Content uploaded by Philip J. Burton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Philip J. Burton on Oct 30, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
13 (2): 234-xxx (2006)13 (2): 234-248 (2006)
Sustainable management of Canada’s boreal
forests: Progress and prospects1,2
Philip J. BURTON3, Canadian Forest Service and University of Northern British Columbia, 3333 University Way,
Prince George, British Columbia V2N 4Z9, Canada, e-mail: pburton@pfc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca
Christian MESSIER, Département des Sciences biologiques, Université de Québec à Montréal, C.P. 8888,
Succursale Centre-Ville, Montréal, Québec H3C 3P8, Canada.
Wiktor L. ADAMOWICZ, Department of Rural Economy, 515 General Services Building,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2H1, Canada.
Timo KUULUVAINEN, Department of Forest Ecology, University of Helsinki, PL-27,
Helsinki FIN-00014, Finland.
Abstract: The last decade of innovation in forest management in Canada is reviewed. Institutions such as the Sustainable
Forest Management Network and Canada’s Model Forest Program have attempted to develop a better understanding of
ecological disturbance patterns and processes. Additional research has explored socio-economic dimensions of sustainable
forestry, such as ways to incorporate the aspirations of indigenous peoples, build community capacity, and facilitate forest
certification. The most promising innovations tend to have both environmental benefits (sustaining non-timber values) and
economic benefits (reducing costs and sustaining future timber values), making their implementation more likely. Some on-the-
ground examples of “win-win” solutions at stand and landscape levels in Canada’s boreal forests include: patch retention in
conjunction with the creation of large cutblocks; protection of advance regeneration during timber harvesting; promotion
and prediction of natural regeneration; various approaches to mixedwood (broadleaf and conifer) management; avoidance of
unnecessary brush control; extended rotations and selection management for some tree species and stand types; promoting
the flow of fibre to its highest value uses; and zoning in support of intensive silviculture, thereby potentially reducing
harvesting pressures from lands with high conservation value. More closely emulating natural patterns of forest disturbance
and forest recovery can help sustain biodiversity and ecosystem services, but may not generate all values desired from managed
forests. Further research is needed to calibrate indicators of ecological sustainability. Institutional and policy innovation must
also be evaluated in the context of adaptive management to improve the effectiveness of forestry practices and nurture the
social license for the utilization and management of public forests.
Keywords: Canadian forestry, emulation of natural disturbance, forest practices, forestry research, non-timber forest values,
sustainable forest management.
Résumé : Nous passons en revue la dernière décennie d’innovations en aménagement forestier au Canada. Des institutions
telles que le Réseau de gestion durable des forêts et le Programme de forêts modèles du Canada ont tenté de développer
une meilleure compréhension des patrons et des mécanismes des pertubations écologiques. D’autres ont exploré les dimensions
socio-économiques de la foresterie durable telles que des moyens d’inclure les aspirations des peuples autochtones, de
développer le potentiel des collectivités et de faciliter la certification forestière. Les innovations les plus prometteuses et qui
ont le plus de chance d’être implantées sont celles qui incluent à la fois des bénéfices environnementaux (maintien des
ressources non ligneuses) et des bénéfices économiques (réduction des coûts et maintien des ressources ligneuses dans le
futur). Des exemples concrets de solutions gagnantes à l’échelle du peuplement et du paysage dans la forêt boréale canadienne
sont : conserver des parcelles intactes lors de la coupe de grands blocs forestiers; protéger la régénération pré-établie lors
de la récolte du bois; promouvoir et prévoir la régénération naturelle; utiliser des méthodes d’aménagement diversifiées
pour la forêt mixte (conifères et feuillus); éviter le contrôle de broussailles lorsque non nécessaire; effectuer des rotations
sur de longue durée et sélectionner pour certaines espèces d’arbres et certains types de peuplement; faire la promotion de la
troisième transformation du bois; et établir un zonage pour une sylviculture intensive et ainsi réduire la pression de coupe sur
les sites à haute valeur de conservation. Se rapprocher des patrons naturels de perturbation et de régénératioin de la forêt peut
aider à maintenir la biodiversité et les fonctions des écosystèmes mais peut ne pas générer tout ce qui est espéré des
forêts aménagées. D’autres recherches sont nécessaires pour calibrer les indicateurs de l’aménagement durable au niveau
écologique. Les innovations institutionnelles et réglementaires doivent être évaluées dans un contexte d’aménagement
adaptatif afin d’améliorer l’efficacité des pratiques forestières ainsi que l’acceptabilité sociale de l’utilisation et de
l’aménagement des forêts publiques.
Mots-clés : aménagement durable des forêts, foresterie canadienne, imitation des perturbations naturelles, pratiques forestières,
recherche forestière, ressources non ligneuses.
Nomenclature: Armstrong & Ives, 1995; Farrar, 1995.
1Rec. 2004-11-15; acc. 2005-10-05.
2Based on a keynote address at the Fifth International Conference on Disturbance
Dynamics in Boreal Forests, Dubna, Russia, August 1–5, 2004.
Guest Editor: Yves Bergeron.
3Author for correspondence.
ÉCOSCIENCE, vOl. 13 (2), 2006
235
Introduction
The circumboreal forest is the most extensive terrestrial
biome in the world, encompassing some 14 million km2
and 32% of the Earth’s forest cover. Thirty percent of this
world resource is found in Canada, where it occupies seven
boreal and taiga ecozones (58% of the nation’s land area)
and is responsible for approximately 60% ($26.6 billion) of
annual timber-based export revenues and direct employment
(211,200 people; Burton et al., 2003b). In many regions of
Canada, the boreal forest still consists of vast unpopulated
landscapes interlaced with large rivers, lakes, and wetlands.
In North America and broad regions of Asia, old forests
are typically evergreen and dominated by conifers, though
broadleafed species often prevail in early succession, and
the deciduous larch (Larix) species dominate some sites.
The boreal biome is dominated by forests and wetlands,
with some self-maintaining scrub and grassland communi-
ties. Higher elevations and latitudes exhibit progressively
greater islands and peninsulas of tundra and greater preva-
lence of birch (Betula), willow (Salix), and/or stunted spruce
(Picea) scrub in broad ecotones.
With slow-growing, uniform wood having excellent
properties for pulping (paper-making), dimensional lumber,
and plywood or other panelling, the boreal forest constitutes
one of the world’s largest reserves of unexploited wood
fibre. But the biome also provides important habitat for
large numbers of wild birds and mammals, and it supports
a high diversity of little-studied organism groups such as
fungi and insects. It is estimated that there are more than
23,000 identified species of biota residing in the North
American boreal biome (Zasada et al., 1997).
The definition of “boreal forest” differs among various
jurisdictions and with the purpose of any particular map-
ping and tabulation exercise. In general, we could call the
boreal zone those arctic, subarctic, or northern mid-latitude
regions that are dominated by a cold climate and able to
support only a few tree genera (Burton et al., 2003b). It
is useful to distinguish the broad regions dominated by a
“boreal climate” from those lands specifically covered by
forest and woodlands (i.e., excluding lakes, wetlands, and
other treeless areas) and those lands supporting commer-
cially valuable stands of boreal trees (or “operable” timber,
a definition that varies according to local economic and
technological conditions). Our discussion of boreal ecol-
ogy, boreal forestry, and boreal communities broadly refers
to lands within the circumpolar boreal zone as presented
by Hare and Ritchie (1972) and by Pruitt (1978). The exact
boundaries of this zone are not important to the application
of concepts reported in this article, for which the boreal des-
ignation can safely be extended to the sub-boreal plateaus of
British Columbia and the conifer forests of New Brunswick.
A harsh climate and poor soil development has largely
resulted in the boreal region being less suitable for agri-
culture and less settled than many other parts of Canada.
Though home to indigenous peoples and hardy souls who
pride themselves for living “off the land” and on the fron-
tier, these northernmost forests also represent the epitome of
wilderness for the nation’s city-dwellers. Commercial uses
have historically concentrated on mining, the generation of
hydroelectricity, and the harvest of furs and timber. During
the last two decades of the twentieth century, the near-com-
plete “domestication” of Fennoscandian forests and the
expansion of commercial forestry into broad areas of north-
ern Canada and Russia have prompted concerns about the
sustainability of resource use throughout the boreal region.
Can Canada’s boreal wilderness be developed for broad
social and economic benefits while at the same time sustain-
ing its environmental values and future options?
This paper reviews some recent progress by ecological
and forestry researchers and innovative forest managers in
government, industry, non-governmental organizations, and
aboriginal communities across Canada. In particular, it sum-
marizes some of the conclusions presented in recent sym-
posia and workshops (Bamsey, 1995; Bergeron et al., 1998;
Korpilahti & Kuuluvainen, 2002; Leech, Whittaker & Innes,
2002; Macdonald, 2004) and emanating from the first seven
years of research conducted by Canada’s Sustainable Forest
Management Network (Veeman et al., 1999; 2002; Burton
et al., 2003a). In particular, we focus on efforts to articulate
and implement the “natural disturbance model” of sustain-
able forest management in the southern portions of the bore-
al forest, where expansion of the forest products sector and
energy industries (oil and gas exploration and extraction, tar
sands mining, and hydroelectric dams) is greatest.
Disturbance ecology of northern forests
A good understanding of the ecology of boreal forests
is a prerequisite for their sustainable management. Although
boreal forests thrive in cold northern climates, it is an over-
simplification to merely characterize the biome as being
dominated by a snowy environment with long cold winters.
Rather, it is perhaps more accurate to recognize that most
boreal forests are a land of “fire and ice.” This unique dual-
ity also features in the ecology of the biome, as the evolu-
tion of boreal flora and fauna has taken place under the dual
pressures of deep cold and snow for most of the year and a
short growing season in which wildfires, insects, and other
disturbances can be surprisingly active. There are strong
climatic gradients in the prevalence of wildfire as a stand-
initiating disturbance, with average fire return intervals esti-
mated to range from approximately 130 to 700 years across
boreal Canada (Stocks et al., 2002).
Boreal forests are typically characterized by land-
scape-level disturbances, especially wildfire and insect
outbreaks, but also occasional storm events that result
in widespread windthrow (often termed “blowdown”
when occurring in patches, as a stand-reinitiating event).
Population explosions of insects regularly defoliate millions
of hectares of boreal forest in Canada, with eastern spruce
budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana, feeding on balsam
fir, Abies balsamea, especially) and forest tent caterpillar
(Malacosoma disstria, feeding mostly on trembling aspen,
Populus tremuloides) being most prevalent (MacLean,
2004). Trees do not always die when attacked by insects,
though they are more likely to succumb when exposed to
two or more years of such stress. Post-outbreak tree mor-
tality and subsequent forest regeneration can consequently
BurtON et al.: SuStaINaBlE maNagEmENt Of BOrEal fOrESt
236
be found in small patches or stretching across entire land-
scapes. There is growing awareness that small-scale distur-
bances (gap dynamics) are also important in boreal forests,
especially in climates and topographic locations where fire
is infrequent (Kuuluvainen, 1994; Kneeshaw & Bergeron,
1998; McCarthy, 2001; Bartemucci et al., 2002).
