In 2005-2006, I conducted research into community-based conservation and land stewardship within a resource extraction industry.
The community I researched is situated along a prominent river valley in north-central Alberta, offsetting a provincial park, a wildland area, an ecological reserve and an off highway vehicle recreation area. It is primarily a farming community, which was seeing many new land use pressures brought about by decisions or policies for which local residents had little or no input.
During my research process, I hosted numerous open houses, carried out face-to-face interviews and conducted a broad area mail-out survey. The input I received was very clear.
The people who lived in this community cared deeply about the land and their neighbours who were sustained by it. They viewed the resource extraction process with resistance and at times distrust. They felt it would be carried out regardless of their views and without their input. Having said this, many remained open to having a dialogue with industry to seek ways the impacts could be mitigated. More importantly, they considered how to take additional steps (beyond mere regulatory controls) to further protect the landscape upon which they lived and had lived for generations.
Unfortunately, in 2007 and 2008, the Alberta economic landscape began to change and very soon the promise of doing things differently and with less impact faded. Industry was more focused on cost reduction and cared less about going beyond bare minimum compliance.
Ten years later, I am witnessing much the same thing in the Ghost River Valley and, in fact, all along Alberta’s Eastern Slopes. The difference is that I am now a member of the affected community, whereas with my research I was an outside observer. Other than this personal difference, the situations between these two communities and the pressures they face are strikingly similar.
Today in the Ghost Valley, there has been an impressive grassroots uprising within the community. Many voices have been sounding the alarm over stale, dated land use practices. While some small ‘wins’ have been recorded, little has changed.
The forestry status quo appears to be continuing as it has for decades. Large pervasive clear-cuts are the most cost effective method of removing fiber so why change?
Harvest plans done without consideration of climate change forge ahead without change or pause to reconsider the long-term impacts. Clear-cut logging of hydrological sensitive areas is carried out in the winter when the ground is frozen, only to facilitate easy extraction and with little concern for the viability of water supply so important to the 1.6 million users downstream.
Off highway vehicle activity seems to continue unabated by a culture of entitlement, which sees the landscape pay – not the user. Piecemeal funding of recreational infrastructure appears good in the media, but what is the long-term vision politicians have for the area and how has that considered future projected use and the consequences of that activity?
At the end of the day, industry and government bureaucrats both want to “tick the box” showing they have consulted the community; however that consultation is focused on the micro level “how” and never deals with the macro level “why.” The dialogue is geared toward ease of execution, but never questions that execution in the first place nor considers a long-term vision for the community or the landscape on which they live.
There is no consideration given to the question – should this activity continue at all? Is this in the future best interest of the local community or even the Alberta economy? A close look at the economic cost benefit will most assuredly reveal who the real winners are.
The forest sector is busy extracting like there is no tomorrow and I really wonder if what we are witnessing is sustainable at all? Our children and grandchildren will inherit this land from us. Can we say with confidence that it will sustain them?
Gord MacMahon, Ghost Valley
