Thank you to the Songhees Elders who have welcomed us into your territory. Thank you to the committed people who have planned and conducted this fine conference. Thank you to the committed people who have kept the vision of community forestry alive for so many decades. Thanks to all of you. You are making a difference in how forestry is practiced in communities across BC and around the world. In particular, we are increasingly demonstrating to timber companies and government that a social license is necessary to operate in people's backyards, in our watersheds, in the landscapes we call home.

If we wonder whether or not we are making progress, the large attendance at this conference is good evidence that we are. I have been involved in the community forestry movement for over two decades. If we had attempted to have a meeting of those interested in community forestry two decades ago, we probably could have had the meeting in a large outhouse. However, today we need a conference center to hold the numbers of people and the diversity of ideas that now comprise community forestry.

Another perspective on community forestry is that it is not a new, untried approach to forestry. Indeed, community forestry in its full diversity has been around for a significantly longer period of time than large-scale industrial forestry facilitated by exclusive forest tenure arrangements with governments. Indeed, these forest tenure arrangements were concocted to replace community forestry with large-scale industrial forestry. While it may be said that large-scale industrial forestry has provided some benefits, these benefits have come with high costs: degraded environments, unhealthy communities, steadily decreasing employment, and foreclosure on non-timber forest values, as well as on the quality and health of long-term timber supplies.

Community forestry offers an important part of the solution to needed reform in forest management in British Columbia, elsewhere in Canada, and in many parts of the world. However, we need to remember that community forestry faces many of the same challenges as industrial forestry. In particular, to be ecologically sustainable and, therefore, to provide for cultural sustainability, forestry in any form needs to incorporate what we know about how forest ecosystems function into how we protect and use these ecosystems.

Current science tells us that timber management needs to be carried out in a much kinder, gentler way that leaves fully functioning forests at all scales through time. This is information that First Nations have understood for centuries through their amazing system of traditional ecological knowledge. TEK is a system of acquiring knowledge through repeated observations over long periods of time. Thus, it is like replicating a scientific experiment thousands and thousands of times. TEK has known for hundreds of years what science is just discovering about forests. Both of these knowledge systems need to be respected and applied in our forestry practices. If we did this, we would quite simply see a revolution in how forestry was practiced on the ground. While we would cut less timber, we would make more jobs doing a diversity of activities and have a healthier place to live. More about this later.

We tend to think about large changes, such as the shift from large-scale industrial forestry to small-scale community forestry, as political and policy changes. Indeed, these aspects of change are important. However, we also need to understand that what people think is possible is defined by our education and cultural experiences. In most cases, education and the culture that directs education reflect the dominant interests of society-they reflect the status quo. Thus, many people feel that the only approaches that will work are the status quo.

This is a self-defeating approach, but an understandable approach due to the control of education by status quo interests. Why am I talking about this? To remind all of us that if we truly want to see the expansion of community forestry in British Columbia and elsewhere, we need to ensure that our educational institutions explain why community forestry has been and continues to be successful, what it is about, why we need more of it, and how these changes can occur. Over a very short period of time, less than 20 years, people will understand that community forestry is not only possible, but necessary-necessary for a social license to use the forest.

Community forestry-—will it be different? Yes, I believe it will be different because community forestry has different roots than industrial forestry.

In the first place, it is more correct to think of community forests than it is to think of community forestry. Community forests are places where a diverse variety of uses can occur, from protection of biological diversity and maintenance of cultural activities to harvest of non-timber forest products and small-scale timber extraction. In contrast, industrial forestry is about timber, with "other" uses being placed secondary to cutting high volumes of timber at the lower possible cost.

Community forests are inclusive of a full range of culture and values. This inclusivity ensures that all interests have a fair and equal voice in deciding how the community forest will be protected and used. In contrast, industrial forestry is exclusive of most uses other than timber. Non-timber forest uses or "other resources" are integrated with timber. In this situation, the voices of timber interests carry more weight in decision-making than those of non-timber interests.

Community forests are place-based. They are planned, protected, and managed by people who live in or near the forest. In contrast, industrial forestry is institutionally-based, with key decisions usually made far from the forests that are impacted by these decisions.

Community forests are about decentralized decision-making, while industrial forestry is about centralized decisions. Decentralized decision-making means that neighbours are working with neighbours to develop decisions that work for a broad range of interests and people. Centralized decision-making means that problems come in envelopes and leave in envelopes-decisions are made by people far removed from the forests and communities that are impacted by these decisions.

Community forests are planned and managed by both amateurs and professionals. In contrast, industrial forestry is carried out by professionals only. Clearly, professionals have a lot of important information and experience to offer in both community forests and industrial forestry. However, combining professionals with amateurs, who carry out their work for the love of it, provides a richer, more diverse, more knowledgeable basis for planning and management of community forests, compared to exclusively professional management of industrial timber supplies.