Even where wildfires prevail, fire often jumps around
in response to local topography and weather, leaving islands
and peninsulas of live trees that end up comprising 3 to 37%
of the area mapped as burned (Eberhart & Woodard, 1987;
Smyth et al., 2005). As is characteristic of more south-
erly forests, the prevalence of non-stand-replacing fires also
appears to be greater than previously estimated, with surface
fires being more common than crown fires on drier ridges
and when the dominant tree species is resistant to fire (e.g.,
some Pinus resinosa stands in eastern Canada; Bergeron &
Brisson, 1990). Combined with a growing appreciation of
the important role of a variety of disturbance factors, such
as insects (Holling, 1992), fungi (Lewis & Lindgren, 2000),
snow and windstorms (Ruel, 1995), and large herbivores
(Crête, Ouellet & Lesage, 2001), this new understanding
of the subtleties of boreal disturbance ecology has impor-
tant implications to forest management. Unlike in northern
Europe, where fire and insect disturbances are relatively
rare events and several fire-dependent species are becoming
scarce (Heliövaara & Väisänen, 1984; Wikars, 2001), forest
fires and large-scale insect epidemics remain very much a
part of the ecology and life of northern Canada, with an aver-
age of 1.8 million ha of boreal landscapes burning (Stocks et
al., 2002) and approximately 6.3 million ha of boreal forest
being defoliated by insects every year (CFS, 2005).
The apparent importance of the “stand-destroying” fire
fits well with the agricultural paradigm of timber manage-
ment devised in previous centuries by central European for-
esters. It has long been suggested that fire return intervals
(“ecological rotation lengths”) correspond approximately
to the technical culmination of mean annual increment
(MAI) in even-aged stands of commercial trees (Bergeron
& Harvey, 1997), primarily species of pine (Pinus), spruce,
fir (Abies), birch, and aspen or poplar (Populus). Until
about 1990, this “trees as crop” approach to forest manage-
ment (with a single species in even-aged stands being the
focus of attention) dominated all aspects of Canadian forest
management, from inventory and timber supply analysis to
silviculture (Burton et al., 2003b; Lieffers et al., 2003). This
approach worked reasonably well for early-successional
and light-demanding pine and poplar species, but was less
well suited to the more shade-tolerant spruce and fir spe-
cies, especially in stands consisting of intimate mixtures
(“mixedwoods”) of conifer (generally spruce or fir) and
broadleaf (generally aspen, poplar, or birch) trees. The mere
assumption that all stands are even-aged, initiated by a fire
just a few years before the birth of the dominant trees, can-
not be supported by careful studies reconstructing stand and
landscape fire histories (Weir, Johnson & Miyanishi, 2000;
Kuuluvainen et al., 2002; Bergeron, 2004). In addition,
management to maintain the one-third of forest area natural-
ly older than mean fire return intervals was largely avoided
(Bergeron et al., 1999; Burton, Kneeshaw & Coates, 1999).
Impacts of forest harvesting and management
Today, forest management for fibre extraction and
production is overwhelmingly the major agent of change
acting on the boreal forest in countries such as Finland and
Sweden, and it is increasingly so in Canada, where logging
still disrupts much less forest area than forest fires or insect
outbreaks (Kurz & Apps, 1999; CFS, 2005). In the past,
large areas of public land have been leased or sold to pro-
vide a timber supply to nearby processing mills with little
thought to forest renewal, which was assumed to “take care
of itself.” Such policies lasted until World War II in Finland
and Sweden and into the 1970s and 1980s in Canada, and
they continue in Asiatic Russia today. Public outrage over
such “cut and run” practices, poor reforestation success, site
degradation, and a lack of forest stewardship (Swift, 1983)
resulted in provincial forest policy reforms and a program of
federal funding for forest rehabilitation across Canada from
1985 to 1995 (CFS, 1995). A new round of forest tenures
were let by provincial governments in the 1990s, especially
in western Canada (Burton et al., 2003b), but with a stron-
ger emphasis on the need for effective reforestation and bio-
diversity protection over defined forest management areas.
The standard approach to sustained yield manage-
ment in much of Canada’s boreal forests continues to be
based on the liquidation of wild and over-mature forests
and their conversion to shorter-rotation managed stands at
a rate planned to match that at which the harvested stands
can be re-established and re-grown. The classical model of
even-aged management has meant that in intensively man-
aged regions, naturally heterogeneous stands have been
converted to homogenous, single-species stands using thin-
ning, clearcutting, and planting. While the simplification of
forest structure has been successful in promoting production
of valuable timber, this has occurred at the expense of bio-
logical diversity and other values of the forest (Schindler,
1998; Spence, 2001). These concerns have spawned a series
of restoration and conservation policies in Europe (e.g., the
“Natura 2000” network; see http://www.natura2000benefits.
org) to offset a history of ecological degradation that can
yet be avoided in much of Canada. But unlike the history of
forest exploitation in temperate and tropical regions, boreal
timber harvesting is not usually accompanied by conversion
to agricultural land uses (the cultivation of crops and the
pasturing of livestock), and so does not usually represent a
long-term loss of forest cover and indigenous ecosystems.
For most of the past two or three decades, Canada’s for-
est management agencies and forest products industry have
been severely criticized for their focus on fibre production
at the expense of non-timber forest values. The alternative
model of sustainable forest management (SFM) repre-
sents an evolution of sustained-yield timber management
to include the conservation of all forest values, including
old-growth forest, biodiversity, wildlife, non-timber for-
est products, and rural communities (Riley, 1995; Wang,
2004). As various governments struggled to accommodate
a broad public consensus on the need to protect non-timber
values, early progress generally occurred through adver-
sarial processes, using constraint management, prescriptive
policy, and regulations. As a result, change has been highly
ÉCOSCIENCE, vOl. 13 (2), 2006
237
variable within and among the boreal provinces, based on
provincial forest management differences and social and
economic considerations. Canada now has approximately
9% of its boreal and taiga ecozones under some kind of pro-
tected status, varying from 4% in Québec to 14% in British
Columbia and the Northwest Territories (CBI, 2005). Within
the last 10 years, forest management policies and practices
in Canada have come to be increasingly driven by science-
based knowledge and broader social perspectives through
institutions and programs such as the Sustainable Forest
Management Network (SFMN; see http://www.sfmnetwork.
ca) and Model Forest Program (MFP; see http://www.mod-
elforest.net). As innovations in the environmental and social
sciences are applied, SFM is exhibiting a more consistent,
broad-based approach to forest management, with demon-
strable benefits to the environment and local communities
(Hebert et al., 2003).
One example of the value of empirical research into
broad ecological and sociological aspects of the boreal
forest environment has been an increasing recognition
of the value of non-timber aspects of the forest resource.
Recreation value, values for conservation of endangered
species, and other non-timber values appear to be increasing
(Adamowicz, Armstrong & Messmer, 2003). Because the
harvesting of mushrooms, berries, and firewood have usu-
ally not been monitored or regulated by forest managers and
little distinction has been made between recreational and
subsistence hunting of wild game, these non-timber forest
products (NTFPs) have typically been under-valued in for-
est planning; timber harvesting can enhance some of these
values but can compromise others (Duchesne & Wetzel,
2002; CFS, 2005). Combined with issues of ecological
integrity and the conservation of biodiversity at landscape
scales, the public desire to see management for a broader
range of non-timber values calls for greater diversity in the
approach to forest land management throughout the world’s
boreal regions (Burton & Kuuluvainen, 2001). Ecological
research, technological developments, and novel socio-eco-
nomic perspectives are mutually dependent elements that
build on each other and must be tested, applied, and refined
in the context of Canadian forest management.
If wild forests are to be cut to meet the fibre and
energy needs and wants of humanity, one might ask where
in the world large-scale fibre production is most appropri-
ate. It is likely that the social and ecological consequences
of harvesting boreal timber are less severe than those
associated with the exploitation of temperate, tropical, or
montane forests at more southerly latitudes. This is because
species-level biodiversity and endemism are comparatively
low, human populations are relatively sparse, and inva-
sive/exotic species are uncommon in the boreal forest,
where most species are adapted to large-scale catastrophic
disturbance. Reforestation, forest restoration, and inten-
sive timber production on marginal agricultural lands are
to be encouraged in temperate and tropical regions of the
world, as is bioregional self-sufficiency in fibre resources,
but the logging of pristine forests in temperate and tropical
biomes certainly has more severe impacts on biodiversity.
Similarly, the use of non-renewable and/or energy-intensive
building materials such as concrete, steel, and plastics as
substitutes for wood construction also can have undesirable
environmental impacts.
Increasing specialization and technical change may
allow for a substantial proportion of the global demand for
forest products to be met by intensive plantations. Such
innovation could reduce the environmental impact on for-
est lands and provide a large proportion of the needed fibre
(Vincent & Binkley, 1994; Hunter & Calhoun, 1996; Sedjo
& Botkin, 1997; Messier, Bigué & Bernier, 2003), but it
might also shift the pattern of employment in primary forest
industries. Some promising avenues of intensive silviculture
are being explored in Canada’s boreal forests (Van Oosten,
2004; Dickmann et al., 2002; Lieffers et al., 2003; Messier,
Bigué & Bernier, 2003). Nevertheless, the use of exotic spe-
cies, aggressive site preparation and weed control, and fer-
tilization will probably be applied only to a limited portion
of Canada’s boreal land base, as these techniques are most
suitable for abandoned farm land.
Sustainability concepts: Defining the yardstick
Sustainability is a human concept designed to recog-
nize the interdependence of natural and human systems and
the importance of the long-term effects of human actions
on natural systems. It stems from a deep desire to provide
future generations with the opportunity to benefit from
productive and resilient ecosystems. Precise definitions of
sustainability are difficult to construct; however, the core
of the concept is the management of resources to meet
current needs without compromising the ability of future
generations to do so. It has been argued that the multiple
dimensions of sustainability collectively represent a sig-
nificant socio-philosophical development in human history
(Edwards, 2005).
In many respects, foresters invented the paradigm of
sustainable development. The basic premise of sustainable
forestry has always been to calculate the sustained yield of
timber possible from a defined forest area, such that one
periodically harvests no more than the amount of wood
grown by living trees over the same period. This approach,
with some adjustments for ecological reserves and limits
to operability, remains the basis for annual allowable cut
(AAC) determinations for most managed forests. Many
environmental and community activists view sustained yield
forestry as a barrier to progressive land management, primar-
ily because it is industry-driven and profit-motivated. But the
sustained yield concept (analogous to living off the interest
without liquidating one’s capital) is such a powerful one that
the challenge is not to eliminate it but rather to apply it to a
wider range of forest goods and services. The goal of sus-
tainable forest management is to move from sustaining the
yield of timber to sustaining a broad set of forest values into
the indefinite future while avoiding declines in ecological
function or productive capacity of the ecological system.
