Content uploaded by Ella Furness
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ella Furness on Jun 29, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Community forest organisations and adaptation to climate change in British Columbia
Citation: Accepted Author Manuscript. Furness, E. and Nelson, H. 2012. Community
forest organizations and adaptation to climate change in British Columbia. Forestry
Chronicle 88(5), pp. 519-524.There may be minor typographical differences between
this manuscript and the final published version. Published version available via The
Canadian Institute of Forestry: DOI: 10.5558/tfc2012-099
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO
Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.
*Ella Furness
FurnessEJ@cardiff.ac.uk
Harry Nelson
Harry.nelson@ubc.ca
Faculty of Forestry, Forest Sciences Centre, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main
Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
*Corresponding author at: Sustainable Places Research Institute, Cardiff University, 33
Park, Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BA, UK. Tel.: + 44 7963 039937.
Abstract
The effects of climate change in many regions are expected to be significant, and likely to
have a detrimental effect on the health of forests and the communities that often
depend on those forests. At the same time climate change presents a challenge as it
requires changes in both forest management, and the institutions and policies
developed that govern forest management. In this paper, we report on a study assessing
how Community Forests Organizations (CFOs) in British Columbia (BC) which were
developed to manage forests according to the needs and desires of local communities
and First Nations, are approaching climate change and whether or not they are
responding to, or preparing for, its impacts. There are practical steps that CFOs can take
to improve their ability to cope with future conditions such as planting a wider variety of
species, practicing different silvicultural techniques and increasing monitoring and
observation of the forest. This paper gives an overview of what current capabilities exist
in CFOs and suggests potential areas for targeted development.
Introduction
The predicted impacts of climate change are becoming a reality for forest managers in
BC. There are steps that those managers could take which may reduce the negative
impacts of climate change in the future, however those steps need to be taken soon if
they are to offer any protection. Community Forest Organisations (CFOs) usually have
area based tenures which give people an opportunity to manage some of their
neighbouring forest and distribute the benefits locally. If CFOs begin to implement
adaptations to climate change soon, they may avoid some impacts in their forests and
organisations and continue to provide existing benefits to communities. This article
describes a study that investigated CFO’s thoughts and actions about climate change in
BC and gives us some insights into what resources may enable the organisations’
adaptation to changing circumstances.
The impacts of climate change on forests in British Columbia
Canada's forests are already impacted by climate change, with increases in the large
scale disturbance patterns of drought, insect attack, disease and fire (Williamson et al.
2009; Daniels et al. 2011). These increases in disturbance are likely to persist, putting
pressure on local communities by affecting timber quality and production, watersheds
and water availability, and increasing risk to health from smoke and fire. The impact of
the mountain pine beetle epidemic has been partially caused by climate change, (Carroll
et al. 2006, Cudmore et al. 2010, Woods et al. 2010), and gives us an indication of some
of the impacts which forest dependent communities will need to contend with in the
future. Specifically forests in British Columbia can expect to see increased biotic damage
and disease, as well as an increased frequency and intensity of droughts in the southern
interior, species migration, and loss of habitat in high-elevation forests. How forest
managers anticipate and respond to these changes will affect the future of forestry in BC
and have significant impact on rural forest dependent communities (Williamson et al.
2009). Whether forest managers adapt or not, the only certainty is that the future
landscape of British Columbia will differ significantly from its current state (Hamann and
Wang 2006).
Community forests and adaptation to climate change
CFOs are of particular interest in terms of assessing how communities can best address
the impacts of climate change because of their direct relationship with the forest. As the
climate in BC is changing and community forests are, or will be, strongly affected by
these changes, how they plan for and respond to change could have a significant
influence upon whether they avoid or reduce the negative impacts of climate change on
their organisations and communities (Ogden & Innes 2009). Top-down, rigid and
centralized processes have been shown to be limited in their ability to deal with the
impacts of local environmental change, and there are suggestions that local
participatory governance structures such as community forests may be more effective in
building resilience in face of stressors such as climate change (Ostrom et al. 1999,
Brondizio et al. 2009, Eakin et al. 2011). Run by voluntary boards for the benefit of the
whole community, CFOs could play a lead role in helping forest dependent communities
in BC adapt to climate change by improving the adoption of adaptation strategies
(Ogden & Innes 2009, Chapin et al. 2010). However, research also shows that
communities and organizations vary widely in their ability to adapt to changing
conditions, and that community forests are far from a panacea (Bradshaw 2003; Reed &
McIlveen 2006; Bullock & Hanna 2007, Bullock et al. 2009).
