1 / 18

Forest Advisory Committees in Quebec: A Tool for Public Participation?

Explore the effectiveness of forest advisory committees in Quebec for public participation in forest management. Discover the composition, impact, and challenges faced by these committees. Gain insights into stakeholder involvement and decision-making processes.

caraf
Download Presentation

Forest Advisory Committees in Quebec: A Tool for Public Participation?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Forest Advisory Committees in Quebec: an effective tool for public participation? Solange Nadeau, ing.f., Ph.D. Catherine Martineau-DelislePhD Candidate

  2. Background • Most forests in Canada are located on public land • The responsibility for forest management is generally transferred to forest industry through licence or contract agreements • Some tensions exist concerning these licences and contracts, as communities want greater involvement in forest management • Proposed action: advisory committees for forest management

  3. Selection of committees • Active, dealing with forest issues in Quebec • Involving stakeholders other than government and forest industry • Active at the forest management planning stage, or at the local or regional scale • Overall: • 108 committees identified • 46 were surveyed • 947 committees members contacted, 471 answered

  4. The committees: areas of concern • Forest management plan: • 23 committees • Sponsor: forest industry • Advise forest managers on management plans • Local • 15 committees • Sponsor: mainly Regional County Municipality • Diverse mandate: advise managers, land-use issues, integrated forest management initiative • Regional • 8 committees • Sponsor: diverse, including government, local elected oficials, other groups • Diverse mandate: overall involvement in strategic planning,

  5. Duration of committees (in 2004)

  6. Respondents’ profile • Few women (18%) • From 15% for regional committees to 19% for local ones • Very little First Nations representation (3%) • Almost all involved at the forest management plan level • Average age: 45 years

  7. Respondents’ profile • 48% of respondents are economically dependent upon natural resources • Between 55% (local) and 75% (regional) have a university degree • Years of participation in committees:

  8. Reasons for involvement • Concerns about the impact of the forest industry on the environment (96%) • Want to contribute to planning because the forest is a public resource (91%) • Concerns about forest industry jobs in the area (79%) • Want to learn more about local issues (74%) • Required to attend as part of their job (70%) • Invitation from committee sponsor (70%) • Much more common for regional committees (86%) • Want to ensure that recreational opportunities are not diminished (65%) • Much less common for regional committees (49%)

  9. Selected to represent:

  10. Integration of values to decisions • I believe that forest management decision makers consider all viewpoints • Decisions from this process succeed in accommodating full spectrum of public interests

  11. Trust toward forest managers • I trust forest managers to make the right choices about forest management

  12. Participants’ satisfaction towards…

  13. Process Fairness and Effectiveness • The process is fair • The process is effective

  14. Impact of members on the process • I am able to influence the decisions that are made by the committee • My effort is well spent in the process

  15. Impact of process on forest management • The decisions are easy to implement • I am disappointed with past outcomes from this forest management process

  16. Impact of process on forest management • Decision makers regularly attend and participate in the committee’s activities. • This group is effective at influencing local forest decision making.

  17. Why the group influences decision making • Support from industry and government • Committee is influential • Members’ participation • Will to find consensus • Why the group does not influence decision making • Committees have little power themselves • Domination of industry and government • Obstruction and distrust between members • Low integration of participants’ issues in the agenda • High priority given to economic issues • Committees are only a facade for certification or politics

  18. Conclusions • Committees do bring together a range of interests, but some groups are underrepresented: • First Nations, women, youth • Fairly positive assessment of process effectiveness • Members of forest planning committees are more critical of the decision-making process and the capacity to accommodate a range of values • Members of regional committees express the lowest confidence toward forest managers and see more difficulty in impacting forest management • Creating links between level of decision making (from regional to forest planning) is a challenge • Will need to be addressed with the new regional advisory commissions that are being designed

More Related