Many of the concepts of sustained timber yield remain
necessary conditions of basic forest management within
the SFM framework, but these concepts can no longer be
considered sufficient to address the desired range of for-
est values. Attempts have been made in most Canadian
provinces to develop enlightened constraint management
BurtON et al.: SuStaINaBlE maNagEmENt Of BOrEal fOrESt
238
(i.e., management plans that consider non-timber values, but
as constraints to timber production rather than as objectives
in and of themselves) and prescriptive (rule-based) policy
to protect environmental services. These approaches gener-
ally have had limited success in achieving SFM as long as
fibre production has remained the bottom line, the criterion
against which all management decisions are to be judged.
The last decade has seen a growing influence of science,
environmentalism, market demands, and community activ-
ism in convincing forest managers to respect non-timber
forest values and the health of forest ecosystems and forest
communities. But can recognition of this broad set of values
prompt real reform on the ground? Can these good inten-
tions be implemented feasibly in a real world governed by a
market economy and widespread fiscal constraints?
The portfolio of forest values to be protected and
enhanced typically includes timber and non-timber for-
est products, biodiversity and huntable wildlife, clean
and abundant water, old-growth habitats, effective carbon
sequestration, recreational opportunities, and the interests
of communities of people living in and/or deriving their
livelihood from the forest. Some values are compatible with
a wide range of other values, allowing their bundling into a
few zones, while incompatible values must be protected and
enhanced in other zones. But assessments of compatibility
can change with technical innovation and creative ideas.
Thus, the tabulation and spatio-temporal mapping or alloca-
tion of forest values is an important part of tactical forest
planning (Andison, 2003), The balancing and sustainability
of forest values can occur both within stands (e.g., by using
techniques such as the retention of green tree patches and
adequate levels of coarse woody debris) and within land-
scapes (e.g., by devising a distribution of stand types and
stand ages within the range of natural variability; BCMOF
& BCMELP, 1995). Although the availability of dead wood
(standing snags and fallen logs) may not currently be con-
sidered limiting to wildlife and biodiversity in the managed
boreal landscapes of Canada, experience after one or more
full rotations in northern Europe indicates that dead wood
attributes need to be planned for throughout the forest life
cycle and at the landscape level (Siitonen, 2001; Jonsson,
Kruys & Ranius, 2005).
One of the greatest challenges facing managers com-
mitted to the sustainability of forest values is that diverse
factors (such as international currency exchange rates and
trade rules, domestic politics and land use policies, the
extraction of below-ground resources, and the attack of nat-
ural disturbance agents) frequently require the revision of
management plans and goals. Furthermore, climate change
is proceeding rapidly, with its most significant effects at
higher latitudes (Gitay et al., 2001; Bhatti et al., 2003),
and threatens to modify the frequency, severity, and impact
of other threats to forests and forest management plans. If
“sustainability” is interpreted as “constancy”, then the goal
is unattainable, for boreal forests and the agents that influ-
ence them are demonstrably dynamic. On the other hand, if
sustainable management aims to provide a basket of forest
values, and if land managers can successfully define the
bounds, risks, and rolling nature of their plans, then sustain-
able management of Canada’s boreal forests is possible.
In juggling the many values and facets of sustainability,
scaling issues and risk management become paramount.
Local sustainability, or sustainability at small spatial scales,
is not usually feasible. This fact may have been the big-
gest problem behind implementation of the “multiple use”
paradigm advocated for public forest management through-
out Canada (and the USA) from the 1960s to the 1980s.
Balancing sustainable values over larger areas offers a bet-
ter chance of sustainability in the face of risk (natural dis-
turbance, climate change), but it does so at the cost of losing
forest values in some local areas for at least some period of
time. Locally compromised elements of biodiversity and
human use are typically those restricted to particular, spa-
tially defined areas (e.g., animals such as salamanders with
limited home ranges, viewscapes from tourist lodges). For
such attributes, the protection and constancy of critical for-
est elements may be more important than whether they can
be renewed at some time in the future.
The concept of sustainability is complex in part
because it strives to leave future generations with natu-
ral systems that support their well-being and maintain
their opportunity to benefit from these natural systems.
However, the preferences of and technologies available
to future generations are unknown. Furthermore, thresh-
olds or irreversibilities that are difficult to predict exist in
both natural and social systems. An acceptable temporal
distribution of values and the degree to which they can be
interchanged can rarely be defined objectively. It can be
argued that compromising the long-term sustainability of
one forest value (e.g., high timber harvesting levels and
the employment they provide) may be desirable in order to
develop or enhance other forest values or assets. For exam-
ple, harvesting timber at levels greater than the long-run
sustained yield for several years may pay for the construc-
tion of forest roads that service an area and allow access to
other resources and long-term employment.
An important consideration is that current levels of
any particular value are not necessarily sustainable: the big
challenge is to find the levels, the balance, and the range
of variability in all values that should be sustainable on a
given area of land. Pre-managed levels of old-growth for-
est cannot usually be sustained if trainloads of lumber are
being shipped out, yet old-growth values can be sustained
through a combination of protected areas, long timber rota-
tions, partial cutting, and variable structural retention within
stands. Likewise, current levels of employment in the forest
harvesting and wood processing sectors are not likely to be
sustained in the face of increasing mechanization, yet over-
all forest sector and community employment can be sus-
tained through diversification to manage more non-timber
forest goods and services. Sustainability is as much about
maintaining resilience as it is about balancing outputs from
a forest.
Evolving socio-economic considerations
Sustainability involves not only conservation, but con-
sideration of intra- and inter- generational equity, efficiency
in resource use, and the inclusion of timber and non-tim-
ber values in decision making. Institutional arrangements,
ÉCOSCIENCE, vOl. 13 (2), 2006
239
including tenure and regulatory rules, are evolving to allow
for firms and households to operate along a sustainable path
(Nelson et al., 2003). The “rules of the game” for forestry
now have to adjust accordingly in order to accommodate the
full range of forest values. Equity considerations, particular-
ly involving aboriginal peoples and their unique rights and
interests in resources, are gradually being included in forest
management and planning processes (Stevenson & Webb,
2003). However, while accommodation of these widely
varying interests is easy to advocate, it is very difficult to
implement. Movement towards sustainability will require
institutional innovation (Nelson et al., 2003), the develop-
ment of tools for measuring and managing non-timber val-
ues (Duchesne & Wetzel, 2002; Adamowicz, Armstrong &
Messmer, 2003) and eliciting and incorporating public input
into resource decisionmaking (Hamersley Chambers &
Beckley, 2003), and other social and economic innovations.
Patterns of land ownership can also affect the prospects
for implementing SFM. In Canada and Russia, more than
75% of forest land is publicly owned, and managed forests
are administered by government agencies or large corporate
interests that can coordinate activities over large areas. By
contrast, private individuals with small forest parcels own
approximately 50% of the forest land in Sweden and over
60% of that in Finland; this makes it challenging to plan
SFM at landscape and regional scales. On the other hand,
the heterogeneity of values represented by numerous pri-
vate forest owners contributes to a diversity of management
approaches and perhaps a fairer representation of many
different non-timber values than can be achieved under sys-
tems of more centralized administration (Karppinen, 1998).
Issues of land ownership, tenures, and the reconciliation of
overlapping rights (e.g., to belowground resources, to furs,
and to timber) on public land are ongoing topics of debate
and negotiation throughout much of boreal Canada.
A related concern is who “owns” the loyalty of those
charged with the management of public forest lands.
University-level forestry programs have generally evolved
to educate foresters who are well versed in integrative and
adaptive ecosystem management. But throughout Canada,
this advance has occurred against a backdrop of widespread
devolvement of provincial government responsibility for
forest management to the forest products companies who
hold tenures over public land. There is a conflict of interest
here, in that a forester cannot be expected to work against
the financial (timber, royalty/rent) interests of his or her
employer. Professional associations have few mechanisms
to support the independence of their members. The argu-
ment has been made that, as in Finland, the management of
Canada’s public boreal forests needs to be conducted, at all
levels, by independent professionals answerable to the pub-
lic. The public interest may be served if government agen-
cies with clear objectives, rules, accountability, and public
reporting are adequately staffed and funded to monitor for-
est operations, but the public must insist on a framework of
monitoring and enforcement that is objective and account-
able or the public resource will not be managed to support
the public values considered to have the highest priority.
An important element of institutional innovation in
forest management is the development of mechanisms to
allow for “signals” of resource scarcity and/or degrada-
tion to be incorporated into management (Adamowicz,
Armstrong & Messmer, 2003). Historically, the signals of
forest scarcity or degradation have been related to timber
markets (product prices, harvest costs, etc.). As the relative
value of environmental services increases, these values and
indicators of their status also need to find their way into
the market system (Krautkraemer, 2005). The emergence
of carbon markets provides an example of such signalling
of scarcity. Carbon management is now viewed as valuable
because of its potential to reduce and offset greenhouse
gas emissions (Bhatti et al., 2003). International markets
for carbon, although in their infancy, have sent signals to
Canadian forest managers about the importance of consider-
ing carbon cycling and the impacts of forest management on
carbon stocks. If similar signals can be developed for other
environmental services, either through markets or through
innovative regulation, the importance of these services will
be reflected in management decisions. It is unlikely that the
dramatic reduction in the discharge of toxic dioxins and
furans from Canadian pulp mills between 1989 and 1995
(Hall, 2003) would have happened without legally empow-
ered regulations. Conversely, the increased use of biomass
(primarily wood waste) for energy generation by the forest
products industry and electrical utilities has been primar-
ily market-driven. Other reductions in the environmental
footprint of the forest industry, through enhanced product
recovery from feedstock, reduced water use, and greater
reuse and recycling of solid wastes (Zhou, 2003), reflect
the combined influence of governmental coercion, techno-
logical improvements, and economic advantage. Systems
of “criteria and indicators” in support of forest certification
are another mechanism by which foresters can be motivated
to manage for multiple goods and services (CFS, 2000;
Yamasaki et al., 2002). Much more empirical research is
needed to test for significant threshold levels in key indica-
tors (e.g., the amount of coarse woody debris retained in
managed forests, annual extent of wildfires), “calibrating”
them against the probability of ecosystem deterioration and
species extinctions.