Adaptations
Given the difficulties in producing accurate predictions of future climate and its impact
upon forests in BC, it is hard to create robust prescription for adaptation. However,
there are some potential adaptations that could be made; while some are in areas of
research and technology, at the policy level, or require landscape scale co-ordination,
others are adaptations that could be made by community forest managers. For example
in the area of operations, managers may need to be prepared to increase the amount of
salvage logging they are carrying out in the future and expect a reduced winter harvest
due to difficulties in accessing trees in non-freezing conditions (Williamson et al. 2010).
There is now enough evidence of the probability of increasing fire risk to develop
increasingly ‘fire-smart’ landscapes and communities (Williamson et al. 2010). Managers
should expect to see an increasingly variable timber supply and begin to include
changing climate variables in their growth and yield models and long term timber supply
analysis. They could also be adopting risk assessment and adaptive management
principles into their planning and day to day management decisions and including
climate change considerations when planning, constructing, or replacing infrastructure
(Williamson et al. 2010).
In terms of research, managers could expand their ecological monitoring and pathogen
surveillance (Papadopol 2000), and at the stand level, managers can employ a variety of
techniques depending on their particular location and expected impacts. For example,
CFOs could use thinning to reduce moisture stress in trees and increase the growth of
residual trees. They could also shorten rotations and reduce regeneration delays which
can maintain or re-establish the CO2 sequestration capacity of the land as well as
reducing erosion where it is a problem (Papadopol 2000). In addition, organisations
could develop and maintain a mosaic of species and age classes to try to spread the risk
associated with dependency on only one or two commercial species (Cudmore et al.
2010), or experiment with planting alternative genotypes or new species in anticipation
of future climate (Papadopol 2000, Aitken et al. 2008).
Challenges Facing Community Forests
Community forests in BC are charged with a myriad of responsibilities, amongst them
creating employment, the development of value added products and non-timber forest
products; conflict mitigation and resolution over ecosystem services, environmental
stewardship, and valuable environmental resources; the sharing of First Nations
traditional territories and areas under negotiation as part of treaty negotiations; as well
as increasing community empowerment, implementing ecosystem based forestry, and
the restoration of community links with the environment (Bullock et al. 2009; Berkes
2010). This wide range of expectations has been criticised as unrealistic and
undeliverable (Bradshaw 2003), indeed, community forests are expected to provide for
many different and competing needs, including those of government, industry,
community and First Nations stakeholders (Bullock et al. 2009). Community forests also
actively attempt the incorporation of different worldviews and different types of
knowledge into their management of forest ecosystems, something which to a great
extent is not expected from their competitors in the forest industry. Adaptation to
climate change is yet another demand upon the resources of these small organisations
which represent only a very small part of BC’s forest industry as a whole.
Method
The project studied members of the British Columbia Community Forest Association
(BCCFA) and was conducted in collaboration with the BCCFA using a survey approach to
detail organizations' awareness of and response to climate change, as well as any
adaptation techniques they have embarked upon. The survey sample included all
organisations that were members of the BCCFA and had an active tenure agreement
with the BC Ministry of Forests. Sixteen members of the BCCFA do not have a tenure
agreement and are in the early stages of forming a community forest organisation,
meaning they are not yet actively managing a forest. Eight holders of Community Forest
Agreement holders in BC are not members of the BCCFA and were not approached in
this research (see Figure 1). The findings of the study are not generalizable beyond the
membership of the BCCFA and it is worth noting that further research may be beneficial
in this area. The sample frame was obtained through the BCCFA, with contact telephone
numbers accessed through a record of their membership database (as it stood in
November 2011). This gave a population of 38 organisations, all of which were included
in the sample.
