Public Forests, Public Opinion, and Democracy – Part 2
In the forest industry, public communications are a necessary part of doing business.
Last month’s post looked at the significance of land ownership in influencing forest policy. To recap, on publicly owned forest land, decision-making is the responsibility of government. Thus, in democracies, forestry policy reflects the interests of the general public – or at least, what the decision-makers believe to be the interests of the general public.
What does this mean for forestry in areas with mostly public land and a highly urbanized voter base? In British Columbia (BC), the government has been pushing forest policy in a decidedly pro-conservation, anti-logging direction. Parts of Canada, the US, and Europe are also becoming less industry-friendly.
But outside the big cities, forestry plays an important economic role – not only in BC, but in every forested region of the globe. What can the forest industry do to raise its profile among the general public, especially in urban areas?
Blog Readers: It Starts with Good Forest Management
In response for my request for comment, Sustainable Forests readers provided plenty of food for thought, both publicly and through private messages.
A common theme among the responses was, “the forest industry needs social licence to operate.” In other words, to be given the proverbial keys to public land, industry need to work with stakeholders and earn the public’s trust. Land use planning, for example, is a great tool for incorporating local priorities into forest management. However, this cannot be done without the participation of the land owner (government).
Readers also stressed that there is nothing inherently wrong with public forest ownership. Well-designed forest tenure policies can encourage companies to make long-term term investments, such as silviculture, just as they would on private land.
In short, the first step in ensuring the public thinks positively about forestry is to manage forests well.
Next, the Forest Industry Needs Positive Messaging
If the first step is to manage forests well, the second step is to communicate this to the public and politicians. Given that forest management happens far from urban centers, the average person often doesn’t get their information about forestry by observing it directly. Worse yet, politicians, subject to a barrage of anti-forestry messaging, may be led to believe their constituents are against forestry.
How often have you read statements such as this one:
“The social license to log primary forest is gone, even in forestry-dependent communities, because there is so little left.” (BC activist Michelle Connolly, quoted in the Prince George Citizen, Sept. 5, 2024).
I read stuff like this several times a week. But is it really true that the forest industry has lost its social licence to operate? Well, no, actually.
For example, polls undertaken by Abacus Data, on behalf of the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC), show that the majority of Canadians either have a positive or very positive opinion of forestry (40% in 2023)1 or don’t know the industry well enough to have an opinion (47%). Only 12% of those surveyed stated they had a negative or very negative opinion.
As it turns out, the fervent anti-forestry messaging we often see and hear in the media doesn’t reflect the public’s opinion after all. But our elected officials do not necessarily know this.
Consider this reflection by BC Truck Loggers Association president Dorian Uzell (excerpted from Truck LoggerBC, Fall 20242):
“I’ve learned that many politicians get into politics to try and make a change to the things they believe to be broken or in trouble. Today, the focus is on the planet being broken… These topics get attention and votes, so politicians and media are hyper focused on them… So today, the focus is also on the perception that forestry practices are wrong and broken…”
So, is there anything that those of us who earn a living in the forest industry can do to push back against the activist voices pushing for anti-forestry policies?
The answer, of course, is yes.
It’s Okay to Speak Up for Forestry
Forestry promotion programs are many and diverse, ranging from multi-media promotional campaigns, to forest tours for teachers, classroom presentations, wood promotion for architects, and programs designed to spotlight and reduce misinformation. It’s almost impossible to generalize, but one thing most (if not all) programs have in common is a goal of sharing information about forestry and forest products.
Forestry professionals, companies, and organizations are, however, more limited in what they can say and do than ENGOs3 and other lobbyist organizations. First, in many jurisdictions, professions such as forestry, biology, and engineering are regulated. Professionals are expected to act in the public interest, so making staunchly pro-industry (or pro-anything) statements can feel professionally awkward. Also, as foresters in different employment sectors (i.e. industry and government) depend on each other to move projects forward, antagonizing each other is a definite no-no!
Public relations professionals in the forest industry can also be subject to different rules of engagement than their ENGO counterparts. To the industry-based organization that steps too boldly into the public fray and contradicts the messaging of the conservation community, look out! You may find your self labeled an anti-science propagandist, or worse.
For example, the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC)’s Forestry for the Future campaign was met by ENGO community with righteous indignation. Writing in the Halifax Examiner, Joan Baxter breathlessly exclaims, “The campaign boasts its own podcast called – I kid you not – ‘Canadian Forestry Can Save The World’.” Meanwhile, the Victoria Times Colonist’s Stefan Labbé quotes local activist Rachel Holt as saying she was “shocked by the open conversation on how to influence public opinion and government.”
Shocked, you say? So, even though ENGO websites are strewn with appeals to “act now”, an FPAC ad urging readers to “contact their MP” is somehow beyond the pale?
Moreover, Baxter highlights how FPAC has no fewer than nine lobbyists registered with the federal government. What she doesn’t mention is that the David Suzuki Foundation has also has nine, Nature Canada has sixteen, Environmental Defence Canada has seventeen and Ecojustice Canada has a whopping sixty. Pot, meet kettle.
In short, speaking up for forestry requires a bold conviction, a tough skin and a sense of humour. Many of us in the forest industry are not comfortable on a public stage (otherwise, we’d be working in show business instead of out in the forest). However, public communication is an important part of doing business in in the forest industry, especially in a democracy. To avoid doing it would be to condemn our industry to a slow death by well-intentioned yet ill-informed policy changes.
We still have to manage the forests well, as no amount of communication will make up for environmental mistakes. But then we have to tell our story.
What Do You Think?
In your opinion, how active should the forest industry be in promoting itself?
What sorts of promotional activities have you observed work well in your jurisdiction?
How comfortable are you with publicly expressing your views about forestry issues?
See chart on page 19 of the slide presentation.
See page 6.
Environmental non-governmental organizations