1 Introduction

Public participation in forestry is ubiquitous throughout the boreal region with initiatives that engage citizens in countries across Europe and Canada. These initiatives take many forms, ranging from short-term workshops and planning sessions (Pappila & Pölönen, 2012) to complex institutional arrangements and enhanced Indigenous engagement (Klenk et al., 2013). In all countries, we observe advances in public participation that are stimulated by multiple drivers, including public concern for environmental degradation, the desire to be involved in forestry decisions, conflict between forest users, scientific complexity and uncertainty, Indigenous rights, and international agreements that codify public participation as a key dimension of sustainable forest management.

In some respects, advances in participatory processes are noteworthy and reflect a deepening of democracy in boreal regions; thousands of citizens have at least some opportunities to learn and influence the direction of forest management in their region. Improvements in public participation have the potential to enhance transparency, improve accountability, reduce conflict, and improve overall decision-making (Hanna, 2015). This is the promise and potential of public participation in forest management.

Yet, as discussed in this chapter, although there is an increase in venues for public engagement in forest management, the quality of these engagements is highly variable, and the body of evidence to date demonstrates weaknesses in design and implementation. These weaknesses are largely consistent across the boreal region in Europe and Canada. Borrowing a term from the “eight rungs of the ladder of citizen participation” (Arnstein, 1969), what passes as public participation in forestry is often little more than “manipulation” or “therapy.” It is a type of engagement that is synonymous with tokenism. Within this chapter, we use the term manipulation intentionally to represent forms of participation that meet minimal standards for citizen engagement and procedures but are designed to control the outcome of engagement processes. Given the achievements in public participation across the boreal region, our criticisms may sound harsh or overreaching. Yet, we make this claim in part because we observe little innovation or improvement to engagement processes in recent decades. In spite of more than 20 years of critical analysis and repeated recommendations for improvements, we observe almost no change (Lindgren et al., 2019).

This chapter considers the status of public participation in forest management by highlighting several policy developments and catalysts from the onset of environmentalism in the 1970s to the present day. We note several key achievements and also the challenges that lie ahead for democratizing forest management. Although we review the literature on this topic drawing from examples in the boreal regions in Europe (highlighting commonalities), this chapter focuses mainly on the Canadian context with attention to current challenges and opportunities for advancing public engagement. With topics on Indigenous forestry (Chap. 20) and gender aspects (Chap. 22) covered in other chapters in this volume, this chapter pays particular attention to issues of representation, meaningful participation, and possibilities for institutional innovation.

2 Public Participation in the Boreal Forest: International Perspectives

The FAO Joint Committee (2000, p. 7) defines public participation as:

Various forms of direct public involvement where people, individually or through organized groups, can exchange information, express opinions, and articulate interests, and have the potential to influence decisions or the outcome of specific forestry issues.

This definition gets at the heart of the concept emphasizing two-way flows of information as a distinct alternative to one-way flows of information, i.e., communications. The other key part of this definition involves the potential to influence decisions. This definition of public participation relates to a range of consultation and engagement procedures in forestry or other regulatory settings, such as impact assessment and public hearings. Here we distinguish between public participation and more direct forms of delegated authority, direct democracy, or citizen control. The basic thrust behind public participation involves a sense that citizen engagement is meaningful. This idea of meaningfulness is derived from mutual learning and the possibility of linking directly with policy or management decisions (Sinclair et al., 2017).

Considering public participation from a more theoretical perspective, Pappila and Pölönen (2012) refer to the environmental, integrative, and democratic functions of participation. In particular, they note that public participation consists of “(1) access to information, (2) participation in decision-making and (3) access to justice in keeping with the terms of the Aarhus Convention, the most important international agreement on public participation” (p. 178). This convention (UNECE, 1998) provides a framework for environmental management within European countries that involves access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice. The agreement mobilizes forest policy development in boreal regions such as Finland, Norway, and Sweden (Lindstad & Solberg, 2012).

