Approval of inhabited forest projects and

PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT OF FUNDS BY REGIONAL COMMUNITIES

M E A N S P R O P O S E D

If the communities were able to participate more fully in forest manage-ment and developmanage-ment decisions, it would be possible to really orient land

It was therefore proposed that regional communities be given the power to approve inhabited forest projects and manage the funds available to promote project startups.

The Department’s proposal that regional communities be given the power to approve inhabited forest projects and manage the funds available to promote project startups generated a number of comments concerning the application of the inhabited forest concept.

Some private forest representatives thought the adoption of an inhab-ited forest policy was important for rural development, while others felt it would be more realistic to incorporate the principles of the inhabited forest concept into the forest system. Many of this group maintained that the implementation of the concept depended on privatization of some public lands, and that it would lead to the creation of viable production units. They also thought that the implementation of the concept would necessitate abolishing the rights granted to timber supply and forest management agreement holders in inhabited areas. Furthermore, they wanted the timber from inhabited forest areas to be marketed under joint plans.

Some joint management organizations suggested redefining public forest management methods so as to be able to make specialized organi-zations responsible for management activities, while maintaining the rights of timber supply and forest management agreement holders to the volumes allocated.

Some regional agencies for private forest development said they would like to participate in the approval of inhabited forest projects.

A number of municipal authorities asked for the adoption of an inhab-ited forest policy. They believed that the application of the concept is incompatible with the rights granted to timber supply and forest

P A R T I C I P A N T S ’

C O M M E N T S

management agreement holders. Some thought blocks of intramunicipal land should be transferred to the regional county municipalities. Other municipal stakeholders thought the regional county municipalities should be the ones to approve inhabited forest projects as well as to manage the funds available to promote project startups and that they should also have the resources they need to fulfil these duties properly. Available funds should also be used to support the municipalities, in particular by creating a forest round table and by making forest-related information easier to understand.

Some participants said the Government should create a local multiple resource fund out of forest dues. The fund would be managed by forest users, and would be used to support all kinds of forest-related work.

Most of the wildlife, leisure and tourist organizations felt the inhabited forest concept and the areas to which it applied should be clarified.

Some even asked for a moratorium on all projects until the concept and partnership formula are clearly defined. A number of participants, mainly from the wildlife sector, were firmly against the inhabited forest concept, fearing among other things that the projects might lead to a form of wildlife resource privatization.

Finally, some forest companies disagreed the inhabited forest concept, saying it was prejudicial to the interests of timber supply and forest management agreement holders. They were afraid of losing their land bases, and believed inhabited forest projects would lead to job displace-ment, not job creation. Others felt the concept needed to be clarified, and said that the respect of existing rights should be a basic condition for its application.

Opinions were divided as to which body should be responsible for approving projects and managing funds. Some regional development boards thought the local development centres should play a leading role in supporting resource development priorities. Certain participants also mentioned that the regional communities should have all the informa-tion and training they need to make informed decisions, while others felt it should be left to the municipalities to manage the funds and approve projects, with the support of the regional county municipalities.

Some wildlife sector representatives were concerned about the effects of the Forest Resource Development Program on regional approval for projects, especially those related to the inhabited forest concept. Others did not want the regional county municipalities to be responsible for fund management and project approval. Most of the wildlife, leisure and tourist organizations asked for a review of the funding criteria, and for depoliticization of fund allocation under the Forest Resource Development Program. They felt this would lead to better use of the money available, and promote research, management and knowledge acquisition projects based on integrated resource management.

Several organizations thought the Forest Resource Development Program had resulted in a significant increase in local and regional spin-offs. The program’s long-term survival should be guaranteed, and its budgets increased. On the other hand, its terms and conditions should be made more flexible, to take into account the priorities and needs of the regions.

2

T

It intends to protect ecosys-tems, in order to maintain or even increase the benefits derived from their conserva-tion and their development.

O B J E C T I V E

PRESERVING THE VIABILITY OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS

UPDATING

F O R E S T S Y S T E M

O R I E N T A T I O N

The adoption of silvicultural practices favourable to the conser-vation of biological diversity in developed forest areas constitutes a priority for the Department. The Department also intends to grant special protection to exceptional, representative and fragile forest ecosystems, and those sheltering vulnerable or threatened species.

A range of measures was proposed to achieve these goals.