Third-party certification, based on criteria and indica-
tors of sustainability, provides some signals for the value of
environmental services, through market access if not price
premiums (Duinker & Trevisan, 2003; Nelson et al., 2003;
Archer, Kozak & Balsillie, 2005). This model of third-party
auditing provides for the improved management of private
as well as public forest lands but still depends on the eco-
nomic latitude and progressive policies of companies both
selling and buying forest products. However, many environ-
mental services provided by forests do not lend themselves
easily to market mechanisms or to auditing. These services
will continue to rely on public mechanisms for regulation
and signalling. A combination of public monitoring and
market-oriented regulatory systems (economic instruments)
focusing on achieving publicly determined objectives may
be the most effective approach for such issues (Weber &
Adamowicz, 2002; Adamowicz, Armstrong & Messmer,
2003; Nelson et al., 2003).
Developing systems that send signals about scarcity
of environmental services is an important component of
BurtON et al.: SuStaINaBlE maNagEmENt Of BOrEal fOrESt
240
the move towards SFM. An equally important aspect is the
continued improvement of the systems for forest resource
allocation or tenure. Forest tenures have been playing mul-
tiple roles as agents for economic development, forest con-
servation, economic efficiency, and equitable allocation of
fibre over economic entities (firms, communities, aboriginal
peoples, etc.). These multiple roles can conflict, weakening
the tenure system’s ability to provide for sustainable forest
management. One such conflict is associated with the leg-
islated linkage of particular land bases and timber types to
particular processing facilities (Nelson et al., 2003). Such a
linkage can maintain local economic conditions, but it also
increases susceptibility to disturbances (because large fires
or insect outbreaks could compromise much of the timber
supply for a local mill) and reduces the overall economic
returns to a larger region. Policies of allocating the land
base to separate softwood and hardwood quota holders
can also lead to increased ecological impact (Cumming &
Armstrong, 2001).
While SFM (and sustainability in general) is often
described in terms of maintaining values over genera-
tions, there are also expectations of equity and fairness
for the current generation (Edwards, 2005). Questions of
aboriginal use rights, for example, are questions of fairness.
Innovative mechanisms of cooperation and co-management
have been proposed to address such concerns (Stevenson &
Webb, 2003). Similarly, the public is demanding an increas-
ing role in forest management decisions in part because
of a desire for inclusion in the process and a desire “to be
heard.” In response, a number of firms and agencies respon-
sible for managing forests have established public advisory
bodies; this is also a requirement for Canadian Standards
Association (CSA) certification of forest management.
These committees range from independent groups with
veto power over a range of management decisions to purely
advisory bodies. These groups typically consist of repre-
sentatives from local communities rather than the public at
large. Nevertheless, these groups are established by firms
as one of the many mechanisms they require to maintain the
“social licence” associated with operations on public forest
lands or operations that affect public goods such as water,
air, and wildlife (Hamersley Chambers & Beckley, 2003).
Recent directions in forest research:
Leading or following?
Over the last ten years, there has been considerable
research conducted to investigate and devise ways to bal-
ance biodiversity, community, and economic values in the
development and management of the world’s vast boreal
forests. Precipitated by the accelerating development of
northern forests for timber, pulp and paper, petroleum
resources, and hydroelectric power in Canada and Russia,
the protection of northern wilderness has become a goal of
campaigns recently launched by a number of well-organized
and well-financed environmental non-governmental organi-
zations (ENGOs) in North America and in Europe. Viewed
as “the last true wilderness,” the boreal forest and the
unprecedented pace of industrial development within it has
been the topic of popular films (Viszmeg, 1994; Desjardins,
1999), magazine articles (Lanken, 1996; Montaigne, 2002;
Savage, 2004), books (Pratt & Urquhart, 1994; Gawthrop,
1999; Henry, 2002; Schneider, 2002), and numerous news-
paper articles, as well as logging road blockades and threats
of forest product boycotts. These activities have raised the
profile of boreal forestry in the eyes of the Canadian pub-
lic and politicians and have prompted renewed interest in
understanding the ecology and socio-economics of northern
forestlands.
There has been a long and continuous history of interna-
tional research in support of botanical exploration and eco-
logical classification in boreal climates, the use of remote
sensing for land cover classification and for change detec-
tion and biophysical measurements. All northern nations
have supported considerable ongoing work on permafrost
and peatland dynamics, on cold-temperature engineering
and other activities related to the sustainability of human
endeavours and development in boreal and Arctic regions.
But most previous boreal research initiatives had empha-
sized ecological description and processes in the absence
of human management. For example, the International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA, located in
Laxenburg, Austria) has had a program emphasizing the
ecological dynamics of the boreal biome since the 1980s
(Shugart, Leemans & Bonan, 1992), but it was not until
recently that it identified the requirements for sustainable
forestry as a key information and research priority (Zasada
et al., 1997). The Boreal Ecosystem–Atmosphere Study
(BOREAS) was started in 1990 with major support from
US government agencies and with study sites in northern
Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Its goal is to investigate the
interactions between the boreal forest and the atmosphere,
specifically to improve process models of radiative energy,
water, heat, carbon, and trace constituents and their appli-
cation over large spatial scales (see http://www.daac.ornl.
gov/BOREAS/boreas_home_page.html). Like the decade-
long experimental investigation of predator–prey cycles
recently concluded in southwestern Yukon (Krebs, Boutin
& Boonstra, 2001), little of this research has been of use to
forest managers, though (to be fair) this was not an objec-
tive of these multi-disciplinary research efforts.
There had long been a gap between academic research
on forests and the knowledge requirements for truly sus-
tainable forest management (Baskerville, 1997). The initia-
tive for change and innovation did not come from forestry
schools, government agencies, or established research con-
sortia such as the International Union of Forestry Research
Organizations (IUFRO). Rather, change has resulted from
the concerted effort of environmentalists, conservation
biologists, and academic researchers working with broad-
minded representatives of the forest products industry, leap-
ing ahead of conservative (i.e., slow to change) government
policies and the management culture of traditionally trained
foresters. The cluster of documents (Framework Convention
on Climate Change, Convention on Biological Diversity,
Agenda 21’s 27 principles, and Guiding Principles on
Forests) generated at the 1992 United Nations Conference
on the Environment and Development, held in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, also had tremendous impact on the outlook
of forest managers. Perhaps surprisingly, support for the
SFM paradigm across much of the circumboreal region has
ÉCOSCIENCE, vOl. 13 (2), 2006
241
been achieved through broad consensus, largely without the
harsh confrontations, court rulings, and job loss that were
encountered in the coastal forests of Oregon, Washington,
and British Columbia (Christensen et al., 2000; Magnusson
& Shaw, 2003). The momentum of change has left many
foresters and forest management agencies straining to catch
up with the new paradigm and its rapidly evolving needs.
The urgency of addressing boreal forest management
issues has helped focus the activities of academic and schol-
arly organizations such as the International Association
of Vegetation Science, leading to workshops and vigor-
ous international collaboration (Engelmark, Bradshaw
& Bergeron, 1993; Bergeron e t al., 1998; Korpilahti
& Kuuluvainen, 2002; Macdonald, 2004). Institutional
responses have seen the initiation of collaborative research
in technical and socio-economic aspects of forest manage-
ment as well as forest ecology. In 1991, the International
Boreal Forest Research Association (IBFRA) was created
to promote and coordinate research in the world’s northern
forests, especially with regard to environmental change (see
http://www.ibfra.org). In Canada, the Model Forest Network
was initiated in 1992 as a program of the Canadian Forest
Service, promoting innovative forest planning and practices
in eleven forest management areas, six of which are located
in boreal ecozones (LaPierre, 2002; see http://www.model-
forest.net).
In 1995, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (rep-
resenting all provincial and federal agencies responsible
for forestry) embraced the principles of sustainable forest
management (CCFM, 1995; Rousseau, 2003). Canada’s
Sustainable Forest Management Network (SFMN) was cre-
ated in the same year as a national Network of Centres of
Excellence with federal research council support for explor-
ing the scientific and policy issues that serve as the basis
of sustainable management of boreal forests. The SFMN
quickly expanded to become a research consortium with pro-
vincial and private industry funding partners, now spanning
all forest types in Canada (Adamowicz et al., 2002; McNab,
2005; see http://www.sfmnetwork.ca. A few years later, in
response to public concern, the Canadian Senate undertook a
review of the state of Canada’s boreal forest (SSCAF, 1999).
Collectively, these initiatives led to subsequent rounds of con-
ferences and workshops, reaching out to forest managers and
forestry practitioners as well as researchers and conservation
biologists (e.g., Veeman et al., 1999; 2002; Leech, Whittaker
& Innes, 2002). Another legacy of this decade of social and
ecological research can be seen in the development of boreal
standards for forest management certification under the
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC; see http://www.fsccanada.
org/nationalboreal.htm) and the recent (2005) FSC certifica-
tion of several million hectares of industrially managed forest
in Alberta, Ontario, and Québec.
Maturation of forestry principles and practices
As the desire for SFM was growing on the part of the
Canadian public in the 1990s, the concept of ecosystem
management was developing in the Pacific Northwest of the
USA (Grumbine, 1994). Under this approach, the forest is
viewed as an ecosystem composed of numerous and often
highly linked parts, with many functions yet unknown;
human use of natural resources is permissible to the extent
that it does not compromise ecological integrity (Kohm
& Franklin, 1997). Current ecological theory has evolved
away from static “balance of nature” perspectives to more
dynamic, variable, and stochastic views, best encompassed
in terms of dynamic mosaics characterized by a range of
natural variability (Landres, Morgan & Swanson, 1999).
These ideas have given rise to the development of a new
dominant paradigm in forestry, for which the objective
is to manage the forest in a manner patterned after its
natural disturbances (fire, windthrow, insects, etc.; Attiwill,
1994; Bergeron & Harvey, 1997; Kohm & Franklin, 1997;
Angelstam, 1998; Perera, Buse & Weber, 2004).
There are many elements of the “emulation of natural dis-
turbance” concept that need to be understood in order to make
it likely to work. Among other requirements, we need to:
• understand disturbance patterns and processes so that we
can emulate them both with our forest management;
• characterize and recognize the often wide regional dif-
ferences in disturbance patterns and processes within the
boreal biome;
• understand how large-scale fires and traditional clear-
cutting are and are not alike in the boreal forest at both
the stand and landscape levels (McRae et al., 2001;
Haeussler & Kneeshaw, 2003);
• devise new models for forest planning and development
at the regional/strategic level, the landscape/tactical
level, and the stand/operational level using spatially
explicit simulation models (Messier et al., 2003);
• consider the “coarse filter” aspects of biodiversity con-
servation as well as “fine filter” (species-specific) ele-
ments as required in a regional context;
• integrate the objectives set forth by natural disturbance
concepts into operational and policy planning approaches
such that managers and decision makers can find the
best ways to achieve their goals while at the same time
meeting the natural disturbance objectives; and
• consider both the constraints and opportunities offered by
such new approaches to forest planning and development.
