latter aspect of decision-
S. Teitelbaum / Journal of Environmental Management 132 (2014) 257e267
making authority, has received considerable attention both by scholars looking at community-based management and devolution policy (Wollenberg et al., 2008; Larson and Ribot, 2004). Berkes (1994) for example, describes a typology with seven rungs ranging from the bottom, called ‘informing’ to the top called ‘community control and partnership’. Empirical research reveals that community forestry generally involves, at best, a form of partnership between government and communities, but that there is also clear resistance amongst central governments to relinquish authority to communities, especially for those activities with revenue-generating potential or strategic importance (Hajjar et al., 2012; Ambus and Hoberg, 2011; McDermott and Schreckenberg, 2009). Evaluating community forests, in terms of participatory governance also requires an examination of the quality of local governance, meaning how community forest organizations gain and share their authority with the broader community. In highlighting the complex and heterogenous nature of communities, scholars are also demonstrating the potential dangers of community forests becoming ‘captured’ by specific interests groups or remaining inaccessible to certain disadvantaged groups within a community (Thoms, 2008; Cousins and Kepe, 2004; Singleton, 2000). This stems, in part, from the lack of clear democratic mechanisms for downward accountability within the design of many communitybased organizations (Ribot et al., 2010). There is, however, growing consensus on the types of elements that are required for “good governance”, including such things are transparency, participation, accountability, equity and capacity (Secco et al., 2011; World Resources Institute, 2009). The second concept examined here, local economic benefits, speaks to the collective aspiration that benefits generated from community forestry activities be directed to local communities (Charnley and Poe, 2007; McCallum et al., 2007; Duinker et al., 1994). These benefits can take different forms and are not exclusive to economic realms; some community forests prefer to reinvest profits back into the forest, for example for environmental restoration or the development of new activities (Teitelbaum and Bullock, 2012). However, in this paper we focus on economic benefits, due to the greater ease of measurement. The economic benefits associated with community forestry differ in the developing world and industrialized contexts. In the developing world, where community forestry has been conceived as a strategy to improve local livelihoods, close attention has been paid to relationship between community forestry and poverty alleviation (Maryudi et al., 2012, Charnley and Poe, 2007; Pokharel and Suvedi, 2007; Glasmeier and Farrigan, 2005). Within these contexts, community forestry initiatives generally aim to improve access to forest products for subsistence purposes or for the development of small-scale commercial activities. In industrialized countries such as Canada, community forestry remains embedded in a commercial forestry context, and is often conceived as a strategy to help revitalize dwindling rural economies (McCallum et al., 2007; Clogg, 1997; Burda and M’Gonigle 1996). Thus community economic benefits tend to be characterized in terms of jobs, wood processing opportunities, value-added processing as well as reinvestments of profits in community services and infrastructures (Ambus et al., 2007; Allen and Frank, 1994). A third concept, multiple forest use is less universal than the former two, but nonetheless appears in academic and policy definitions as well as stated objectives of community forests (Furness and Nelson, 2012; Duinker et al., 1994; British Columbia Ministry of Forests n.d., McBride Community Forest Corporation, n.d.). Multiple forest use can be defined as: “managing a forested area to simultaneously provide more than one of the following resource objectives: fish and wildlife, wood products, recreation, aesthetics,
259
grazing, watershed protection, and historical or scientific values” (Hubbard et al., 2010: p. 5). In Canada, community forests have been described as particularly well suited to developing a multi-use approach, because they are in tune with local values and preferences (Furness and Nelson, 2012; Gélinas and Bouthillier, 2005). Furthermore, unlike private companies, whose raison d’être is commercial harvesting for profit, community forests are usually not-for-profit organizations with an explicit objective to create benefits for local residents (Teitelbaum et al., 2006). Recent research from Canada examines linkages between community forests and the development of non-timber opportunities. For example, in examining climate change mitigation in British Columbia community forests, Furness and Nelson (2012) reveal that approximately one-third of initiatives integrate climate change adaptation techniques into current practices. Similarly, Rethoret (2010) demonstrates the importance of watershed protection as a dominant management value for several community forests in British Columbia. 