Document

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 theconcept and practice ofsustainable forestry for allits values in EasternOntario through thecooperative efforts of itsresidents 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 Frameworkidentified issues: Relevance; Management; Communications; Partnerships; ForestManagement.

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

'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.

"...a forest for sevengenerations."

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 in-

kind 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

sustainability efforts in

Eastern Ontario."

The Model Forest has funded, sponsored, encouraged dozens of projects that have

addressed initial environmental sustainability priorities. It has developed a

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

The Domtar/ Ministry ofNatural Resources (OMNR)and Mohawk Council ofAkwesasne partnership hasbeen particularly important.

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 federal-

level 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 eco-

tourism 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 Framework was prepared which, among other areas,1

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 improved techniques of sustainable forest management

C new trails established and interpretive sites

C scientific and research reports addressing problems that hinder the

achievement of sustainability

C demonstration projects of sustainable forest activities

C communications activities through workshops, publications, videos,

5

brochures and press activity.

C 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 Board Interview

June 14 Staff SWOT Interviews

July 23 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 ± 5% error factor. The cross-tabulations

were not tested for statistical significance and therefore differences within the cross-

tabulation 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

Map 1

the surveys were administered.

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: 4% under 25 years old; 18% 25-34; 26% 35-44; 25% 45-54;

11% 55-64; 14% over 65.

! Gender: Male = 45.7%; Female = 50.5%

! Education: 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 over-

represented 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 Response Location

Administered

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 Commission (Our Common Future, 1987), the sustainability2

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 levels .3

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 landowners .4

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 area . Agreement Forests have been followed by5

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 Program . 6

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 recommendations . 7

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 allinterested stakeholders in their area, including aboriginal people, are adequatelyrepresented

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

! improved communications, both externally and between model forests, needs to bethe 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 thesecond 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 goalsand objectives of proposed second phase activities

! they should focus less on research and much more on applied work and technologytransfer.

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 speciesas following it's own way oflife and having the right toexist. - 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.

The EOMF is working tosafeguard the LoggerheadShrike through theprotection of habitat.

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.

Forest Health

Another unique characteristic is that according to Ontario Ministry of Natural

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

Mohawks fear the loss of

these traditions. The EOMF

is providing support for this

research.

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 proposal developed by the Eastern Ontario Proposal Committee in8

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 1966 . However, due to the increased availability of abandoned or poor9

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 reductions . 10

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 Silversides , a prominent forest scientist, provided the visionary leadership to get the11

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

The vision of The Eastern Ontario Model Forestis: "To champion the concept and practice ofsustainable forestry for all its values in EasternOntario through the co-operative efforts of itsresidents and supporters".

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.

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 to participate in the National Model Forest Network;ii to exchange information and ideas, create public awareness and

education, among interested individuals and organizations in thecommunity;

iii to provide an opportunity for natural resource management consultationfrom all stakeholders;

iv to support restoration, sustainability and stewardship of all forestresources;

v to promote the development and use of the best technology, practices andmanagement in new and existing programs;

vi to encourage viable forest resource-based industries and strong localeconomies that are compatible with the forest's biological capacity;

vii to share information and experience with communities beyond easternOntario;

viii to retain and protect viable ecosystems, places of natural significanceand wetlands, wildlands and wilderness areas important to the region;and

ix 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

environment . However, a lot can change over five years that can influence whether or12

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 loss of the 50 year old GH Ferguson Forest Station in Kemptville and the13

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 culture .14

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) . A second time to streamline and improve the efficiency15

of the land development process (Bill 76 - 2nd Reading) .16

The EOMF has many workshops such as this field dayon Ecological Woodlands Restoration. This two dayworkshop held in 1995 examined various restorationtechniques.

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 EOMF . 18

24

Table 1: Please tell us whether your level of knowledgeabout the environment has changed over the past five (5)years?

I am more knowledgeable 50.2%I am somewhat more knowledgeable 31.3%I have about the same level of knowledge 11.9%I have become less knowledgeable .5%I don't know/ am unsure 3.0%No answer 3.2%

Table 1: Resident Survey Results (n=438), Change in Levelof Knowledge

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

A great deal 23.3%Quite a bit 23.5%Somewhat 30.1%Not at all 17.1%No answer 5.9%

Table 2: Residential Survey, Thinking about EnvironmentImpact

Hardy Stevenson and

Associates Limited

(HSAL) surveys of Eastern

Ontario residents indicate

that 50 percent of Eastern

Ontario residents felt that

they are more

knowledgable about the

environment than they

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].