Following this cascade of new scientific ideas, many
modifications to our current forest management practices
have been implemented in order to maintain more natural
forest structures, compositions, and the full complement
of biodiversity and other forest values (Work et al., 2003).
Building on innovative work in western Canada (Coates
& Steventon, 1995) and the Pacific Northwest (Kohm &
Franklin, 1997), different variable retention harvest systems
have been tested and are now mandatory in parts of British
Columbia, Ontario, Sweden, and Finland. Although still
considered by some to be an as yet untested hypothesis, the
basic idea is firmly grounded on our current understanding
of the importance of live and dead trees for many creatures
(Lindenmayer & Franklin, 2002), with patch retention
generally being easier to implement (and more resilient to
windthrow) than dispersed or uniform retention of mature
green trees. Reflecting a disturbance regime less dominated
by fire and more by insects and gap dynamics, foresters in
eastern Canada are now pursuing a three-cohort model of
variable rotation lengths and the use of gap-based silvicul-
BurtON et al.: SuStaINaBlE maNagEmENt Of BOrEal fOrESt
242
ture and uneven-aged management in spruce- and fir-domi-
nated forests (Bergeron et al., 1999; Harvey et al., 2003).
Similar ideas have been put forward in Sweden and Finland
(Angelstam, 1998; Kuuluvainen, 2002).
More and more jurisdictions throughout Canada are
now adopting the principles of “mixedwood management”
(Lieffers et al., 1996; Smith & Crook, 1996), where mix-
tures of shade-tolerant conifers are grown together with
shade-intolerant deciduous species such as aspen or birch.
Many benefits of this approach are now being identified,
including (1) a possible reduction in spruce budworm
(Needham et al., 1999) and white pine terminal weevil
(Pissodes strobi) problem; (2) an increase in soil fertility;
and (3) reduction in the use of herbicides and the need for
spot planting to achieve full occupancy of the site by coni-
fers (Lieffers et al., 1996; 2003). As a result, the extraordi-
nary efforts to establish pure stands of spruce, fir, or pine
through the use of machines (to create mounds or berms as
planting spots) or herbicides to control non-crop vegetation
are rapidly being replaced by more ecologically attuned
systems of forest stand management. This development has
been facilitated by the fact that light hardwood fibre from
poplar (aspen) species is now being utilized for pulp and
paper manufacturing in the north, whereas previous pulp
mills were set up only for conifer fibre, with the hardwoods
usually considered a weed rather than a resource with value.
When a dominant species is viewed as a resource to be
managed sustainably rather than a pest to be controlled, its
management then helps to protect the habitat it uses and the
habitat it generates.
Part of the mixedwood management strategy is to pro-
tect the understory cohort of white spruce (Picea glauca)
often found beneath mature canopies of trembling aspen
throughout the southern boreal forests of Canada. Though
requiring more careful logging (e.g., on deep snow packs or
with long-reach feller-bunchers), there are obvious timber
supply, biodiversity, and aesthetic advantages to having a
jump-start of several decades when establishing the next
stand (Lieffers et al., 2003). Provisions for the protection of
advance regeneration are now widely practiced in northern
Québec, Ontario, and Alberta. In a similar manner, efforts
are being made to better predict and manipulate the natural
regeneration of conifers through the modelling of dispersal
distance and substrate (seedbed) distributions (Greene &
Johnson, 1999; Greene et al., 2002). DeLong (2002) has
identified several other forest management practices that
offer ecological benefits and reduced costs over standard
operating procedures, including the amalgamation of dis-
persed cutblocks into larger openings more representative of
natural patch (fire) sizes, incorporating irregular boundaries
and elevated levels of residual structure; greater acceptance
of broadleaf trees in assessing the free-growing status of
conifer plantations; and reduced levels of conifer stocking
and recognition of the importance of persistent shrub patch-
es in wet ecosystems, thereby reducing requirements for
replanting and vegetation control. These “win-win” solu-
tions are being actively adopted throughout the Canadian
boreal forest.
Several case studies of progress to SFM in boreal
Canada are showcased by Burton et al. (2003a), and five
are presented in detail by Hebert et al. (2003). These case
studies demonstrate institutional movement from the tra-
ditional approach of sustained-yield timber management
to a broader strategy of sustainable management of all for-
est values, viewing the forest as an ecosystem and a living
landscape rather than a timber crop. Although the range of
approaches to implementation indicates both a socio-eco-
nomic basis and an ecological basis for the change, there are
some commonalities. In many cases, social and ecological
sciences have generated innovations that can lead to SFM
but true change depends on creative social solutions and
innovative leadership. In other cases, long-held beliefs
about the nature of Canadian boreal landscapes and boreal
forest ecology have simply been incorrect, so the science
has had to catch up first. For example, recognition of the
prevalence and importance of “skips” and residual struc-
ture after wildfires (Eberhart & Woodard, 1987; DeLong
& Kessler, 2000; Smyth et al., 2005) has resulted in the
incorporation of residual green-tree patches (“wildlife tree
patches” or “variable retention harvesting”) into cutblock
design (Work et al., 2003). Likewise, recognition of the
prevalence and importance of older stands (McCarthy, 2001;
Kneeshaw & Gauthier, 2003) that tend to escape wildfire or
insect outbreaks has suggested the need for some extended
rotations or a “multi-cohort model” of forest management
(Bergeron et al., 1999; Harvey et al., 2003). A three-cohort
model incorporating gap-based selection management of the
oldest forests is being tested in black spruce (Picea mari-
ana)–feathermoss forests in northwestern Québec (Harvey
et al., 2003).
Adaptive management and forest certification
We now recognize that our understanding of the com-
plex boreal forest system is far from perfect and that our
knowledge will need to improve constantly in the future.
This lack of knowledge, however, should not be used to stop
us from trying to do things differently and more sustainably.
We need to learn by doing; our mistakes, although unfortu-
nate, can be used to improve the way we manage forests if
forestry is conducted in an explicitly adaptive framework.
As Duinker and Trevisan (2003) have commented, adaptive
management “can be envisioned as staying on the wrong
road long and smart enough to know.” Adaptive manage-
ment is a structured process whereby various stakehold-
ers agree to establish a learning and experimental process
around the system they want to manage. It provides a frame-
work by which to act and learn under constant uncertainty.
To implement an adaptive forest management plan,
forest managers need to have a very good planning process
with a clear vision of the forest to be managed, clear val-
ues to be managed, and the ability to forecast or model the
future conditions of the forest and human systems through
easily measured indicators. Once a set of comparative
management options (“active” adaptive management or the
option currently considered best, “passive” adaptive man-
agement) is selected, it needs to be implemented with enough
resources to monitor the results and understand the differ-
ences between the planned and actual outcome (Duinker &
Trevisan, 2003). Such systems of adaptive management can
work well when regulatory constraints are not too stringent,
ÉCOSCIENCE, vOl. 13 (2), 2006
243
so that the manager is free to try implementing innovative
approaches. In much of Canada, however, current regulatory
constraints are too rigid to allow the full implementation of
adaptive management on public forest lands. What is required
is a system of third-party audits or independent inspections
that have a direct link to market access.
This need has been widely recognized by forest man-
agers, forest products marketers, enlightened consumers,
and environmental activists, such that a number of certifi-
cation systems for sustainable forestry have mushroomed
around the world over the last 10 years. In Canada, the most
common certification systems are the performance-based
Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) standard and Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC) principles and the management-
system–based Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z809
standard for sustainable forest management (Duinker &
Trevisan, 2003). There obviously is no single “best” system,
and there are marketing and political reasons why different
companies have adopted different approaches. We believe
that a combination of performance-based standards (to
ensure basic protection of ecological values, human rights,
and the rule of law) and management-based standards (to
ensure a commitment to public input and adaptive manage-
ment) offers the best road to sustainable management of the
boreal forest.
In addition to adaptive forest management, adaptive
management in policy and regulatory schemes is required.
Innovation and experimentation in policy is necessary to
identify approaches that may succeed in better signalling
the scarcity of environmental services. There are many
unknowns regarding responses to policy change and their
unintended consequences, so some explicit experimentation
in these areas is also required. Unfortunately, there is con-
siderable resistance to this form of adaptive management:
governments tend to be very rigid and uneasy about trying
alternative policies and regulatory frameworks. Hopefully,
the increased use of pilot projects (e.g., in innovative forest
practices, community forests, and an open log market, as
tested in British Columbia over the last few years) and les-
sons learned from the Canadian Model Forest Program will
lead the way.
Conclusion
The predominant factors regulating the change from
sustained-yield timber management to sustainable forest
management are cost, changing values/expectations, public
pressure, and science-based information. In most cases,
increased cost is incurred through AAC reduction and the
costs of planning and operations, which range from 5 to
50% above those of standard command-and-control plan-
ning followed by clearcutting and even-aged timber man-
agement (Hebert et al., 2003). Without adequate scientific
knowledge, initial attempts to implement SFM have gener-
ally been prescriptive, ecologically conservative, and often
disproportionate to the desired outcome. Without information
on thresholds and cost-effectiveness, it is difficult to deter-
mine realistic costs and ecologically efficient targets that can
be tested. Establishing these targets is critical for an incen-
tive-based or “results-based” forest management policy.
In general, the Canadian forest products industry is
being dragged towards SFM, as ecosystem management is
poorly linked to efficient wood and paper production. Even
where the commitment to SFM is made, it is institutionally
difficult to develop multi-scale SFM frameworks with test-
able targets that can be adjusted using adaptive management
and the modelling of tradeoffs. Not only must tradeoffs
within scales (e.g., variable retention at the stand level ver-
sus extended rotations) be examined, but tradeoffs between
ecological and economic components must be assessed.
Forest managers, researchers, and policymakers have not
yet established the culture of experimentation and adap-
tive management that is necessary to articulate the research
questions and generate the science required to evolve toward
SFM. In order to produce relevant questions that will gener-
ate useful answers, the industry and its government regulators
must formulate an SFM framework that includes multi-scale
strategies with social, ecological, and technological compo-
nents. Genuine partnerships between forest managers and
forest researchers, transcending the narrow cultures of each
group, are a key step in meeting this objective, and progress
in this regard has been made through consortia such as the
Sustainable Forest Management Network.
There is obviously room for improvement in the effi-
ciency, environmental stewardship, and social responsibility
of forest products companies and forest management agen-
cies throughout the circumboreal region. But research and
innovation, as promoted by a number of national initiatives,
can be nurtured with appropriate support and eventually
implemented in various operational settings. The initiative
and financial support for innovation has variously come
from industry, academia, government agencies, and indus-
try–community arrangements that often circumvent govern-
ment involvement (Hebert et al., 2003). Clearly, there are
many options, only a few of which have been described in
this paper, for conserving biodiversity, minimizing envi-
ronmental impacts, sustaining economic prosperity, and
supporting communities in meaningful and effective ways.