Results
At the outset, there was little existing research to suggest whether or not CFOs in BC
would be familiar with the concept of adaptation. All 38 of the organisations included in
the sample responded to the survey, giving us a 100% response rate, and our results
established that the concept of adaptation was both salient and relevant to many of the
organisations. Indeed, just under half (45%) were already researching adaptation (Stage
1 Adaptors). Just under a third (32%) were already integrating adaptation techniques
into their work (Stage 2 Adaptors). Of the remaining organisations some were not
adapting (Non adaptors), and a small minority were unsure. Figure 2 illustrates the
adaptation progress of all of the organisations in the sample.
Figure 1 CFOs in BC: 62 organisations; 46 have active operations and 54 are members of the BCCFA,
38 are members with active operations..
Figure 2 Adaptation progress among the 38 CFOs
In terms of the impacts of climate change that CFOs were experiencing or anticipating,
we found that forest pathogens were the most commonly experienced or expected
(82% of CFOs overall), extreme events were also frequently observed or expected, and
species changes and warmer winters less so (Table 1 shows these results in more detail).
Table 1 Non-Adaptors, Stage 1 Adaptors and Stage 2 Adaptors: observation and
expectation of climate change
Non-Adaptors (16 CFOs)
Stage 1 Adaptors (17 CFOs)
Stage 2 Adaptors (12
CFOs)
11 (69%) have observed or
expect to observe an
increase in extreme events.
13 (76.5%) have observed
or expect to observe an
increase in extreme events
10 (83%) have observed or
expect to observe extreme
events
12 (74%) have observed or
expect to observe an
increase in pathogens in
the forest.
16 (94%) have observed or
expect to observe an
increase in pathogens in
the forest.
11 (92%) have observed or
expect to observe an
increase in pathogens in
the forest.
3 (18%) have observed or
11 (65%) have observed or
8 (67%) have observed or
expect to observe warmer
winters
expect to observe warmer
winters
expect to observe warmer
winters
9 (56%) have not observed
and do not expect to
observe warmer winters
3 (18%) have not observed
and do not expect to
observe warmer winters
2 (17%) have not observed
and do not expect to
observe warmer winters
6 (40%) have observed or
expect to observe species
change
12 (71%) have observed or
expect to observe species
change
8 (67%) have observed or
expect to observe species
change
Attitude towards climate change was substantially different among Non-Adaptors and
Adaptors, with the Adaptors more concerned about global climate change, and more
likely to have observed or expected to observe the impacts of climate change (based on
Table 2).
Table 2 Non-Adaptors, Stage 1 Adaptors and Stage 2 Adaptors: attitude to climate
change
Non-Adaptors (16 CFOs)
Stage 1 Adaptors (17 CFOs)
Stage 2 Adaptors (12
CFOs)
7 (44%) are concerned
about global climate
change
14 (82%) are concerned
about global climate
change
11 (92%) concerned about
global climate change
3 (19%) not concerned
about global climate
change
1 (6%) not concerned about
global climate change
1 (8%) not concerned about
global climate change
7 (44%) are concerned
about the impacts of
climate change on their
CFO.
12 (73%) are concerned
about the impacts of
climate change on their
CFO.
8 (67%) are concerned
about the impacts of
climate change on their
CFO
2 (12.5%) have an
understanding of likely
climate change impacts
12 (71%) have an
understanding of likely
climate change impacts
9 (75%) have an
understanding of likely
climate change impacts
10 (62.5%) have no
understanding of likely
climate change impacts
2 (12%) have no
understanding of likely
climate change impacts
2 (17%) has no
understanding of likely
climate change impacts
1 (6%) has an
understanding of risk
reduction
12 (71%) have an
understanding of risk
reduction
10 (83%) have an
understanding of risk
reduction
13 (81%) have no
understanding of risk
reduction
4 (23.5%) have no
understanding of risk
reduction
2 (17%) have no
understanding of risk
reduction
Some of the attitudes about climate change amongst respondents are illustrated by the
comments below:
“The older group (on our board) haven't bought into climate change; it's not a
high concern, although we don't plant cedar anymore because it dries out.”