3. Methods: development of a criteria and indicator framework Criteria and indicators (C & I) have become a leading approach towards measuring progress in the achievement of sustainable development objectives (United Nations, 2007). Social indicators are defined as “statistics or other measures that enable assessment of the social trends and the human dimensions of programs and program impacts” (Genskow and Prokopy, 2009, p.85). The approach is valued for its ability to provide specific, measurable accounts of socio-economic and environmental conditions and is widely used by communities, practitioners, and policy-makers at local, national and international scales. However the approach is not universally accepted. Critics challenge the reductionist and positivist basis on which indicators are constructed, arguing that social values are inherently subjective and mutable and are therefore not easily translated into standardized measurements (Slee, 2007; Bell and Morse, 2001). Two broad approaches to C & I approaches can be distinguished, those which are expert-driven (‘topedown’), and those which are participatory (‘bottomeup’) (Fraser et al., 2006). Topedown initiatives often involve the use of quantitative measures and rely on secondary data. In recent decades, a myriad of expert-led processes have emerged, which seek to track progress towards meeting sustainable development goals, at different scales (Dahl, 2012; United Nations, 2007; CCFM, 2006). By contrast, bottomeup processes involve community members or other stakeholders in project design, planning and implementation. These processes are valued for their ability to provide locally-adapted and relevant information, including more perceptual dimensions, but are often more expensive and time-consuming. Research reveals that these processes also provide benefits for participants in terms of building community capacity and fostering social learning (Reed and Fraser, 2006). There exists good guidance for the development of criteria and indicator frameworks (Land et al., 2012; Genskow and Prokopy, 2009). For example, CIFOR’s (1999) work, which was an important source of guidance for this study, describes an 8-step process for developing an expert-driven approach to evaluation of sustainable forest management, including: the definition of objectives; the design of a conceptual framework; site selection; criteria and indicator selection; field testing by experts; analysis of results; workshop to finalise criteria and indicators; documentation of test results and selected criteria and indicators. For this study, the approach taken adheres more closely to the ‘topedown’ approach, however without a strong quantitative and
260
S. Teitelbaum / Journal of Environmental Management 132 (2014) 257e267
statistical orientation. The goal of this exercise was to identify a series of descriptive indicators, which could help characterize the progress of community forests in meeting a common set of objectives. This exercise was part of a larger study, which employed mixed-methods to evaluate community forestry in Canada (Teitelbaum, 2009). For the identification of indicators, a review of existing indicator frameworks designed for the evaluation of community forestry was conducted, including Ritchie et al. (2000), Krott and Stefanov (2008) and Pokharel and Suvedi (2007), amongst others. However, the level of specificity of these frameworks and their orientation towards a tropical forest context made it difficult to apply these indicators directly to the Canadian community forest milieu. The decision was therefore taken to develop a new C & I framework, specific to the Canadian context, by drawing on existing published material. In order to identify criteria and indicators, a broad literature review was done, which included community forestry research both internationally and Canadian, as well as research on public participation, collaborative resource management, sustainable forest management and forest governance (select sources listed in Tables 2e4). Technical reports, such as forest management plans, policy evaluations and forest certification standards were also reviewed and proved particularly helpful. Most of these reports and articles did not provide direct examples of indicators, but allowed for the identification of thematic content which inspired the design of criteria and indicators. An effort was made to identify indicators which were of direct relevance to community forestry practice, and which were operationalizable and comparable across contexts. A draft version of the C & I framework was presented to practitioners in each of the four case study sites (n ¼ 4) during individual face-to-face meetings, and revisions were made based on the input received. Tables 2e4 list the final C & I framework, which includes 3 concepts, 14 criteria and 29 indicators. In order to compile answers to the selected indicators, information was gathered from each case study organization between 2004 and 2006 and involved a combination of document analysis and interviews at the four community forest organizations. Review of documentation included annual reports, financial statements, management plans, websites and regional statistics. Interviews were conducted with key professionals within each organization (n ¼ 12). In many cases, forest managers were able to provide the answers to the indicator questions. For indicators requiring comparison of statistics, such as financial performance, the year 2005 was used. During the exercise of designing and applying the C & I framework, it became clear just how challenging it is to develop objective indicators and establish fair measurement thresholds in a
