Harrop-Procter Community Co-operative

Date of Incorporation: March 17, 1999
Membership: 80
Activity: Eco-system based community forestry; some botanical agriculture; eco-tourism
Organizational Form: Worker/producer co-op
Area Served: The community of Harrop-Procter, British Columbia

Background

The community of Harrop-Procter is situated on the south shore of the West Arm of Kootenay Lake, which is in the southern interior of BC. The nearest major centre is Nelson. Accessible only by ferry, the community is surrounded by mountains and pristine forest.¹ Elevations range between 523 metres at lake level rising to 2400 metres in the alpine. The resident population of Harrop-Procter fluctuates from 650­800 people in the winter months, to about 1150 during the summertime. Typically, there is a high level of unemployment among the young people living there (15-24 years).

There has been very little harvesting on local crown lands, a phenomenon that is largely attributed to an "inconsistent history of tenure rights" (CFPAP, 1999, p. 2). For many years, people living in the area have been vigilant about protecting the forests for a number of reasons, their most significant motivation may be the fact that the forests also lie within their watershed.

Aaron Welch explains that the concerns and responses of local residents to a 1995 decision by the BC government to "designate a class 'A' park adjacent to Harrop-Procter" (Welch, 2001, p. 69) - West Arm Wilderness Park - eventually led to the formation of the Harrop Procter Community Co-operative. He elaborates:

The problem was that the government did not include the community's watersheds in this park, which many in the community relied on for [their] water supply. Instead, these watersheds were designated special management zones, which meant that they could be [sites] of resource extraction. The community was worried that timber companies would begin logging the region with no concern for the importance of the watersheds, biodiversity, or heritage of the area. In response, the commu­nity formed the Harrop-Procter Watershed Protection Society, which advocated an eco-system based land use plan for the area. (Welch, 2001, p. 69)

After extensive consultations with its community the Harrop-Procter Watershed Protection Society (HPWPS) made an application for a community forest license under a program called New Opportunities for Wood (NOW). NOW stipulated that 80,000 cubic metres of wood were to be made available for value-added initiatives that were controlled by the local community. Although the nearby communities of Kaslo and Creston were successful in their respective applications to the NOW program the HPWPS was not. Kaslo and Creston had been willing to commit to producing a specific volume of timber (annual allowable cut), which indicated that the license was based on the typical volume-based license. However, HPWPS was unwilling to make such a commitment without a current assessment of the area that would be cut under the auspices of its NOW application. The society was prepared to post a bond in lieu of deter­mining an exact stumpage² payment rate (the next step after the annual allowable cut is established) but this was not surety enough for MOF, which had strict guidelines regarding how much wood (and stumpage fees) a license area is expected to produce.

Staying focussed

Despite this outcome the society pressed on, staying focussed on its goal "that if logging was done it would be done based on ecological principles and that we would have to study the land-base before [any logging happened]"(Kane, 2001). The group continued its quest to create a community forest based upon shared values. To this end HPWPS reaffirmed the support of the community and "began a planning process that involved quite an elaborate mapping system" using aerial and ground methods, local knowledge, and citizen input (Kane, 2001). In addition, users of the land, including trappers and miners, had to be contacted and made aware of the project. By all accounts it was a lengthy, arduous, and rigorous course of action aided by committed people, a wealth of expertise, and many, many volunteered hours. The process had many outcomes. The goal to establish a community designed map that clearly shows what areas were not to be logged and why was ultimately achieved. Today the co-op proudly displays the map at its office.

Another possibility

In the midst of the community mapping project - in January 1998 - the Minister of Forests, David Zirnhelt, formally announced plans for a community forests pilot project wherein "community groups; and municipalities [would be given] tenures that will allow them to manage their forest according to their own social, economic and environmental values" (Nelson Daily News, Jan. 15, 1998). Communities around British Columbia were invited to submit letters of interest. Members of HPWPS were "cautiously optimistic," (Nelson Daily News, Jan 15, 1998) and sent a letter, which was one of 88 received by the Ministry of Forests (MOF). Over the next year, as members of HPWPS began compiling their proposal, HPWPS realised that their commitment to ecologically-based principles as the determining factor of how much wood would be slated for cutting annually would in all likelihood be the one "thing that would take us off the table". This meant they "had to be extremely thorough in every other area"(Kane, 2001). At various meetings during the year it became clear that MOF was not convinced that the Harrop-Procter proposal would result in the stated objectives for the pilot project, that is, to have communities hit by the significant changes and contractions in the forest industry create opportunities enabling community involvement in their local forests. The MOF could not see how the ecosystem-based plan, which proposed an annual cut that was one third of the 'norm', fit in Gaining the support of the MOF was a serious challenge to the HPWPS. Furthermore, the local MLA, Corky Evans, was troubled by the low volume promised by the Society's ecosystem-based forestry plan and encouraged it to raise that limit. The HPWPS said it "basically did consider everything he said but to deviate the volume, to cut more, is just simply going against every principle we are espousing" (Ramona Faust, 2001).

