http://probaseweb.com/eomftest/media/k2/attachments/ir32_smaller

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY What is the Eastern Ontario Model Forest?

The Eastern Ontario Model Forest (EOMF) is a vision of a sustainable forestry.

It involves the implementation of world class practices and forest sustainability demonstration projects that embody the concept of sustainable forestry. The corporation encompasses the 'EOMF Group', a not-for-profit corporation that includes the Eastern Ontario Model Forest, the Bosque Modelo Calakmul Model Forest twinning project in Mexico and Supplementary Projects.

Vision: "to champion the concept and practice of sustainable forestry for all its values in Eastern Ontario through the cooperative efforts of its residents and supporters".

The EOMF is also a network. At the present time the network involves 65 partners and member organizations and a contact list of 528 individuals, project leaders, members and/or businesses. The Model Forest is funded and supported by both the Federal Government through the Canadian Forest Service and membership funds, cash, indirect donations, services in-kind donations and other income.

On a geographic basis, the EOMF encompasses all of Eastern Ontario, including the urban lands of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, making it the most populated and diverse Model Forest in Canada.

Evaluation Like all other Model Forests in Canada, the Eastern Ontario Model Forest has reached the five year mark of its life. Each of Canada's 10 Model Forests are required to undergo an evaluation under Section 8.0 of their Agreement with Forestry Canada (Canadian Forestry Service (CFS)). The evaluation is to be completed by September 30, 1996. To define the scope of the evaluation, a workshop of 35 members and partners of the EOMF was held in December 1994 to develop an evaluation framework upon which this evaluation is based. The following evaluation addresses each of the issues listed in the sidebar.

The Evaluation Framework identified issues: Relevance; Management; Communications; Partnerships; Forest Management.

In addition, the evaluation considered: 1) the assessment of past performance -- 'how successful has the Model Forest been at achieving its goals and why?' 2) and, strategic recommendations for the future.

A Look at Past Performance

"...a forest for seven generations."

'Achieving forest sustainability in Eastern Ontario' is an important and ambitious goal. When that goal is extended to consider the forest in the context of 'a forest for seven generations', the task becomes even more difficult.

However, over it's five year existence, the Eastern Ontario Model Forest has had an excellent start by laying a good foundation and starting with manageable activities. Over $5 million in Federal contributions have been received, as have inkind contributions. Dozens of projects significant forestry research studies have been completed with reports produced. One of their most important accomplishments to date, has been the development of trust among stakeholders, integrity in their decisions and credibility in their activities. This has been particularly important in light of the wide range of values and attitudes toward the forest held by Eastern Ontario residents.

Foundation of trust, integrity, credibility.

In contrast to instances of land-use conflict among forest users across Canada, the EOMF has accelerated forest sustainability efforts in Eastern Ontario toward empowering local communities; levelling the playing field in terms of forest decisions and building consensus; and, bringing about forest sustainability on a practical level.

"...the EOMF has accelerated forest

The Model Forest has funded, sponsored, encouraged dozens of projects that have addressed initial environmental sustainability priorities. It has developed a

The Domtar/ Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and Mohawk Council of Akwesasne partnership has been particularly important.

network of partnerships and encouraged partnership building. The Domtar/ Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and Mohawk Council of Akwesasne partnership, has been particularly important as the core partnership of the Model Forest. Recognizing the importance of forest science the Model Forest has maintained an effective Forest Science Committee. And, it has made good forward progress in incorporating the best available knowledge into forest decision making. Finally, partially because of their efforts in

sustainability efforts in Eastern Ontario."

the first five years, the Eastern Ontario Model Forest was selected by Foreign Affairs to provide advice on a global basis through the Calkamul Mexico twinning project. These efforts are important and should be continued and enhanced over the next five years.

Recommendations for the Future As the Model Forest looks toward the challenges facing it over the next five years there are a number of opportunities and changes that should be considered.

1.

Expand the focus of communications

Over the first five years of its existence, the Model Forest wisely chose to take a strategic approach to communications. This focus on internal communications allowed the development of a strong partner and member base during a time of organization building.

At the same time, the Model Forest has successfully launched numerous external communication efforts including: press reports, newsletters, brochures, workshops, etc.

However, over the next five years, the need is apparent to expand communications efforts to more external stakeholders and members of the general public. Of particular importance will be the strengthening of communications with: landowners and members of the public in rural areas; urban members of the public; tourism and economic development stakeholders; and, french-speaking communities of the Model Forest.

Communications should stress education and awareness important to the rebuilding of the forest and informing people of tangible examples of "forest sustainability on the ground".

There will also be a number of specific communications needs among certain groups, such as communication of forest life skills among Mohawks and other youth.

2.

Emphasize projects on the ground

The EOMF has already developed many excellent projects. However, both the federallevel Model Forest evaluation and the results of resident surveys have indicated a need to continue to promote projects that provide strong examples of "forest sustainability on the ground". For example, the resident survey results indicated that people of Eastern Ontario are much more favourably inclined toward Eastern Ontario Model Forest goals that: 1) promote projects that sustain the environment; 2) restore, sustain and care for forest resources; 3) retain and protect wetlands.

Among projects recommended for the future, the top five were: 1) plant trees, reforest and improve wetlands and restore ecosystems; 2) provide landowner information to improve awareness about sustainable forestry and private forest management practices; 3) public

education and training, workshops and interpretative programs; 4) demonstration projects; 5) develop primary and secondary markets for Eastern Ontario forest products, assist with integrating and coordinating markets for pulp, firewood, sawlogs and other forest products. The implementation of criteria and indicators for forest sustainability will assist in the identification of the extent to which forest sustainability is being achieved.

3.

Place greater emphasis on economics and economic partners

Jobs and economic development are important to the people of Eastern Ontario and should be no less so for the EOMF. Through sponsorships, partnerships and funding, the EOMF should take advantage of every opportunity to encourage job creation in Eastern Ontario.

The potential for job creation for youth is particularly important. Perhaps, more indirectly, current forestry workers, primary and secondary forest industries and ecotourism industries can use advice and assistance in maintaining standards, identifying export opportunities, being introduced to more efficient forest practices and developing new markets. The EOMF needs to develop a sense of the economic role it is able to play in Eastern Ontario.

4.

Enhance links between Science projects and forestry practices

The 'science' focus of the EOMF has been a major accomplishment over the first five years. To strengthen these successes it will be important to establish stronger links between 'scientific projects' and user needs. For example, science research projects about Black Ash have a clear client in mind when the research is commissioned. This is because the scientific research has an additional direct bearing on the maintenance of Mohawk culture. It is recommended that, where possible, funded science projects be sponsored by a defined stakeholder group (such as landowners, secondary wood producers or naturalist groups) and peer reviewed by other scientists (such as biologists, foresters, social scientists not affiliated with the Model Forest or Model Forest Network). This will enhance the value of science projects funded by the Eastern Ontario Model Forest.

5.

Continued strong focus on Integrated Resource Management

Many residents of Eastern Ontario are concerned that conflicts over land-uses -particularly forest related uses -- detract from their overall feelings that environmental sustainability is being achieved. The EOMF has already worked hard and achieved many successes toward developing partnerships and networks important to the achievement of Integrated Resource Management Strategies. However, there is considerably more work that is required in the future.

6.

Place continued emphasis on fund raising for future financial sustainability

Like every other organization in Canada that depends in whole or in part on government for funding, there is no guarantee that funding will be in place over the long term. Because of this, the EOMF should consider carefully, alternative means of raising sustained funds for Model Forest activities.

PREAMBLE It's hard to go through life without being evaluated at one time or another. When we're young, we're likely to be evaluated by a parent or teacher who will tell us what we've done right or wrong. We are anxious to please and we're concerned about whether we are meeting the expectations of others. We hear about whether or not we're getting a good start in life and obtain advice about how we can improve in the future. At middle age, it's often an employer and sometimes a spouse shares their thoughts on our performance. We know what we want, we have our own goals in mind, and the advice we receive improves our ability to meet those goals. When we reach our senior years, we'll more often than not be doing our own evaluation: What did I accomplish in life? Did I make a difference?

As individuals, whether we receive a positive or negative evaluation depends upon the challenges we've had to face and how we've worked with others to overcome the problems standing in the way of our goals. Where our starting point was, and how far we've come toward achieving our goals is looked at closely. We'll often have a pretty good idea of our own progress because of criteria and indicators. Criteria for example, might include friends and family, personal characteristics, money or career accomplishments or a sense of spiritual values and a quality of life. Each one of these might be important considerations in our thinking about how we evaluate ourselves and others.

We normally expect that an evaluation will give us information we need to examine the goals we have today and to help us to set new ones for the future. This is because from time to time we achieve some of the goals we set earlier. Or, because we or the world has changed making some goals more important and other goals less important. The information allows us to rethink our vision, set new goals, list what is required to achieve those goals and to take action.

Evaluation of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest How we evaluate the Eastern Ontario Model Forest is not much different than the evaluations each of us goes through in our own lives. We want to know, where was the Model Forest starting from? What sort of problems was it expected to address? What skills and resources were made available for the Model Forest to use? How well did they use the resources and what new ones developed? We would want to know something about the principles that the Model Forest respected and the goals it set out to achieve.

With these thoughts in mind, we can begin our closer look at the Model Forest. Important questions we will address are: How relevant are Model Forest activities to the needs of the

2 Eastern Ontario forest ecosystem and all residents? As the Model Forest is the steward over financial resources provided by the people of Canada and others, is the Model Forest being responsibly managed? How well is the Model Forest communicating with all stakeholders in Eastern Ontario? Who should the members of the Model Forest be working with and how well are the partners of the Model Forest working now? Who depends on the Model Forest and how does the Model Forest meet their needs?

Considering all of the physical, social and economic features of the environment in Eastern Ontario, how are the forests being managed? What goals should the Model Forest be pursuing in the future? What programs should be in place to ensure these goals are achieved?

In the end, are we closer to the goal of achieving sustainability on a global basis because of the activities of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest?

The EOMF in partnership with the University of Toronto has developed research and demonstration sites on windbreak establishment and maintenance.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited (HSAL) was retained by the Eastern Ontario Model Forest to conduct an independent evaluation. The scope of the evaluation was defined in December 1994 through a Workshop of 35 EOMF members and partners.

From the workshop, and Evaluation Framework1 was prepared which, among other areas, sought comments onthe performance of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest in the following areas: C

RELEVANCE: Are the activities funded by the EOMF relevant to the goals and objectives? Are the outputs relevant to the intended users of the information?

C

MANAGEMENT: Are the EOMF management practices and procedures effective and efficient in furthering the goals of the program?

C

COMMUNICATIONS: How effective has the EOMF communicated its messages and to what extent has it influenced attitudes toward forest management activities?

C

PARTNERSHIPS: Has the EOMF established diverse and strong partnerships?

Have the partnerships been effective in levering additional funding?

C

FOREST MANAGEMENT: To what extent have the EOMF results contributed to acceptance of forest management practices that will ensure sustainable forestry in the region?

Each of these areas were further described within a set of specific questions in Table A of the Evaluation Framework. Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited added an additional performance criteria: C

ACHIEVEMENT OF ORIGINAL GOALS: What is the extent of the achievement of the original 1992 goals established by the EOMF? Are outputs of activities relevant to the goals?

The six performance criteria are addressed in the following “Evaluation� Chapter.

Our evaluation began in May 1996 and was completed in mid-September, 1996. We provided an interim report on our progress on July 19, 1996 and regular progress reports each month. Overview findings were presented in the EOMF Workshop of August 15 and a draft Report was prepared and circulated for comment on August 30. The Evaluation

4 Committee provided valuable comments on our questionnaires, assisted in arranging interviews, provided data and submitted factual comments on the 'draft' Evaluation report.

The research conducted for the evaluation involved: the administration of four surveys, a literature review and secondary data collection; interviews; assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) in relation to staff; a review of existing Model Forest surveys and management reports; and, discussions with Project Leaders.

Each of the Evaluation Questions in the evaluation framework was addressed as part of our analysis. For example, we considered: Are the projects being funded directly relevant to the Model Forest Goals?

Is the decision-making process timely, appropriate and transparent?

Is there appropriate measures to ensure financial accountability?

Have area residents become more familiar with the EOMF? Is there a diversity of partners?

Have new practices to ensure Sustainable Forestry been introduced and adapted?

Have places of natural significance been established to protect unique ecosystems?

In assessing the performance of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest we noted and recorded the tangible outputs of the Model Forest in terms of quality, value and usefulness. For example, outputs of the Model Forest include: C C

improved techniques of sustainable forest management new trails established and interpretive sites

C

scientific and research reports addressing problems that hinder the

C C

achievement of sustainability demonstration projects of sustainable forest activities communications activities through workshops, publications, videos,

5

C

brochures and press activity. coordination of forest sustainability activity, and many more.

.

We also looked closely at several projects and considered the general progress of the remaining funded projects, programs and other outcomes against the following evaluation checklist: Has the project/program made significant progress?

On the basis of data gather, has the project been adequately defined and scoped to fit with the circumstances of Eastern Ontario?

Has the project represented and/or used acceptable forest science?

How much budget has been allocated to the project and is the budget allocation adequate?

What reports were produced?

Did the project provide unanticipated benefits to the achievement of sustainability in Eastern Ontario?

What were the on-the-ground results?

A review of forest science projects was completed by Mr. Brian Callaghan R.P.F. The budget for the evaluation allowed for an overview examinations of the outputs of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest, with several outputs looked at more closely. In addition, while the Eastern Ontario Model Forest has sponsored many demonstration sites, the budget for the evaluation only allowed for visiting sites in the vicinity of Kemptville (Forest Walk, Nursery) at Akwesasne and selected other sites in Eastern Ontario (ie.

Domtar Managed Forest). However, most of the other demonstration projects were examined through phone calls and discussions with project leaders, photos and reports and through other means.

All EOMF publications, most reports and extension notes and videos were examined. The secondary data collection was conducted by Ms. Wendy Ripmeester and reviewed against the evaluation criteria. Secondary data collection is data compiled or generated by others.

6 It involved spending several days in Eastern Ontario Model Forest office and having follow-up information requests complied with by mail. Data collected and examined included: C

number information requests received and type of information requested by the Eastern Ontario Model Forest each year; inquiries from outside of the area,

C

visitor lists. What lists are kept? Who is visiting?

C

ecological sustainability data gathered: ecosystem surveys, habitat lists, forest inventory data and forest management data, Partner Reports, Published Reports, Unpublished Reports,

C

references and citations to EOMF sponsored technical and scientific reports.

C

number of tree species adapted, number of seedlings planted

C

number and variety of nut trees planted

C

annual reports

C

case study and peer review information

C

what information is kept on social development and economic data on local communities

C

newspaper clippings--how many references/year/newspaper

C

internet usage

C

list of external pieces-newletters

C

list of tourism and recreation associations

C

amount of in-kind contributions provided to the Eastern Ontario Model Forest

C

extent of records kept; board minutes

7 C

number of groups and institutions on distribution lists

C

accounting system in place; auditor’s report.

To collect primary data, surveys were designed and administered by Mr. Karl Van Kessel and Mr. Dave Hardy R.P.P. with the printing and mailing assistance of EOMF staff.

Completed surveys were tabulated and statistical tests were completed by Ms. Denise Arsneault. All other research activities were conducted by Mr. Dave Hardy.

As the EOMF evaluation was to inform the strategic planning process Mr. Dave Hardy assisted with the design of the August 15 strategic planning workshop with Mr. Jim Martin of Kapur and Martin.