comparative study such as this one, especially considering the different contextual backgrounds of each case study and the relatively topedown approach adopted here. Therefore, while we initially designed a measurement framework based on specific numeric values (scale of 1e10), which allowed for aggregation, in this paper we choose to present results in a more qualitative form, namely as strengths and weaknesses. We also make an effort to discuss explanatory factors as part of our results and discussion sections, as this provides some of the contextual background which is missing in a strict indicator analysis. 3.1. Selection and description of case studies The sampling approach used to identify the four case studies was nonrandom and purposive (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The cases were drawn from a pool of over one hundred initiatives identified through a comprehensive survey of national initiatives conducted previously by the author (Teitelbaum et al., 2006). This inventory captured all the initiatives in Canada with area-based tenures to a public forest, governed locally or regionally with an explicit objective to create local benefits. The survey also included forests owned by local governments (municipalities, counties, etc.) outside of urban areas. The four case studies were selected in order to reflect diversity of this pool in terms of a number of features, including: a) organizational structure, b) tenure type, and c) geopolitical context within Canada. Only case studies with five years of experience to more were considered. The cases are not statistically representative of the diversity of the wider sample, however provide the basis for analytic generalization (Curtis et al., 2000; Firestone, 1993). Table 1 provides a description of key features of the four case studies. The first, Creston Valley Forest Corporation (we abbreviate to Creston CF) in the Kootenay region of British Columbia, worked under an industrial forest tenure at the time of research. Creston CF’s operating area is largely within the community’s watershed, an area where the prospect of industrial timber harvesting proved both controversial and divisive, due to resident concerns over water quality. The community forest was conceived as a type of compromise between outright protection and commercial harvesting and has been oriented strongly towards the implementation of ecologically sensitive forestry operations. The second case study, the Corporation de Gestion de la Forêt de l’Aigle (Forêt de l’Aigle) is situated in the Outaouais region of Quebec and is one of the best-known community forests in Quebec. It was formed in 1996, to take over management of an unallocated tract of 15,000 ha of Crown land, known for its large stands of white pine, a high-
Table 1 Case study description. Creston Valley forest Corporation
Corporation de Gestion de la Forêt de l’Aigle
Regional County Municipality of Matane
South Nation Conservation Authority Eastern Ontario Conservation authority (watershedbased para-municipal organization) Forest health, public input, promote and optimize forest uses, socioeconomic and environmental evaluation 1947 (South Nation took over forest management in 1999) 3500 ha (plus 14,000 ha managed for adjacent counties) Direct ownership (owned by the organization but managed on behalf of constituents)
Location Organizational structure Summary of objectives (as described in policy, plan, websites) Year started
Kootenay region, British Columbia Not-for-profit Corporation
Outaouais region, Quebec Not-for-profit Corporation
Ecosystem-based forestry, public involvement, local employment, education and training, financial self-sufficiency, timber for valueadded businesses 1997
Conciliation of timber harvesting and other forest uses, develop socio-economic potential of region, socially acceptable development
Gaspe region, Quebec Regional government (includes 11 municipalities) Harmonious co-habitation of activities, protection of forest resources, economic development
1996
1999
Size of landbase
15,000 ha
14,000 ha
13,000 ha
Tenure
Crown (Forest License later transferred to Community Forest Agreement License)
Crown (Forest Management Contract)
Crown (Territorial Management Agreement)
S. Teitelbaum / Journal of Environmental Management 132 (2014) 257e267
261
Table 2 Indicator results for concept of ‘local and participatory governance’. Criteria
Local character of decision-making process Representation
Inclusivity Transparency Authority of decision-making process Quality of public participation
Indicator
Proportion of board derived from local community Local participation in design of decision-making (DM) process Criteria for democratic selection of board members Criteria for inclusion of forest stakeholders on board Mechanisms for integration of new members in decision-making process Board meetings open to the public Financial statements publicly available Extent of decision-making rights accorded by tenure (operational vs. management planning vs. strategic) Number of regular public participation activities Outreach to Aboriginal peoples Accessible information provided to public (summary of plans, info sheets, etc.) Surveys or other instruments to gain input from wider public
Results Creston
Forêt de l’Aigle
Matane RCM
South Nation
100%
100%
100%
100%
Yes
Yes
No, provincial
No, provincial
No, internal selection Yes
No, internal selection
Yes
Yes
No
Partial, elected or appointed No
Yes, by application
Yes, by application
No
No
Yes Upon request Operational some mgmt
Yes Upon request Operational some mgmt
Yes Public posting Operational some mgmt
Yes Public posting Operational, mgmt, strategic
3
5
2
6
Yes, board seat (inactive) Yes, plan summary
Yes, board seat and projects Yes, plan summary, info sheets
No No
Yes, projects and Ab. coordinator Yes, info sheets
No
Yes
No
No
Sources which inspired indicators: Reed and McIlveen 2006, Beckley et al., 2005, Gèlinas and Bouthillier, 2005, Sheppard et al., 2005, Sherry et al., 2005, Leach 2004, Mascarenhas and Scarce 2004, Wellstead et al., 2003, Foothills Model Forest, 2003, Tembec 2002, CSA 2002, Smith and McDonough 2001, Ritchie et al., 2000, Burda and M’Gonigle 1996, Innes and Booher 1999, Schlager and Ostrom, 1992, Beckley 1998, NRTEE 1998.