Community forests have as a high priority the maintenance of community health-high quality environments, meaningful work, a secure future, and cultural protection. Industrial forestry is more about corporate or institutional health than it is about community health. In most instances, the priority for industrial forestry is short-term profits, not people, not communities. When one focuses on institutional health, one puts organizations ahead of communities and the individuals that comprise these communities.

Community forests provide for local accountability. The people who do the planning and management of the community forest live in the community. They are not only responsible for their actions, but directly accountable to their neighbours and the community for the results of their work in the community forest. This arrangement provides for a high level of sensitivity in planning and management to accommodate a wide diversity of needs and values. In contrast, industrial forestry is about share-holder accountability. Share-holder accountability means doing what you need to do to maintain short-term corporate profits. These action may result in improved dividends and shareholder satisfaction, but in nearly all instances, they result in degradation of the forest and the loss of non-timber values and opportunities for economic diversification.

When we summarize the differences between community forests and industrial forestry, one thing becomes clear: community forests are sustainable ecologically and culturally. Community forests are for both the short term and the long term.

Community forests are also rooted in change. The call for community forests developed around a vision to replace short-term thinking in industrial forestry. This vision includes:

- ecologically sustainable/ecosystem-based systems to protect and manage timber and non-timber forest resources;
- ecologically rational forest management units (i.e., watersheds) situated around communities;
- local decision-making-in particular, local decision-making regarding land use allocations and systems of managing timber and non-timber resources; and
- diverse, community-based economies.

This vision has sustained many of us in our quest for a kinder, gentler, more inclusive way to protect and use forests.

Has this community forest vision been captured? Certainly, "outside forces" have applied and continue to apply pressure to capture or co-opt this community forest vision.

Industrial and centralized interests find it easier to change their image than to fix problems. Therefore, the concept of community forests has sometimes been redefined to mean essentially industrial forestry. This strategy has been employed by industrial and governmental interests that wish to divide and conquer the supporters of community forestry.

Education is directed towards industrial forestry, not community forests. This poses the big challenge that I referred to in my introduction: What we believe to be possible is largely defined by our education and cultural experience. If education is directed towards industrial forestry, then people may confuse small-scale industrial forestry practiced in and around communities with real community forests.

The global economy is about strong special interests meeting their needs (read profit-taking) at the expense of local communities and local forests. A truly sustainable global economy would be built from the bottom up by insuring the development of ecologically and culturally sustainable community-based economies.
Community forests can survive and thrive in today's global economy, because their products are socially responsible and ecologically sustainable. There will always be a market for socially responsible and ecologically sustainable products and services from community forests.

Public forests have been fully allocated to large timber companies in long-term replaceable leases. This is a problem, but not an insurmountable problem. The community forest agreement tenure provides a mechanism for First Nations and other rural communities to pressure government and industry to turn over areas of forest land for use as community forests. This strategy will work in the short term, but in the long term, we need tenure reform and tenure diversification to provide an adequate place for communities forests throughout British Columbia.

Local economies are viewed by some as an anachronism - as out of step with the times. However, this is an assumption of convenience, promoted by large centralized interests that wish to control communities and the forests that sustain us. Local, diverse, community-based economies are the foundation for both a healthy global economy and ecological sustainability.

So, there's clearly a concerted attempt to disempower the community forest vision. However, this strategy will not work in the face of vigilance and persistence on the part of those of us who recognize the broad, inclusive values of community forests.

Is the community forest vision practical and relevant? Yes! Several key aspects of community forests make them relevant in a variety of circumstances:

Jobs are seen as benefits, not costs. Therefore, a major emphasis in community forests is maximizing employment, not corporate profit-taking at the expense of people.

A priority is community well-being, not the corporate bottom line.

Water is life, not just another forest value to be integrated with timber.

Diversity in thinking and in activities is a benefit, not a barrier to profits. Diversity in thinking in community forests develops social capital, as opposed to the strong focus on monetary capital in industrial forestry.

Another priority is forest health, not timber health. Understanding that healthy, fully functioning forests are the foundation for human societies and economies is key to community forests.

The forest sustains us; we do not sustain the forest.

Why is the community forest vision needed? More than ever, there is a need for inclusive community forests...

to protect and diversify the use of forests, particularly in the face of:

- the move towards "tenure security," which may also be described as the privitization of public forests;
- the move towards "performance based forestry" by professional foresters employed by timber companies - Performance based forestry will mean a greater control by industrial interests and an emphasis on short-term timber supplies, not on maintaining forest ecosystems and communities.

to provide practical, diverse models of ecologically and culturally sustainable forest protection and use:

- Such models are strongly supported by traditional knowledge systems and leading edge science.
- However, this approach is not supported by mainstream political ideologies.
- Therefore, the models to be established in community forests provide the catalyst and templates for change that puts forests, culture, and communities. first.

to address critical issues in ecologically, socially, and economically appropriate ways:

- providing First Nations with a practical interim measure while negotiating resolution of the land question;
- providing rural communities opportunities for ecologically and socially appropriate forest use;
- providing opportunities for co-management by First Nations and rural communities;
- developing healthy sustainable communities, including . . .