Interviews In addition to telephone interviews with Project Leaders conducted by Mr. Brian Callaghan, the following interviews took place: Board Interview, Staff SWOT Interview and Interviews with the Mohawks of Akwesasne. The interview outlines are included in Appendix A. June 13 June 14 July 23

Board Interview Staff SWOT Interviews Mohawk Council of Akwesasne Interviews

Primary Research In our opinion, a good evaluation does more than look at the internal functioning of an organization. Whether or not a project is on budget is interesting and important. But, whether or not the Model Forest is making a difference in terms of forest sustainability, is the major evaluation issue. To examine, measure and evaluate this, we need to know how the Model Forest is doing and what changes it is stimulating -- from an objective perspective of others.

This requires a considerable amount of primary data gathering. This was achieved through four surveys: Residential Survey, Project Leader Survey, Customer Survey and Partner/Membership survey. The surveys have the following response rates and reliability.

Customers is loosely defined as people who are recipients of Model Forest activities. For

8 example, tour operators, woodlot operators, visitors to Interpretive Centres. Residents is defined as the people of urban and rural areas of Eastern Ontario who responded to our survey.

The questionnaires for the surveys are attached as Appendix A. The surveys have the following response rates and reliability.

The residential survey data is based on 438 returns of a 1,873 sample size representing a reliable stratified random sample of the opinion of eastern Ontario residents. The raw data is reliable at the 95% confidence level with a Âą 5% error factor. The cross-tabulations were not tested for statistical significance and therefore differences within the crosstabulation tables and conclusions drawn should be regarded as an illustration of trends, not absolute measurements.

The partner membership survey is based on 182 returns. Given the sample size of 363 (return rate of 50.1%), the percentages are statistically significant. The data from the customer survey is based on 115 returns of a sample size of 240 (return rate of 47.9%) and is considered significant. Eighteen project leader returns were received from a sample size of 33 allowing the generation of no reliable statistics. The Board of Directors and staff of the Model Forest also polled Project Leaders for "Possible Theme Areas for the Next Five Years". The data can provide no reliable statistics. Being the largest survey, the design and administration of the residential survey is further discussed as follows.

Residential Survey The residential survey was designed to determine how environmental and forestry attitudes and behaviours had changed over the 5 year existence of the Model Forest. Because of the difficulty of attributing a cause and effect relationship between the activities of the Model Forest and resident behaviour, the survey generally examined people's awareness of the Model Forest and their support for Model Forest goals and principles.

Because eastern Ontario is comprised of urban and rural lands and agricultural and forested lands the survey was administered to representative populations in Eastern Ontario in the following 7 communities: Cornwall, Kanata, Nepean, Carleton Place, Smiths Falls, Alexandria, Casselman. A pre-test of 40 surveys was administered in Kemptville and changes were made before the full survey was finalized. The pre-test Kemptville surveys have not been included in the survey results. Map 1 indicates where

9 the surveys were administered.

Map 1 The surveys were delivered via Canada Post postal walks with postage paid return envelopes pre-addressed to the Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited office. Two follow-up reminders were sent to each household. Of the 1,873 surveys mailed out, 438 were returned in time for the tabulation of the results for a 23.3 percent response rate.

About 50 surveys were received after the deadline and were not tabulated. The internal response rate varied from 5 percent in Nepean to a 31.8 percent response rate in Smiths Falls. Approximately 10 surveys were rejected from Alexandria and Casselman because the surveys were in English only.

The residential survey response had the following characteristics: !

Location:

51% rural; 16% larger towns; 5% village; 25% urban areas

!

Age:

! !

Gender: Education:

4% under 25 years old; 18% 25-34; 26% 35-44; 25% 45-54; 11% 55-64; 14% over 65.

Male = 45.7%; Female = 50.5% Elementary, 3.9%; Some High School, 9.8%; High School, 19.4%; Some College or University, 20%, College, 20%, Undergraduate, 14.8%; Post-Graduate, 9.4%.

10 Compared to the population at large, the sample population is over-represented in rural areas, under-represented in terms of responses from young people. It is also overrepresented in terms of people with higher levels of education. Given the higher rejection rate from the French speaking residents, the survey likely over represents the English speaking population.

The following table indicates the survey locations and response rates.

Surveys Administered

Response

Location

300

85

Alexandria

287

84

Kanata

255

13

Nepean

210

57

Carleton Place

267

40

Cornwall

270

86

Smith's Falls

260

76

Casselman

Customer Survey Customers are defined as individuals that use products or services of the EOMF and/or have been in contact with one of the programs or facilities sponsored by the EOMF. The customer survey was designed to determine the awareness of environmental issues and perceptions as well as the familiarity with the Eastern Ontario Model Forest and its programs.

Members and Partners Survey The members and partners of the EOMF were surveyed to determine their involvement level in the EOMF, perception of the goals, projects and activities of the EOMF, and general awareness of the environment. Both past and present members were included in the mailing list.

Project Leader Survey This survey was designed to identify the goals of the EOMF as seen by the project leaders and project leaders perception of support they were getting from the EOMF. Information about the use of project data and relevancy, such as '...who is the beneficiary of the project', was compiled.

OVERVIEW World View Our forests contribute to the global ecosystem by contributing significantly to air quality and biodiversity. They provide watershed protection and support other values such as social and economic benefits from local employment, tourism, timber and recreation. They are valued for their ecosystem, spiritual and existence values.

As reinforced by Brundtland Commission2 (Our Common Future, 1987), the sustainability of our forests is essential for biodiversity, climate change and globally significant environmental and development issues. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 (UNCED '92 or 'Earth Summit') further reinforced the value of our forests in terms of our social, cultural, recreational and spiritual beliefs. For example: Agenda 21 outlined an action plan to combat deforestation; nations from around the world signed a Statement of Principles on Forests covering their management, conservation and sustainable development; both the subsequent Framework on Climate Change and Convention of Biodiversity cited the use of forests as carbon sinks and committed countries to conserving their biodiversity at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels3.

Canada/ Ontario View Canada is a nation of forests and has about 10 percent of the world's forests. Our forests are generally healthy. We have eight major forest regions. These regions are home to more than 200,000 species. About 45 percent of our land base is forested. Of this, 37 percent is open forest composed of muskeg, marshes and sparse tree cover and 57 percent is considered to be commercial forest. Most of Canada's forests are publically owned with the remaining 6 percent being held by 425,000 landowners4.

Balancing the social, economic and environmental needs associated with the forest has not been without challenge. How to produce forest products while maintaining biodiversity, how to accommodate urban population growth in forest areas, how to balance recreational

12 needs and ecosystem needs have been difficult problems across Canada. In the 1980s, Ontario experienced the longest environmental assessment hearing in the history of the Province (the Timber Management Environmental Assessment) at the same time as considerable conflict was occurring over the future of "Old Growth" forests in Temegami.

Both of these examples were symptomatic of growing expectations for community empowerment, a broadening of values to be addressed in forest decision making and demands for international standards for sustainably managed forests.

In response, forest management concepts and approaches underwent considerable change.

For example, the Forest Sustainability Act was enacted in 1992 replacing the Crown Timber Act 1986. In 1992 Ontario's Minister of Natural Resources announced four community forestry pilot projects in: the Town of Geraldton; Wikwemikong First Nation of Manitoulin Island, the Town of Elk Lake and the 6/70 Area Economic Diversification Committee in the Kapuskasing area5. Agreement Forests have been followed by Stewardship Councils-MNR staff and volunteers undertaking sustainability initiatives at the County level. The Managed Forest Tax Rebate program was eliminated in 1995 and replaced in Ontario in 1996. And, through Canada's Green Plan, ten Model Forests were sponsored.

Model Forest Network The objective of Green Plan funding was to shift the management of Canada's forests from sustained yield to sustainable development. To achieve this goal through Green Plan support, Forestry Canada implemented a Partners for Sustainable Development in Forestry Program intended to ensure continued economic development while sustaining the environmental integrity of forest ecosystems. A network of 10 large scale working models of sustainable forestry were established under the Model Forest Program6.

The objectives of the program are: 1) to accelerate the implementation of sustainable development in the practice of forestry, in particular the concept of integrated resource management; 2) to develop and apply new and innovative concepts and techniques in the management of forests; 3) to test and demonstrate best sustainable forestry practices available.

In 1996, the overall Model Forest Program was evaluated. Each of the individual Model Forests were also subjected to an evaluation under Section 8.0 of their Agreement with Forestry Canada.

13 Canada's Model Forests at Age Five In the summer of 1995, the National Advisory Committee on the Evaluation of the Model Forest Program was established by the Department of Natural Resources (NRCan) and given the mandate of evaluating the Model Forests and submitting recommendations7.

Across Canada they found that the Model Forest Program had made impressive progress in furthering sustainable forest management. The Federal review had recommendations for all Model Forests.

The following points, identified by HSAL, summarize these recommendations: !

each Model Forest should review its partnership to ensure that the views of all interested stakeholders in their area, including aboriginal people, are adequately represented

!

steps should be initiated to improve networking among all model forest staff and partners and between all model forest sites

!

improved communications, both externally and between model forests, needs to be the focus of any second generation program

!

better efforts in addressing "sustainable forestry on the ground"

!

there needs to be a clear plan showing partners' financial contribution for the second phase of the program

!

an open and fully accountable process for submitting proposals is important

!

the Model Forests should demonstrate consensus among current partners on goals and objectives of proposed second phase activities

!

they should focus less on research and much more on applied work and technology transfer.

THE EASTERN ONTARIO MODEL FOREST Among Canada's Model Forests, the Eastern Ontario Model Forest is uniquely characterized as having a complex range of land-uses and social and economic attributes and ecosystems (see the following Map 2 indicating the location of the Model Forest in Canada and the local attributes of the Model Forest).

Eastern Ontario Model Forest

Forest Characteristics The Eastern Ontario Model Forest lies within the Great Lakes-St Lawrence Forest Region.

A unique characteristic of this Region is the mixture of agricultural lands and forest lands characteristic of the land base. Local climactic conditions, together with soil and rock formations have combined to produce a mixed-wood forest. Sugar maple, yellow birch, red maple and white pine are widely distributed. Other species include red pine and jack pine, cedar, hemlock and spruce. Many of the original forests on private land have been continually logged or high graded -- eroding the quality of the forest.

Social, Cultural and Ecological Values Residents of Eastern Ontario live in urban areas, small towns and rural agricultural areas. They include two First Nations and a sizable French speaking population. Thus it is not surprising that the forests represent a range of different values for residents. For many residents, the mere existence of the forest symbolizes their need for a healthy environment. It is the home for wildlife, song birds, fish and other flora and fauna. The forest portrays spiritual values of many residents. It provides Black Ash for the Mohawks of Akwesasne. And, it has other attributes for the Algonquin of Golden Lake. Traditional uses of the forest

We see each living species as following it's own way of life and having the right to exist. - Margaret Fox, Mohawk Council of Akwesasne

15 include: traditional medicines, sweet grass, Black Ash basket and craft making; and a tradition of assigning duty to various forest species.

The forest provides eco-tourism opportunities and recreation activities for people outside the Region and local residents.

The forests of Eastern Ontario provide a habitat for wildlife, song birds, fish, flora and fauna. Within this ecosystem, pitch pine is an endangered species. The EOMF is also a significant home for the Loggerhead Shrike. Approximately 20 percent of the remaining Ontario population of this bird species lives in Eastern Ontario. The area also has dozens of Provincially and regionally significant of Areas of Natural and Scientific interest.

Land-use and Tenure The Mohawks and Algonquins were among the first human residents of eastern Ontario, long before European, Loyalist and French settlement. As a result, the Eastern Ontario Model Forest is an area shaped by many centuries of human influence. Over the last two centuries, the primary influences have been agriculture and logging. The EOMF is currently the most densely populated model forest in Canada. It includes forested land, agricultural land and urban areas such as Ottawa. It also has the highest population levels including the Regional Municipalities of Ottawa-Carleton and the cities of Cornwall and Brockville. In contrast to other Model Forests, only the City of Cornwall is significantly dependent on forestry.

Approximately 38 percent of the Model Forest is considered to be productive landbase for forestry, at 558,915 hectares. A unique feature of this Model Forest is the high amount of privately held forest land. With 88 percent in private land holdings, the EOMF has the highest number of private forest landowners of all of Canada's Model Forests. The Eastern Ontario Model Forest has the greatest mix of urban, rural and agricultural land uses of all Model Forests.

The EOMF is working to safeguard the Loggerhead Shrike through the protection of habitat.

Long before the period of European Settlement, the Mohawks of Akwesasne maintained a tradition of providing names for each species of tree, grass and animal in the fores. The Mohawks maintained a tradition fo searching for Black Ash to make splints, and then the craft of turning the splints into baskets. The

Forest Health

Mohawks fear the loss of these traditions. The EOMF is providing support for this research.

Another unique characteristic is that according to Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources research, the amount of forest lands is increasing, as farm lands are either reverting to, or are being converted to, forest lands in Eastern Ontario. About 38 percent of the total land area is productive forest (in 1957, 15 percent was productive forest) with

16 considerable mix of agricultural land 49.8 percent. Most of the forest is young at less than 80 years old. Some concerns were raised in the survey data, however, that the new managed forests tend to have a less diverse mix of species.

Economy As an overview comment, some parts of the Eastern Ontario economy are depressed while other areas, such as Brockville are quite vibrant. People are concerned about jobs and changing trends that affect their livelihood. In the forestry sector, compared to other Model Forests: the majority of the timber is derived from private land; there are no large sawmills, but rather a high number of smaller sawmills; the Domtar Specialty Fine Papers is the largest forest employer in the Region; there is a very large secondary products industry (logging, forestry services, wood industries and paper and allied products) in Eastern Ontario employing 7,435 persons. Many people derive their livelihood from the forest, for example, private sawmills, the Domtar specialty fine papers and a very large secondary products industry.

Formation of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest Issues As part of this evaluation, Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited considered the initial forestry issues that were seen to be important in Eastern Ontario prior to the establishment of the Model Forest. These are issues that the Model Forest was expected to address as highlighted in the proposal8 developed by the Eastern Ontario Proposal Committee in 1992.

Before the establishment of the Model Forest, there were several partnerships, a number of programs already in place and ongoing discussions between future partners in Eastern Ontario. For example, partnerships were in place between Domtar and MNR since 1979.

Under Woodlot Improvement Agreements, Domtar would sign up private landowners for forest management agreements and MNR would help with administration and pay for a percentage of the costs. On the other hand, there was some distrust among organizations who had a large ability to influence the direction of forest sustainability in Eastern Ontario, such as Domtar, Friends of the Earth, the Mohawks of Akwesasne and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

An active forest management program had been supported in Eastern Ontario for several

17 decades. For example, the Agreement Forest program had been in place since the 1930s and 1940s. This has continued with the Woodlands Improvement Act Agreements on private lands since 19669. However, due to the increased availability of abandoned or poor quality agricultural lands, a great deal of artificial regeneration was occurring. The provincial nursery at Kemptville was a major centre of forestry employment and over 400 people were employed in full or part time silvicultural activities. Farmers were supplementing their income through sales of wood products and maple syrup. And, the number of people employed in fisheries and tourism was unknown.

For the Mohawks of Akwesasne, in addition to the challenges of self-government, forest related issues included the ongoing loss of forest traditions such as: losing significant varieties of species; losing traditional skills; and loss of Black Ash and traditional medicines.

There was an active program to promote the management and rehabilitation of fish and wildlife habitat with the support of MNR and volunteer organizations. Volunteers were also active in a variety of other habitat creation projects. In contrast, the building of new houses in rural areas was on the increase and there had been limited environmental planning at the municipal level to address the impacts of this type of development. The increased interaction between urban and rural dwellers was the source of conflict over traditional uses both in forestry and agriculture. Increased education of landowners was seen to be required to improve forest management and address federal and provincial funding reductions10.

Formation Many discussions had occurred between future Model Forest partners (Domtar, the Mohawks and MNR) before the Model Forest was envisaged and during the formation period of the Model Forest in October 1991 to February 1992. Not all of these meetings were tea parties. There were many issues and forces in play that were working against the eventual formation of the strong partnerships that can be seen today.

