Rethinking the role of collaboration in BC’s forestry future
A FES researcher whose work explores BC forest governance, policy and Indigenous-settler relations shares why this moment of transition in the forest sector may offer a reason for hope.
British Columbia’s forests are changing, and so is the way we think about managing them. For decades, forest policy has largely centered on timber production. However, several emerging elements are challenging that model, including fewer high-value trees, recommendations for ecosystem health legislation in the province’s Old Growth Strategic Review, ecological uncertainty from climate change and growing demands from communities wanting a greater voice in land-use decisions.
For Dane Pedersen, a UBC Faculty of Forestry & Environmental Stewardship (FES) PhD student and Public Scholar, this moment of transition presents an opportunity to rethink not only how forests are managed, but who gets to shape their future. Born and raised in BC, Dane completed a Master of Science at McGill University, where she studied the transboundary network governing the endangered southern resident killer whale, before joining FES. We spoke with her about this transition and her current research.
You studied marine conservation before pursuing studies at FES. Why did you move into forestry and environmental stewardship?
I believed deeply in my master’s studies on southern resident killer whales, but I struggled with the feeling that this work wasn’t going to create the changes that were needed. When I moved into forestry, I felt more hopeful. Forestry has an inherently collaborative nature. There are so many people with interests and responsibilities connected to forests that we have to work together. I think this sector has an opportunity to demonstrate that sustainable and equitable resource management is possible.
Your doctoral research at FES looks at forest policy. What is your main focus?
I’m interested in how forest policies are developed, implemented and experienced and what those policies mean for both landscapes and communities. My doctoral research examines areas such as the development of forest landscape plans in BC. I’m particularly interested in how these policies bring people together, where they create barriers and what they allow us to do differently than previous approaches to forest management.
You also draw on feminist, queer and Indigenous perspectives. What do these perspectives bring to your research?
Historically, these perspectives have often been excluded from forestry research, and I think that exclusion has come at a cost. Feminist perspectives, for example, can challenge some of the assumptions underlying the sector, such as the idea that nature needs to be controlled, dominated and made predictable. Instead, we can think about uncertainty and variation as inherent characteristics of ecosystems and potentially as strengths. It’s also about asking who feels welcome in forestry. Who feels safe? Who feels that they can show up as themselves and be taken seriously?
Is BC’s forestry sector making progress on inclusion?
There has been progress, but there’s still a lot of work to do. At a women-in-forestry event I attended, students repeatedly raised concerns about safety in the workplace. Some described harassment and feeling unsafe in remote work camps. If we want to retain women in forestry, we have to address these experiences. It isn’t enough to say that more women are graduating from university. We have to create workplaces where people feel safe, respected and like they belong.
What drivers are influencing the need to rethink BC’s approach to forestry policymaking?
There are several factors. Indigenous activism and the growing recognition of Indigenous rights have been major drivers. The adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into BC legislation helped create momentum for change. There’s also an economic reality. Timber availability is declining, and we cannot manage the landscape exactly as we did when timber production was the dominant objective. We need policies that allow us to manage for multiple values.
What are some of the multiple values on the landscape that need to be accounted for in modern forest policies?
For starters, forests are more than timber stands. They are ecosystems, cultural landscapes, places for recreation, wildlife habitat and sources of water. They’re also home to communities and places where Indigenous peoples maintain deep relationships and responsibilities. Community forestry is one example of a different approach to managing forests that accounts for multiple values. They are managed as something belonging to and serving communities, rather than simply as areas allocated to a company or licensee.
What have you learned through working with Indigenous communities on land-use planning?
One land use planning project that I participated in with the Nazko First Nation used visual storytelling to represent their territory through artwork created by community members themselves. It was powerful because it revealed aspects of the landscape that might never appear in a conventional technical report. For example, ancestors were represented as part of the territory because relationships with ancestors and cultural traditions influence how the land is cared for. Traditional knowledge like this is fundamental to environmental stewardship, but it can easily be invisible within conventional planning processes. This project with the Nazko First Nation also gave the community a new tool for expressing how they want future forest planning conversations to unfold. That, to me, is an excellent example of empowerment and self-determination.
You’ve talked about creating alliances across boundaries. What does that mean for forestry?
Forests themselves are interconnected, even though our institutions often divide them into separate systems. We separate terrestrial and marine environments, for example, even though they interact constantly. We also separate people into different jurisdictions, communities and interest groups. Instead, we need to recognize the interconnectedness of systems and groups. And we need to think across generations. The people who cared for these forests before us, those of us working with them today and the people who will inherit them in the future are all part of the same story.
What are the biggest barriers to meaningful collaboration between groups towards reimagining forestry in the province?
We can bring people together in good faith and still be constrained by the structures in which we’re operating. Forestry in BC exists within a much longer history of settler colonialism, capitalism and patriarchy. Those histories continue to influence whose knowledge is valued and how decisions are made. Collaboration isn’t simply about getting everyone into the same room. We have to ask who is missing from that room, why they’re missing and what assumptions are shaping the conversation.
What does genuine collaboration require?
Curiosity and openness. We need to be willing to encounter ideas that don’t fit neatly within our own worldview. That can be uncomfortable, but it’s necessary. Even something as simple as defining a term like ‘leadership’ can matter. Indigenous and settler understandings of leadership may be very different. If we don’t recognize those differences, we may think we’re having the same conversation when we’re not.
I don’t think we need to reinvent the wheel. We already have a lot of the knowledge and ideas we need. The challenge is creating the relationships and structures that allow those ideas to guide how we manage our forests. And that gives me hope.