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 sales .19

Project Leader Dave Oliver explains theRelative Density Project to interested EOMFmembers 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

ent managem economie

ent s

Projec Impor

t tant

Leade

rs2

50% 72% 37% 50% 60% 47% 56% 58%

Not

Impor

tant

0% 0% 0% 1% 14% 0% 0% 0%

Mem Impor

bers tant

and

Partn

ers

54% 60% 41% 34% 40% 46% 48% 46%

Not

Impor

tant

0% 9% 23% 31% 38% 26% 23% 36%

Custo Impor

mers tant61% 59% 53% 43% 61% 58% 58% 54%

Not

Impor

tant

1% 0% 1% 1% 5% 1% 0% 1%

Resid Impor

ents tant61% 49% 45% 36% 59% 49% 43% 61%

Not

Impor

tant

1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2%

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 characteristics to 102 members20

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 94 March 95 96

or EVENT

March 93-March March 94- March 95- March

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 Apr94 Apr95 Apr96

Mar94 Mar95 Mar96 Mar97

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

31


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


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 1995-1996 Communications Plan

C “Filling the Gaps” -study on gaps in the EOMF science program

C Summary of eastern Ontario Wood Supply by County, Township and Forest Stratum Conifer

Plantation Improvement.

C The Role of Photo Interpretation in Providing Forest Resource Information for IRM

C Birch Bark and it uses within the community of the Algonquins of Golden Lake First Nations

C White Spruce Genecology Study progress report 1995

C A Mobile at-the-stump Canter System: A Cost Analysis and Feasibility Study of the Concept

C Hardwood Thinning Trials With a Farm Tractor Skidding Winch and Grapple Loader Trailer.

C Equipment Guide for Wood Extraction

C Review on the Fianl Reoport on Relative Density Guidelines for Eastern Ontario Hardwood

Stands

C Eastern Ontario Model Forest Code of Practice (draft)

C Draft: Breeding Behaviour and Reproductive Success of Cerulean Warblers (Dendroica cerulea)

in Southeastern Ontario.

C Forest Meadow Habitat progress report 1995

C Progress Report: Biodiversity study at Voyageur Provincial Park (en français)

C Progress Report: The preliminary draft version of Habitat Suitability matrices for Wildlife in the

Eastern Ontario Model Forest area.

C Saving the spice of life; EOMF and Forest Gene Conservation

C Distribution and abundance of Pitch Pine in Eastern Ontario.

C Windbreak Establishment and Maintenance, Research and Demonstration

C Summary Report n Rational for and Status of Paper Mill Sludge Utilization at Domtar Specialty

Fine Paper, Cornwall Mill.

C Land Application Trial of Cornwal paper Mill Clarifier Sludge

C Land Application Trial Primary Clarifier Fibre Osnabruck Township 1995 Progress Report.

C Forestry Application Equipment Trial with RUR 55 Manure/Lime Spreader

C 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: Partnership Building for Sustainable Development of Eastern Ontario Model Forests

November 1995: Presentation to the Conservation of Northern Forests Conference

January 1996: 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 Eastern Ontario Model Forest Summary of Approved Projects

Ë Come Nuzzle Nature!: A Directory of Outdoor Education Centres and Trails in Eastern Ontario

Ë Managing and Marketing of Red Pine Plantations

Ë Information Report No. 1 - A Forest History of Eastern Ontario

Ë Information Report No. 2 - Feasibility Study of a Proposed Wood Products Industrial Complex

in South Grenville

Ë Information Report No. 3 - Development of a Strategy for Woodlands Restoration in Eastern

Ontario

Ë Information Report No. 4 - Proceedings of the Wood Chip Combustion Workshop Ontario

Ë Information Report No. 5 - Bandit 1400 Chipper Trial for Row Removal in Softwood

Plantations

Ë Information Report No. 6 - Eastern Ontario Model Forest Proposal

Ë Information Report No. 7 - Woodchip Combustion in Eastern Canada

Ë Information Report No. 8 - The Application of GIS for the Interpretation of Historical Land

Survey

Ë Information Report No. 9 - Forest structure in Eastern North America

Ë Information Report No. 10 - Continuing Education for Resource Managers

Ë Information Report No. 11 - A Survey of Growth and Yield Methodologies

Ë Information Report No. 12 - Hardwood Crop Planning, Relative Density Guidelines for Eastern

Ontario Hardwood Stand

Ë Information Report No. 13 - Ecological Properties for the Evaluation of Eastern Ontario Forest

Ecosystems

Ë Information Report No. 14 - A Case Study in Planning With Forest Level Management Simulation

Models for Hardwood and Mixed Wood

Ë Information Report No. 15 - Continuing Education for Resource Managers

Ë Information Report No. 20 - Literature Review of Butternut and the Butternut Canker