(CFO 34: Non-Adaptor)
“Climate change is too uncertain; it’s based on opinions, not knowledge.”
(CFO 30: Non-Adaptor)
“Climate change all boils down to what side you're on. We haven't talked about
climate change.” (CFO 26: Non-Adaptor)
“Climate change is something way off on the horizon and worrying about it is
premature. It is not driving decision-making.” (CFO 23: Stage 2 Adaptor)
“In general people don't connect Mountain Pine Beetle with climate change, the
board are not thinking about it, though the area based tenure is a huge incentive
to plant for the future.” (CFO 5: Stage 1 Adaptor)
40% of CFOs had an understanding of the likely impacts of climate change on their
forest and 37% had an understanding of risk reduction. While this is encouraging, it
indicates a significant gap in the understanding of the majority of organisations and a
lack of appreciation of the probable impacts and potential adaptations that could be
made to minimise vulnerability to climate change. Targeting this knowledge
requirement may enable CFOs to better adapt, in fact there were suggestions directly
from respondents about the role that education and training may be able to play in
increasing the adaptability of CFOs (see below). Clear recommendations for actions that
could spread the risk or minimise the impacts of climate change are essential, with 63%
of organisations not knowing what to do.
“A high education among the population here means that people are aware of
climate change.” (CFO 1: Stage 1 Adaptor)
“We have a heightened knowledge and interest in climate change because of a
conference here put on by a graduate student from Simon Fraser University.”
(CFO 12: Stage 1 Adaptor)
“A lack of cold snaps has increased the spread of the Mountain Pine Beetle - 70%
of our pine is dead. We’re thinking about climate change, but we have a lack of
understanding about what to do about it.” (CFO 8: Non-Adaptor)
Limitations to adaptation
It was common for CFOs to defer to government expertise, especially if lacking the time
or money to invest in their own research, but it was also common for CFOs to complain
about standards that government had imposed:
“With our stocking standards we default to the government standards, we expect
them to inform us on climate change, as they have been researching it. The major
impacts are planting the wrong stuff - but really it's up to the Province, they are
modelling it. We only have an AAC of 20,000M3. We can't afford scientists - start-
up costs are expensive.” (CFO 31: Non-Adaptor)
“The Ministry of Forests needs to loosen up the preferred species.”
(CFO 17: Non-Adaptor)
“We're limited by silvicultural rules, we can't be as experimental as we'd like.”
(CFO 19: Non-Adaptor)
“There's no way to adapt, provincial stocking standards mean it’s not possible to
change.”
(CFO 34: Non-Adaptor)
“We’re constrained by prescribed species.” (CFO 35: Stage 1 Adaptor)
“Based on how the area has been hit now [by Mountain Pine Beetle], it is hard to
plan for the future, BC Timber Sales [a government department which sets cost
and price benchmarks for timber harvested from public land in British Columbia]
have hampered progress, and law changes have not helped, overall the laws are
not helpful.” (CFO 38: Non-Adaptor)
Discussion and Conclusions
Previous to beginning this study it was unclear whether any organisations would be
adapting to climate change, given the complexity and challenges there are in making
changes. Having established that a significant minority of CFOs are adapting, it is
worthwhile improving understanding of how their experience can inform further
adaptation, not only among CFOs but in the broader system of forest management.
In terms of policy development, balancing demands for support and guidance from
government with autonomy for communities to make their own decisions is an essential
and very difficult task. Previous research suggests that community organisations
involved in natural resources management have often been hampered by fractious
relationships with government; it seems that successful community management is
more likely to occur when local decision-making processes are free from government
intervention and include a wide range and large number of participants (Bullock and
Hanna 2007). There is still a salient role for government and institutional involvement in
adaptation though, and there was distinct approval from CFOs about projects like the
Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions and the Government of Canada’s Regional
Adaptive Collaborative, which suggests that there are already government and research
initiatives which are on the right track and can be built upon or extended to support
CFOs and improve local capacity for climate change adaptation.
