Community-level management pitched as path through B.C.’s forestry crossroads
British Columbia’s forest sector is confronting a string of shifts — mill closures, catastrophic wildfires, changing markets and persistent uncertainty — that have left many towns and First Nations wrestling with what comes next. Proponents of the community forest model argue it offers a tested, locally grounded response that better aligns forest management with community priorities, economic resilience and reconciliation.
Community forests are long-term agreements that allow municipalities, First Nations, community organisations and partnerships to manage nearby forests. Supporters say the model gives local decision-makers closer control over the land they live with and creates direct links between forest use and community benefits.
The model is already operating across the province: there are 62 operating community forests in B.C., each shaped by local landscape, economic needs and relationships, according to the BC Community Forest Association. The association’s most recent indicators report highlights several measurable outcomes of the model, including job creation and local economic support.
| Metric | Reported figure |
|---|---|
| Operating community forests | 62 |
| Jobs generated vs. industry average | 74% more |
| First Nations involvement | More than half are held directly by First Nations or partnerships involving First Nations |
Local benefits, regional consequences
Advocates say community forests channel revenues and employment into local economies by supplying nearby mills and value-added manufacturers, contracting local services and funding community priorities through cash and in-kind contributions. That combination matters in rural and Indigenous communities where a single mill closure can ripple through housing, services and municipal budgets.
Those outcomes are central to why the community forest argument is being elevated in the lead-up to the provincial election: proponents want the model considered by candidates and parties as part of a broader strategy to stabilise forest-based towns while advancing environmental and reconciliation goals.
Why proponents emphasise the model now
- Community forests place decision-making near the people who live with the consequences of forest management.
- They aim to balance economic activity with stewardship, supporting jobs while sustaining forest ecosystems.
- They create opportunities for Indigenous participation and shared stewardship, which proponents link to reconciliation and local economic control.
Those selling points speak to an array of concerns that have emerged over the past decade: intense wildfire seasons that have reshaped landscapes and risk perceptions; consolidation and closures in the pulp and sawmill sectors; and shifting markets for wood products. Community forests are presented as one lever to address these interlocking challenges at a scale where social values, safety and local economies can be considered together.
Questions and limits
While the association’s indicators point to measurable benefits, community forests are not a panacea. They operate within broader provincial policy frameworks, access to processing capacity, and evolving market conditions. The effectiveness of a community forest depends on local governance capacity, available infrastructure, long-term planning and the nature of partnerships — especially with nearby First Nations.
Moreover, scaling the model to deliver the kinds of employment levels once provided by large mills will require coordinated investment, policy supports and time. Advocates contend those are feasible if provincial election platforms and subsequent policy choices prioritise community-based forestry as part of a diversified forest strategy.
What this means for communities and voters
For communities that have suffered job losses or face wildfire-driven uncertainties, the promise of more locally retained benefits and stronger stewardship is appealing. For First Nations, community forests that are owned or operated in partnership can create pathways to economic participation and greater authority over lands and resources.
As election season advances, proponents want candidates to consider community forests among the tools for stabilising local economies, advancing reconciliation and reducing wildfire risk through locally informed stewardship. Whether that translates into policy change will depend on how parties respond to the evidence and the degree to which voters prioritise forest-sector futures.
Communities and regional leaders will be watching for concrete commitments that would expand or strengthen community forest opportunities — and for timelines and funding that match the scale of the sector’s challenges.
