The forest occupies an important place in the hearts
of Québecers, since it plays a role in their economy, ecology,
leisure activities and tourist industry. For all these reasons,
it is much sought-after as a resource. As a result, all users, not
just the forestry companies, want to be involved in decisions concerning
the management of Québec’s public forests.
The Forest Act was revised with this requirement
in mind, and now leaves more room for joint action based on transparency
and participation by the principal stakeholders.
The parties’ involvement
|
For the Ministère des Ressources naturelles,
de la Faune et des Parcs (MRNFP), the objective of participation
can only be achieved by establishing a dialogue between the
various players in a given area from the beginning of the
forest planning process. The ultimate goal is to harmonize
and incorporate the activities of the communities and users
concerned in a general forest management plan (GFMP).
The Act now requires forestry companies to invite certain
users to participate in the GFMP preparation process, so that
their concerns and interests can be taken into account. These
third parties, designated by law, are the regional county
municipalities (RCMs), the Native communities, wildlife sanctuary
managers, ZEC managers, |
|
| outfitters, sugar bush permit holders and individuals
carrying out agricultural activities in areas used for timber
production (e.g. blueberry farmers). |
The companies may also invite other organizations
and individuals to take part in the process if they feel it is appropriate.
Groups and individuals with an interest in public
forest management that are not involved in the planning process
will nevertheless have an opportunity to comment on the plans after
they have been submitted to the MRNFP, during the public information
and consultation period.
Planning for greater harmony
 |
Communication, an
ability to listen and a willingness to compromise are essential
elements of a process that requires reconciliation of different
interests.
Today, forest planning is everyone’s business. The
MRNFP, the forestry companies and forest users all have a
role to play, and they each have their own responsibilities
in ensuring that the forests are managed in a sustainable
way.
The MRNFP
The MRNFP, as manager of the public forest, is responsible
for calculating the allowable annual cut – in other
words, establishing the volume of timber that can be cut year
after year in a given area.
|
| |
The Native people are one of the groups invited by the forestry
companies. |
|
| |
| To carry out this task, the MRNFP works with
the forestry companies to elaborate management strategies based
on resource availability, economic considerations and other
sustainable development criteria. It also sets deadlines for
the production of GFMPs. |
| The MRNFP is also present at meetings organized
by the forestry companies with other forest users as part of
the plan preparation process. They act as resources, facilitators
and unifying agents. |
| If the parties are unable to reach
an agreement, the MRNFP makes the final decision when it approves
the plan. If necessary, it will call in a conciliator.
The completed GFMP is submitted for public consultation,
and will only be approved by the Minister – with amendments,
if necessary – at the end of the consultation period. |
 |
| |
Logging activities can be harmonized with the needs of other
forest users. |
|
The forestry company
| The forestry company is responsible
for producing the GFMP, based on management strategies devised
after discussions with the MRNFP and other forest users. The
company must invite other forest users to take part in the planning
process. To do this, it organizes meetings at which it will
attempt to reconcile the various interests at stake. Following
this consultation, the company will submit a report to the Minister,
containing a list of the people and organizations invited and
those that attended. The report also explains the consultation
process, mentions the agreements to be built into the plan,
and describes any disputes that could not be settled before
submission of the plan. |
 |
| |
Agreements will appear in the general forest management
plan (GFMP) and the annual forest management plan (AFMP).
|
|
|
Once the plan has been approved by the Minister,
the timber supply and forest management agreement (TSFMA) holder
can begin to apply the strategies. The requests retained during
the process will appear in the annual management plan. Compliance
with agreements between the parties is one of the aspects considered
in the performance evaluation carried out before the TSFMA holder’s
contract with the MRNFP is renewed.
Third parties
| |
In some cases, additional measures may be considered
to provide better protection for wildlife habitats.
|
|
|
Other forest users now have an opportunity
to influence the management of Québec’s public
forests. They work with the forestry companies to establish
conditions for their participation in the GFMP process, including
the number and location of meetings. They are able to express
and give reasons for their concerns and expectations, and
learn about the needs of other users.
They also work together in a spirit of cooperation to identify
solutions that are respectful of the interests of all the
parties. |
A forestry company invites the area’s other forest users
to take part in the GFMP preparation process.
At one of the meetings, a ZEC manager
asks for logging operations to be spread over time and over
space to minimize the impacts for hunters and fishers. It
also suggests protection measures for brook trout spawning
grounds recently identified by the Société de
la faune et des parcs du Québec (FAPAQ).
An RCM representative is also concerned
that logging may have a negative visual impact on certain
natural sites used by the local population, and asks for special
measures such as partial cutting to preserve the beauty of
the landscape.
An outfitter suggests a specific
type of cutting method for part of its territory, to preserve
the quality of the moose habitat. It also objects to the construction
of a new access road, which will make it more difficult to
control the territory. The RCM, however, is in favour of the
new road, which will enable it to develop the area for recreational
use and tourism, and the TSFMA holder points out that its
logging costs will be 20% higher without the new road, which
will reduce transportation distances. And so on …
All these requirements will be studied
and the alternatives considered in order to identify solutions
that are acceptable to all the parties.
|
|