Ross Silversides11, a prominent forest scientist, provided the visionary leadership to get the ball rolling, and saw the need to bring groups together to accentuate the positive contribution that each party had to make. A range of people with common feelings toward the forest, including non-foresters, were not sure why they were there, but had a sense that something positive was going to happen.

18 As the diverse groups started working together a sense of identity developed - further reinforced by the uncertainty as to whether Forestry Canada would actually provide support. With Forestry Canada funding, the emphasis that EOMF placed on working relationships, allowed people to recognize the importance of the range of values that all sectors brought to the table.

It is within this context that the Eastern Ontario Model Forest was formed. The founding meeting of the Model Forest took place in Kemptville on August 22nd, 1992. That meeting was followed shortly after by a Board meeting on September 18th. Goals and Objectives had been developed on a preliminary basis within the Eastern Ontario Model Forest Proposal.

Organization The Board of Directors was composed of 9 individuals, with three seats represented by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (Brian Barkley), Domtar (Mr. Wayne Young, The EOMF Vice-President) and the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne (Mr. Henry Lickers).

Canada Forest Service has a non-voting member on the Board. Other original Board members were: Mr. John Kerr-Wilson (President), Mr. Bill Fullerton (Secretary-Tresurer), Mr. Bob Graham, Sandra Lawn, Denis O’Grady and Andy Welch. Several important concepts developed initially by the Model Forest included: 1) the concept of a forest for seven generations as representing sustainable development and sustainable forests; 2) partnerships developed and cooperation fostered between landowners, users of the forests, individuals and diverse organizations; 3) projects developed and funded to promote sustainable forestry across Eastern Ontario.

The vision of The Eastern Ontario Model Forest is: "To champion the concept and practice of sustainable forestry for all its values in Eastern Ontario through the co-operative efforts of its residents and supporters".

Vision The vision of the Model Forest has several specific elements that are well tailored to the characteristics of Eastern Ontario residents and the members and partners of the Model Forest. For example, the phrase "...for all its values..." is well suited for the diverse

19 make-up and values of all stakeholders. It is particularly important for capturing aboriginal values, ecosystem values, existence values and the social and economic values of the forest. The phrase, "...cooperative efforts..." has empowered the activities of partnership building, so pervasive in the activities of the Model Forest.

Principles and Goals The EOMF developed and adopted forest sustainability principles and goals to meet the contractual obligations of the Canadian Forestry Service and expectations of EOMF members. For any organization the principles are seen to be the sides of the road on which you are travelling, whereas goals are destinations.

As seen in the project summary in later sections of this report, the Model Forest has attracted partnerships and activities in each of their goal areas. Over the five year life of the Model Forest, we have also observed a movement toward more specificity in the types of projects they have approved and funded. At the same time, we have concluded that the EOMF has respected the Principles set out in their agreement with Forestry Canada as they have completed their activities over their first five years.

20

Principles as per the Agreement with the Canadian Forest Service i ii

iii iv v vi vii viii

ix

to participate in the National Model Forest Network; to exchange information and ideas, create public awareness and education, among interested individuals and organizations in the community; to provide an opportunity for natural resource management consultation from all stakeholders; to support restoration, sustainability and stewardship of all forest resources; to promote the development and use of the best technology, practices and management in new and existing programs; to encourage viable forest resource-based industries and strong local economies that are compatible with the forest's biological capacity; to share information and experience with communities beyond eastern Ontario; to retain and protect viable ecosystems, places of natural significance and wetlands, wildlands and wilderness areas important to the region; and such other complementary purposes consistent with these objects.

21 Goals For the five-year term of the agreement with Forestry Canada, five specific goals were identified and summarized as follows: Goal 1: The development of an integrated resource management (IRM) planning process suitable for the achievement of sustainable forestry (SF) within the EOMF. Goal 2: The conduct of sustainable forestry activities within an IRM framework, targeting specific EOMF objectives.

Goal 3: To increase the awareness of SF concepts and practices by EOMF stakeholders.

Goal 4: The incorporation of the best available knowledge into EOMF activities, including the expansion of traditional knowledge sources to include groups/ individuals/ projects that/ who would traditionally be only a minor component of similar forestry undertakings.

Goal 5: The development of innovative management tools which assist in meeting the unique challenge of applied SF within the EOMF. Red pine plantations are a common land use across eastern Ontario. Several projects have ben underway that investigate and demonstrate thinning and harvesting of these plantations

EASTERN ONTARIO SINCE 1992 The EOMF supports programs and projects to bring about forest sustainability. It's efforts are designed to be dynamic and flexible to allow it to respond to an ever-changing environment12. However, a lot can change over five years that can influence whether or not principles will be adhered to and goals will be achieved.

Because external changes are an important aspect of program evaluation, the evaluation of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest should be seen within the context of changes that have occurred within Eastern Ontario since its conception in late 1991. In the Evaluation Section of this report, we will discuss further how the Model Forest has responded to these changes.

What are some of the major and minor changes that have occurred in Eastern Ontario that have had an influence upon the Eastern Ontario Model Forest?

Support for Forest Sustainability Initiatives Having a supply of seedlings and having a source of research for improved forest management are important supports for forest sustainability. Access to these local resources and support from government, agencies and others is essential.

Thus, the loss13 of the 50 year old GH Ferguson Forest Station in Kemptville and the Petawawa Forest Research Institute, has created both challenges and opportunities for the EOMF. Until 1996, the former was run by OMNR as one of six provincial nurseries, which provided seedlings to crown and private lands reforestation initiatives. Two tangible examples of what this meant to the people of Eastern Ontario, are the loss of an information source for private landowners, and the cessation of research into how to reproduce Black Ash. Concern about the loss of the Nursery surfaced frequently as random remarks on our surveys.

Land-Use A number of important land-use policy and program changes have happened over the life of the Model Forest. For example, a Landowner Resource Centre was created to provide support to the private forest landowners in Eastern Ontario, to address all land/water related issues. As discussed earlier, changes occurred to the Managed Forest Tax Rebate Program, as well as the shift Ontario took toward comprehensive forest planning and a

23 new framework for forest culture14.

Houses and subdivisions have continued to be built in forest areas and on agricultural land, however, a slow down in the economy over this period and loss of jobs have moderated this trend. Over this period, the Province's Planning Act was changed twice. Once to provide extensive regulations and guidelines to protect ecosystems threatened by urban development (Bill 163 - enacted)15. A second time to streamline and improve the efficiency of the land development process (Bill 76 - 2nd Reading)16.

The EOMF has many workshops such as this field day on Ecological Woodlands Restoration. This two day workshop held in 1995 examined various restoration techniques.

Standardization Due to increasing international standards (CSA standards, tied to ISO standards and results, focus of Forest Stewardship Councils) forest producers in Eastern Ontario have been increasingly encouraged to adopt appropriate forest management systems. And, several Codes of Practice/ Certification Programs have been promulgated (Ontario Forest Industries Association, National Aboriginal Forestry Association, Ontario Woodlot and Sawmill Operators Association, Canadian Standards Association)17.

Environmental Awareness The people of Eastern Ontario continued to increase their awareness of the importance of the environment. For example, the Rural Landowner Survey of 1995 indicated that most people of Eastern Ontario were aware of where to obtain nursery stock, and of the information that OMNR was able to provide. However, in light of the disappearance of the forest station in Kemptville and cutbacks at OMNR, this would appear to have left a considerable vacuum about forestry programs. Few of the respondents were familiar with the EOMF18.

24 Hardy Stevenson and Table 1: Please tell us whether your level of knowledge about the environment has changed over the past five (5) Associates Limited years?

(HSAL) surveys of Eastern I am more knowledgeable 50.2% Ontario residents indicate I am somewhat more knowledgeable 31.3% that 50 percent of Eastern I have about the same level of knowledge 11.9% I have become less knowledgeable .5% Ontario residents felt that I don't know/ am unsure 3.0% No answer 3.2% they are more knowledgable about the environment than they Table 1: Resident Survey Results (n=438), Change in Level of Knowledge were five years ago [see Table 1] .

And, 23 percent of property owners take into account the trees on their property when making decisions about the uses of their property [see Table 2].

Table 2: To what extent do your decisions about trees on your property take into consideration impacts on the natural environment (ie. plants, wildlife, soil, ground and surface water)?

A great deal Quite a bit Somewhat Not at all No answer

23.3% 23.5% 30.1% 17.1% 5.9%

Table 2: Residential Survey, Thinking about Environment Impact

While HSA surveys indicated that people were taking into account the impacts of their actions on trees, a second survey conducted by the Rural Landowner Survey inn 1995 indicated that some rural landowners had forest management plans for their properties.

Most had long range objectives for their land with the highest ranked objectives being to leave the land in agricultural uses and/or lot development or sales19.

Project Leader Dave Oliver explains the Relative Density Project to interested EOMF members at the 1996 Annual General Meeting.

25 Public Perception of Importance of Goals Having goals isn’t about fixing a direction and staying on the course. Instead, it is about making choices about direction, sensing winds of change, considering new goals and making necessary adjustments. For the Model Forest, the selection of goals has required ongoing thinking about the course to be taken. It has required the ability to reinvent itself to stay relevant. To this end, we observed new goals being established in the Workshop of August 15, 1996. And , we expect that the activities and allocation of the funds of the Model Forest will be reassessed in light of new objectives.

Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited, examined whether the 1992 goals and principles of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest were perceived to be important and useful to the residents of Eastern Ontario. We concluded, while the goals and principles are very relevant, there have been shifts in t he perception of sustainability since 1992.

On a societal level, the Model Forest has functioned to coordinate and accelerate the achievement of goals for all forestry stakeholders. A highlight is the credence given by the Model Forest to “...all the values of the forest.� Urban residents living in apartments in Ottawa, have a champion of insuring the forest exists for their employment. Forest industry representatives know they have an organization that understands that people rely on the forest for their livelihood. Farmers and landowners have support from an organization of diverse stakeholders who recognize their needs. Aboriginal people in Eastern Ontario, have an organization supportive of heritage and spiritual values.

To the partners, stakeholders, participants and members of the Model Forest, the goals are also important. This is a group that is well informed about the activities of the Model Forest and, in general, there is a high level of support for the direction and activities of the Model Forest.

As indicated in Table 3, each of the gaols of the Model Forest received a generally high level of support from respondents. However, both project leaders and members and partners expressed the highest level of support for EOMF activities that were oriented to creating public awareness and education. In contrast, the residents of Eastern Ontario provided the highest level of support for: the promotion or projects that sustain the environment; of activities oriented to retaining and protecting viable ecosystems, and restoring, sustaining and caring for forest resources. For most stakeholders, the least relevant activities would be those oriented toward the provision of a forum for the discussion of natural resource management issues.

26

TABLE 3 Please tell us how important each of the goals of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest are to you?

Promote

Create

Develop an

Provide a

Restore,

Develop

Forest

Retain

projects

Public

Integrated

forum for

sustain

and use

resource

and

that

Awarenes

Resource

ntl. res.

and care

best

based

protect

sustain

s and

Manageme

managem

for forest

science,

industrie

viable

the

Educatio

nt Strategy

ent issues

resources

technolog

s and

ecosyste

environm

n

y&

strong

ms

managem

economie

ent

s

ent

Projec t Leade rs2

Impor tant

50%

72%

37%

50%

60%

47%

56%

58%

Not Impor tant

0%

0%

0%

1%

14%

0%

0%

0%

Mem bers and Partn ers

Impor tant

54%

60%

41%

34%

40%

46%

48%

46%

Not Impor tant

0%

9%

23%

31%

38%

26%

23%

36%

Custo mers

Impor tant

61%

59%

53%

43%

61%

58%

58%

54%

Not Impor tant

1%

0%

1%

1%

5%

1%

0%

1%

Impor tant

61%

49%

45%

36%

59%

49%

43%

61%

Not Impor tant

1%

1%

1%

2%

1%

1%

2%

2%

Resid ents

Relevance of Model Forest Goals HSA analysis involved a second look at the raw data by tesing how different types of Eastern Ontario residents viewed the goals. The analysis of the interaction of two data sets is called cross tabulation (cross-tabs). When the data is examined through cross-tabs, HSAL observed that there were several differences between urban residents and rural residents. There were stronger differences between landowners who had significant forests on their property and those people who exhibited the strongest sustainability behaviours.

In general, urban residents had stronger views than rural residents and they expressed greater support for Integrated Resource Management and improved science and technology goals. Both agreed that the retention, protection and preservation of ecosystems and wetlands was most important, followed closely by promoting projects on the ground that sustain the environment.

Landowners who own the forest were generally more cautious toward all of the EOMF goals. However, like the other respondents, the retention of wetlands and promotion of projects were seen to be important activities. Landowners differed from the other groups by expressing less support for creating public awareness and encouraging forest industry.

EVALUATION Within this context, the core question being addressed in this evaluation is whether or not the Eastern Ontario Model Forest has made a difference to the achievement of forest sustainability in Eastern Ontario.

Our research indicates that the answer is that it has.

Some of the activities currently supported or encouraged by the EOMF may have happened regardless. The major role of the EOMF however, was the acceleration of strong positive partnerships and focused projects. In light of the changes occurring over the last five years, the EOMF has remained flexible and dynamic enough to allow it to achieve many of its goals.

Five Year Perspective Healthy organizations need to be in a state of flux -- moving and evolving in response to changing circumstances. Our evaluation found that the EOMF has changed several times since its inception. For example, the number and type of partners has changed from 23

28 partners having forestry, agricultural and environmental characteristics20 to 102 members and partners in 1996 (See Appendix B) with a broad range of characteristics from International Development Agencies, to private firms, to educational organizations. The membership has also broadened with the membership of Mexican organizations.

The Model Forest has sponsored and conducted numerous forest sustainability workshops and has been active and visible at Regional events, such as fairs and exhibits. Each is well documented in the EOMF annual reports. Members and partners have participated in several trips and hosted return visits to the Calakmul Model Forest in Mexico. Through our interviews with staff and Board members, we learned of how important this twinning has provided a growing perspective of the global nature of sustainability.

Eastern Ontario Model Forest Reports, Publications and Events A review of Table's 4 and figure 1, indicates that the Model Forest had a continuous production of reports, papers and other publications pertaining to forest sustainability. In addition to the Information Report summary listen in this evaluation, the Eastern Ontario Model Forest has sponsored technical research and advisory reports toward the achievement of sustainability (see Eastern Ontario Model Forest for additional Technical and file reports).

Table 4 TYPE OF REPORT, PUBLICATION or EVENT

March 93-March 94

March 94March 95

March 95- March 96

Information Reports

10

7

3

File Reports

9

9

27

Other Publications

0

9

7

Presentation Papers

3

14

4

Videos

0

0

2

Tours

0

13

0

Project Outputs of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest The results of the Projects financially supported or sponsored by the Eastern Ontario

29 Model Forest are also a direct indicator of the significance of the output resulting from the Federal contribution of $5 million in funding and other funds and in-kind services received.

The Eastern Ontario Model Forest selects projects on an annual basis and subjects projects to a review process, often leading to changes. There is also a mid-year performance review of all science projects.

The projects selected have, for the most part, focussed on the sustainability challenges facing Eastern Ontario when the Model Forest was envisioned in 1992 (Table 5). For example, the need existed to raise public awareness of sustainability, and in response, the Model Forest provided a wide range of projects, programs and workshops designed to raise awareness. Because of the unique land-use and forest ownership situation of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest, compared to other Model Forests in Canada, sustainability concepts had to be shared with landowner, municipalities, planners and farmers. In response, the Model Forest sponsored projects designed to increase ecosystem awareness, projects intended to provide forest inventories and projects intended to advance the concept of integrated resource management.