The rationale for public participation in European countries is partly a function of democratic impulses at the national level as well as international agreements, but there are also more pragmatic reasons for implementing participatory processes in forest management. These reasons are summarized by Kleinschmit et al. (2018) to include empowerment, influence, legitimacy, representation, transparency, accountability, and effectiveness. Added to this list is the role that participatory processes can play in achieving sustainability. “It is argued that gathering, integrating and taking into account society’s perspectives in relation to a forest-related objective or problem makes the resulting policy decisions and implementation more sustainable” (Kleinschmit et al., 2018, p. 7). Toward this end, the aspirational aspects of public participation lead some Finnish researchers to declare promising directions toward sustainability in the form of an improved implementation of regulations, enhanced conflict resolution, identification of shared interests, and possibilities for the acceptance of decisions as they emerge more transparently from participatory processes (Pappila & Pölönen, 2012).

Researchers have also recognized the importance of individual, social, and mutual learning to meaningful participation and effective resource management, including forest management in both Europe and Canada (e.g., Romina, 2014; Van der Wal et al., 2014). As established by Woodhil and Röling (2000, p. 54), such learning can “help improve the quality and wisdom of the decisions we take when faced with complexity, uncertainty, conflict, and paradox.” Important social learning outcomes through involvement in forest management indicate that learning can result in collective action outcomes, such as protecting cultural heritage, acquiring new knowledge about forests and forestry, and building relationships (e.g., Assuah & Sinclair, 2019).

Notwithstanding the promise of public participation, researchers have identified a plethora of ongoing challenges. These issues are clearly evident across the boreal region, and we summarize some of the most salient issues here. First, consistent with problems of tokenism, we note that public engagement is often little more than a process of legitimation. It serves to legitimize the dominant discourses of elite interests rather than allowing for the consideration of alternatives to the status quo (Parkins & Sinclair, 2014). Studies suggest “that uneven power relations, unclear mandates and vague forms of accountability favor the state, forest owners and forest industry” (Lindahl et al., 2017, p. 54), while at the same time discrediting local knowledge, local users, and local systems of forest governance.

Second, participation often involves depoliticization. Working with interested citizens is an inherently political process involving careful consideration of contending and legitimate values, ideas, and supporting evidence. Although participation is inherently political in this way, we observe efforts to depoliticize processes of participation through highly technical or science-based decisions. This includes efforts to get past the messiness of politics with big assumptions about how to implement unbiased and clear-cut options presented within scientific data. This technical approach often maligns the complex and contested nature of forest management. In this context, authors such as Klenk et al. (2013) conclude that limitations on participation “effectively curtailed the advocacy of participants’ political interests” (p. 172).

Third, moving to more functional and pragmatic challenges, many scholars note a clear lack of representation in participatory processes. Numerous studies in the Canadian context, for example, highlight a limited range of public values within participatory processes (e.g., McFarlane & Boxall, 2000), as well as procedural aspects of engagement processes that curtail the capacity of specific individuals to participate effectively in group processes (Parkins & Sinclair, 2014).

Lastly, there are functional challenges related to implementing participatory processes in forestry. Some of these challenges involve the timing of engagement processes and misalignment with specific points of decision-making. Much of the literature noted above establishes that participation is often relegated to operational decisions at best, i.e., what trees to cut and when. For many, this operational discussion comes too late in the decision process and represents the thinking behind the initial phases of participation in forest management that leaned toward trying to protect cultural values on the land, i.e., cut around them. Furthermore, especially in Europe, with fragmented ownership structures, the opportunity for meaningful public engagement is difficult to implement on operations occurring on small tracts of land (Pappila & Pölönen, 2012).

3 Public Participation in Canadian Forestry

When we focus more specifically on the Canadian context, it is helpful first to understand how we have arrived at this point in time and identify the challenges ahead. Public participation in Canada enjoyed initial momentum from many of the same international movements that propelled civic engagement on environmental issues. This engagement started with the environmental movement in the 1970s, reflecting broad-based public concern for environmental degradation and demands for regulatory oversight of industrial activity. Synonymous with this movement was the establishment of departments of the environment in many jurisdictions throughout North America (McKenzie, 2002). Similarly, in the 1980s, the push to clarify what it means to undertake sustainable development (Brundtland Commission, 1987) propelled a number of international initiatives, such as the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. One legacy of Rio was the Montréal (2015), which formalized criteria and indicators for conservation and sustainable forest management in boreal forests. These efforts were instrumental in propelling specifically Canadian responses to these international initiatives.