Successful attainment of the broad set of forest values,
including protection of wildlife, biodiversity, forest botani-
cals, clean water, recreational opportunities, rural lifestyles,
community stability, corporate and provincial revenue,
etc., will be difficult under even the best management sys-
tem. And in some cases, achievement of such a broad set
of often-conflicting goals may simply be impossible on a
single forest land base. Therein lies the incentive for all for-
est managers to undertake new and different approaches to
SFM, and to coordinate their efforts with their neighbours
and with other sectors and stakeholders.
Future directions and needs
There are good prospects for sustainable management
of Canada’s boreal forest, but progress on the various fronts
has been uneven. There are still broad needs for wilder-
ness protection, active management for non-timber values,
resolution of issues of aboriginal jurisdiction, and govern-
ment/corporate commitment to the rural and remote com-
munities found in our northern forests. Large areas of the
boreal biome need to be left in a natural state, dominated by
BurtON et al.: SuStaINaBlE maNagEmENt Of BOrEal fOrESt
244
natural processes of disturbance and recovery, to serve not
only as a template and benchmark for our efforts at sustain-
able management, but also as a reserve against unforeseen
disruption and degradation initiated by human activities.
Much of Canada is still undergoing exploitation, with cut-
ting happening at rates that may not even be able to sustain
timber production within defined forest areas, never mind
being able to sustain old-growth and associated biodiver-
sity values (Armstrong, 2004; Coulombe et al., 2004). For
example, some provinces endorse exceeding the long-run
sustained yield of a forest land base for several decades as
part of a policy to regulate the forest age-class structure
and pay for road infrastructure (Utzig & Macdonald, 2000;
see technical analyses for individual timber supply areas at
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsr.htm).
Experience has shown that the cumulative impacts of
multiple land uses often outstrip the management ability
and management intentions of any one agency or licensee.
Sustainable forest management must incorporate integrated
resource management, as we cannot have sustainable land
management solely by the forest products sector. Multi-
sectoral and multi-agency coordination for land stewardship
will be more and more necessary as commercial interests in
a finite land base increase (Schneider et al., 2003).
The road to sustainable forest management forces us
to rethink many of the basic assumptions and tools of for-
estry. For example, the whole concept of “forest inventory”
needs to be revamped. While we still need to know the spe-
cies, density, size, and age of trees, it is now clear that the
age of the oldest tree in a stand is not equivalent to “stand
age” or the time since disturbance. The associated assump-
tions behind growth and yield modelling and timber supply
analysis also need to more accurately reflect the complex
stand histories and stand structures found in many boreal
forests. Furthermore, reliable planning for non-timber forest
values requires the inclusion of non-timber resources in for-
est inventory protocols.
Inventory is just one step in a framework that must
demonstrate a commitment to ongoing monitoring. While
the command-and-control culture has emphasized inspec-
tions to ensure compliance with regulations, a meaningful
program of adaptive management would instead involve
effectiveness monitoring to evaluate whether plans and
practices were having their intended consequences. Such
truly long-term perspectives and a commitment to con-
tinual improvement and adaptation are perhaps the most
difficult cultural attributes to instill in traditionally trained
forest managers. Nonetheless, throughout much of northern
Canada, marketplace pressures, trade disputes, and a rapidly
changing climate are all serving to impress upon those man-
agers the dynamic realities of post-modern forestry. There
is a need for ongoing research on the ecology of northern
biota, the effects of climate change, the best techniques for
working with natural disturbances, and the socio-economics
of remote and aboriginal communities. More creative
teamwork is needed to generate and test new management
approaches and to evaluate and improve simulation models
of forest ecosystems and landscapes, all in the context of
adaptive management. Institutional innovation is clearly
required so that signals of scarcity or degradation of forest
resources and environmental services will be reflected in
management decisions.
Some problems and proposed solutions are especially
in need of attention. For example, the implementation of
some sort of zoning of the boreal forest into three or more
parts (for conservation, extensive multiple-use forestry, and
intensive primary uses such as enhanced timber production)
appears to be one of the most promising ways to enhance
ecological objectives at the same time as economic and
social objectives (Vincent & Binkley, 1994; Messier, Bigué
& Bernier, 2003). This possibility needs to be examined. The
impact of provincial government decisions to delegate for-
est management responsibilities to corporate interests also
begs for an impartial assessment. Are company foresters in
an untenable conflict of interest? Can they reasonably be
expected to be the watchdogs of public forest sustainability
in the absence of a framework for public oversight?
Given the extreme spatial and temporal complexity of
boreal forests and the need to maintain this heterogeneity
as much as possible, it is clear that simple “one size fits all”
solutions will never do the job. We need to move away from
regulatory approaches that cannot reproduce and maintain
this ecological complexity. Forest managers need to be able
to vary forest management strategies, tactics, and operations
according to the balance of outcomes desired in individual
stands and landscapes. Canada’s northern forests, still large-
ly wild, offer us a few remaining years of opportunity in
which to chart a sustainable future for conserving ecologi-
cal values while enhancing socio-economic well-being. To
what extent is this possible? In 20 or 30 years we may not
have the luxury of asking this question.
Acknowledgements
This paper was prepared with assistance from the Sustainable
Forest Management Network, one of Canada’s Networks of
Centres of Excellence. Sabbatical study and travels in Canada by
T. Kuuluvainen were supported by the sabbatical program of the
Sustainable Forest Management Network and the Biodiversity
and Monitoring Programme in Finland (MOSSE 2003-2006).
Presentation of this paper by P. J. Burton at the 5th International
Conference on Disturbance Dynamics in Boreal Forests was sup-
ported by the Pacific Forestry Centre, Canadian Forest Service,
Natural Resources Canada. We thank the conference organizing
committee, and A. Maslov and N. Ulanova in particular, for the
opportunity to present the paper. The comments and suggestions
of S. Wang, S. Glover, and two anonymous reviewers are grate-
fully appreciated. The statements and recommendations presented
in this paper represent the views and opinions of the authors
only, and in no way represent the policies of the Sustainable
Forest Management Network, the Canadian Forest Service, the
Government of Canada, or any other institution or agency.
Literature cited
Adamowicz, W. L., G. W. Armstrong & M. J. Messmer, 2003. The
economics of boreal forest management. Pages 181–211 in P.
J. Burton, C. Messier, D. W. Smith & W. L. Adamowicz (eds.).
Towards Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest. NRC
Research Press, Ottawa, Ontario.
Adamowicz, W. L., T. S. Veeman, G. Binsted, B. MacNab, D.
Korber & A. Coyne, 2002. The Sustainable Forest Management
Network: Maintaining scientific excellence and relevance in a
changing world. Forestry Chronicle, 78: 112–114.
ÉCOSCIENCE, vOl. 13 (2), 2006
245
Andison, D. W., 2003. Tactical forest planning and landscape
design. Pages 433–480 in P. J. Burton, C. Messier, D. W. Smith
& W. L. Adamowicz (eds.). Towards Sustainable Management
of the Boreal Forest. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Ontario.
Angelstam, P. K., 1998. Maintaining and restoring biodiversity
in European boreal forests by developing natural disturbance
regimes. Journal of Vegetation Science, 9: 593–602.
Archer, H., R. Kozak & D. Balsillie, 2005. The impact of for-
est certification labelling and advertising: An exploratory
assessment of consumer purchase intent in Canada. Forestry
Chronicle, 81: 229–244.
Armstrong, G. W., 2004. Sustainability of timber supply consider-
ing the risk of wildfire. Forest Science, 50: 626–639.
Armstrong, J. A. & W. G. H. Ives (eds.), 1995. Forest Insect Pests
in Canada. Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Bamsey, C. R. (ed.), 1995. Proceedings: Innovative Silviculture
Systems in Boreal Forests, a Symposium held in Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada, October 2–8, 1994. Clear Lake Ltd.,
Edmonton, Alberta.
Bartemucci, P., K. D. Coates, K. A. Harper & E. F. Wright, 2002.
Gap disturbances in northern old-growth forests of British
Columbia, Canada. Journal of Vegetation Science, 13: 685–696.
Baskerville, G. L., 1997. Advocacy, science, policy, and life in the
real world. Conservation Ecology, 1: 9. [Online] URL: http://
www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art9 [viewed 29 September 2005].
BCMOF & BCMELP, 1995. Forest Practices Code Biodiversity
Guidebook. British Columbia Ministry of Forests and British
Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria,
British Columbia.
Bergeron, Y., 2004. Is regulated even-aged management the right
strategy for the Canadian boreal forest? Forestry Chronicle, 80:
458–462.
Bergeron, Y. & J. Brisson, 1990. Fire regime in red pine stands at
the northern limit of the species’ range. Ecology, 71: 1352–1364.
Bergeron, Y. & B. Harvey, 1997. Basing silviculture on natural
ecosystem dynamics: An approach applied to the southern bore-
al mixedwoods of Québec. Forest Ecology and Management,
92: 235–242.
Bergeron, Y., O. Engelmark, B. Harvey, H. Morin & L. Sirois
(eds.), 1998. Key issues in disturbance dynamics in boreal for-
ests. Journal of Vegetation Science, 9: 463–610.
Bergeron, Y., B. Harvey, A. Leduc & S. Gauthier, 1999. Forest
management guidelines based on natural disturbance dynamics:
Stand- and forest-level considerations. Forestry Chronicle, 75:
49–54.
Bhatti, J. S., G. C. van Kooten, M. J. Apps, L. D. Laird, I. D.
Campbell, C. Campbell, M. R. Turetsky, Z. Yu & E. Banfield,
2003. Carbon balance and climate change in boreal forests.
Pages 799–855 in P. J. Burton, C. Messier, D. W. Smith & W.
L. Adamowicz (eds.). Towards Sustainable Management of the
Boreal Forest. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Ontario.
Burton, P. J., D. D. Kneeshaw & K. D. Coates, 1999. Managing
forest harvesting to maintain old growth in boreal and sub-
boreal forests. Forestry Chronicle, 75: 623–631.
Burton, P. & T. Kuuluvainen, 2001. Emulating nature in for-
estry will mean a greater diversity of management practices.
Ecoforestry, 16: 21–23.
Burton, P. J., C. Messier, D. W. Smith & W. L. Adamowicz (eds.),
2003a. Towards Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest.
NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Ontario.
Burton, P. J., C. Messier, G. F. Weetman, E. E. Prepas, W. L.
Adamowicz & R. Tittler, 2003b. The current state of boreal
forestry and the drive for change. Pages 1–40 in P. J. Burton,
C. Messier, D. W. Smith & W. L. Adamowicz (eds.). Towards
Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest. NRC Research
Press, Ottawa, Ontario.