The Eastern Ontario Model Forest was also aware that they were, and still are, facing several unique problems for the achievement of sustainablitity. They sponsored or funded projects that have also delivered in this area. For example, the efficiency and ecological practices of forest and fores-based industries, has improved through projects facilitating nut tree production, improving maple syrup production and black ash craft production. As the disposal of waste is a consumer of land and is typically a social issue, the Model Forest has allowed a successful demonstration of ecologically friendly disposal of bio-solids.

These are just a few examples of how the outputs of the Model Forest has assisted in the achievement of forest sustainability.

In examining the remaining projects funded over the five year period, there appears to be a growing focus toward sustainable planning and process, as well as shift toward providing guidance and education (eg. Woodlands Planning Framework, Biodiversity Monitoring, Urban Lands Stewardship Guide).

30

EASTERN ONTARIO MODEL FOREST - DURATION OF PROJECTS Project

Apr93 Mar94

1.1a

Integrated Resource Management Planning

1.1b

Woodlands Planning Framework

1.2

Relative Density Guidelines

1.3

OPFA Continuing Education

1.4

Forestry Principles and Practices

1.4

Forestry Code of Practice

1.5

Landowner Survey

1.5MCA

Akwesasne Partnership

2.1

Ecological Woodlands Restoration

2.2

Industrial Wood Production

2.3

Wood Biomass Combustion

2.4

Alternative Vegetation Management

2.5

Hazard Land Rehabilitation

2.6

Shoreline Restoration

2.7

MAPLE Lakeshore Restoration

2.8

Ruffed Grouse Habitat

2.9

Loggerhead Shrike Habitat

2.10

Songbird Population Monitoring

2.11

Forest Meadow Habitat

2.12

Oak Restoration

2.13

Wildlife Habitat Matrices

2.14

Sustainable Maple Industry

2.15

Bio-diversity Monitoring

Apr94 Mar95

Apr95 Mar96

Apr96 Mar97

31 EASTERN ONTARIO MODEL FOREST - DURATION OF PROJECTS 2.16

Forest Product Marketing

3.1

PIE Central Communications

3.2

Ontario Woodlot and Sawmill Operators Asc.

3.4

Landon Bay Centre

3.5

Alfred College Educational Initiatives

3.6

Lanark Forest Tours

3.7

Bluebird Acres

3.10

Urban Forestry Initiatives

3.10

Community Forestry

3.11

North Leeds Trail Network

3.12

Nursery Forest Interpretation

3.13

KCAT Agroforestry Education

3.14

McKinnon (Domtar) Working Forest

3.15

South Grenville Wood Centre

3.16

Carleton Place Forestry Education

3.17

Annual Forestry Seminar

3.19

Nationview Outdoor Education

3.20

Alfred Bog Walk

3.21

1995 North American Maple Syrup Conferenc

3.23

EOMF Videos

3.24

CF Bio-diversity Workshop

3.25

Code Of Practice

3.26

Count Your Trees In

3.27

Urban Lands Stewardship Guide

3.29

Envirothon

3.31

Education in the EOMF

3.MCA

Akwesasne Partnership

32 EASTERN ONTARIO MODEL FOREST - DURATION OF PROJECTS

4.0

Forest Science Committee

4.1

Genetic Heritage

4.2

Nut Tree Culture

4.3

Agroforestry Windbreaks

4.4

Recycled Soil Amendments

4.5

Maple Syrup Industry

4.7

Forest Corridors Indicators

4.8

Renfrew County Wild Mushrooms

5.1

Evaluation

5.2

Evaluation Workshop

5.3

Evaluation Consultation

EOFG1

DSS Ecological Reserves

EOFG2

Decision Support Systems

EOFG3

Forest Land Conservation Potential

EOFGB

Wood Supply Study

EOFG4

Environmentally Acceptable Products

EOFGB

Value Added Products

EOFG5

Network Tours

EOFG6

JOCA Forest Improvement

EOFG7

Ecological Land Classification

EOFG8

Forest Gene Conservation

33 For a complete listing of these projects, reports, publications and events, see Eastern Ontario Model Forest Annual Reports 1993-1994, 1994-1995, and 1995-1996. A list of File Reports published by the Model Forest follows and Information Reports occurs as Figure 1.

C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

1995-1996 Communications Plan “Filling the Gaps” -study on gaps in the EOMF science program Summary of eastern Ontario Wood Supply by County, Township and Forest Stratum Conifer Plantation Improvement.

The Role of Photo Interpretation in Providing Forest Resource Information for IRM Birch Bark and it uses within the community of the Algonquins of Golden Lake First Nations White Spruce Genecology Study progress report 1995 A Mobile at-the-stump Canter System: A Cost Analysis and Feasibility Study of the Concept Hardwood Thinning Trials With a Farm Tractor Skidding Winch and Grapple Loader Trailer.

Equipment Guide for Wood Extraction Review on the Fianl Reoport on Relative Density Guidelines for Eastern Ontario Hardwood Stands Eastern Ontario Model Forest Code of Practice (draft) Draft: Breeding Behaviour and Reproductive Success of Cerulean Warblers (Dendroica cerulea) in Southeastern Ontario.

Forest Meadow Habitat progress report 1995 Progress Report: Biodiversity study at Voyageur Provincial Park (en français) Progress Report: The preliminary draft version of Habitat Suitability matrices for Wildlife in the Eastern Ontario Model Forest area.

Saving the spice of life; EOMF and Forest Gene Conservation Distribution and abundance of Pitch Pine in Eastern Ontario.

Windbreak Establishment and Maintenance, Research and Demonstration Summary Report n Rational for and Status of Paper Mill Sludge Utilization at Domtar Specialty Fine Paper, Cornwall Mill.

Land Application Trial of Cornwal paper Mill Clarifier Sludge Land Application Trial Primary Clarifier Fibre Osnabruck Township 1995 Progress Report.

Forestry Application Equipment Trial with RUR 55 Manure/Lime Spreader Feasibility and Business Case Analysis of the G. Howard Ferguson Forest Station: “A Community

Opportunity.”

C A Plan for Nut Culture Contests in Eastern Ontario C Solid Waste Handling Plan: 1995 An Assessment of the Songbird Habitat Quality Provided by Red Pine Plantations in Eastern Ontario.

Presentation Papers: May 1995:

Opening Remarks: Canadian Energy Plantation Workshop

June 1995: November 1995: January 1996:

Partnership Building for Sustainable Development of Eastern Ontario Model Forests Presentation to the Conservation of Northern Forests Conference Presentation to National Program Evaluation Team

Videos: Forest Meadows (1995) Future Forests from the past (1995)

34 Figure 1: List of Eastern Ontario Model Forest Information Reports Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë

Eastern Ontario Model Forest Summary of Approved Projects Come Nuzzle Nature!: A Directory of Outdoor Education Centres and Trails in Eastern Ontario Managing and Marketing of Red Pine Plantations Information Report No. 1 - A Forest History of Eastern Ontario Information Report No. 2 - Feasibility Study of a Proposed Wood Products Industrial Complex in South Grenville Information Report No. 3 - Development of a Strategy for Woodlands Restoration in Eastern Ontario Information Report No. 4 - Proceedings of the Wood Chip Combustion Workshop Ontario Information Report No. 5 - Bandit 1400 Chipper Trial for Row Removal in Softwood Plantations Information Report No. 6 - Eastern Ontario Model Forest Proposal Information Report No. 7 - Woodchip Combustion in Eastern Canada Information Report No. 8 - The Application of GIS for the Interpretation of Historical Land Survey Information Report No. 9 - Forest structure in Eastern North America Information Report No. 10 - Continuing Education for Resource Managers Information Report No. 11 - A Survey of Growth and Yield Methodologies Information Report No. 12 - Hardwood Crop Planning, Relative Density Guidelines for Eastern Ontario Hardwood Stand Information Report No. 13 - Ecological Properties for the Evaluation of Eastern Ontario Forest Ecosystems Information Report No. 14 - A Case Study in Planning With Forest Level Management Simulation Models for Hardwood and Mixed Wood Information Report No. 15 - Continuing Education for Resource Managers Information Report No. 20 - Literature Review of Butternut and the Butternut Canker "Out of the Box" - A Communications Strategy for the Eastern Ontario Model Forest

Achievement of Original Goals In addition to the evaluation issues to be addressed in the Eastern Ontario Model Forest Evaluation Framework, HSA also considered the larger picture of the success of the Model Forest in achieving it’s original goals in terms of its contract with Forestry Canada. We’ve concluded that it has. The following is a summary of our findings.

Goal 1: IRM The development of an integrated resource management (IRM) planning process suitable for the achievement of sustainable forestry (SF) within the EOMF is one of the more difficult, but important, goals of the EOMF. Work is well underway

progress is being made...however, it is too early to evaluate ultimate outcomes...

35 and several projects have been identified (Integrated Resource Management Planning #1.1a; Woodlands Planning Framework #1.1b; Relative Density Guidelines #1.2; Forestry Principles and Practices and Standards, #1.4; and Akwesasne Partnership). However, it is too early to fairly evaluate the ultimate outcomes of these efforts. With the Codes of Practice and Planning Frameworks in place, forward progress is being made.

Goal 2: SF Activities within an IRM Framework This Goal addresses the conduct of sustainable forestry activities within an IRM framework, targeting specific EOMF objectives and a range of Projects (#2.1 to #2.5 and #2.10 to #2.14). While later Chapters of this evaluation have project specific comments, each of the projects in place to support the achievement of Goal 2 are in the right direction. Later this year, with the reinstatement of the Managed Forest Tax Rebate program, landowners will be looking for additional information on forest management planning requirements. The projects sponsored by the Model Forest, such as Wildlife Habitat Matrices and Code of Practice, have the potential for greatly assisting in meeting this need, and in the process, improve the conduct of sustainable forestry initiatives.

the projects in place ...are in the right direction

Goal 3: Increased Awareness The Model Forest has accomplished a great deal to increase the awareness of SF concepts and practices by EOMF stakeholders. To date, this is the goal where there has been the most progress -- with many projects supported. Additional comments are provided in the following evaluation of Communications. Projects

this is the goal where there has been the most progress

supporting this Goal include: environmental education through the Landon Bay Centre #3.4; Public Information and Education (PIE) #3.1; McKinnon Interpretative Centre #3.14 - of note are the various other education initiatives, workshops and seminars.

Goal 4: Best Available Knowledge The Model Forest has had continuous success toward this ongoing goal. The incorporation of the best available knowledge into EOMF activities, including the expansion of traditional knowledge sources has occurred through the Forest Science Committee; Genetic Heritage project #4.1, Nut Tree Culture Project #4.2; Recycled Soil Amendment #4.4; Forest Corridor indicators #4.7.

...continuous success toward this ongoing goal

36

Goal 5: Management We considered the achievement of the Management Goal from two perspectives: 1) The management of Model Forest activities and 2) overall forest management.

The success achieved by the Model Forest in the development of innovative management tools is further discussed in following sections. However, there is solid evidence that the Model Forest has taken the development of management tools seriously. Results from this effort include: strong partnerships; consensus decision making systems and; strong staff.

...the Model Forest has taken the development of management tools seriously

In terms of overall forest management, the Eastern Ontario Model Forest has made good progress to date. Sustainable forest management has long time horizons. Fore example, it is only by looking at changes in forest cover since the 1950s that we can see that the forests of Eastern Ontario are increasing. One typically hopes that the cumulative effects of small projects, decisions and interventions will provide long term movement toward ecosystem sustainability.

While data is difficult to obtain on the extent of overall adoption of sustainable forest management interventions and the adoption of forest sustanability practices, the Model Forest has created the basis through education, demonstration programs, research and persuasion, for sustainable forest management to occur.

Essentially, the Eastern Ontario Model Forest has provided the necessary funding and support to accelerate movements in the right direction.

In summary, even with the challenges faced since 1990, the Model Forest has had an excellent start-up in its first five years. The following topics address the five broad issues the Model Forest has requested be specifically addressed in the evaluation.

Relevance The first issue that the Eastern Ontario Model Forest wanted addressed in the evaluation framework was the relevance of its activities and outputs.

Being ‘relevant’ addresses whether the outputs of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest projects and activities are relevant to its goals and to the needs of customers and partners.

Fore example, are people attending Model Forest activities, are they seeking information

37 about sustainability practices, are people providing additional funds to support Model Forest activities?

How relevant are the projects being funded?

Through Board interviews and staff discussion, we learned that the projects being proposed for funding are reviewed for relevancy to goals and objectives. The EOMF currently makes efforts to insure that there are partnerships in support of the project and multiple objectives will be achieved. We have no difficulty in concluding that each project and activity falls within a specific goal area.

For example, to assess the relvance of each project already funded, we compared intended project outputs against stated goals and objectives. We observed that, in the early years of the Model Forest, projects appear to have a stronger focus on forest management and education. For example, a higher percentage of projects were focussed on industrial wood production, pest management, agroforestry and projects such as shoreline restoration21.

Several of these projects either were completed or dropped off the list as other projects took on greater importance.

By 1996, there were 35 projects listed in the Eastern Ontario Model Forest’s 1996-1997 Compendium of Projects. Eight projects are education and community related projects, two are administrative and the remaining 25 projects make up the core of forestry and science related projects. Over a five year period, a total of 70 projects have been initiated and/or completed.

We found that among the projects sponsored by the Model Forest, the smaller projects tend to deliver the best results. For example, the Ecological Woodlands Restoration project is an example of how a small project can generate good results. The basic approach involves a literature review, archival data collection, development of a management approach, examination of a topic of local interest and delivery of useful products. The songbird population monitoring program, nut tree culture, genetic heritage, maple syrup and industrial wood production projects appear to be tightly focussed, small and able to deliver first rate information.

We also noted that there are approximately a dozen science projects (for additional discussion of these projects see the evaluation of Forest Management). Many of these are typical of sustainable forestry programs: vegetation management alternatives, genetic heritage and wildlife habitat matrices development. Other projects are particular to the

38 EOMF such as the Akwesasne Partnership, nut tree culturing and maple syrup production.

Most are well focussed and linked to other projects within the EOMF and initiatives underway by OMNR. Science Projects A significant amount of Model Forest funds and research is oriented to forestry and science projects. In our review of EOMF files we were unable to identify references or citations to the science being conducted from non-affiliated scientific organizations. Our survey of project leaders indicated that some results have been published. We recognize, however, that science research is a longer term proposition. And, that broader recognition of EOMF research may be several years off.

We recommend that to ensure the continued relevancy of science projects that, science proposals be peer reviewed or accompanied by letters of support from end-users of the research. For example, letters from Domtar or other users of the forest in support of a field project. For some projects this could also include letters of support from a Board of Education for an education and awareness project.

Figure 3: Project Leader Survey - Publication of Results/Findings of Projects Published In...

Yes

No

Not Applicable

Scientific Journals

3

5

5

Cited in Scientific Articles

5

4

6

Included in a Conference Publication

8

4

3

Presented at a Scientific

7

5

4

Conference

Our review also concluded that several projects were not relevant to the program goals and might have been more appropriately funded under the mandate of other organizations (eg.

Hazard Land Rehabilitation), and some of the projects during the first years of the Model Forest could have benefitted from a stronger forestry focus or a needs assessment (eg, Wood Biomass Combustion). However, we had little difficulty concluding that all of the

39 projects were intended to achieve forest sustainability and were pointed in the right direction.

Relevance of activity outputs The consideration of "activity outputs" looked at the overall results of all Model Forest activities as an overview evaluation activity as the budget did not allow for an intensive examination of outputs. Nevertheless, we concluded that the activity outputs in the first five years of the Model Forest's existence were relevant to and important to the building of foundation upon which to expand the scope of the Model Forest. For example, the partnership building and consensus approach to decision making has helped to address community demands for empowerment and has helped to address the full range of forest values. Partnership building and networking was and will continue to be essential for the success of the Model Forest.