Ë "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 beingmade...however, it istoo early to evaluateultimate 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 ...arein 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

supporting this Goal include: environmental education through the Landon Bay

Centre #3.4; Public Information and Education (PIE) #3.1; McKinnon Interpre-

tative Centre #3.14 - of note are the various other education initiatives, workshops

and seminars.

this is the goal where therehas been the most progress

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 to-ward 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 hastaken the development ofmanagement 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 restoration .21

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 8 4 3

Publication

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 Residents of Eastern Customers of

Eastern Ontario are being... Ontario EOMF

Strongly Disagree/ Strongly Disagree/

Agree/ Strongly Agree/ Strongly

Agree Disagree Agree Disagree

Preserved for Future Generations 40% 20% 28% 35%

Preserved for my sense of health and 34% 25% 19% 31%

well being

Promoted to bring tourism to 34% 25% 30% 34%

Eastern Ontario

Managed to allow the production of 41% 17% 41% 16%

wood products

Meeting the need to support plants, 39% 22% 28% 30%

wildlife and eco-systems

Providing a place to hunt and fish 33% 21% 46% 11%

Managed in a way that all interests 26% 27% 23% 33%

work cooperatively

Providing a valuable source of 41% 21% 26% 24%

education for our youth

Managed in such a way that 22% 32% 18% 33%

conflicts over land-use are avoided

Managed to preserve forest related 27% 26% 25% 32%

jobs for Eastern Ontario workers

Managed through partnerships of 23% 25% 18% 31%

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 managed . And, all of the indicators of a well22

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 studies for the purpose of23

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

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 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'.

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

Table 7: Pamphlet Distribution Number

You and the Eastern Ontario Model Forest 10,800Walk This Way (1995) 7,850Walk This Way (1995) 3,300Partners at Work 6,000Come Nuzzel Nature (1993 - present) 1,000Eastern Ontario Forest Group Constitution and By-Laws

Total 28,950

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

EOMF has also been

active in external

communications.

EOMF plaques and

logos dot the l

landscape, showing

the location of EOMF

members or projects.

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 requests .24

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: EOMF Media Source Number

Videos 4TV Interviews 3Radio Interviews 6Newspaper Articles 122Published Reports 17Pamphlets 5

Total 157

Extension notes are also distributed tolandowners.

Table 8 indicates that the Model Forest has had some success in attracting

media attention.

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 theenvironment?

Television Friends and Newspaper MNR Min. CFS Nursery Landowner Other

Radio Neighbours and Agricult. and Resource

Publication Food, Rural Centre

s Areas

Project Question not asked

Leaders

Members Question not asked

and

Partners

Customers 43% 20% 72% 63% 32% 20% 5% 19% 16%

Residents 30% 39% 34% 15% 7% 3% 30% 1% 7%

Other: Customers

- 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

Table 10: Effectiveness of Member Communications

Do you receive Forestry Forum?

Yes 95.1% (157)No 3.6% (6)

Are you satisfied with how the EOMF iscommunicating with you?

Yes 81.4% (136)No 12.1% (20)

Has the EOMF helped you to cooperate or work inpartnership with other individuals, groups , agenciesor organizations?

Yes 45.6% (74)No 43.8% (71)

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

Agree 71.0% (118)Disagree 16.3% (27)

The EOMF Board of Directors is open to hearing myviews?

Agree 54.9% (94)Disagree 8.1% (14)

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.

Communications Evaluation

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.

However, we have also

concluded that the following

issues that need to be addressed

by the Model Forest.

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

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 ModelForest 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

Table 11: Member and Partner Characteristics

What benefits do you receive from the EOMF?

43% (79) information, in general14% (25) other groups/ networking11% (20) update on forestry issues11% (20) strategies for forest management 6% (11) voice in protecting environment

Why did you decide to not renew yourmembership in the EOMF?

7 Other Interests4 Moved Elsewhere4 Unable to Attend Workshops15 Other Reason142 Not applicable

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.

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 Needham . Needham concluded that there may be a greater representation of partners25

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 funds .26

The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne’s environmentdepartment in cooperation with the EOMF, is conductinginventories of spiritually important plants on reservationlands.

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 wood-biomass combustion for farm buildingcomplexes may be a viable alternative to fossilfuels. This would also derive some economicbenefit 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, amongother reasons, it allows a sharing of information, coordination of projects and learning ofapproaches being used by other Model Forests.

There is ample evidence thatthe staff and partners areinvolved in the NationalModel Forest Network. Forexample, the Model Foresthas hosted a tour by otherModel Forest representatives,has participated in a PublicParticipation workshop andhas participated in otherModel Forest topicalmeetings.

We have no concerns in this area.