CBI, 2005. The Boreal in the Balance: Securing the Future of
Canada’s Boreal Region – A Status Report. Canadian Boreal
Initiative, Ottawa, Ontario. [Online] URL: http://www.boreal-
canada.ca/reports/boreal_in_the_balance/index_e.cfm [viewed
29 September 2005].
CCFM, 1995. Defining Sustainable Forest Management:
A Canadian Approach to Criteria and Indicators. Canadian
Council of Forest Ministers, Natural Resources Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario. [Online] URL: http://www.ccfm.org/ci/defin-
ing1997_e.html [viewed 5 June 2003].
CFS, 1995. The State of Canada’s Forests 1994. Canadian Forest
Service, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. [Online]
URL: http://nrcan.gc.ca/cfs-scf/national/what-quoi/sof/sof95/
index_e.html [viewed June 2006].
CFS, 2000. A User’s Guide to Local Level Indicators of Sustainable
Forest Management: Experiences from the Canadian Model
Forest Network. Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
CFS, 2005. The State of Canada’s Forests 2004-2005. Canadian
Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
[Onl ine] URL: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/cfs-scf/national/
what-quoi/sof/sof05/pdf/State-of-Forests_E.pdf [viewed 27
September 2005].
Christensen, N. L., S. V. Gregory, P. R. Hagenstein, T. A.
Heberlein, J. C. Hendee, J. T. Olson, J. M. Peek, D. A. Perry, T.
D. Schowalter, K. Sullivan, G. D. Tilman & K. A. Vogt, 2000.
Environmental Issues in Pacific Northwest Forest Management.
The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Coates, K. D. & J. D. Steventon, 1995. Patch retention harvesting as
a technique for maintaining stand level biodiversity in forests of
north central British Columbia. Pages 102–106 in C. R. Bamsey
(ed.). Proceedings: Innovative Silviculture Systems in Boreal
Forests, a Symposium held in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada,
October 2–8, 1994. Clear Lake Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta.
Crête, M., J. P. Ouellet & L. Lesage, 2001. Comparative effects
on plants of caribou/reindeer, moose and white-tailed deer her-
bivory. Arctic, 54: 407–417.
Coulombe, G., J. Huot, J. Arsenault, E. Bauce, J.-T. Bernard, A.
Bouchard, M. A. Liboiron & G. Szaraz, 2004. Commission
D’étude sur la gestion de la forêt publique québécoise: Rapport,
Décembre 2004. Gouvernement du Québec, Charlesbourg,
Québec. [Online] URL: http://www.commission-foret.qc.ca/
rapportnal.htm [viewed 5 October 2005].
Cumming, S. G. & G. W. Armstrong, 2001. Divided land base
and overlapping forest tenure in Alberta, Canada: A simulation
study exploring costs of forest policy. Forestry Chronicle, 77:
501–508.
DeLong, S. C., 2002. Using nature’s template to best advantage in
the Canadian boreal forest. Silva Fennica, 36: 401–408.
DeLong, S. C. & W. B. Kessler, 2000. Ecological characteristics
of mature forest remnants left by wildfire. Forest Ecology and
Management, 131: 93–106.
Desjardins, R. (director), 1999. L’erreur boréale. National Film
Board of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Dickmann, D. I., J. G. Isebrands, J. E. Eckenwalder & J.
Richardson (eds.), 2002. Poplar Culture in North America.
NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Ontario.
BurtON et al.: SuStaINaBlE maNagEmENt Of BOrEal fOrESt
246
Duchesne, L. C. & S. Wetzel, 2002. Managing timber and non-
timber forest product resources in Canada’s forests: Needs for
integration and research. Forestry Chronicle, 78: 837–842.
Duinker, P. N. & L. M. Trevisan, 2003. Adaptive management:
Progress and prospects for Canadian forests. Pages 857–892
in P. J. Burton, C. Messier, D. W. Smith & W. L. Adamowicz
(eds.). Towards Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest.
NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Ontario.
Eberhart, K. E. & P. M. Woodard, 1987. Distribution of residual
vegetation associated with large fires in Alberta. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research, 17: 1207–1212.
Edwards, A. R., 2005. The Sustainability Revolution: Portrait of
a Paradigm Shift. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island,
British Columbia.
Engelmark, O., R. H. W. Bradshaw & Y. Bergeron (eds.), 1993.
Disturbance dynamics in boreal forests. Journal of Vegetation
Science, 4: 161–186.
Farrar, J. L., 1995. Trees in Canada. Fitzhenry & Whiteside,
Markham, Ontario.
Gawthrop, D., 1999. Vanishing Halo: Saving the Boreal Forest.
Greystone Books, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Gitay, H., S. Brown, W. E. Easterling, B. Jallow, J. Antle, M. J.
Apps, R. Beamish, T. Chapin, W. Cramer, J. Franji, J. Laine,
L. Erda, J. J. Magnuson, I. Noble, C. Price, T. D. Prowse,
O. Sirotenko, T. Root, E.-D. Schulze, B. Sohngen & J.-F.
Soussana, 2001. Ecosystems and their services. Pages 235–342
in J. J. McCarthy, O. F. Canziani, N. A. Leary, D. J. Dokken &
K. S. White (eds.). Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation
and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Greene, D. F. & E. A. Johnson, 1999. Modelling recruitment of
Populus tremuloides, Pinus banksiana, and Picea mariana fol-
lowing fire in the mixedwood boreal forest. Canadian Journal
of Forest Research, 29: 462–473.
Greene, D. F., D. Kneeshaw, C. Messier, V. Lieffers, D.
Cormier, R. Doucet, K. D. Coates, A. Groot, G. Grover & C.
Calogeropoulos, 2002. Modelling silvicultural alternatives for
conifer regeneration in boreal mixedwood stands (aspen/white
spruce/balsam fir). Forestry Chronicle, 78: 281–295.
Grumbine, R. E., 1994. What is ecosystem management?
Conservation Biology, 8: 27–38.
Haeussler, S. & D. Kneeshaw, 2003. Comparing forest manage-
ment to natural processes. Pages 307–368 in P. J. Burton, C.
Messier, D. W. Smith & W. L. Adamowicz (eds.). Towards
Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest. NRC Research
Press, Ottawa, Ontario.
Hall, E. R., 2003. Forest industry aqueous effluents and the aquatic
environment. Pages 669–712 in P. J. Burton, C. Messier, D.
W. Smith & W. L. Adamowicz (eds.). Towards Sustainable
Management of the Boreal Forest. NRC Research Press,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Hamersley Chambers, F. & T. Beckley, 2003. Public involvement
in sustainable boreal forest management. Pages 113–154 in P.
J. Burton, C. Messier, D. W. Smith & W. L. Adamowicz (eds.).
Towards Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest. NRC
Research Press, Ottawa, Ontario.
Hare, F. K. & J. C. Ritchie, 1972. The boreal microclimates.
Geographical Review, 62: 333–365.
Harvey, B. D., T. Nguyen-Xuan, Y. Bergeron, S. Gauthier & A.
Leduc, 2003. Forest management planning based on natural
disturbance and forest dynamics. Pages 395–432 in P. J. Burton,
C. Messier, D. W. Smith & W. L. Adamowicz (eds.). Towards
Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest. NRC Research
Press, Ottawa, Ontario.
Hebert, D., B. Harvey, S. Wasel, E. H. Dzus, M. Donnelly, J.
Robert & F. Hamersley Chambers, 2003. Implementing sus-
tainable forest management: Some case studies. Pages 893–952
in P. J. Burton, C. Messier, D. W. Smith & W. L. Adamowicz
(eds.). Towards Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest.
NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Ontario.
Heliövaara, K. & R. Väisänen, 1984. Effects of modern forestry on
northwestern European forest invertebrates: A synthesis. Acta
Forestalia Fennica, 189: 1–32.
Henry, J. D., 2002. Canada’s Boreal Forest. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, DC.
Holling, C. S., 1992. Cross-scale morphology, geometry, and
dynamics of ecosystems. Ecological Monographs, 62: 447–502.
Hunter, M. L. & A. Calhoun, 1996. A triad approach to land-use
allocation. Pages 477–491 in R. C. Szaro & D. W. Johnston
(eds.). Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes. Oxford University
Press, New York, New York.
Jonsson, B. G., N. Kruys & T. Ranius, 2005. Ecology of species
living on dead wood: Lessons for dead wood management.
Silva Fennica, 39: 289–309.
Karppinen, H., 1998. Values and objectives of non-industrial pri-
vate forest owners in Finland. Silva Fennica, 32: 43–59.
Kneeshaw, D. D. & Y. Bergeron, 1998. Canopy gap characteristics
and tree replacement in the southern boreal forest. Ecology, 79:
783–794.
Kneeshaw, D. D. & S. Gauthier, 2003. Old growth in the boreal
forest: A dynamic perspective at the stand and landscape level.
Environmental Reviews, 11: S99–S114.
Kohm, K. & J. F. Franklin (eds.), 1997. Creating a Forestry for the
21st Century: The Science of Ecosystem Management. Island
Press, Washington, DC.
Korpilahti, E. & T. Kuuluvainen (eds.), 2002. Disturbance dynam-
ics in boreal forests: Defining the ecological basis of restoration
and management of biodiversity. Silva Fennica, 36: 1–447.
Krautkraemer, J. A., 2005. Economics of Natural Resource
Scarcity: The State of the Debate. Discussion Paper 05-14.
Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. [Online] URL:
http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF-DP-05-14.pdf [viewed
28 September 2005].
Krebs, C. J., S. Boutin & R. Boonstra (eds.), 2001. Ecosystem
Dynamics of the Boreal Forest: The Kluane Project. Oxford
University Press, New York, New York.
Kurz, W. A. & M. J. Apps, 1999. A 70-year retrospective analy-
sis of carbon fluxes in the Canadian forest sector. Ecological
Applications, 9: 526–547.
Kuuluvainen, T., 1994. Gap disturbance, ground microtopogra-
phy and regeneration dynamics of boreal coniferous forests in
Finland: A review. Annales Zoologica Fennici, 31: 35–51.
Kuuluvainen, T., 2002. Natural variability of forests as a refer-
ence for restoring and managing biological diversity in boreal
Fennoscandia. Silva Fennica, 36: 97–125.
Kuuluvainen, T., J. Mäki, L. Karjalainen & H. Lehtonen, 2002.
Tree age distributions in old-growth forest sites in Vienansalo
wilderness, eastern Fennoscandia. Silva Fennica, 36: 169–184.
Landres, P. B., P. Morgan & F. J. Swanson, 1999. Overview of the
use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological sys-
tems. Ecological Applications, 9: 1179–1188.
Lanken, D., 1996. Boreal Forest. Canadian Geographic, 116:
26–33.
Lapierre, L., 2002. Canada’s Model Forest Program. Forestry
Chronicle, 78: 613–617.