In Table 23.1, we summarize key incentives that stem from these initial developments, with an attempt to focus (mostly) on national events or initiatives having a national impact. In this section, readers will observe an emphasis on events in the 1990s. This decade was a particularly challenging and innovative time for Canadian forestry, with several institutional and regulatory developments taking place throughout the boreal region and beyond.

Table 23.1 Key incentives for public participation in Canadian forestry
Full size table

To provide a backdrop to these developments, we make particular note of the Clayoquot Sound blockades in 1993 (Hayter, 2003). Although the conflict reached a peak in the early 1990s, Clayoquot Sound is emblematic of a decade-long conflict between environmentalists and the forest industry in British Columbia, spilling out into other parts of the country. Often dubbed the “war in the woods,” this persistent and high-profile conflict was a catalyst for changes to forest policy, including a series of initiatives to integrate citizens and key stakeholders into forest management in a more meaningful way.

There are three key initiatives through the 1990s that warrant specific attention here. First, in terms of forest policy, Canada is perhaps best known worldwide for its leadership in establishing Canada’s Model Forest Program (LaPierre, 2003). Initiated in 1991 with financial support from the Canadian Forest Service, the program had ten sites across the country. It also established an international presence and propagated the idea of model forest institutions in many other countries. The idea behind the program was to develop and showcase a new institutional model to foster local innovation and influence the management of public forest lands with closer collaboration between key forest stakeholders (Sinclair & Lobe, 2005; Sinclair & Smith, 1999).

Second, because of ongoing contraction in the forest sector and a sense of urgency to reconnect forestry with community development, by the late 1990s we observe the flourishing of community forests (see Chap. 21 for more details). By one estimate, there were 100 community forests across the country, the majority located in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, and Québec (Teitelbaum et al., 2006). Whereas model forests connected multiple stakeholders and land managers in partnership (including public and private sectors), community forests allowed municipalities and Indigenous communities to establish long-term lease agreements with provincial governments to manage local forest landscapes for multiple values. Local control and local benefits define the nature of community forests and, in many ways, bring rural municipal leadership into the governance model of forestry in Canada. A number of Indigenous communities are involved in community forests, and this model of Indigenous forest tenure has evolved over the last decade to include direct “nation-to-nation” agreements (O’Flaherty et al., 2008).

Third, although the abovementioned initiatives enjoy a higher profile, the last initiative we describe here is arguably the most ubiquitous in terms of public participation in the forest sector. Established in the early 1990s, the public advisory committee has become the default mode of public engagement across the country. Relying on a national survey of advisory committees (Parkins et al., 2006), we identified more than 100 committees tied directly to the industrial forest land base. These committees have similar mandates to support two-way flows of information and facilitate public influence over decision-making. In some jurisdictions such as Ontario, local citizen committees are organized and managed by the provincial government, and these citizen bodies are intended to contribute to area-based forest management plans. By contrast, in Alberta, advisory committees are sponsored by private firms, which have the responsibility for planning and managing area-based tenures in the province. As a process for local engagement, advisory committees include stakeholders, such as municipal leaders, recreation groups, environmental organizations, and sometimes educational and religious leaders.

Evolving from forest governance post-Rio and the Montréal Process, public advisory committees received further support from several national initiatives in the forest sector. First, in 1995, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers established an influential set of criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management (Bridge et al., 2005). These indicators included the goal of fair, effective, and informed decision-making as a key dimension of sustainability. At about the same time, the Canadian Standards Association established a formal standard for forest certification (CAN/CSA Z809), and this standard included a key role for public engagement in defining and monitoring sustainable forest management. Taken together, these public and private sector initiatives further cemented the public advisory committee as a key component of forest governance in Canada.