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

56

Forest Management

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

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

Our surveys indicate that people in Eastern Ontario who have some knowledge about theenvironment have a greater level of concern about whether the forests of Eastern Ontario arebeing well managed. On the other hand, Table 12 indicates that most residents of easternOntario have a higher level of agreement with the statement that 'forests are being preserved forfuture generations', 'forests are being managed for the production of wood products' and 'theforests 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, 'EasternOntario forests provide a source of education (41%); and are managed to allow the productionof wood products (41%)'. Another interesting observation is that there is relatively highagreement 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 annualbasis in Eastern Ontario, -- although, tree planting is carried out by a number of Model Forestpartners such as: the Vegetation Management Alternatives Project; Ontario Nut Growers; Domtar; Mohawks of Akwasasne; Urban Forestry project; Windbreaks project. And, OMNRand some of the Conservation Authorities keep such data.

Overall, the survey results and results of interviews indicates that progress has been made. Forexample, the resident survey indicated that, of people who have trees on their property andproduce products from their land, 85 percent said they considered the impact on the environmentwhen making a decision. Of the urban residents and small rural property owners with few treesor 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 naturalenvironment in their decision making. Of those landowners who had over 5 acres of trees ontheir property (n=67), 84% considered the impacts on the natural environment when makingdecisions about their trees. This indicates that major forestry land owners are sensitive to forestmanagement requirements related to the natural environment. It also indicates that awareness ofsustainable forest management practices can be improved for smaller landowners and urbanresidents.

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 theground, Table 10, indicates that more work is required on the ground.

The EOMF has also been involved with the Algonquincommunity. Interaction with native communities hasintroduced many model forest members to traditionalknowledge regarding the forest.

Have new and innovative management tools been adopted? Have new Sustainable Forestrypractices been introduced and adapted? Have IRM approaches been accepted bylandowners?

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

On the other hand, most of the survey results and Federal Model Forest evaluation noted that theModel Forests need to make a difference on the ground. As stated earlier, a major area whereadditional activity is required is in IRM. The rate of landowner learning about the forest andscientific 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 forestscience projects. In this way EOMF can ensure that science projects produce tools andinformation 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 assupported by the Model Forest. For example, the EOMF's Ecological Reserves Project isreviewing Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest with the aim of creatingmanagement plans. A number of important sites have tentatively been selected as Candidates forEcological Reserve Status. Over the next five years, however, changes to the Planning Act andEnvironmental 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 toachieve 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 naturalcondition before they were inhabited. And, native youth have been working with elders tounderstand the traditional names of various species thereby carrying on the Mohawk tradition.

Have economic benefits from forest based activities increased? And, have long term plansto 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 theeconomy of Eastern Ontario because, five years is not long enough to see the overall impacts ofcurrent activities. One thing is certain, there are many forest related products coming out ofEastern Ontario. Our surveys indicated that Eastern Ontario residents and businesses areproducing: maple syrup, firewood, sawlogs, lumber, pulp, tours, pole wood, mushrooms, cedaroil, 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 progressof several economic development oriented projects and the level of involvement and awareness oflandowners and secondary wood producers and processors.

Direct benefits have occurred through hiring and jobs created by the Model Forest spending. Inaddition to EOMF staff, the Mohawks of Akwesasne have created a number of forest jobs foraboriginal youth. There are a number of areas where the Model Forest has indirectly providedeconomic benefits from forest activities. For example, Domtar's forest woodshed extends intoNew York State -- meaning, the company is faced with demands for forestry sustainability onboth sides of the border. New York State stakeholders, landowners and environmentalorganizations 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 Forestis a strong sense of multi-stakeholder public consultation and decision making. Domtar has usedand adapted Eastern Ontario Model Forest techniques in their work in New York State with theAdirondak 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 WoodCentre Project evaluates the viability of setting up a Wood Centre in Prescott, including possiblebenefits to Eastern Ontario. The Maple Syrup Industry project encourages sugar bush owners toadopt the concept of a "Seal of Quality" under the premise that a high quality product willproduce better returns. We find it contrary to the practice of environmental sustainability thatone of the strongest economic development objectives identified by rural landowners was thedevelopment of housing lots on their property . On the other hand, we have observed that in the27

59

1990s, making a profit and developing the economy is not inconsistent with environmentalsustainability.