The Model Forest is also able to achieve good participation at conferences, workshops and other events. Indicators such as numbers of participants at events sponsored by the Model Forest, site visits and requests for information the Model Forest has also appeared to fill some information requests not otherwise met by OMNR and the Kemptville Nursery.

The key point, in terms of relevancy, however, is whether the outputs of the Model Forest are being used and in the process, whether these outputs are changing behaviour toward ecological sustainability. While five years does not allow an awful lot of time to highlight causal relationships between Model Forest outputs and increased sustainability, the data we examined has led to the conclusion that: 1) the outputs are being used (attendance at workshops, brochures, technical and information reports requested, media communications, questions from landowners about sustainability practices, etc) and; 2) the Eastern Ontario Model Forest is making a worth while and positive difference.

Relevance in the Future In considering how relevant EOMF goals may be to the customers and residents of Eastern Ontario in the future, we examined: 1) the importance of EOMF principles and goals [Table 3]; 2) how important are different principles and goals to urban vs. rural residents; and, 3) what projects they would recommend the EOMF undertake in the future [Table 10]. We concluded that over the next five years, the people of Eastern Ontario are looking for: 1) more projects on the ground; 2) more efforts to reforest lands; and, 3) the preservation of wetlands and ecosystems. Several of our key findings regarding future

40 relevancy are discussed as follows. !

People are Concerned about Conflicts in Land-Use and are Looking for Sound Forest Management

In comparing the data, we've found it ironic that in spite of all of the efforts that have gone into conflict resolution, consensus decision making and partnership building in Eastern Ontario since the inception of the Model Forest, the people of Eastern Ontario continue to have a perception of forest conflict. Because of this we've concluded that the current partnership building activities of the Model Forest are on the right track, but that, we have a long way yet to go toward meeting the public's agenda for Integrated Resource Management.

For example, in our survey [Table 12], the statement that received the highest amount of disagreement at 32 percent is 'the forests of Eastern Ontario are being managed in such a way that conflicts over land-use are avoided'; there is also slightly more disagreement than agreement that the forests of Eastern Ontario are being managed through partnerships (25 vs. 23%). When compared to the strong recommendation from the public that the Model Forest promote projects that address the conflict between urban sprawl and forest preservation we see that the public places higher priority on these issues.

This is an important finding. While we observed a split between urban and rural residents in terms of support for Integrated Resource Management (will be more thoroughly discussed in the review of selected projects), we see that some sort of a process for avoiding land-use conflict is important to both groups. It is our sense that urban resident's perception of the forest is influenced by what they see on TV, read or hear on the radio.

Typically, good news stories don't make headlines. Stories about forestry conflict do.

It indicates to us that the Model Forest has the potential to play a much stronger role in the minds and hearts of Eastern Ontario residents in terms of its ability to plan, manage and address land-use conflicts in Eastern Ontario.

41 TABLE 6 In thinking about how well the forests of Eastern Ontario are being managed, how strongly would you agree that the following is happening?

In my opinion the forests of Eastern Ontario are being...

Residents of Eastern Ontario

Customers of EOMF

Strongly Agree/ Agree

Disagree/ Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree/ Agree

Disagree/ Strongly Disagree

Preserved for Future Generations

40%

20%

28%

35%

Preserved for my sense of health and well being

34%

25%

19%

31%

Promoted to bring tourism to Eastern Ontario

34%

25%

30%

34%

Managed to allow the production of wood products

41%

17%

41%

16%

Meeting the need to support plants, wildlife and eco-systems

39%

22%

28%

30%

Providing a place to hunt and fish

33%

21%

46%

11%

Managed in a way that all interests work cooperatively

26%

27%

23%

33%

Providing a valuable source of education for our youth

41%

21%

26%

24%

Managed in such a way that

22%

32%

18%

33%

27%

26%

25%

32%

23%

25%

18%

31%

conflicts over land-use are avoided Managed to preserve forest related jobs for Eastern Ontario workers Managed through partnerships of forest companies, aboriginal people, environmentalists and landowners

42

The South Nation River Conservation Authority in partnership with the EOMF, is examining early successional species inhabiting a large land disturbance - the Lemiuex landslide, in the Hazard Land Rehabilitation Project. !

Continued Education and Awareness will Continue to be Relevant

Given our earlier finding that the partners and members were much more supportive of the Eastern Ontario Model Forests principles and goals, it's not surprising that the level of knowledge is important to one's opinion of how the forests of Eastern Ontario are being managed. For example, we compared customers to residents and found that there is generally more agreement with the goals of the Model Forest among customers (who have more knowledge of Model Forests activities) than residents.

Overall, the focus of the EOMF to date on building partnerships and networks is relevant to the concerns identified to be important by the public in general.

Management The Eastern Ontario Model Forest is well managed22. And, all of the indicators of a well managed organization are in place: Constitution and By-laws, regular annual reports available for membership; comprehensive minutes of meetings; financial statements and agenda distributed; audited financial statements; rules of procedure for Board governance; accountability mechanisms; effective staff management; external management consulting advice from time to time; regular efforts to revisit and reset the Mission and Vision; well defined organizational structure.

43 The Model Forest has commissioned a number of management studies23 for the purpose of determining whether it was on track and what steps are required for addressing future financial challenges. While the Model Forest's original practice was to react to project proposals, they have worked hard to provide a stronger basis for proactive project review and approval. The EOMF is currently moving to seek projects in areas of priority; using a rigorous review process; and providing better rationale and criteria for project selection. In addition, project management has also been tightened in terms of budgeting and proposed deliverables.

The Model Forest experiences the occasional management problems normally faced by most organizations, such as: reports being completed after the deadline; accounting for qualitative programs; projects shifting from stated goals. During our interviews, several areas of improvement to management volunteered by Board members included: 1) the need for a better system of evaluating and assessing competing projects; 2) requesting proposals in strategic areas; 3) dealing mented positive changes as of the August 15 Workshop. Strengthening and coordinating the partnership linkages projects may be a positive activity for the future.

Given this, we have no formal recommendations to make for changes in management structure.

And, in reference to the questions the Model Forest wished us to address in the Evaluation Framework, we have few concerns about the management of the Model Forest.

However, we would recommend that two areas be tightened up. During our monitoring of the Board of Directors meeting we noted a discussion of a bit of a mix-up over the budget allocated to one project. As the Board members provided clarity over what was intended, unallocated funds were available to provide additional project support.

In support of having such funds available, we noted that the Model Forest retains a reserve fund and maintains retained earnings. A healthy aspect of this is, every non-profit organization needs some sort of contingency fund to address unanticipated events. However, these allocated funds need to have specific stated uses or criteria for their use.

In our opinion, this is a minor item. And, as we concluded at the outset, the Model Forest is well managed.

However this is only half the story.

Decision Making What we found interesting is the Model Forest's success at developing a unique and effective non-hierarchial management style appropriate to the challenge of working in partnership and harmony with a widely diverse group of stakeholders. Over its five year life it appears to have worked hard at developing a consensus-based management style geared to maintaining effective partnerships.

44 The process of decision-making arises out of the Mohawk tradition of ensuring all partners have respect, equity and empowerment. It also involves not requiring a quorum for meetings -through the process of having all participants express their opinion, trust is given to those people "around the table". This stimulates the participants to consider carefully the anticipated opinions of those who may be absent. No one represents a constituency, instead they represent a 'delegated democracy'.

EOMF Board Decision Making Process ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

what is the issue? will we decide? what are the facts? check against management plan what are the implications of the decision to our principles? everyone has a 'duty' to speak and to listen to the issue being discussed and to respect for other's opinions a test is done on whether members are close to consensus failures to reach consensus are brought back to a discussion of first principles and the consideration of what each person believes for corporate issues only, formal motions are brought to a vote once a decision is made it is supported by all each Board member accepts responsibility for the decision after the meeting decisions may be recalled if additional information and understanding is required

The Mohawk tradition has been an important input to the success of the overall management style of the Model Forest. It stresses involvement of both men and women in decision making.

And, it has helped the Model Forest to build wide and strong partnerships allowing it to deal with change, new ideas and challenge.

Staff A second positive aspect of the management of the Model Forest is the capability of the staff and staff/ Board member/ partner/ member relationships. Based on staff interviews we conducted an

45 analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to staffing. We also probed Model Forest Board opinions with respect to staff capabilities and strengths. With shifts in priorities and funding cutbacks at OMNR, staff role already appears to be changing to address public requests for information.

We observed that Board members and staff have developed a high level of trust and open communication. This allows a high amount of unfiltered information to be forwarded for the advice of Board decisions. Staff are treated by Board members as 'Directors' and they are encouraged to contribute their ideas.

The Mohawk concept of 'uncle' is active in Board/ staff relationships. Staff work closely with individual Directors, where Directors become providers of sage advice rather than supervisors exercising power.

Staff are empowered, have clear sense of Mission, and benefit from excellent management capabilities. They are appropriately educated with agriculture, forestry, administration and management backgrounds. They are committed, are good communicators and they have good people skills and discipline to determine the right route to solving a problem and work as a team.

Their role in the Model Forest is to coordinate, facilitate, support, insure information flow and handle administration. Additional activities include: producing reports and newsletters; analysis of projects; research/ policy and programs; communication and promotion; run workshops; broker partnerships; other activities.

They have the same Mission as the Board and are aware of management priorities. Management improvements currently being undertaken by staff include: improving the quality of projects and other Model Forest products toward sustainability. Staff have performance reviews.

Volunteers The management of volunteers is also an important aspect of the Model Forest. The EOMF has recognized that all Model Forest projects involve people first. Volunteer overload has been noted by some interview respondents. Management of expectations is also important. Others identified the need to keep people excited and deal with apathy.

46 Communications Effective communications and learning about sustainability -- particularly for landowners -- is essential for the achievement of sustainable forestry practices. Among the public of eastern Ontario, and among people who are familiar with the Model Forest, the general level on knowledge about the environment is increasing -- however, not necessarily due to Model Forest efforts.

To date, the Eastern Ontario Model Forest has been strategic in its communications by emphasizing internal communications. Thus, the most important focus of communications is between Board Members, staff, Project Leaders, Members and Partners. The focus on internal communications to date is appropriately placed and has assisted the Model Forest is developing strong partnerships and effective projects.

On the other hand, the Table 7: Pamphlet Distribution Number EOMF has also been You and the Eastern Ontario Model Forest 10,800 active in external Walk This Way (1995) 7,850 communications.

Walk This Way (1995) 3,300 EOMF plaques and Partners at Work 6,000 Come Nuzzel Nature (1993 - present) 1,000 logos dot the l Eastern Ontario Forest Group Constitution landscape, showing and By-Laws the location of EOMF members or projects.

Total 28,950 Activities have involved: the publication and distribution of pamphlets; presentations; tours; press reports; the monthly “Forestry Forum� newsletter; workshops and conferences. Table 6 indicates that the Model Forest has published and distributed over 28 thousand pamphlets. We were not surprised to find that EOMF pamphlets were the top way that people had become aware of the Model Forest. All EOMF Information Reports, brochures and video's are assigned ISBN number and are filed at the Ottawa Public Library where they have become one of the Library's major information requests24.

Additional communication medium include the newsletter "Forestry Forum"; 4 Video titles (Future Forests...From the Past (1996); Forest Meadows Management Alternatives (1995); FERIC -Log Sorting and Sawmill Studies to Determine Furniture Component Yield; FERIC Trial Model 1400 Track Bandit Chipper for Row Removal in Softwood Plantations. To date there have been 205 requests for Model Forest information reports.

47 Table 8 indicates that the Model Forest has had some success in attracting media attention.

Table 8: EOMF Media Source

Number

Videos TV Interviews Radio Interviews Newspaper Articles Published Reports Pamphlets

4 3 6 122 17 5

Total

157

Extension notes are also distributed to landowners.

However, the future success of the Model Forest will depend on how they are able to strategically shift their communications efforts to new priority areas, such as, communication with landowners, members of the general public and between project leaders. To achieve this they will need: to understand how communications fit into their new Goals and Objectives; to identify audiences; and, to develop key messages and delivery tools.

As seen on Table 9, most Eastern Ontario residents received their information about the environment from friends and neighbours (39%), newspapers and publications (34%), television and radio (30%) and their local nursery (30%).

Among customers of the Model Forest (such as sawlog operators, tour operators, educators), the most frequent source of information was the newspaper and publications (72%) and MNR (63%).

48

TABLE 9 If you are interested in the environment, or need environmental information, where do you get your information about the environment?

Television Radio

Friends and Neighbours

MNR

Min. Agricult. and Food, Rural Areas

Project Leaders

Question not asked

Members and Partners

Question not asked

CFS

Nursery

Landowner Resource Centre

Other

Customers

43%

20%

72%

63%

32%

20%

5%

19%

16%

Residents

30%

39%

34%

15%

7%

3%

30%

1%

7%

Other: Customers -

Newspaper and Publication s

Internet (3) Organizations and Associations (4) Library, seminars and courses (3) Ont/Que. Ministry of the Environment (2) Conservation Authorities (2) Kemptville College Municipal Council

49

What messages are getting through?

Both the Rural Landowner Survey (1995) and Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited surveys indicate that the concept of a 'Model Forest' is difficult communicate - people have an impression it is part of OMNR or the Federal Government. From the HSAL surveys we see the general impressions among residents that: the forests of eastern Ontario are being preserved; education is available about the forests; forests are a place where wood products are produced.

Compared to EOMF customers at 66% and other stakeholders, about 14 percent of Eastern Ontario residents had heard of the Model Forest.

This appears to be an improvement over the level of awareness indicated in the earlier Rural Landowner Survey (1995). However, of these people, only 6 percent were able to name a product or activity of the Model Forest. And, virtually no one could accurately name a Model Forest Program or Project. While not statistically significant, our research indicates that males and people with some college or university education are more likely to have heard of the Model Forest.

In the Recycled Soil Amendment Project, materials otherwise treated as waste from the paper making process at Domtar, are being used as mulch and organic matter.

People who have had some contact with the Model Forest such as customers had a much more accurate impression of the activities of the Model Forest with the most frequently mentioned being Seminars and Courses. Through this time period, EOMF members and partners have exceeded the knowledge level of residents of Eastern Ontario in general.

Table 10 indicates that members are generally satisfied with Eastern Ontario Model Forest communications, however, more work can be done

50 toward communications that help members work cooperatively with other individuals, groups and agencies. The Board of Directors, also appears to have more work to do in communicating that it is open to hearing the views of members.

Table 10: Effectiveness of Member Communications Communications Evaluation Do you receive Forestry Forum?

In considering the issues raised in the Evaluation Framework, the Model Forest has performed well based on the following indicators: it is using a variety of media to communicate; the print information is generally of a high quality; and, members are informed about EOMF activities.

Yes No Are you satisfied with communicating with you?

Yes No

95.1% (157) 3.6% (6) how

the

EOMF

is

81.4% (136) 12.1% (20)

However, we have also concluded that the following issues that need to be addressed by the Model Forest.

Has the EOMF helped you to cooperate or work in partnership with other individuals, groups , agencies or organizations?

First, informal communication messages are sometimes as powerful as formal efforts.

One of the frequent messages we heard from the staff and Board members during our interviews was "...the Model Forest does no useful work". For those who are aware of what this phrase means, it is easy to draw the conclusion that the Model Forest does no useful

I am informed or can easily get information about the decisions of the EOMF Board of Directors?

Yes No

Agree Disagree

45.6% (74) 43.8% (71)

71.0% (118) 16.3% (27)

The EOMF Board of Directors is open to hearing my views?

Agree Disagree

54.9% (94) 8.1% (14)

51 work because it supports partners, members and project leaders in their useful work. We recommend that a better phrase be developed to reflect the essential work that the Model Forest is actually accomplishing.