4 Public Participation at a Crossroads

This brief review reflects a burst of innovation in forest governance during the 1990s. Advances during this time were remarkable, partly because of the wide-ranging initiatives that promised to strengthen citizen engagement across a range of institutions. Over the past 20 years, however, the evolution of forest governance has faltered. On the one hand, endless critiques and invitations for improvement are accumulating in the published literature (e.g., Ambus & Hoberg, 2011; McGurk et al., 2006). On the other hand, little has changed, perhaps with the exception of Indigenous forestry initiatives (Wyatt et al., 2019), covered in Chap. 20.

In a recent review of public advisory committees in Canada, authors from multiple regions of the country have become more strident in their critiques. Lindgren et al. (2019) state that little has changed “since 2004 in terms of representativeness, insufficient public outreach and transparency, and indeterminate effectiveness in influencing forest management” (p. 37). The authors also claim that public advisory committees,

are not likely to deliver on many of the complex issues facing forest managers such as consideration of the impacts of and adaptation to climate change, reconciliation with Indigenous people, and meaningful consideration of gender and other diversity factors in decision-making. (p. 37).

Other researchers echoed these sentiments when assessing the efficacy of participatory processes in the forest sector. For example, Miller and Nadeau (2017, p. 19) examined 15 years of participatory processes in the boreal forest of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, identifying: (1) the importance of understanding the historic power imbalances that continue to shape dialogue and spaces for participation; (2) repeated attempts to enhance engagement followed by,

disappointments in implementation that have led to feelings of meaningless involvement, a closed system, and mistrust in the government and industry; (3) a system of privileged access that runs counter to the ideals of deliberative democracy and an equitable decision-making process. (p. 19).

These recent critiques represent just a small sampling of concern from many researchers about the state of public engagement in Canadian forestry. These concerns are echoed across parts of Europe, with Lindahl et al. (2017) and others identifying enduring struggles for meaningful local engagement. With the foregrounding of these concerns, most analysts would agree we are at a crossroads: one path leads to further manipulation, legitimation, and degrees of tokenism that erode forest governance, whereas a second path involves a meaningful response to the challenges ahead. For brevity, we address two of these challenges here as a signpost for the work that lies ahead.

4.1 Representation—Broader Community Involvement

Much of the literature on participation in forest management relates to “marginalized” groups and the need for group diversity. Concerns are often associated with women, Indigenous people, youth, and sometimes local environmental organizations that reject local engagement processes (Nenko et al., 2019; Reed, 2010; Reed & Varghese, 2007). Research shows that even when these voices are at the table, they often have trouble gaining voice (Parkins & Sinclair, 2014). Studies also indicate that participants within such groups and roundtables are often “representatives” of other constituents; however, there is no, or little, capacity to actually help these people communicate with their constituents, share information, and collect feedback (Lindgren et al., 2019; McGurk et al., 2006).

In addition to sociodemographic diversity and the representation of marginalized groups, representation is also associated with the diversity of values that are represented by specific participants. This aspect of representation can be more challenging to characterize, but researchers often identify values on a spectrum from biocentric to anthropocentric and can characterize these values within an advisory committee in comparison with values within the general population (McFarlane and Boxall 2000). This approach to understanding representation is less common in practice but is no less important in bringing diverse interests together to discuss forest management issues.

The involvement of Indigenous people has also been vexing. Indigenous voices are often those noted as missing by participants in forest management (Nenko et al., 2019; Parkins et al., 2006). One cannot overstate the importance of international agreements, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and associated imperatives regarding Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) in terms of their influence on the current and future engagement of Indigenous people. Coupled with these international commitments, Indigenous peoples within Canada retain rights and privileges within the Canadian Constitution that hold implications for forest management. We view the future in regard to respecting these constitutional rights and the UN declaration in two ways: (1) the continued development of robust government-to-government agreements on the management of forest lands (e.g., the Whitefeather Forest Initiative described by O’Flaherty et al., 2008); (2) the participation of Indigenous people in forest management in other settings. For example, Alberta has Guidelines on Consultation with First Nations on Land and Natural Resource Management that forest product companies must follow (Government of Alberta, 2014). Manitoba has the Community Timber Agreements with Indigenous and northern communities that show potential for meaningful engagement (Lawler & Bullock, 2019).