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 wewould recommend that partnerships and projects supporting economic development be seen asessential to wise forest management. For example, the opinions voiced on the customer surveysreflected expanding forest and mill and secondary wood product industry in Eastern Ontario. While producers are relatively satisfied that fibre and sawboards are in abundance, manysecondary wood producers, through the survey responses, have asked for greater assistance fromthe 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 theability of the Model Forest to effectively address issues related to forest values, such as preservingsongbird habitat and construction of trail systems to allow access to forest areas. The MCAprojects 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 offorest traditions - the EOMF has helped to focus more attention on the problem. Other notableprojects include: Cornwall Island Trails, efforts supported by the Model Forest to reinforce thetradition 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 alarge extent the EOMF has been successful in achieving this goal. For example, the formation ofthe 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 forestscience people; a better linkage of scientific projects other projects; more scientific support forMCA activities; greater external delivery of science findings as indicated by citations inscientific journals and technical information requests from outside of the EOMF and the ModelForest 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 andstrategic 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 linkedto goal areas and for addressing performance problems should they arise. Although we haveidentified a few areas of concern, there were no instances where we felt that a project wasinconsistent with CFS goals for the Model Forest in relation to the CFS agreement. In fact, inmany 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 evaluateeach project, Brian Callaghan, R.P.F.: reviewed the objectives of the project; considered how itintended to achieve it's goals; and, provided succinct comments regarding its performance. In afew instances we have provided more extensive comments.

Forestry & Scientific Component

The Eastern Ontario Model Forest has an extensive program designed to foster “sustainableforestry” 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 otherprojects within the EOMF and initiatives underway by other agencies. Projects are grouped into5 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 ModelForest since 1993 have changed in focus. While many of the projects initiated in 1993 havecontinued, the focus of projects has moved from specific areas of interest to broad, encompassingtopics.

61

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

Project # Title $95-96 Req96-97 Budg 96/97

1.1a/93 IRM Planning 0.0 0.0 0.01.1b/95 Woodlands Planning $37,722 $113,278 $75,000

Framework1.2/93 Relative Density Guidelines $25,000 $25,000 $15,0001.4/94 Forestry Principles… $25,000 $20,000 $5,0001.5/94 Akwesasne Partnership $38,000 $33,957 $28,8162.1/93 Ecol. Woodlands restor. $28,500 $35,000 $25,0002.2/93 Industrial Wood Prod $15,000 $17,800 $6,0002.3/94 Wood Biomass Comb. $12,000 $17,708 $10,0002.4/93 Alternative Veg. Man. $11,500 $22,050 $8,0002.5/93 Hazard Land Rehab $10,000 $8,100 $5,0002.10/93 Songbird Pop. Mon. $17,900 $17,400 $16,0002.11/93 Forest Meadow Hab $4,275 $4,040 $2,0002.13/94 Wildlife Habitat Matrices $44,000 $69,100 $50,0002.15/96 BioD Monitoring $9,600 $6,0003.15/93 South Grenville Wood Centre $12,000 $13,900 $1,5003.25/96 Code of Practice $15,050 $10,0004.1/93 Genetic Heritage $10,500 $10,000 $5,0004.2/93 Nut Tree Culture $12,000 $9,800 $9,8004.4/93 Recycled Soil Amendment $33,000 $33,000 $28,0004.6/93 Maple Syrup Industry $7,000 $7,600 $5,0004.7/96 Forest Corridor Indicators $15,000 $15,0004.8.96 Renfrew County Wild $10,000 $2,000

Mushrooms

As a second, overview sort of comment, the educational and communications projects are not thefocus of this component of the evaluation. Even so, it is to be noted that they appear to beappropriate and should be given high marks. Sustainable forest management (whatever form ittakes) must always involve the public, through education the understanding and acceptance ofsustainable 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 commentsabout the Moel Forest's success earlier. Planning is the key to both sustainable management andgood forestry. It should have linkages to all other projects and a large number of provincialinitiatives.

There are three major components to this project:

1. Enhanced Forest Resource Inventory: Improvements, extensions and expansion of thetraditional forest resources inventory for Lanark County and the United Counties ofStormont, 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 theCounty Official Plan for Prescott and Russell Counties. More detail is provided under project1.1b.

To date the bulk of the effort of this project has gone into the enhanced forest inventory which isproceeding well. The decision support component has not been progressing for lack of funds. Theplanning framework is being developed and applied. The two active components must be broughttogether at some level and applied in a coordinated fashion throughout the EOMF.

Planning is the key to both sustainable management and good forestry. Forest managementplanning should have linkages and be integrated to all other projects and a large number ofprovincial initiatives. In considering the situation of the Model Forest and the goals it isintended to achieve, by far the most important project is the IRM planning project. So far, theproject has started enhancing the information basis for planning in the area. It has recently beenrefocused to actively promote/ carry-out woodland planning for the municipal plans for theUnited Counties of Prescott and Russell. There is no way to tell if this major expenditure areawill show any returns.

In theory, the IRM project will produce a framework for woodland planning and associatedinformation and technologies which can be incorporated into municipal plans. However, thisproject is taking a forest level approach to IRM planning, which is more suited for areas whereone landowner controls the majority of the land. However, as the EOMF is dominated by smalllandowners it will be important that deliverables be directed toward supporting their decisionmaking. 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 implementingOntario’s new planning system.”