The Silva Forest Foundation (SFF)³ aided the Society financially with a $30,000 grant, and its document "Eco-system-based Forest Use Plan for the Harrop-Procter Watersheds" helped develop the Society's Community Forest Pilot Agreement Proposal (Welch, 2001). HPWPS asked SFF to help in ascertaining what it should not cut, rather than what it could cut. Four members of HPWPS carried out fieldwork in the fall of 1998.⁴ Their work proved invaluable in convincing MOF officials to give the HPWPS a chance at developing an ecologically responsible forestry practice.

Key aspects of the proposal included the following points: a variety of harvesting systems respecting values such as biodiversity and viewscapes, wildlife habitat and movement corridors; the expansion of a small, local sawmill providing customized material to value-added operations, with plans to establish a value-added manufacturing facility; the production of 'eco-certified' wood;⁵ a botanical forest products business; craft tree licences; and possibilities for tourism activities on some of the forest trails (Community Forest Pilot Proposal, 1999, p. iii).

People worked tirelessly putting together a document that followed "exactly" the 'Request for Proposals', to the point where "we exceed[ed] it so we couldn't be faulted for leaving any parts out (Kane, 2001). When Ramona Faust personally delivered the proposal to the government office in Victoria in January 1999 she noticed the 'thinness' of some of the other proposal packages. She laughs: "I knew that we either had gone way over the top or we were a shoe-in!" Harrop-Procter's proposal was one of 14 taken seriously by the Community Forest Pilot Project's Advisory Committee.⁶ It would take more than six months before the Harrop-Procter group learned that its proposal had been successful, the last of seven community proposals selected. During this time the Harrop-Procter group was asked to reconcile why its proposed annual cut was different than the standard expected. To answer this to the satisfaction of the Advisory Committee the group had the Silva Forest Foundation landscape planner work with the MOF planner. Slowly but surely, the paperwork made its way to Victoria and the decision was finally made. Being chosen, however, did not mean Harrop-Procter could get going on its proposed venture. Another year passed in which there were negotiations with the MOF and the government requested an explicit demonstration of community support. Because the Harrop-Procter Community Co­op was now a legal entity and the one that would manage the pilot project, it was necessary to have the agreement amended to reflect this, which further added to the delay.⁷

Community Support

Community involvement was a contributing factor to the eventual success of the Harrop-Procter application. Public support for a compromise between the economic needs of the community and the environmental ideals of the anti-logging groups has always been strong in the region; consequently, public support for the Harrop-Procter initiative was overwhelming. The HPWPS held public meetings to request support and to keep residents informed of developments. It also regularly distributed a newsletter. The local business community was extremely supportive, sending letters of support and donating financially to HPWPS efforts.

The HPWPS also met with local First Nations bands, the Ktunaxa (Kootenay), and Sinixt Nations, who HPWPS and HPCC recognise as residents of the Harrop-Procter area. Among other things, the First Nations voiced their concerns about the commercial appropriation of their resources, particularly non-timber forest products such as berries, mushrooms, and herbs. Both groups indicated that there were areas of cultural significance within the proposed tenure region. In addition to protecting cultural sites the HPWPS (and therefore the HPCC) was made aware that its tenure agreement might be subject to land claims negotiations. In order to ensure respect for First Nations values in the forest tenure agreement HPWPS proposed to "pilot a model of co-operation" regarding the stewardship of non-timber forest products, about how it would make decisions about commercial activities, and so on.⁸ This was the first forest license in B.C. that includes a provision for non-timber forest products, and the license-holders are taking the responsibility seriously in the hopes that the model they develop will influence future policy decisions about forestry practises.⁹ Overall, HPWPS believes that its "light ecological footprint" is compatible with the interests of the local First Nations (CFPAP, 1999, p. 33). The society received a letter of support from the Sinixt Nation, and the Ktunaxa Nation has begun the process of mapping the sites that are of interest to its people.