ÉCOSCIENCE, vOl. 13 (2), 2006
247
Leech, S., C. Whittaker & J. Innes (eds.), 2002. Conference
Proceedings: BorNet International Conference on Biodiversity
Conservation in Boreal Forests, Uppsala, Sweden, May 27–28,
2002. BorNet International, Vancouver, British Columbia. [Online]
URL: http://sfm-1.biology.ualberta.ca/english/pubs/PDF/CP_bor-
net_2002.pdf.
Lewis, K. J. & B. S. Lindgren, 2000. A conceptual model of biotic
disturbance ecology in the Central Interior of B.C.: How for-
est management can turn Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde. Forestry
Chronicle, 76: 433–443.
Lieffers, V. J., R. B. Macmillan, D. MacPherson, K. Branter & J.
D. Stewart, 1996. Semi-natural and intensive silvicultural sys-
tems for the boreal mixedwood forest. Forestry Chronicle, 72:
286–292.
Lieffers, V. J., C. Messier, P. J. Burton, J.-C. Ruel & B. E. Grover,
2003. Nature-based silviculture for sustaining a variety of
boreal forest values. Pages 481–530 in P. J. Burton, C. Messier,
D. W. Smith & W. L. Adamowicz (eds.). Towards Sustainable
Management of the Boreal Forest. NRC Research Press,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Lindenmayer, D. B. & J. F. Franklin, 2002. Conserving Forest
Biodiversity: A Comprehensive Multiscaled Approach. Island
Press, Washington, D.C.
Macdonald, E., 2004. Foreword: 4th International Workshop
on Disturbance Dynamics in Boreal Forests: Disturbance
Processes and their Ecological Effects. Canadian Journal of
Forest Research, 34: v–vi.
MacLean, D. A., 2004. Predicting forest insect disturbance regimes
for use in emulating natural disturbances. Pages 69–82 in A. H.
Perera, L. J. Buse & M. G. Weber (eds.). Emulating Natural
Forest Landscape Disturbances: Concepts and Applications.
Columbia University Press, New York, New York.
Magnusson, W. & K. Shaw (eds.), 2003. A Political Space:
Reading the Global Through Clayoquot Sound. University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
McCarthy, J., 2001. Gap dynamics of forest trees: A review with
particular attention to boreal forests. Environmental Reviews,
9: 1–59.
McNab, B., 2005. Challenges, achievements and impacts from
interdisciplinary research and training: The Sustainable Forest
Management Network. Forestry Chronicle, 81: 342–344.
McRae, D. J., L. C. Duchesne, B. Freedman, T. J. Lynham &
S. Woodley, 2001. Comparisons between wildfire and for-
est harvesting and their implications in forest management.
Environmental Reviews, 9: 223–260.
Messier, C., B. Bigué & L. Bernier, 2003. Using fast-growing
plantations to promote forest ecosystem protection in Canada.
Unasylva, 54: 59–63.
Messier, C., M.-J. Fortin, F. Schmiegelow, F. Doyon, S. G.
Cumming, J. P. Kimmins, B. Seely, C. Welham & J. Nelson,
2003. Modelling tools to assess the sustainability of forest
management scenarios. Pages 531–580 in P. J. Burton, C.
Messier, D. W. Smith & W. L. Adamowicz (eds.). Towards
Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest. NRC Research
Press, Ottawa, Ontario.
Montaigne, F., 2002. The great northern forest: Boreal. National
Geographic, 201: 42–65.
Needham, T., J. A. Kershaw, D. A. MacLean & Q. Su, 1999.
Effects of mixed stand management to reduce impacts of
spruce budworm defoliation on balsam fir stand-level growth
and yield. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 16: 19–24.
Nelson, H., I. B. Vertinsky, M. K. Luckert, M. Ross & B. Wilson,
2003. Designing institutions for sustainable forest management.
Pages 213–260 in P. J. Burton, C. Messier, D. W. Smith & W.
L. Adamowicz (eds.). Towards Sustainable Management of the
Boreal Forest. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Ontario.
Perera, A. H., L. J. Buse & M. G. Weber (eds.), 2004. Emulating
Natural Forest Landscape Disturbances: Concepts and
Applications. Columbia University Press, New York, New York.
Pratt, L. & I. Urquhart, 1994. The Last Great Forest: Japanese
Multinationals and Alberta’s Northern Forests. NeWest Press,
Edmonton, Alberta.
Pruitt, W. O., 1978. Boreal Ecology. Studies in Biology 91. Edward
Arnold, London.
Riley, L. F., 1995. Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest man-
agement in Canada. Water, Air & Soil Pollution, 82: 67–70.
Rousseau, A. H., 2003. Canadian Council of Forest Ministers:
Champions of sustainable forest management. Forestry
Chronicle, 79: 748–751.
Ruel, J.-C., 1995. Understanding windthrow: Silvicultural implica-
tions. Forestry Chronicle, 71: 434–445.
Savage, C., 2004. The singing forest. Canadian Geographic, 124:
36–46.
Schindler, D. W., 1998. A dim future for boreal waters and land-
scapes. BioScience, 48: 158–164.
Schneider, R. R., 2002. Alternative Futures: Alberta’s Boreal
Forest at the Crossroads. Federation of Alberta Naturalists and
Alberta Centre for Boreal Research, Edmonton, Alberta.
Schneider, R. R., J. B. Stelfox, S. Boutin & S. Wasel, 2003.
Managing the cumulative impacts of land uses in the
Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin: A modeling approach.
Conservation Ecology, 7: 8. [Online] URL: http://www.ecolog-
yandsociety.org/vol7/iss1/art8/
Sedjo, R. A. & D. Botkin, 1997. Using forest plantations to spare
natural forests. Environment, 39: 15–20, 30.
Shugart, H. H., R. Leemans & G. B. Bonan (eds.), 1992. A Systems
Analysis of the Global Boreal Forest. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Siitonen, J., 2001. Forest management, coarse woody debris and
saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an
example. Ecological Bulletins, 49: 11–42.
Smith, C. R. & G. W. Crook (compilers), 1996. Proceedings:
Advancing Boreal Mixedwood Management in Ontario, Sault
Ste. Marie, Ontario, October 17–19, 1995. Great Lakes Forestry
Centre, Canadian Forest Service, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
Smyth, C., J. Schieck, S. Boutin & S. Wasel, 2005. Influence of
stand size on pattern of live trees in mixedwood landscapes fol-
lowing wildfire. Forestry Chronicle, 81: 125–132.
Spence, J. R., 2001. The new boreal forestry: Adjusting timber
management to accommodate biodiversity. Trends in Ecology
and Evolution, 16: 591–593.
SSCAF, 1999. Competing Realities: The Boreal Forest at Risk.
Report of the Sub-Committee on Boreal Forest of the Standing
Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Parliament
of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. [Online] URL: http://www.parl.
gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/BORE-E/rep-e/rep-
09jun99-e.htm [viewed 25 May 2002].
Stevenson, M. G. & J. Webb, 2003. Just another stakeholder?
First Nations and sustainable forest management in Canada’s
boreal forest. Pages 65–112 in P. J. Burton, C. Messier, D.
W. Smith & W. L. Adamowicz (eds.). Towards Sustainable
Management of the Boreal Forest. NRC Research Press,
Ottawa, Ontario.
BurtON et al.: SuStaINaBlE maNagEmENt Of BOrEal fOrESt
248
Stocks, B. J., J. A. Mason, J. B. Todd, E. M. Bosch, B. M.
Wotton, B. D. Amiro, M. D. Flannigan, K. G. Hirsch, K. A.
Logan, D. L. Martell & W. R. Skinner, 2002. Large forest
fires in Canada, 1959–1997. Journal of Geophysical Research,
108: FFR5, 1–12.
Swift, J., 1983. Cut and Run. Between the Lines, Toronto, Ontario.
Utzig, G. F. & D. L. Macdonald, 2000. Citizen’s Guide to
Allowable Annual Cut Determinations. British Columbia
Environmental Network Educational Foundation, Vancouver,
British Columbia.
Van Oosten, C., 2004. Activities Related to Poplar and Willow
Cultivation and Utilization in Canada. Report to the 22nd ses-
sion of the International Poplar Commission, Santiago, Chile.
Poplar Council of Canada, Edmonton, Alberta.
Veeman, T. S., D. W. Smith, B. G. Purdy, F. J. Salkie & G. A.
Larkin (eds.), 1999. Science and Practice: Sustaining the Boreal
Forest. Conference Proceedings, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada,
Feb. 14-17, 1999. Sustainable Forest Management Network,
Edmonton, Alberta.
Veeman, T. S., P. N. Duinker, B. J. MacNab, A. G. Coyne, K. M.
Veeman, G. A. Binsted & D. Korber (eds.), 2002. Advances in
Forest Management: From Knowledge to Practice. Conference
Proceedings, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Nov. 13–15, 2002.
Sustainable Forest Management Network, Edmonton, Alberta.
Viszmeg, J. (director), 1994. Great Northern Forest. A film pro-
duced by A. Karvonen and J. Krepakevich. Karvonen Films
Ltd. and National Film Board of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Vincent, J. R. & C. S. Binkley, 1994. Efficient multiple-use for-
estry may require land-use specialization. Land Economics, 69:
370–376.
Wang, S., 2004. One hundred faces of sustainable forest manage-
ment. Forest Policy and Economics, 6: 205–213.
Weber, M. & W. Adamowicz, 2002. Tradable land use rights
for cumulative environmental effects management. Canadian
Public Policy, 28: 581–595.
Weir, J. M. H., E. A. Johnson & K. Miyanishi, 2000. Fire frequen-
cy and the spatial age mosaic of the mixedwood boreal forest in
western Canada. Ecological Applications, 10: 1162–1177.
Wikars, L.-O., 2001. The wood-decaying fungus Daldinia locu-
lata (Xylariaceae) as an indicator of fire-dependent insects.
Ecological Bulletins, 49: 263–268.
Work, T. T., J. A. Spence, W. J. A. Volney, L. Morgantini & J.
Innes, 2003. Movement of western Canadian forestry practices
toward sustainability: A survey of practices presently employed
by forest managers. Forestry Chronicle, 79: 906–916.
Yamasaki, S., D. Kneeshaw, A. Munson & F. Dorion, 2002.
Bridging boundaries among disciplines and institutions for
effective implementation of criteria and indicators. Forestry
Chronicle, 78: 487–491.
Zasada, J. C., A. G. Gordon, C. W. Slaughter & L. C. Duchesne,
1997. Ecological Considerations for the Sustainable
Management of the North American Boreal Forests. Interim
Report IR-97-024. International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis, Laxenburg. [Online] URL: http://www.iiasa.
ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-97-024.pdf [viewed 29
September 2002].
Zhou, H., 2003. Reducing, reusing, and recycling solid waste
from wood fibre processing. Pages 759–798 in P. J. Burton,
C. Messier, D. W. Smith & W. L. Adamowicz (eds.). Towards
Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest. NRC Research
Press, Ottawa, Ontario.