value commodity in this region. The organization opted to combine forest harvesting with a suite of other activities such as recreation and research. Since this research was undertaken, the organization has undergone some restructuring, however this is not reflected in the research results. The third case, the Matane Regional County Municipality (Matane RCM) is a regional government situated in the Gaspé region of Quebec. The forests managed by the RCM are called “intramunicipal lots” and are scattered parcels of Crown land within the borders of the 11 associated municipalities, which were devolved as a result of a provincial government decentralization initiative. The underlying objective of forest management is primarily on generating employment and economic spinoffs for communities. The fourth case, South Nation Conservation Authority (South Nation) is a type of para-municipal environmental organization that manages its own privately-owned forests for the public interest. These lands were part of the ‘Agreement forest’ program, which was originally an initiative of the provincial government in order to rehabilitate degraded land. In addition to 3500 ha of their own forest, South Nation manages 14,000 ha for neighboring counties. The forests are managed for a variety of activities, including timber harvesting, recreation, and education. It should be noted that three of these case studies work within a regional rather than strictly local context. Thus, when we use the term ‘local’ in this paper, we define this term broadly to encompass regional and local activities. 4. Results 4.1. Participatory governance As is revealed in Table 2, all four case studies have a governance process with a clear local character. All the organizations have boards composed exclusively of individuals or organizations from within the community, and this is enshrined in policy. In the case of Creston CF and the Forêt de l’Aigle, the board structure is very much
a reflection of local context, as these organizations specifically sought to create an organization which could build a common vision or resolve conflict amongst what were potentially a disparate group of organizations. In the case of the Matane RCM and South Nation, however, the decision to get involved in community forestry, was partly a result of political decisions taken at the provincial level. Furthermore, in these two cases, the design of the board was determined externally, through legislation at the provincial level. In order to characterize the quality of the decision-making process, we rely on a number of indicators related to representation, inclusivity and transparency. What we see are two distinct approaches, each with its own set of strengths and weaknesses. In the cases of the ForÍt de l’Aigle and Creston CF, founding organizations made the decision to structure the board primarily around stakeholder group representation, what we call an ‘interest group approach’. In both these cases, the core membership is based on organizations within the community that have a direct connection to the forest, such as recreational groups, First Nations, environmental organizations, research institutes, etc. Organizational members each appoint one representative to the board. The Creston CF goes one step further, in stipulating that the core organizational board members also select 5 community representatives, whom apply directly to the board. New organizations are also permitted to apply for board membership, however the decision to accept or reject is made internally. Thus, these organizations perform well on the indicators related to ‘forest stakeholder representation’ and ‘inclusivity of new board members’. However these community forests perform less well when it comes to the democratic attributes of board membership. Essentially, this stems from the fact that opportunities for the surrounding community to determine board composition and renewal is restricted, as these decisions are taken internally. In terms of transparency, both organizations perform well, with open board meetings and annual reports made available upon request.
262
S. Teitelbaum / Journal of Environmental Management 132 (2014) 257e267
Table 3 Indicator results for concept of ‘local economic benefits’. Criteria
Local employment
Working conditions
Economic viability of the organization Other economic spinoffs
Indicator
Results
Policy of local hiring Number of people employed in forest activities on 15,000 ha (ft equivalent) Wages compared to regional standards in same industry (as per interviews with managers) Average number of days of training offered to employees annually Total surplus and reserve ratio Yearly surplus or deficit Current ratio Percent of timber processed regionally Percent of timber directed to regional value-added businesses Annual $ donated to local projects and initiatives
Creston
Forêt de l’Aigle
Matane RCM
South Nation
Yes 20e25
Yes 45e50
Yes 20e25
Yes 10e15
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
4
7
7
20
Poor Medium Medium >90%