Research carried out with Swedish foresters suggests that information about the
practical tasks of risk reduction and adaptation may be more important than
information on the possible impacts of climate change (Blennow and Pearson 2008).
Although needs may be different in BC and further research into what forest managers
and communities want could be beneficial to confirm that any future programs are
addressing the needs of CFOs. In the survey more adaptive CFOs reported positive
training experiences, with staff and board members attending workshops and seminars
on climate change provided by government bodies, universities or other research
initiatives as well as working alongside external organisations to improve their ability to
adapt, this research indicates that continuing and widening these initiatives could
increase the adaptive capacity of CFOs.
As well as access to education and training, the size of the tenures was an issue, some
respondents pointed out that community forests are so small that their decisions have
comparatively little impact on the landscape, so whether or not they begin to try to
adapt to climate change has little real implication for forests as a whole. Some
suggested larger community forests as a solution to this, or the development of
partnerships between CFOs and government and industry to collaborate on adaptation;
some CFOs already had experience of creating partnerships with industry for research.
“We have been involved in a study with [a large logging company] looking into
under planting with Douglas fir, researching erosion control and increasing
evapotranspiration on an old Mountain Pine Beetle site.” (CFO 36)
“When talking about scale of impacts the community forest is ‘small potatoes’,
they only control 5% of the surrounding area.” (CFO 24)
Finally, the willingness of some CFOs to explore and undertake adaptive actions shows
the innovation that will be necessary in making more broad scale changes to our forest
management system. Not only should their experiences be evaluated and
communicated more broadly, for the wider knowledge they can generate, but it will also
be interesting to explore how this innovation may be transmitted across organizations
as well. Rogers’ (1983) theory of the diffusion of innovation uses a diffusion curve
(which resembles a normal curve) to explain how innovations (in this case adaptation to
climate change) are adopted within a population. He suggested that this is done first by
a small (2.5%) group of the population termed the Innovators, secondly by a larger
proportion (13.5%) termed the Early Adopters, and progressively an Early Majority
(34%), a Late Majority (34%) and eventually Laggards (16%). Rogers’ extensive research
in this area suggested descriptions for each group: for example Innovators are defined
as being willing to take risks, having good access to finances, being very social and
having access to scientific sources, and well as interaction with other innovators (Rogers
1962). This conceptualisation of the adoption of innovation could help better
understand not only how different ideas and practices can be shared but how
organizations more generally can start addressing climate change.
Conclusion
Being mindful of the variety of values, governance arrangements and level of
understanding seen in these organisations, community forest organisations are certainly
well placed to promote local climate change adaptation. Community forests in BC are
some of the most advanced community governed forest management arrangements in
the world and have built up a level of expertise which make them well placed to deliver
on local climate change adaptation. Building on CFOs’ initial adaptation efforts in order
to develop success local preparation for climate change requires the evolution of a
supportive policy environment. Community forests would need to have the right
balance of autonomy and support from government and other institutions, as well as
targeted training, funding and equipment to match the size and breadth of the task.
Bibliography
Aitken, S.N., Yeaman, S., Holliday, J.A., Wang, T. & Curtis-McLane, S. 2008, "Adaptation,
migration or extirpation: climate change outcomes for tree populations",
Evolutionary Applications, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 95-111.
Berkes, F. 2010, "Devolution of environment and resources governance: trends and
future", Environmental Conservation, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 489-500.
Blennow, K. & Persson, J. 2009, "Climate change: Motivation for taking measure to
adapt", Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, vol. 19, no. 1,
pp. 100-104.
Bradshaw, B. 2003, "Questioning the credibility and capacity of community-based
resource management", Canadian Geographer-Geographe Canadien, vol. 47, no. 2,
pp. 137-150.
Brondizio, E.S., Ostrom, E. & Young, O.R. 2009, "Connectivity and the Governance of
Multilevel Social-Ecological Systems: The Role of Social Capital", Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, vol. 34, pp. 253-278.