Project Objectives

to increase awareness of woodlands UCP&R to ensure sustainability of woodland resources, through planning and managementto develop an information system on the state of the forest resourceto develop a method of mapping the forest in ecological unitsto adopt a balanced approach to planning which considers environmental, social andeconomic valuesto create a flexible planning framework, with broad application1. to consult stakeholders2. to explore IRM as a technique for planning woodlands3. develop a woodlands strategy to set policy for the Official Plan

to develop criteria and methods for determining significance of woodlands andnatural areas

4. to produce an end product, including educational materials5. to incorporate other related EOMF projects

This project has an ambitious set of project objectives, which effectively identify the developmentof 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 onSILVAH 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 Statesthrough 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 forestfraternity.

PROJECT #1.4 Forestry Principles, Practices & Standards

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

Though the final code has not been reviewed the early drafts appear to be well focused andcomplete. A review of the implementation should be carried out after the code has been in use fora 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:

Black Ash Research1. Geographic Information System2. Partnerships and Decision-Making3. Shoreline Restoration4. Education

The focus is aboriginal, and includes traditional industries based on black ash. The GIS project isa 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 morenatural state. This natural state includes forests which have all components of ahealth 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 woodlotowners to manage them. Application of such technology can increase the participation rates if itproven to be cost effective. Project ties well to EOMF goals, specifically through application ofnew technologies which will increase production, reduce site damage etc.

Final report due this year. Good marks

Ann. Rep. Undertook :field trials1. plantation thinning2. 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 andcost effective energy source”

This project has good overall intentions. It lacks a research of forestry focus and has few specificties to EOMF other than to reduce fossil fuel use and develop market for low grade wood andwood 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 aneconomical 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 andoutfield plantings” and “to significantly reduce chemical use…”

This is a generic component to all sustainable forestry initiatives. It fits the public perception thatchemicals are bad and that sustainable management principles include reducing the use ofchemicals in forestry. As such it meets the goals of EOMF and has good linkages. This programalso 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 Hazard Land Rehabilitation

Objective: “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 areunsure of whether project activities could be better conducted as a regular part of the CA’smandate. Will the project be developing a project report which focuses on “how to” for smalllandowners.

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 warblersongbird habitat of red pine plantationshabitat 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 thesubject. Reports and fact sheets to be prepared. Project has done study of specific sites andsampled with .04 ha plots. Very good write up. Methodology well explained preliminary resultsseem 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 providingan 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 appropriateto see the EOMF participating. Over the past four years an "adapt and appropriate" philosophyhas been used to pragmatically design, develop, and field test results.

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

The study began by identifying the different habitats in Eastern Ontario (eg. type of forest). Foreach of these habitats, an inventory was taken of the wildlife found. A field test of the matrices iscurrently being conducted within the Voyager Provincial Park to test the accuracy of thegenerated 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. Theproject 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 thepipes. This, understandably, has an effect on the tree and the natural regeneration of the area ofentry. While this project is important for Maple Syrup producers, the 'forestry focus' of thisproject 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 ismixing the collection of forest diversity data with public education. The concept is excellent andthe 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 landscapediversity. Tying a project like this to the entire EOMF and other projects such as the IRMplanning 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 easilyobtained”

The product of this project will be of use to land owners if it can be done effectively and mayencourage more management in private woodlots. It will assist on the socio-economic side byhelping produces get better prices and profits for their timber. Could be tied in to green labellingif prices are available in conjunction with certification. Very important project from perspectiveof '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 completedand wood supply analysis is being developed. The project could be well positioned on the socio-economic, forestry and jobs front. 95/96 Annual report appeared to lack positive support, possiblydue 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 toconserve biodiversity …”

Typical of all such initiatives within SF programs. They are carrying out a number of geneticconservation projects. The pitch pine and butternut projects are very good examples of savinglocally 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 theOntario 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 reclamationsites”

Seems like a good project. Have other approaches been assessed, have they looked at other trialsetc.

PROJECT #4.6/93 Maple Syrup Industry

Objective:

“to improve the maple industry, develop grading criteria for syrup and develop woodlotmanagement techniques for syrup production”

Good project, well focused incorporates research, awareness and history. Project will a benefit tothe maple syrup producers.

PROJECT #4.7/96 Forest Corridor Indicators

Objectives:

“to identify criteria and indicators for evaluating deciduous and temperate forested corridors thatmy be used in linking two regions:

Topic is excellent and fits well with EOMF mandate. Results should be made available in a factsheet for wide distribution.