Second, many of the Project Leaders expressed concern on the HSAL surveys that they were not aware of opportunities for partnership or the activities of other Project Leaders. For example, in response to the question: Are there ways the Eastern Model Forest can better help you to develop partnerships for mutual advantage? Answers included: "...publish and distribute a list of all partners organized by activity...help us to identify identifying linkages to other organizations -- such as Agrifood Canada...keep everyone informed".

Third, effectiveness of communications with the residents of Eastern Ontario should be a priority, and can be improved. The Model Forest already does a lot of work in external communications including: outdoor environmental educations programs, information provided to the South Nation School Board, etc.

Our surveys indicated that many of the residents want more information and the EOMF needs to become much better recognized. One of the top recommendations from Project Leaders, for example was that the priority for forest sustainability should be education and awareness.

Information requests in the French language are met by the Model Forest and the Forestry Forum Newsletter is published in both Official Languages. An important consideration in the future should be the continued focus on communicating in both Official Languages. Some people answering our surveys indicated they were looking for information in French. At the same time, there were several fortuitous comments expressing the desire for a Model Forest-type of organization to be established in western Quebec.

Communications Recommendations One of the major recommendations of the Federal Model Forest evaluation was the need for improved communication. While improved public communication, education and awareness is clearly a priority for the EOMF, we recommend that communications continue to be seen strategically. Typically strategic communications involve the questions of: Who does the EOMF want to get through to on a priority basis?

Who is our primary audience? What are the prime communications vehicles? What messages are getting through? How much information is staying with the listener? And, especially for the Eastern Ontario Model Forest, are our communications efforts making a difference in terms of sustainability?

52 Partnerships One of the strong points of the EOMF is its ability and focus on the development of partnerships and networking. The Model Forest recognizes that this is one of it's strengths -- particularly the Domtar, OMNR and Mohawk Council of Akwesasne partnerships. And, partnerships develop help to extend its reach.

Table 11: Member and Partner Characteristics What benefits do you receive from the EOMF? 43% (79) 14% (25) 11% (20) 11% (20) 6% (11)

information, in general other groups/ networking update on forestry issues strategies for forest management voice in protecting environment

Why did you decide to not renew your membership in the EOMF? 7 4 4 15 142

Other Interests Moved Elsewhere Unable to Attend Workshops Other Reason Not applicable

The importance of the original partnerships brought to the table by the Model Forest cannot be understated. The Model Forest had a major effect in building trust and understanding, offsetting distrust of major partners and forming what has become known as "the unholy alliance" between OMNR, Domtar and the Mohawks of Akwesasne. It has helped major partners, such as Domtar to strengthen their commitment to Eastern Ontario over the long term.

Partners and supporters of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest There are 102 partners and supporters of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest. These partners and supporters represent the public sector, the private sector, the aboriginal community, educational and research institutions, and interest groups. One important criteria and incentive for project support is effective partnerships. For a complete listing of the partners and supporters of the

53 Eastern Ontario Model Forest, see Appendix B. Examples of partners and supporters include: PUBLIC SECTOR Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Foreign Affairs and & International Trade Canada Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Kemptville District Township of Williamsburg PRIVATE SECTOR Domtar Inc., Specialty Fine Papers Division HMD Consulting Group Inc. Fortune Farms THE ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, Environmental Division EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS University of Toronto, Faculty of Forestry Carleton Place Secondary High School Queen's University, Biology Department INTEREST GROUPS Urban Forest Citizen's Committee Rideau Valley Field Naturalist Club Ruffed Grouse Society

When asked about the benefits of partnerships, most people cited the information they receive about sustainable forestry [Table 11]. However, additional benefits of partnership included the ability to network, keeping abreast of issues and having a sense of satisfaction that members were doing something for the environment.

In addition to the HSAL surveys, the effectiveness of partnerships has also been addressed

by Needham25. Needham concluded that there may be a greater representation of partners from some sectors and lesser representation from others (woodlot, forestry associations, environmental organizations, tourism organizations, economic organizations, communications and marketing organizations and planners). Our surveys found that the following partners/ member were recommended within the Member/Partner survey: municipalities, schools and secondary wood producers.

In response to issues raised in the Evaluation Framework, there appears to be a diversity of

54 partnerships. And, on the basis of HSA interviews those partnerships created are strong.

However, new partners in areas such as wood processing, economic development, tourism, land-use and educational institutions will have to be sought over the next five years.

Farmers and forestry workers/ forest sector groups alliances would also be a useful addition to EOMF partnerships.

On the basis of the survey results, most of the partners appear to have a good understanding of the purposes of the Model Forest and are supportive of its aims. And, given that the Model Forest has received cash and services-in-kind from partners and others, partnerships appear to be effective in levering funds26.

The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne’s environment department in cooperation with the EOMF, is conducting inventories of spiritually important plants on reservation lands.

International Involvement The EOMF was selected by Foreign Affairs to provide advice and assistance to the Calakamul Model Forest in Chichiwawa, Mexico. In return, EOMF Model forest members learned how ejidos work to sustain a forest when forest sustainability has life and death implications. Our evaluation did not consider this area in depth. However, 'volunteered' comments from the surveys tended to support the EOMF undertaking international activities: "...follow the forest management of other countries like Germany and Finland....a large plantation tree farm for show and later implementation is now wildly successful in Scandinavia....in Holland they tend very carefully to their trees, maybe there is something to be learned there."

55

Economic analysis of previously installed woodbiomass combustion for farm building complexes may be a viable alternative to fossil fuels. This would also derive some economic benefit for small trees thinned from woodlots.

Involvement in National Model Forest Network The level of involvement in the National Model Forest Network is important because, among other reasons, it allows a sharing of information, coordination of projects and learning of approaches being used by other Model Forests.

There is ample evidence that the staff and partners are involved in the National Model Forest Network. For example, the Model Forest has hosted a tour by other Model Forest representatives, has participated in a Public Participation workshop and has participated in other Model Forest topical meetings.

We have no concerns in this area.

Demonstration forests have been established to showcase practical, useable management practices to private landowners, and to educate the public about forests, forest management and forest ecology.

56 Forest Management The appropriate management of Eastern Ontario's forests is much more extensive an issue than the simple planting of trees. Instead, the evaluation of forest management in Eastern Ontario must be placed within the context of the unique situation of the forest and forest eco-systems in Eastern Ontario. The data presented earlier indicates that the forest is expanding in Eastern Ontario due to artificial means. However, the key issue addressed in this evaluation is whether the activities of the Model Forest are making a difference. And, if so, how can these activities be improved and enhanced? To address this, we begin with the larger question of whether the public believes the forests of eastern Ontario are being well managed.

What does the public think (residents and customers) about how the forests of Eastern Ontario are being managed?

Our surveys indicate that people in Eastern Ontario who have some knowledge about the environment have a greater level of concern about whether the forests of Eastern Ontario are being well managed. On the other hand, Table 12 indicates that most residents of eastern Ontario have a higher level of agreement with the statement that 'forests are being preserved for future generations', 'forests are being managed for the production of wood products' and 'the forests of Eastern Ontario are providing a valuable source of education for our youth'.

For all members of the public, there is a higher level of agreement with the statement, 'Eastern Ontario forests provide a source of education (41%); and are managed to allow the production of wood products (41%)'. Another interesting observation is that there is relatively high agreement customers that the forests are being managed as a place to hunt and fish (46%).

Has the number, extent and investment in forest management interventions, eg. planting, thinning, regeneration increased?

No data is kept by the Model Forest on the number and species of trees planted on an annual basis in Eastern Ontario, -- although, tree planting is carried out by a number of Model Forest partners such as: the Vegetation Management Alternatives Project; Ontario Nut Growers; Domtar; Mohawks of Akwasasne; Urban Forestry project; Windbreaks project. And, OMNR and some of the Conservation Authorities keep such data.

Overall, the survey results and results of interviews indicates that progress has been made. For example, the resident survey indicated that, of people who have trees on their property and produce products from their land, 85 percent said they considered the impact on the environment when making a decision. Of the urban residents and small rural property owners with few trees or bushes, (n=315), only 39% considered impacts on the natural environment.

Of those people who had up to 5 acres of trees (n=38) 60% considered impacts on the natural environment in their decision making. Of those landowners who had over 5 acres of trees on their property (n=67), 84% considered the impacts on the natural environment when making decisions about their trees. This indicates that major forestry land owners are sensitive to forest management requirements related to the natural environment. It also indicates that awareness of sustainable forest management practices can be improved for smaller landowners and urban residents.

Overall, more progress is seen to be required in this area. In addition to the overarching

57 recommendation of the National Model Forest Evaluation that more projects are required on the ground, Table 10, indicates that more work is required on the ground.

The EOMF has also been involved with the Algonquin community. Interaction with native communities has introduced many model forest members to traditional knowledge regarding the forest.

Have new and innovative management tools been adopted? Have new Sustainable Forestry practices been introduced and adapted? Have IRM approaches been accepted by landowners?

Five years is a short time period from which to assess forest sustainability. The Model Forest has initiated a relatively high number of innovative management projects over this time period. For example, the pitch pine project is a good example of preserving genetic stock. The butternut conservation project is a good example of how to approach the butternut canker problem that has become a serious threat to the survival of the butternut across its range in North America. The Recycled Soil Amendment has had good results. However, the need exists for criteria and indicators of forest sustainability.

On the other hand, most of the survey results and Federal Model Forest evaluation noted that the Model Forests need to make a difference on the ground. As stated earlier, a major area where additional activity is required is in IRM. The rate of landowner learning about the forest and scientific results from project leaders needs further consideration. To support this, landowners, small forest operators, urban planners and others need to have input into the definition of forest science projects. In this way EOMF can ensure that science projects produce tools and information that people can directly utilize.

Have places of natural significance been established to protect unique ecosystems?

Protection of wetlands and ecosystems is an important priority for the people of Eastern Ontario.

Our evaluation indicates that research on the protection of unique ecosystems is well underway as supported by the Model Forest. For example, the EOMF's Ecological Reserves Project is reviewing Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest with the aim of creating management plans. A number of important sites have tentatively been selected as Candidates for Ecological Reserve Status. Over the next five years, however, changes to the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act (particularly the elimination of the Wetlands Policy Statements

58 under the Planning Act) may place considerable stress on the ability of the Model Forest to achieve this objective.

Two other areas of success involve natural areas preservation. Through support of the EOMF, the MCA is active in bringing several islands in the St. Lawrence River back to their natural condition before they were inhabited. And, native youth have been working with elders to understand the traditional names of various species thereby carrying on the Mohawk tradition.

Have economic benefits from forest based activities increased? And, have long term plans to increase economic benefits from forest based activities been formulated?

It is difficult to evaluate whether the Model Forest is having a strong positive input to the economy of Eastern Ontario because, five years is not long enough to see the overall impacts of current activities. One thing is certain, there are many forest related products coming out of Eastern Ontario. Our surveys indicated that Eastern Ontario residents and businesses are producing: maple syrup, firewood, sawlogs, lumber, pulp, tours, pole wood, mushrooms, cedar oil, fence posts, etc. Respondents are looking for the following help from the EOMF: ....get consumers to buy managed forest products ....promote tree production on lands that are poor for cash crops and grazing ....promote private plantings ....mill smaller sawlogs ....supply places where mature plantations can be marketed To further examine the performance of the Model Forest in this area we considered the progress of several economic development oriented projects and the level of involvement and awareness of landowners and secondary wood producers and processors.

Direct benefits have occurred through hiring and jobs created by the Model Forest spending. In addition to EOMF staff, the Mohawks of Akwesasne have created a number of forest jobs for aboriginal youth. There are a number of areas where the Model Forest has indirectly provided economic benefits from forest activities. For example, Domtar's forest woodshed extends into New York State -- meaning, the company is faced with demands for forestry sustainability on both sides of the border. New York State stakeholders, landowners and environmental organizations are no less sanguine about proper environmental management than Canadians.

And, Domtar must perform.

An important advantage that Domtar has received through their involvement in the Model Forest is a strong sense of multi-stakeholder public consultation and decision making. Domtar has used and adapted Eastern Ontario Model Forest techniques in their work in New York State with the Adirondak Forest. This has stimulated efforts by Domtar to seek public consultation and liaison.

As a result, they have won a major land stewardship award.

Several projects have also indirectly fostered economic development. For example, the Wood Centre Project evaluates the viability of setting up a Wood Centre in Prescott, including possible benefits to Eastern Ontario. The Maple Syrup Industry project encourages sugar bush owners to adopt the concept of a "Seal of Quality" under the premise that a high quality product will produce better returns. We find it contrary to the practice of environmental sustainability that one of the strongest economic development objectives identified by rural landowners was the development of housing lots on their property27. On the other hand, we have observed that in the

59 1990s, making a profit and developing the economy is not inconsistent with environmental sustainability.

No data kept by the Model Forest on changes in income from forest related activities and jobs.

Given the importance of jobs and economic development to the people of eastern Ontario we would recommend that partnerships and projects supporting economic development be seen as essential to wise forest management. For example, the opinions voiced on the customer surveys reflected expanding forest and mill and secondary wood product industry in Eastern Ontario.

While producers are relatively satisfied that fibre and sawboards are in abundance, many secondary wood producers, through the survey responses, have asked for greater assistance from the Model Forest in marketing their products.

Forest Values The 'values' questions are considered essential for all Model Forest activities.

Several additional areas stand out as successes in forest management. One important area is the ability of the Model Forest to effectively address issues related to forest values, such as preserving songbird habitat and construction of trail systems to allow access to forest areas. The MCA projects provide good example of where sustainability of the forest for all its values is addressed.

MCA have been loosing both their sweet grass and basket and crafts tradition due to the loss of forest traditions - the EOMF has helped to focus more attention on the problem. Other notable projects include: Cornwall Island Trails, efforts supported by the Model Forest to reinforce the tradition of sweet grass harvesting and Black Ash preservation.

Forest Science One important objective of the EOMF is to provide strong support for Science Projects. To a large extent the EOMF has been successful in achieving this goal. For example, the formation of the Forest Science Committee is among the highlight accomplishments over the first five years.

However, over the next five years we would recommend: more involvement of CFS forest science people; a better linkage of scientific projects other projects; more scientific support for MCA activities; greater external delivery of science findings as indicated by citations in scientific journals and technical information requests from outside of the EOMF and the Model Forest Network.

60

Bluebird Acres, located just south of Westport, is a private lands showcase.

Many model forest tour groups have taken advantage of the learning opportunities available at this site.

PROJECT REVIEW In general, our evaluation focused more on the overall performance of the Model Forest and strategic recommendations for the Model Forest than the specific performance of one project.

We are aware that the Model Forest Board has a process in place for insuring projects are linked to goal areas and for addressing performance problems should they arise. Although we have identified a few areas of concern, there were no instances where we felt that a project was inconsistent with CFS goals for the Model Forest in relation to the CFS agreement. In fact, in many areas, the project has accomplished more than what it set out to do.

Our review has focused more on Scientific Projects that are currently underway. To evaluate each project, Brian Callaghan, R.P.F.: reviewed the objectives of the project; considered how it intended to achieve it's goals; and, provided succinct comments regarding its performance. In a few instances we have provided more extensive comments.

Forestry & Scientific Component The Eastern Ontario Model Forest has an extensive program designed to foster “sustainable forestry� and improve the management of forests in the five counties which make up the forest.

In general, from what has been reviewed, most projects are well focused and linked to other projects within the EOMF and initiatives underway by other agencies. Projects are grouped into 5 goal areas: 1 IRM, 2 Sustainable Forest Practices, 3 Public Education & Information, 4 Research and Development, and 5 Innovation and Evaluation.