Five year trial

Eventually the group got the go-ahead to proceed with its pilot project. It received an area-based license (covering 11,000 hectares) and is obligated to "create a business and be judged on it" within a 5 year time frame. This is no small task. As one member says: "It's an incredibly pressed timeline for any business" (2001). At the end of the five years the co-op will either receive a long-term license (ranging between 25 and 99 years) or the license will be cancelled. Although the HPCC itself sees watershed protection and area employment as its major goals the co-op is somewhat apprehensive about the basis upon which the advisory committee will make its decision. The fear is that a singular 'bottom line' will be the criteria for judging success or failure to perform, that is, hard dollars in and out, jobs created, and so on. One co-op member said:

[The decision] will be based on the criteria that we questioned all along. It will be based on our economic success [but] what is success in this project is something that can be debated. Because our initial focus is not to make a huge amount of money, which as you know in the whole eco­nomic structure of today, that is what success is: you make a lot of money, and it doesn't matter what you leave behind. So we may, at some point, have to defend what our success is. (Kane, 2001)

For example, the co-op believes clean water and sustained employment attained by its commitment to protecting the watershed's eco-system will be among the indicators of success. And its decision to use a band-saw mill, despite a higher operational cost, provokes an interesting debate about economic efficiency.

Ramona Faust believes that the advisory committee, comprised of community and municipal leaders, First Nations leaders, and forestry personnel, may well judge the HPCC on a combination of economic and social factors. Faust's sense is that if the group attains the goals outlined in the proposal for the forest license it will demonstrate success to the evaluators. She also thinks that it is vital to focus on the group's own social and economic goals "because we may be judged by a combination of both of those things"(2001). She adds though, "we are taking pre-emptive measures in that we have volunteers coming in and tracking every piece of employment that we have created" in order to prove the projects contribution to the economy.

The establishment of the Harrop-Procter Community Co-op

Somewhat concurrent with the above process was the establishment of an entity "separate" from the HPWPS. This came about because some of the members had reason to believe that a society would likely never be able to get any kind of forest tenure. Determined to achieve its goals, the HPWPS began to look at the possibility of incorporating a business, either as a co-operative or a corporation. It investigated the possibilities by researching what was going on in other communities in the province. In particular the group studied the Cowichan Lake Community Forest Co-op and a community development corporation in Revelstoke, B.C. It also examined a society in Kaslo and a corporation in Creston but neither of the models of organisation used in those communities suited the needs and goals of people living in Harrop-Procter.

The people favouring the co-op model wanted to ensure broad community participation through a one person, one vote model rather than a shareholders' model. This in turn would ensure that individuals would have an equal say in the co-op's future regardless of their relative personal affluence. A corporate model was enticing to some because, as one member says, "it's easier to set up," and it seemed a viable option because it is possible to arrange a corporation such that it is governed by a democratic structure. In the end, members of the society chose the co-operative model. A founding member explained: "We agreed that [the co-op model] would be the safest for community participation and control, otherwise somebody could take it over financially, which was certainly not our interest" (Haus Elias, 2001). A workshop on how to start a co-operative proved useful during the co-op's early phase of development.

Feeling the pressure to demonstrate that it was earnestly forming a business organisation separate from the society, and already snowed under with the preparation of the community forest pilot proposal, members of the society (and the nascent co-op) somehow found the time to get ready the documents for incorporating a co-op. In particular, Faust, Kane and Lisa Norris worked tirelessly to write and assemble the required paperwork. When Faust delivered the proposal in Victoria she also submitted the co-op's incorporation documents to the Registry office. Two months later, on March 17, 1999 the Harrop-Procter Community Co-op (HPCC) was officially incorporated.

The co-op states its purpose is "to provide a structure for carrying out business activities in the [Harrop-Procter] watershed." Although the co-op endeavours to be inclusive in its membership it stresses there is important criteria to follow as a member. When someone wishes to become a member of the co-op they are required to "endorse the clauses set out in the statement of incorporators"(HPCC Rules of Association). In particular, the co-op concentrates on the business of forest operations and economic development. The name was chosen carefully: it allowed for the possibility that the community would not get the forest licence. In that event members felt that a community co-op would still have plenty of potential activities in which it could engage.

Co-op Governance

Members of the co-op must be over 16 years of age and have been a resident of the area for at least six months. Residency is defined as "a person who has a principal place of residence or who is a registered owner of land between Lasca Creek to the west and including Rainbow Road to the east (HPCC Rules of Association)" and who intends to remain a resident or land-owner. Membership ceases if the member leaves the region permanently. Membership shares are $25 with a limit of one share each, which entitles that member to one vote; joint shares are not allowed and dividends are not paid.

The HPWPS was the driving force behind the creation of the Harrop-Procter Community Co-op and it continues to be integrally involved with the co-op. According to the co-op's Rules of Association 50 per cent of its directors are required to be directors of the HPWPS; Karen Kane notes that this decision was made to "always maintain that ideological purity, for lack of a better word." Directors must be 18 years of age or older. At the first Annual General Meeting half the directors were elected to a one-year term, the other half to a two-year term. At subsequent annual elections, one-half of the board positions are filled for two-year terms. The directors elect a chairperson and a vice-chairperson from amongst themselves, and they may appoint a secretary, treasurer, and other officers as they see fit.

