| This research explored why it has been so difficult for forestry to achieve conservation in British Columbia. I viewed forestry as embedded in a web of forces--ecological, political, economic, and ideological. I viewed policy as a process of negotiation among policy actors within this context of forces and used historical narrative to elucidate the complex pattern of relationships.;I described the historical evolution of sustained yield to provide background and then explored the current debate surrounding the policy by analyzing MacMillan Bloedel's appeal of the Chief Forester's decision to reduce the allowable annual cut (AAC) for tree farm license (TFL) 44. Finally, I drew from both to analyze why it has been so difficult for forestry to achieve conservation.;It has been difficult for forestry to achieve conservation because first, it assumed its wise-use view of conservation was the correct one, and second, it assumed a degree of order and control which was not possible. Forestry's goal of timber production was consistent with the government's policy agenda to establish a stable forest economy, and hence, was accepted as policy. Once accepted, forestry's technocratic approach excluded other viewpoints and wielded knowledge as power to dominate. The abundance of timber, the reliance on private sector capital, and a volatile export market supported a demand-driven policy agenda and accorded the industry a dominate role in the closed policy network.;Neither the forest nor the decision-making process could be controlled. As forestry failed to deliver as promised and to respond to environmental and social impacts, those with other views of conservation acquired political power. This pressure, along with increased ecological awareness, shifted the view of conservation from sustained yield towards sustainable forests. The closed policy network fell apart when the Chief Forester considered ecological values in reducing MacMillan Bloedel's AAC in TFL 44. (Abstract shortened by UMI.). |