Finally, the importance of local environmental organizations is noteworthy. From Clayoquot Sound conflicts in the early 1990s to the present, local environmental organizations are often at the forefront of changing environmental practices in forest management. Because of a perceived lack of political efficacy, some of these local organizations have withdrawn from public advisory committees to the detriment of diverse local representation.

4.2 Meaningful Dialogue—Engagement on Issues of Public Concern

Bringing people to the table, i.e., representation, is one part of the process; what they do when they are there is also an important consideration (Romina, 2014). As indicated in the FAO Joint Committee (2000) definition stated earlier in this chapter, the purpose of public participation is to “exchange information, express opinions, and articulate interests.” This purpose cannot be achieved if participation is limited to one-way forms of communication and is dominated by “information out” from those leading committees or round tables.

To foster meaningful engagement, we suggest a set of overarching principles that should guide participatory processes in forest management. These include:

  • Adequate and appropriate notice of engagement opportunities is provided

  • Participation begins early in the decision process and builds public confidence

  • Public input can influence or change the outcome/decision being considered

  • Processes are fair and transparent and allow for the local acceptance of final decisions

  • Opportunities for public comment are open to all interested parties, are varied and flexible, include openings for face-to-face discussions, and involve the public in the actual design of an appropriate participation program

  • Formal processes of engagement, such as forums of dispute resolution, are available

  • Participant assistance and capacity building are available for informed dialogue and discussion

  • Participation programs are oriented toward learning for all participants, including governments, proponents, and participants.

  • Information about the decision in question is available and in local languages.

5 Moving Forward

As a final word, it is often much easier to envision a meaningful process of public participation than it is to implement the process. The busyness of life, the competition for people’s time, and the histories of mistrust and conflict, particularly in the forest sector, often result in suboptimal outcomes, even with the best of intentions. The work of public participation is not easy. Well-trained practitioners and professionals coupled with well-resourced engagement processes can help to some extent, as do the examples of practice within the boreal forest (e.g., Kleinschmit et al., 2018; Pappila & Pölönen, 2012), but we may also need to envision entirely new ways of engaging citizens on forest management issues. One solution might involve technological innovation. Social media platforms, such as Instagram, along with virtual conferencing and webinar platforms, such as Zoom, have proliferated in recent years, allowing for many new ways of linking people with forest landscapes and decision-making (e.g., Sherren et al., 2017; Sinclair et al., 2017). These technological innovations hold much promise but remain underutilized in the forest sector.

A second solution might involve new institutional designs. With a new generation of emerging professionals and leaders, the culture of engagement may need to shift. It may no longer be sufficient to assume participation within established and long-term processes, such as public advisory committees or working groups. Less permanent and more episodic modes of engagement that are part of an overall participant plan may be needed; for example, rather than hosting monthly information sessions, one could build a brief program of engagement that is focused on a specific point of decision-making, where it makes sense to link the engagement process directly to the point of decision-making. It also seems critical to ask at least some of the people whom you want to engage what types of participatory processes they are most likely to want to be part of, not just assume what is best.

Moving public participation in forestry beyond the crossroads and down the more enlightened path will, in many cases, require a complete rethink of participatory processes from government, industry, nongovernmental agencies, and the public. We believe that the principles of meaningful participation outlined above provide a framework for action and would help ensure that the promise of participation is met. Such action will necessarily include rethinking approaches to engagement to address functional challenges, paying attention to representation, producing meaningful dialogue, and establishing new institutional designs. There is now more than ample experience through training with professional organizations such as the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), not to mention guidebooks and handbooks, to help frame new engagement designs (Heierbacher, 2010). We only have to be willing to think beyond open houses aimed at placating the public toward a more civic approach to engagement (Sinclair & Diduck, 2017). This change will require academics to re-engage in scholarship regarding approaches to participation in forest management because little has been written on innovative approaches in the last 20 years.