1. fully functioning forests,
2. higher levels of employment for resources used,
3. high levels of individual and society satisfaction.

The community forest vision is needed because it provides a rare opportunity for society to come together around an approach to forests and each other that brings us together rather than tearing us apart.

What changes are needed to implement the community forest vision? Much of the existing forest legislation and policy has been developed to facilitate the industrial forestry model. Therefore, in many instances, this legislation and policy does not easily facilitate the development of viable community forests. Let's look at a few important changes that are necessary:

Access to significant areas of forest land is required through appropriate tenure arrangements that provide control to First Nations and rural communities. This doesn't mean the end of timber companies. Timber companies needs logs. Why not let the people that are close to the forest and accountable to each other provide some of the timber needed by timber companies? I also want to add that the Community Forest Agreement tenure is a wonderful structure, and simply needs to be applied more broadly across British Columbia. This tenure is flexible enough that it can be easily applied in interim measures with First Nations, as well as with other rural communities. And, a Community Forest Agreements does not have to emphasize timber. It can emphasize non-timber values and forest protection over short-term timber supplies.

Revenue sharing between community forests and governments is required for economic health in community forests. There's a sound basis for this revenue sharing, because the government receives many benefits from community forests that are not received in large-scale industrial forestry, including more employment per tree cut or other resources extracted, lower social costs associated with healthy communities, revenues from a diversity of forest uses, and healthy environments that do not require restoration and are integral to healthy people.

Regulations and stumpage fees that reflect the scale and characteristics of community forests are required. As with revenue sharing, stumpage fees for community forests need to be reduced to reflect a variety of benefits. Stumpage fees could be reduced by providing stumpage credits for biological diversity benefits, protection of non-timber forest resources, production of high quality wood in long rotation periods, and partial cutting with full cycle trees that maintains long-term site productivity. All of these benefits of community forests have real monetary values that are not provided for in industrial forestry. Hence, these values should form stumpage credits to recognize the benefits of community forests and reduce the stumpage paid by holders of community forests.

Open markets for logs and wood products are necessary. Such open markets can be facilitated through the establishment of regional log sort yards, and the requirement that a minimum volume from all tenures be sold through these log sort yards.

Practical education in ecosystem-based approaches to forest protection and use is necessary. It is one thing to talk about the general principles of applying ecosystem-based approaches in forest protection and use, but quite another to actually apply these principles on the ground. Using community forests that are already in place and other examples of good ecosystem-based forestry, we need to provide extension services, workshops, and on-going support networks to provide practical education in ecosystem-based approaches.

Support for community capacity-building is necessary. While this capacity-building will include practical education in ecosystem-based approaches, there is also a need for capacity-building in development of small businesses, establishment and administration of diverse community-based organizations that will run community forests, and in the ecologically sustainable development of non-timber forest products and services.

What are we waiting for? The concept of community forests was started in First Nations and other rural communities and has been nurtured there. First Nations and other rural communities need to retain the ownership of this idea while expanding community forests across the landscape. As we carry out this pleasant task, let's remember the community forest vision: diverse, inclusive, place-based, and ecosystem-based. This vision will ensure that community forests are truly something different.

Community forests with a difference will focus on what to leave, not on what to take.

Community forests with a difference will provide for
- ecological responsibility,
- balanced diverse forest uses,
- community economies, and
- intergenerational equity.

This is a sorely needed model and it's time to shift from this being a model to being the norm.

I want to conclude this talk with a story that relates to the development of community forests. More than a decade ago, I had the pleasure of being involved with a community in the West Chilcotin that developed British Columbia's first (and perhaps only) community forest board. After a long meeting in a community hall, a diverse group of residents came together to set up the West Chilcotin Community Forest Board. A couple of interesting things happened after that. At the end of the meeting, a Ministry of Forests representative who had been listening all day long got up and congratulated people on their establishment of the Community Forest Board, and observed that representatives of the Community Forest Board could now take part in providing public information to the Ministry of Forests and could attend Ministry of Forests planning meetings. Following this comment, there was an ominous silence in the room, until a tall rancher unfolded himself from his chair, and in a measured, deliberate tone of voice said the Ministry representative, "It seems you've misunderstood what happened here today. We won't be coming to your meetings any more. Instead, as a duly constituted community body, we will be making the decisions about how the forest adjacent to our communities are protected and used. And, we may invite you to our meetings from time to time to provide us with information and give us your thoughts."

The next day, the new chairperson for the Community Forest Board was being interviewed by CBC Radio. The interviewer asked her under what legislation the community forest board had been established. The chairperson answered, "There is no legislation for community forest boards."

The CBC interviewer then said, "Well, then, how can you establish a community forest board?"

The chairperson simply replied, "Because it's right."

What occurred there, on that fall day, was dignified, quite revolution - a community had re-empowered itself.
We all have a community forest. It is now time for us to do the planning and management of our forests - our watersheds, our back yards.

Thank you.