69

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

Project Review Conclusions

Of the science and forestry related projects that were reviewed, all will contribute to the goals ofthe EOMF in some fashion. It will be important to ensure that the results of these projects ismade 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 andtechniques 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 theentire EOMF. A woodlot planning guideline would be a welcome and much needed componentthat could be added to this project. This could be tied to the Ontario Forestry Associations privatewoodlot planning program.

Projects which are collecting a great deal of data must be continually monitored to ensure thatthey 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 forestryresearch. The research oriented projects should be subject to peer review. Where possible allprojects should be encouraged to produce papers for refereed journals.

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

FUTURE CHALLENGES

In considering recommendations for the future of the Model Forest, our evaluation lookedcarefully at some of the challenges on the horizon that will need to be addressed. Some of themore 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 Mohawktraditions. Others include the continued public and municipal demand for information aboutforest sustainability -- particularly important in light of the downsizing and mission shiftingthrust of organizations who have traditionally provided this information.

The Eastern Ontario Model Forest has also completed several studies that have assisted in28

understanding the pressures they will be facing over the next five years and that must beaddressed 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 contrastto the increasing public demand for information,

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

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

! continued requirement for forestry research, and expectations for increased self-fundingfrom the Model Forests,

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

! the continued expectations for strong positive partnerships with First Nations in light ofland 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 EasternOntario Model Forest Program can be improved for the future. While current goals continue tobe 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 animportant 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 thatthe partnership continues to be strong. The EOMF must select programs and projects that showleadership. As one of the interview respondents stated: "[the Model Forest] ...must always beproactive 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 severalimportant evaluations and management studies of the Eastern Ontario Model Forest . Each of29

these evaluations have provided recommendations for positive change to ensure that the ModelForest is relevant and current to the changing needs in Eastern Ontario. Some of therecommendations have already been acted upon, such as, new selection procedures for projectselection. We have 'culled' the remaining recommendations appearing in earlier reports and wepresent 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 havehad a historical role in forest management

! provide alternative delivery mechanisms for natural resource management products andservices

! test, refine, and implement ideas and processes that result from non-government forestrypractices

! be a place where directions provided in legislation and policy at the Federal andProvincial 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; providelandowner information to improve awareness about sustainable forestry and private forestrypractices; public education and training; demonstration projects; develop primary andsecondary markets for Eastern Ontario forest products (assist with integrating and coordinatingmarkets); 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 Residents CustomersOrder

1 Promote environment and public awareness Plant trees/ woodlot improvement/ ecosystem/reforestation/ restoration

2 Plant trees/ woodlot improvement/ Public education/ training in schools, seminars,ecosystem/ reforestation/ restoration workshops, interpretative programs

3 Provide/ promote landowner information/ Develop markets/ secondary markets for forestawareness on sustainable forestry and products/ integrated & coordinated markets/ pulp,private forest management practices firewood, sawlogs

4 Educate about urban development/ sprawl Provide/ promote landowner information/ awarenessin a less damaging manner/ forest on sustainable forestry and private forestpreservation/ IRM system/ coordinate management practicesurban & rural interests/ green corridors

5 Protect wetlands/ ecosystems/ endangered Demonstration projectsspecies

6 Provide Employment/ Economic Educate about urban development/ sprawl in a lessdevelopment Opportunities 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 ofethics/ 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 Members Project LeadersOrder

1 Develop markets/ secondary markets for forest Demonstration projectsproducts/ integrated & coordinated markets/ pulp,firewood, sawlogs

2 Public education/ training in schools, seminars, Provide/ promote landowner information/workshops, interpretative programs awareness on sustainable forestry and private

forest management practices

3 Plant trees/ woodlot improvement/ ecosystem/ Publicize and Communication about EOMFreforestation/ restoration

4 Demonstration Projects Develop markets/ secondary markets forforest products/ integrated & coordinatedmarkets/ pulp, firewood, sawlogs

5 Educate about urban development/ sprawl in a less Plant trees/ woodlot improvement/ ecosystem/damaging manner/ forest preservation/ IRM reforestation/ restorationsystem/ coordinate urban & rural interests/ greencorridors

6 Encourage maple syrup producers Educate about urban development/ sprawl ina less damaging manner/ forest preservation/IRM system/ coordinate urban & ruralinterests/ green corridors

7 Salvage trees /provide seedlings Selective cutting/ min. tree size cutting/ codeof ethics/ logger certification

8 Provide/ promote landowner information/ Protect wetlands/ ecosystems/ endangeredawareness on sustainable forestry and private speciesforest management practices

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 andinterviews:

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 twoways. First, we examined what is the current level of support for EOMF Principles andGoals? Second, we asked for recommendations about what future programs and projectsare recommended for the future of the Model Forest?