One overview observation we made is that, the projects conducted in the Eastern Ontario Model Forest since 1993 have changed in focus. While many of the projects initiated in 1993 have continued, the focus of projects has moved from specific areas of interest to broad, encompassing topics.

61 Biodiversity, maintaining wildlife habitat, and sustainability have become the focus of many recent projects. In addition, studies of management evaluation and community involvement have increased. Table 5, occurring earlier in the evaluation report illustrates this change in focus and the duration of each of the projects. The Chart below, presents the level of funding allocated to each of the projects we considered.

Project #

Title

1.1a/93 1.1b/95

IRM Planning Woodlands Planning Framework Relative Density Guidelines Forestry Principles‌ Akwesasne Partnership Ecol. Woodlands restor.

Industrial Wood Prod Wood Biomass Comb.

Alternative Veg. Man. Hazard Land Rehab Songbird Pop. Mon. Forest Meadow Hab Wildlife Habitat Matrices BioD Monitoring South Grenville Wood Centre Code of Practice Genetic Heritage Nut Tree Culture Recycled Soil Amendment Maple Syrup Industry Forest Corridor Indicators Renfrew County Wild Mushrooms

1.2/93 1.4/94 1.5/94 2.1/93 2.2/93 2.3/94 2.4/93 2.5/93 2.10/93 2.11/93 2.13/94 2.15/96 3.15/93 3.25/96 4.1/93 4.2/93 4.4/93 4.6/93 4.7/96 4.8.96

$95-96

Req96-97

Budg 96/97

0.0 $37,722

0.0 $113,278

0.0 $75,000

$25,000 $25,000 $38,000 $28,500 $15,000 $12,000 $11,500 $10,000 $17,900 $4,275 $44,000

$25,000 $20,000 $33,957 $35,000 $17,800 $17,708 $22,050 $8,100 $17,400 $4,040 $69,100 $9,600 $13,900 $15,050 $10,000 $9,800 $33,000 $7,600 $15,000 $10,000

$15,000 $5,000 $28,816 $25,000 $6,000 $10,000 $8,000 $5,000 $16,000 $2,000 $50,000 $6,000 $1,500 $10,000 $5,000 $9,800 $28,000 $5,000 $15,000 $2,000

$12,000 $10,500 $12,000 $33,000 $7,000

As a second, overview sort of comment, the educational and communications projects are not the focus of this component of the evaluation. Even so, it is to be noted that they appear to be appropriate and should be given high marks. Sustainable forest management (whatever form it takes) must always involve the public, through education the understanding and acceptance of sustainable management and good forestry is increased.

PROJECT 1.1a/93:

Integrated Resource Management

This is a cornerstone project for the EOMF. And, we have already provided initial comments about the Moel Forest's success earlier. Planning is the key to both sustainable management and good forestry. It should have linkages to all other projects and a large number of provincial initiatives.

There are three major components to this project: 1.

Enhanced Forest Resource Inventory: Improvements, extensions and expansion of the traditional forest resources inventory for Lanark County and the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

62 2.

Decision Support Tools: This component was to develop tools for assisting decision makers.

3.

County Level Planning Framework: This framework will be developed and applied on the County Official Plan for Prescott and Russell Counties. More detail is provided under project 1.1b.

To date the bulk of the effort of this project has gone into the enhanced forest inventory which is proceeding well. The decision support component has not been progressing for lack of funds. The planning framework is being developed and applied. The two active components must be brought together at some level and applied in a coordinated fashion throughout the EOMF. Planning is the key to both sustainable management and good forestry. Forest management planning should have linkages and be integrated to all other projects and a large number of provincial initiatives. In considering the situation of the Model Forest and the goals it is intended to achieve, by far the most important project is the IRM planning project. So far, the project has started enhancing the information basis for planning in the area. It has recently been refocused to actively promote/ carry-out woodland planning for the municipal plans for the United Counties of Prescott and Russell. There is no way to tell if this major expenditure area will show any returns.

In theory, the IRM project will produce a framework for woodland planning and associated information and technologies which can be incorporated into municipal plans. However, this project is taking a forest level approach to IRM planning, which is more suited for areas where one landowner controls the majority of the land. However, as the EOMF is dominated by small landowners it will be important that deliverables be directed toward supporting their decision making. Thus, continued focus is required for the IRM goals of the Model Forest.

PROJECT 1.1b/95:

Woodlands Planning Framework

The project will “develop an innovative approach to planning for woodlands while implementing Ontario’s new planning system.�

Project Objectives to increase awareness of woodlands UCP&R to ensure sustainability of woodland resources, through planning and management to develop an information system on the state of the forest resource to develop a method of mapping the forest in ecological units to adopt a balanced approach to planning which considers environmental, social and economic values to create a flexible planning framework, with broad application 1. to consult stakeholders 2. to explore IRM as a technique for planning woodlands 3. develop a woodlands strategy to set policy for the Official Plan to develop criteria and methods for determining significance of woodlands and natural areas 4. to produce an end product, including educational materials 5. to incorporate other related EOMF projects This project has an ambitious set of project objectives, which effectively identify the development of a forest planning framework and a plan for the area of Prescott and Russell Counties.

63 PROJECT #1.2/93

Relative Density Guidelines

Objective: ”to develop relative density factors for the forests of Eastern Ontario, based on SILVAH program.”

Project appears to be progressing well. In 95/96 they spent 25,000.

This project has evolved from adapting the SILVAH model from the northeastern United States through re-calibration to re-inventing SILVAH through a more extensive data collection scheme.

It would appear that the focus has changed. This will lengthen the time before implementation.

The final report must explain the change in direction and should be peer reviewed with the forest fraternity.

PROJECT #1.4

Forestry Principles, Practices & Standards

Objective: “to compile and summarize forestry principles and forestry practice standards applicable in Eastern Ontario”.

Though the final code has not been reviewed the early drafts appear to be well focused and complete. A review of the implementation should be carried out after the code has been in use for a number of years.

This code of practice should be linked to the OWSAO Private Land Forestry Code of Practice.

The two codes should compliment one another.

PROJECT #1.5/93

Akwesasne Partnership

This is an ambitious project with 5 components:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Black Ash Research Geographic Information System Partnerships and Decision-Making Shoreline Restoration Education

The focus is aboriginal, and includes traditional industries based on black ash. The GIS project is a good benefit to the MCA. Partnerships project requires specific data on activities and results.

The annual report covers all the bases but needs more substance.

PROJECT 2.1/93

Ecological Woodlands Restoration

Objective: “to try to direct the current and future forests of Eastern Ontario towards a more natural state. This natural state includes forests which have all components of a health and functioning ecosystem.”

Accomplishments: Forest History of Eastern Ontario Application of GIS for Woodlands Restoration A Restoration Strategy for Eastern Ontario - have

64 Project is undertaking detailed study of Darling Township. Good project. Top marks.

PROJECT #2.2/93

Industrial Wood Production

Objective: “to evaluate industrial wood practices and machinery for local woodlot conditions”.

Project has good focus for local land ownership make up and for encouraging small woodlot owners to manage them. Application of such technology can increase the participation rates if it proven to be cost effective. Project ties well to EOMF goals, specifically through application of new technologies which will increase production, reduce site damage etc.

Final report due this year. Good marks Ann. Rep. Undertook : field trials 1. plantation thinning 2. developed equipment guide (available?)

3. cost analysis and feasibility study - Stump Canter System

PROJECT #2.3/93

Wood Biomass Combustion

Objective: “ to promote the benefits of biomass combustion (wood burning) as an efficient and cost effective energy source” This project has good overall intentions. It lacks a research of forestry focus and has few specific ties to EOMF other than to reduce fossil fuel use and develop market for low grade wood and wood waste. A needs study may have assisted. Could foster thinning and stand improvement.

On the other hand, the project succeeded: in involving the farm community; helping to find an economical and environmentally friendly way to dispose of wood waste, such as sawdust; and, finding a better way to heat small workshops.

PROJECT #2.4/93

Alternative Vegetation Management

Objective: “to test various non-chemical weed control methods in nursery production and outfield plantings” and “to significantly reduce chemical use…”

This is a generic component to all sustainable forestry initiatives. It fits the public perception that chemicals are bad and that sustainable management principles include reducing the use of chemicals in forestry. As such it meets the goals of EOMF and has good linkages. This program also meshes well with OMNR’s VMAP project.

65

Maple syrup production, both historical and present day approaches are being examined in several model forest projects.

PROJECT #2.5/93 Objective:

Hazard Land Rehabilitation

“to stabilize a 7 acres land area near the town of Lemieux”

This project is being undertaken by the South Nation River Conservation Authority. We are unsure of whether project activities could be better conducted as a regular part of the CA’s mandate. Will the project be developing a project report which focuses on “how to” for small landowners.

PROJECT #2.10/93

Songbird Population Monitoring

Objective: “to assess the impact of forest management practices on forest son bird populations” This project has three studies: breeding success as related to habitats of the cerulean warbler songbird habitat of red pine plantations habitat requirements, inter-species interactions, and the breeding distribution of two songbirds.

The components appear to have good focus and scope. They are taking on discreet pieces of the subject. Reports and fact sheets to be prepared. Project has done study of specific sites and sampled with .04 ha plots. Very good write up. Methodology well explained preliminary results seem promising.

Good Project top marks.

PROJECT #2.11/93

Forest Meadow Habitat

Objectives: “to increase the abundance and density of wildlife in forested areas, by providing an improved forage bas on utility transmission corridors.” “to promote join ventures in resource stewardship” “to develop innovative management tools for unimproved forest “clearing’

66 Nice little project, small discreet good partnerships, good innovation.

PROJECT #2.13/93

Wildlife Habitat Matrices

Objective: "to develop habitat matrices for the EOMF" Habitat matrices are a developing filed in Ontario and as such it is encouraging and appropriate to see the EOMF participating. Over the past four years an "adapt and appropriate" philosophy has been used to pragmatically design, develop, and field test results.

The habitat matrices study was adapted from a similar study conducted in New England. The study was customized to fit the Ontario context. In addition, literature was examined to insure that the approach to developing the matrices was current.

The study began by identifying the different habitats in Eastern Ontario (eg. type of forest). For each of these habitats, an inventory was taken of the wildlife found. A field test of the matrices is currently being conducted within the Voyager Provincial Park to test the accuracy of the generated matrices.

The data will then be used in partnership with another group to develop a computer package.

This package will produce a list of the wildlife species associated to the inputed habitat. The project will be completed by the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.

PROJECT #2.14/ Sustainable Maple Industry Objective: “to test various cleaning methods and solutions” The project is designed to replace a system where maple syrup producers us Javex to clean the pipes. This, understandably, has an effect on the tree and the natural regeneration of the area of entry. While this project is important for Maple Syrup producers, the 'forestry focus' of this project could be expanded.

PROJECT #2.15/96

Biodiversity Monitoring

Objective: “support to existing work on biodiversity and ecological reserves” Biodiversity monitoring is another cornerstone project for sustainable forestry. This project is mixing the collection of forest diversity data with public education. The concept is excellent and the public awareness benefits far exceed the risk of getting poor data.

It will be important to tie this type of site level biodiversity with both forest and landscape diversity. Tying a project like this to the entire EOMF and other projects such as the IRM planning project is required.

67 PROJECT #2.16/96

Forest Product Marketing

Objective: “to develop a comprehensive current listing of prices for woodlot owners that can be easily obtained” The product of this project will be of use to land owners if it can be done effectively and may encourage more management in private woodlots. It will assist on the socio-economic side by helping produces get better prices and profits for their timber. Could be tied in to green labelling if prices are available in conjunction with certification. Very important project from perspective of 'customers' of the Model Forest.

PROJECT #3.15/93

South Grenville Wood Centre

Objective: “to establish a state of the art solid wood component manufacturing plant” This was one of the first projects supported by the Model Forest. A feasibility study completed and wood supply analysis is being developed. The project could be well positioned on the socioeconomic, forestry and jobs front. 95/96 Annual report appeared to lack positive support, possibly due to the level of reporting. This project could be a big winner if it succeeds.

PROJECT #3.25/96

Code of Practice

Project will synthesize results of 1.4 and 3.2 to develop a code of practice for private woodlands.

In the right direction.

PROJECT #4.1/93

Genetic Heritage

no objective provided. “supports sustainable forestry … through the generation of information and science needed to conserve biodiversity …”

Typical of all such initiatives within SF programs. They are carrying out a number of genetic conservation projects. The pitch pine and butternut projects are very good examples of saving locally rare species at the fringes of their natural territory

PROJECT #4.2/93

Nut Tree Culture

Objective: “to expand the population of nut trees in EOMF” An interesting non-timber product project. It appears to benefits landowners and especially the Ontario Nut Growers. Will this produce a public technical report on how best to develop or

68 culture nut trees. Fairly discreet project and might be better tied to other EOMF activities.

PROJECT #4.3/93

The Effect of Natural Fence rows on Microclimate

A completed project. Good project top marks.

PROJECT #4.4/93

Recycled Soil Amendment

Objective: “to develop a method for disposing of mill wastes by using them on plantations and reclamation sites” Seems like a good project. Have other approaches been assessed, have they looked at other trials etc.

PROJECT #4.6/93

Maple Syrup Industry

Objective: “to improve the maple industry, develop grading criteria for syrup and develop woodlot management techniques for syrup production” Good project, well focused incorporates research, awareness and history. Project will a benefit to the maple syrup producers.

PROJECT #4.7/96

Forest Corridor Indicators

Objectives: “to identify criteria and indicators for evaluating deciduous and temperate forested corridors that my be used in linking two regions: Topic is excellent and fits well with EOMF mandate. Results should be made available in a fact sheet for wide distribution.

69

Conservation of a diversity of “forest genes” is a key interest of the Model Forest and the Forest Gene Conservation Association. Project Leader, Cathy Nielson explains the effects of forest fragmentation on genetic diversity.

Project Review Conclusions Of the science and forestry related projects that were reviewed, all will contribute to the goals of the EOMF in some fashion. It will be important to ensure that the results of these projects is made widely accessible to the forest landowners and forestry practitioners of the region.

Tangible benefits from most of these projects will not be apparent until the theories, practices and techniques have been applied on the forests of the EOMF for a number of years.

The IRM projects must be re-united at some point in the future and if possible applied to the entire EOMF. A woodlot planning guideline would be a welcome and much needed component that could be added to this project. This could be tied to the Ontario Forestry Associations private woodlot planning program.

Projects which are collecting a great deal of data must be continually monitored to ensure that they are remaining focused on project objectives rather than getting caught in the data collection, analysis, more data collection, more analysis trap. This type of occurrence is common in forestry research. The research oriented projects should be subject to peer review. Where possible all projects should be encouraged to produce papers for refereed journals.

The current Project Coordinator role of Model Forest staff is important to be continued. The EOMF would also benefit from having a “Science Coordinator” to oversee all projects. This position would responsible for ensuring that projects are integrated, coordinated, and linked across the EOMF. The position would also be responsible for ensuring that science and forestry related projects undergo peer review, on a continual basis.

FUTURE CHALLENGES In considering recommendations for the future of the Model Forest, our evaluation looked carefully at some of the challenges on the horizon that will need to be addressed. Some of the more significant challenges include, continued urban growth and development, the demand for

70 standardization in terms of both forestry products and practices, and the erosion of the Mohawk traditions. Others include the continued public and municipal demand for information about forest sustainability -- particularly important in light of the downsizing and mission shifting thrust of organizations who have traditionally provided this information.