Bullock, R. & Hanna, K. 2008, "Community forestry: Mitigating or creating conflict in
British Columbia?” Society & Natural Resources, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 77-85.
Bullock, R., Hanna, K. & Slocombe, D.S. 2009, "Learning from community forestry
experience: Challenges and lessons from British Columbia", Forestry Chronicle, vol.
85, no. 2, pp. 293-304.
Carroll, A.L., Régnière, J., Logan, J.A., Taylor, S.W., Bentz, B.J., Powell J.A. 2006 “Impacts
of Climate Change on Range Expansion by the Mountain Pine Beetle” Mountain
Pine Beetle Initiative Working Paper 2006-14 Natural Resources Canada, Canadian
Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, 506 W. Burnside Rd., Victoria BC, V8Z 1M5,
Canada
Chapin, F.S., Carpenter, S.R., Kofinas, G.P., Folke, C., Abel, N., Clark, W.C., Olsson, P.,
Smith, D.M.S., Walker, B., Young, O.R., Berkes, F., Biggs, R., Grove, J.M., Naylor,
R.L., Pinkerton, E., Steffen, W. & Swanson, F.J. 2010, "Ecosystem stewardship:
sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet", Trends in Ecology &
Evolution, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 241-249.
Cudmore, T.J., Bjorklund, N., Carroll, A.L. & Lindgren, B.S. 2010, "Climate change and
range expansion of an aggressive bark beetle: evidence of higher beetle
reproduction in naive host tree populations", Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 47,
no. 5, pp. 1036-1043.
Daniels, L.D., Maertens, T.B., Stan, A.B., McCloskey, S.P.J., Cochrane, J.D. & Gray, R.W.
2011, "Direct and indirect impacts of climate change on forests: three case studies
from British Columbia", Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology-Revue Canadienne De
Phytopathologie, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 108-116.
Eakin, H., Eriksen, S., Eikeland, P. & Oyen, C. 2011, "Public Sector Reform and
Governance for Adaptation: Implications of New Public Management for Adaptive
Capacity in Mexico and Norway", Environmental management, vol. 47, no. 3, pp.
338-351.
Hamann, A. & Wang, T. 2006, "Potential effects of climate change on ecosystem and
tree species distribution in British Columbia", Ecology, vol. 87, no. 11, pp. 2773-
2786.
Ogden, A.E. & Innes, J.L. 2009, "Application of Structured Decision Making to an
Assessment of Climate Change Vulnerabilities and Adaptation Options for
Sustainable Forest Management", Ecology and Society, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 11.
Ostrom, E, Walker, J Walker, J 1994, Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources, The
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI , USA.
Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C.B., Norgaard, R.B. & Policansky, D. 1999, "Sustainability -
Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges", Science, vol. 284, no.
5412, pp. 278-282.
Papadopol, C.S. 2000, "Impacts of climate warming on forests in Ontario: Options for
adaptation and mitigation", Forestry Chronicle, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 139-149.
Reed, M.G. & McIlveen, K. 2006, "Toward a pluralistic civic science?: Assessing
community forestry", Society & Natural Resources, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 591-607.
Rogers, Everett M. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe: Free Press
Rogers, Everett M. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
Williamson, T.B., Colombo, S.J., Duinker, P.N., Gray, P.A., Hennessey, R.J., Houle, D.,
Johnston, M.H., Ogden, A.E. & Spittlehouse, D.L. 2009, Climate Change and
Canada's Forests - From Impacts to Adaptation, Sustainable Forest Management
Network and Natural Resources Canada, Edmonton, AB.
Williamson, T., Hesseln, H. & Johnston, M. 2012, "Adaptive capacity deficits and
adaptive capacity of economic systems in climate change vulnerability
assessment", Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 15, pp. 160–166
Woods, A.J., Heppner, D., Kope, H.H., Burleigh, J. & Maclauchlan, L. 2010, "Forest health
and climate change: A British Columbia perspective", Forestry Chronicle, vol. 86, no.
4, pp. 412-422.