In general, most people considered all of the current EOMF goals to be important. Theresidents 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 forumfor the resolution of natural resource management issues. Members of the public were lessable to articulate their desired for specific projects. Instead, they cited needs that had to beaddressed by the Model Forest and program-related ideas on how to fill those needs.

While there are exceptions, recommendations for future programs most frequentlymentioned 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 forestryand private forest management practices,

! public education and training, workshops and interpretative programs,

! demonstration projects,

! develop primary and secondary markets for Eastern Ontario forest products, assistwith integrating and coordinating markets for pulp, firewood sawlogs and otherforest products.

Project Leader Survey

A survey of Project Leaders conducted earlier this summer by the Board of Directors of30

the EOMF indicated that the following Theme Areas for the Next Five Years received thegreatest attention:

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

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

75

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

RECOMMENDATIONS

After considering all of the theme areas and program recommendations, we have identifiedsix major recommendations that we feel will assist the Model Forest over the next fiveyears:

1. Expand the focus of communications

Over the first five years of its existence, the Model Forest wisely chose to take a strategicapproach to communications. This focus on internal communications allowed thedevelopment of a strong partner and member base during a time of organization building. At the same time the Model Forest has successfully launched numerous externalcommunication efforts including: press reports, newsletters, brochures, workshops, etc. However, over the next five years, the need is apparent to expand communications effortsto more external stakeholders and members of the general public. Of particularimportance will be the strengthening of communications with: landowners and members ofthe public in rural areas; urban members of the public; tourism and economicdevelopment stakeholders; and, the french-speaking communities of the Model Forest. Communications should stress education and awareness important to the rebuilding of theforest 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, suchas 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 federal-level Model Forest evaluation and the results of resident surveys have indicated a need tocontinue to promote projects that provide strong examples of "forest sustainability on theground". For example, the resident survey results indicated that the people of EasternOntario are much more favourably inclined toward Eastern Ontario Model Forest goalsthat: 1) promote projects that sustain the environment; 2) restore, sustain and care forforest resources; 3) retain and protect wetlands.

Among projects recommended for the future, the top five were: 1) plant trees, reforest andimprove wetlands and restore ecosystems; 2) provide landowner information to improveawareness about sustainable forestry and private forest management practices; 3) publiceducation and training, workshops and interpretative programs; 4) demonstration projects; 5) develop primary and secondary markets for Eastern Ontario forest products, assist withintegrating and coordinating markets for pulp, firewood, sawlogs and other forestproducts. The implementation of criteria and indicators for forest sustainability will assistin 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 shouldbe no less so for the EOMF. Through sponsorships, partnerships and funding, the EOMFshould take advantage of every opportunity to encourage job creation in Eastern Ontario. The potential for job creation for youth is particularly important. Perhaps, moreindirectly, current forestry workers, primary and secondary forest industries and eco-tourism industries can use advice and assistance in maintaining standards, identifyingexport opportunities, being introduced to more efficient forest practices and developingnew markets. The EOMF needs to develop a sense of the economic role it is able to playin 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 fiveyears. To strengthen these successes it will be important to establish stronger linksbetween 'scientific projects' and user needs. For example, science research projects aboutBlack Ash have a clear client in mind when the research is commissioned. This is becausethe scientific research has an additional direct bearing on the maintenance of Mohawkculture. It is recommended that, where possible, funded science projects be sponsored by a

defined stakeholder group (such as landowners, secondary wood producers or naturalistgroups) and peer reviewed by other scientists (such as biologists, foresters, social scientistsnot affiliated with the Model Forest or Model Forest Network). This will enhance thevalue 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 environmentalsustainability is being achieved. The EOMF has already worked hard and achieved manysuccesses toward developing partnerships and networks important to the achievement ofIntegrated Resource Management Strategies. However, there is considerably more workthat 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 governmentfor funding, there is no guarantee that funding will be in place over the long term. Becauseof this, the EOMF should consider carefully, alternative means of raising sustained fundsfor Model Forest activities.

Many education projects for school-age children have been a part of the Model Forest’s program ofactivities. 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 ForestService

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

8. Eastern Ontario Model Forest. Proposal, Prepared by Eastern Ontario Model ForestProposal 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 wasthe 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.. AComprehensive Forest Policy Framework for Ontario, 1993

15. An Act to revise the Ontario Planning and Development Act and Municipal Conflict ofInterest Act, to amend the Planning Act and Municipal Act and to amend other statutesrelated 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 ina Changing Society, Waterloo, March, 1996, pages. 33 - 36

18. Factor Research Group, Rural Landowner Survey: Final Report, Landowner ResourceCentre, 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 financialaudit. Annual Reports are available and an auditor is retained to review annual financialstatements. The auditor is satisfied that the financial statements fairly present the financialstatements 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 ina 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: anInstitutional 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.

Document

Documents

Transcript of Document