The Eastern Ontario Model Forest has also completed several studies28 that have assisted in understanding the pressures they will be facing over the next five years and that must be addressed as an important aspect of strategic planning. Among other pressures are the following: !

loss of technical people and forest resource people due to MNR downsizing, in contrast to the increasing public demand for information,

!

fiscal restraints and changes in service delivery role of CFS, OMNR, CA's and problems in funding, in contrast to the high desire for landowner information about sustainable forestry practices,

!

conflict in land-use between needs for housing vs. continued forest usage in the urban areas of the EOMF and the need for Integrated Resource Management strategies,

!

continued requirement for forestry research, and expectations for increased self-funding from the Model Forests,

!

increasing Global demand for forest products certification in relation to the products produced by Eastern Ontario workers,

!

the continued expectations for strong positive partnerships with First Nations in light of land claims, self-government, increasing recognition of the value of natural knowledge, importance of consensus decision approaches,

!

uncertain employment situation.

RECOMMENDATIONS Direction In light of these challenges, our evaluation considered how the effectiveness of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest Program can be improved for the future. While current goals continue to be important, the second five years must be different from the first. For example, "partnerships" will continue to be important as the glue that will hold the Model Forest together and as an important delivery mechanism for sustainable Forestry. The three major partners (Domtar, OMNR, MCA) must be at the table 5 years from now. And, efforts must be taken to ensure that the partnership continues to be strong. The EOMF must select programs and projects that show leadership. As one of the interview respondents stated: "[the Model Forest] ...must always be proactive not afraid to go out on a limb; must stand for something."

As with most activities, very little happens in a vacuum. Since 1992 the there have been several important evaluations and management studies of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest29. Each of these evaluations have provided recommendations for positive change to ensure that the Model Forest is relevant and current to the changing needs in Eastern Ontario. Some of the recommendations have already been acted upon, such as, new selection procedures for project selection. We have 'culled' the remaining recommendations appearing in earlier reports and we present the recommendations most consistent with our data and observations:

71 Partnerships, Networking, Communication ! ! ! !

new project partners should continue to be sought new and innovative education and outreach programs are needed for urban and rural consumers of forest functions new and innovative joint ventures are needed with universities, community colleges, agricultural colleges, Boards of Education and business/ industry an opportunity exists for EOMF to work with other organizations to provide forest owners with advice and guidance on good forest management practices

Management, Decision-Making, Policy

! ! ! !

new bridging mechanisms are needed with existing and evolving institutions that have had a historical role in forest management provide alternative delivery mechanisms for natural resource management products and services test, refine, and implement ideas and processes that result from non-government forestry practices be a place where directions provided in legislation and policy at the Federal and Provincial level can be demonstrated

Research ! ! ! ! ! !

complete an inventory of forests and forest cover define, for landowners, criteria and indicators to be used in determining that forests of the region are being managed sustainably and forest health can be monitored research the effects of fragmentation on the dynamics of both plant and wildlife species inventory forest products industries and products aid linkage of projects through Board activities greater involvement of academic institutions with the Forest Science Committee

Possible Additional Theme Areas Table 10 displays and ranks additional projects and theme areas suggested by survey respondents.

Some of the more frequently mentioned theme areas include: community values and marketing; marketing of the EOMF; plant trees, reforest, improve woodlots, restore ecosystems; provide landowner information to improve awareness about sustainable forestry and private forestry practices; public education and training; demonstration projects; develop primary and secondary markets for Eastern Ontario forest products (assist with integrating and coordinating markets); support hunter and harvester activity.

72

TABLE 12

What future programs and projects would you recommend for the future of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest?

Rank Order

Residents

Customers

1

Promote environment and public awareness

Plant trees/ woodlot improvement/ ecosystem/ reforestation/ restoration

2

Plant trees/ woodlot improvement/ ecosystem/ reforestation/ restoration

Public education/ training in schools, seminars, workshops, interpretative programs

3

Provide/ promote landowner information/ awareness on sustainable forestry and private forest management practices

Develop markets/ secondary markets for forest products/ integrated & coordinated markets/ pulp, firewood, sawlogs

4

Educate about urban development/ sprawl in a less damaging manner/ forest preservation/ IRM system/ coordinate urban & rural interests/ green corridors

Provide/ promote landowner information/ awareness on sustainable forestry and private forest management practices

5

Protect wetlands/ ecosystems/ endangered species

Demonstration projects

6

Provide Employment/ Economic development Opportunities

Educate about urban development/ sprawl in a less damaging manner/ forest preservation/ IRM system/ coordinate urban & rural interests/ green corridors

7

More parks and nature reserves

Salvage trees /provide seedlings

8

Promote more tourism/ tours

Encourage maple syrup producers

9

Demonstration projects

Selective cutting/ min. tree size cutting/ code of ethics/ logger certification

10

Promote Greater Mix of Species

Promote more tourism/ tours

73 TABLE 12 (cont.)

What future programs and projects would you recommend for the future of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest?

Rank Order

Members

Project Leaders

1

Develop markets/ secondary markets for forest products/ integrated & coordinated markets/ pulp, firewood, sawlogs

Demonstration projects

2

Public education/ training in schools, seminars, workshops, interpretative programs

Provide/ promote landowner information/ awareness on sustainable forestry and private forest management practices

3

Plant trees/ woodlot improvement/ ecosystem/ reforestation/ restoration

Publicize and Communication about EOMF

4

Demonstration Projects

Develop markets/ secondary markets for forest products/ integrated & coordinated markets/ pulp, firewood, sawlogs

5

Educate about urban development/ sprawl in a less damaging manner/ forest preservation/ IRM system/ coordinate urban & rural interests/ green corridors

Plant trees/ woodlot improvement/ ecosystem/ reforestation/ restoration

6

Encourage maple syrup producers

Educate about urban development/ sprawl in a less damaging manner/ forest preservation/ IRM system/ coordinate urban & rural interests/ green corridors

7

Salvage trees /provide seedlings

Selective cutting/ min. tree size cutting/ code of ethics/ logger certification

8

Provide/ promote landowner information/ awareness on sustainable forestry and private forest management practices

Protect wetlands/ ecosystems/ endangered species

9

Publicize and Communication about EOMF

Surveys, research and information base

10

Protect wetlands/ ecosystems/ endangered species

Economic and Property tax reform

The following additional themes were recommended through specific surveys and interviews:

Staff Interview (Hardy Stevenson SWOT Interviews) ! ! ! ! !

science manager position thrust toward international consulting full time communications person fundraiser with marketing skills better use of knowledge base available to staff, by Model Forest stakeholders

Resident, Customer, Member and Project Leader Surveys

74 HSAL surveys identified theme and project expectations for the next five years in two ways. First, we examined what is the current level of support for EOMF Principles and Goals? Second, we asked for recommendations about what future programs and projects are recommended for the future of the Model Forest?

In general, most people considered all of the current EOMF goals to be important. The residents of eastern Ontario have a stronger level of agreement with the principle/goals of: ! ! !

promoting projects that sustain the environment restore, sustain and care for forest resources retain and protect wetlands and ecosystems

Along with members and customers, they agree least with the goal of providing a forum for the resolution of natural resource management issues. Members of the public were less able to articulate their desired for specific projects. Instead, they cited needs that had to be addressed by the Model Forest and program-related ideas on how to fill those needs.

While there are exceptions, recommendations for future programs most frequently mentioned are those that provide more specific and immediate results: !

plant trees, reforest and improve woodlots, restore ecosystems,

!

provide landowner information to improve awareness about sustainable forestry and private forest management practices,

!

public education and training, workshops and interpretative programs,

!

demonstration projects,

!

develop primary and secondary markets for Eastern Ontario forest products, assist with integrating and coordinating markets for pulp, firewood sawlogs and other forest products.

Project Leader Survey A survey of Project Leaders conducted earlier this summer30 by the Board of Directors of the EOMF indicated that the following Theme Areas for the Next Five Years received the greatest attention: !

community values/ education (defined as: urban forestry, school programs, community forests, stewardship programs)

!

economics and marketing (defined as: new business opportunities, forest products marketing value added, ecotourism, nut-tree culture, other specialty forestry products such as forest mushrooms)

75 The Theme receiving the least support was Information Management and Transfer (defined as: municipal and forest planning, GIS, workshops, training, reports).

RECOMMENDATIONS After considering all of the theme areas and program recommendations, we have identified six major recommendations that we feel will assist the Model Forest over the next five years:

1.

Expand the focus of communications

Over the first five years of its existence, the Model Forest wisely chose to take a strategic approach to communications. This focus on internal communications allowed the development of a strong partner and member base during a time of organization building.

At the same time the Model Forest has successfully launched numerous external communication efforts including: press reports, newsletters, brochures, workshops, etc.

However, over the next five years, the need is apparent to expand communications efforts to more external stakeholders and members of the general public. Of particular importance will be the strengthening of communications with: landowners and members of the public in rural areas; urban members of the public; tourism and economic development stakeholders; and, the french-speaking communities of the Model Forest.

Communications should stress education and awareness important to the rebuilding of the forest and informing people of tangible examples of "forest sustainability on the ground".

There will also be a number of specific communications needs among certain groups, such as communication of forest life skills among Mohawks and other youth.

2.

Emphasize projects on the ground

The EOMF has already developed many excellent projects. However, both the federallevel Model Forest evaluation and the results of resident surveys have indicated a need to continue to promote projects that provide strong examples of "forest sustainability on the ground". For example, the resident survey results indicated that the people of Eastern Ontario are much more favourably inclined toward Eastern Ontario Model Forest goals that: 1) promote projects that sustain the environment; 2) restore, sustain and care for forest resources; 3) retain and protect wetlands.

Among projects recommended for the future, the top five were: 1) plant trees, reforest and improve wetlands and restore ecosystems; 2) provide landowner information to improve awareness about sustainable forestry and private forest management practices; 3) public education and training, workshops and interpretative programs; 4) demonstration projects; 5) develop primary and secondary markets for Eastern Ontario forest products, assist with integrating and coordinating markets for pulp, firewood, sawlogs and other forest products. The implementation of criteria and indicators for forest sustainability will assist in the identification of the extent to which forest sustainability is being achieved.

3.

Place greater emphasis on economics and economic partners

Jobs and economic development are important to the people of Eastern Ontario and should be no less so for the EOMF. Through sponsorships, partnerships and funding, the EOMF should take advantage of every opportunity to encourage job creation in Eastern Ontario.

The potential for job creation for youth is particularly important. Perhaps, more indirectly, current forestry workers, primary and secondary forest industries and ecotourism industries can use advice and assistance in maintaining standards, identifying export opportunities, being introduced to more efficient forest practices and developing new markets. The EOMF needs to develop a sense of the economic role it is able to play in Eastern Ontario.

4.

Enhance links between Science projects and forestry practices

The 'science' focus of the EOMF has been a major accomplishment over the first five years. To strengthen these successes it will be important to establish stronger links between 'scientific projects' and user needs. For example, science research projects about Black Ash have a clear client in mind when the research is commissioned. This is because the scientific research has an additional direct bearing on the maintenance of Mohawk culture. It is recommended that, where possible, funded science projects be sponsored by a defined stakeholder group (such as landowners, secondary wood producers or naturalist groups) and peer reviewed by other scientists (such as biologists, foresters, social scientists not affiliated with the Model Forest or Model Forest Network). This will enhance the value of science projects funded by the Eastern Ontario Model Forest.

5.

Continued strong focus on Integrated Resource Management

Many residents of Eastern Ontario are concerned that conflicts over land-uses -particularly forest related uses -- detract from their overall feelings that environmental sustainability is being achieved. The EOMF has already worked hard and achieved many successes toward developing partnerships and networks important to the achievement of Integrated Resource Management Strategies. However, there is considerably more work that is required in the future.

6.

Place continued emphasis on fund raising for future financial sustainability

Like every other organization in Canada that depends in whole or in part on government for funding, there is no guarantee that funding will be in place over the long term. Because of this, the EOMF should consider carefully, alternative means of raising sustained funds for Model Forest activities.

Many education projects for school-age children have been a part of the Model Forest’s program of activities. Here a youngster learns some tree planting tips from an expert.

NOTES 1.

Eastern Ontario Model Forest, Evaluation Framework. 1995, p. 9

2.

World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future.

Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1987 400 p.

3.

Canadian Standards Association, A Sustainable Forest Management System: Guidance Document - Z808-96, Environmental Management Systems, Draft - February, 1996, p. 3.

4.

Natural Resources Canada, The State of Canada's Forests, 1995-1996, Canadian Forest Service

5.

Province of Ontario, Ontario Community Forest Pilot Project - Lessons Learned 1991-1994, Community Forestry Group, January, 1995, p. 5

6.

Natural Resources Canada, Evaluation of the Canadian Model Forest Program, Prepared

by Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists Limited, Halifax, Nova Scotia, May, 1996. p.

1

7.

National Advisory Committee on the Evaluation of the Model Forest Program, Report of the National Advisory Committee on the Evaluation of the Model Forest Program, May, 1996

8.

Eastern Ontario Model Forest. Proposal, Prepared by Eastern Ontario Model Forest Proposal Committee, February, 1992

9.

Eastern Ontario Model Forest, Proposal, ibid; p. 1 0

10.

Eastern Ontario Model Forest, Proposal, ibid; p. 11

11.

Dr. C. Ross Silversides, a retired professor or Forestry living in the Maitland, Ont. area was the instrumental force behind the initial proposal for the Eastern Ontario Model Forest.

78 12.

Eastern Ontario Model Forest, Evaluation Framework, p. 2

13.

There is a private initiative underway to continue the Nursery.

14.

Report of the Ontario Forest Policy Panel to the Minister of Natural Resources, Diversity.. A Comprehensive Forest Policy Framework for Ontario, 1993

15.

An Act to revise the Ontario Planning and Development Act and Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, to amend the Planning Act and Municipal Act and to amend other statutes related to planning and municipal matters.

16.

Bill 20, An Act to promote economic growth and protect the environment by streamlining the land use planning and development system through amendments related to planning development, municipal and heritage matters.

17.

Ecologistics Limited, Charting Tomorrow Today: The Eastern Ontario Model Forest in a Changing Society, Waterloo, March, 1996, pages. 33 - 36

18.

Factor Research Group, Rural Landowner Survey: Final Report, Landowner Resource Centre, Manotick, Ontario, March, 1995, p. 19

19.

Factor Research Group, Rural Landowner Survey: Final Report,. ibid; p14

20.

Eastern Ontario Model Forest, Proposal, Information Report No. 6, p. 1, 2

21.

Eastern Ontario Model Forest, Proposal, Information Report No. 6, Appendix 5

22.

Hardy Stevenson conducted a program and strategic review, but did not conduct a financial audit. Annual Reports are available and an auditor is retained to review annual financial statements. The auditor is satisfied that the financial statements fairly present the financial statements of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest Group as of March 31, 1996.

23

Preparing for Self Sufficiency; Filling the Gaps in the Forest Science Program; EOMF in a Changing Society; Institutional Analysis of Pluralism; Rural Landowner Surveys

24.

Hardy Stevenson and Associates data files.

25.

Dr. Roger D. Needham and Mrs. Allison Grose, The Eastern Ontario Model Forest: an Institutional Analysis of Pluralism within this Experiment in Sustainable Forestry, Presentation to the Forest Science Committee Eastern Ontario Model Forest, June 1996

26.

Virc, S. Funding Contributions to the Eastern Ontario Model Forest, Kemptville, Dec. 1995

27.

Rural Landowner Survey, ibid; p. 28

28.

Ecologistics Limited, Charting Tomorrow Today: The Eastern Ontario Model Forest in a Changing Society, 1996

29.

Filling the Gaps: Review of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest Science Program, Carlson,

79 L. W., 1995; The Eastern Ontario Model Forest in a Changing Society, Ecologistics Ltd. and L-Den Services, 1995-6; The Eastern Ontario Model Forest: An Institutional Analysis of pluralism Within this Experiment in Sustainable Forestry, Needham, Dr. R., 1995-96; EOMF.. Preparing for Self Sufficiency, Larbi, P., May, 1996.

30.

Survey significant for discussion purposes only.

80