The HPCC is obligated to hold an annual general meeting but a special general meeting can also be called at the instigation of the directors when they think it is necessary, or when they receive a written requisition signed by twenty per cent of the membership. Business cannot be transacted unless 25 per cent of the membership or 25 members, whichever is less, are present. While proxy voting is possible with a written appointment (or a common seal if the appointer is a corporation), proxy must be given to another HPCC member. A member is only permitted one proxy for another member.

The co-op considers itself to be a non-profit organisation. According to its Memorandum of Association any surpluses "will not be distributed to members but must be used for the purposes of the Association as a whole or distributed to local, non-profit community groups or community projects as decided upon by the membership at a general meeting." In the event that the co-op ceases to exist any surplus is to be paid to an organisation with similar aims or a registered charity in the Kootenay Lake area.

The co-op governs its business affairs by adhering to its memorandum of association, which stipulates that:

[HPCC] will not engage in business with companies or individuals whose forest operations or planning methods cannot be eco-certified by the Silva Forest Foundation and/or the Forest Stewardship Council. [HPCC] will not engage in business with agro-forestry or agricultural operations which use non-organic insecticides, fungicides and herbicides. [HPCC] will not engage in business with companies or individuals which have poor environmental or human rights records.

Organisational structure and operations

Harrop-Procter Community Co-operative operates through various committees consisting of directors and interested co-op members. These committees help to steer the co-ops activities and business operations. Starting in 2000 co-op members realised that as the co-op developed and grew in its various activities it was necessary to build a more formalised structure. Part of the reason for doing this was that some of the co-op's and the society's directors were working for the co-op in paid positions. Recognising there might be a conflict of interest, real or perceived, in roles, responsibilities and decision-making, the co-op decided it would be best to clearly establish positions and define the duties associated with each. The co-op is also developing policies to guide the directors and employees, so that it is clear "who reports to whom and who needs to know what"(Kane, 2001). The co-op continues to work with its committees but now there is a more clearly defined structure that is intended to assist, not hinder, the activities of the co-op. Management positions for the co-op and for its two subsidiaries have been identified, as have other roles. There is a general manager for the co-op, administrative support, and sales personnel. The positions for the co-op's two businesses are outlined below. The positions are filled according to priorities and as it becomes feasible for the co-op to do so. Much of the work continues to be done on a volunteer basis.

Some of the changes the co-op has been making to its organisational structure were in response to the concerns of financial lenders. According to a member, in the midst of 'reorganisation':

 [The bankers] came along [and said] what we don't see here is a general manager, we don't sesomebody saying 'atta boy', 'atta girl', or putting people's feet to the fire and all of that, and we want to see that kind of structure. We want to see how people answer up the ladder - accountability. So, we [had] a round table or talking circle format where everybody gets all the information all the time and made decisions all together. And we had committees so people could work according to their interests and skill. The committees would make reports to the talking circle. Now we're trying to maintain that [along with] a more linear structure. (Kane, 2001)

But Kane notes that the co-op had recognised this need long before "the lenders came onto the scene." She says the co-op was aware that while it is important to have a model for the ideal community you eventually have to "get real."

The co-op provides employment for the different projects it undertakes, including trail building, forest layout, office work, business planning, public education, and outreach. In 2000 there was a total of 17 full and part-time staff.

Money for the paid positions has come from the various grants received by HPCC. Some of the people have more than one job; Ramona Faust, for example, holds a half-time position as general manager of the HPCC and a half-time position as manager of Sunshine Bay Botanicals.

In August 2000 the Harrop-Procter Community Co-operative received grants totalling $40,026 from the Community Enterprise Program ($26,666)¹⁰ and the Columbia Basin Trust ($13,360)¹¹ to further develop Sunshine Bay Botanicals and to develop a value-added wood production plant.

The HPCC has also received support from Mountain Equipment Co-op, and the provincial government's e-team program. Another source of financial assistance was health and beauty industry giant Aveda, which selected the Harrop-Procter group as one of four recipients of its annual Earth Day fundraising in 2000.

Essentially the co-op has two business operations. Each is a separate business owned by the co­operative: Harrop-Procter Forest Products and Sunshine Bay Botanicals.

Harrop-Procter Forest Products

HP Forest Products is overseen by the co-op's forest planning committee comprised of directors and members of the co-op. The wholly owned subsidiary of HPCC has a forest manager who is a registered professional forester, a woodlands manager, and a part-time marketing manager. The forest operation practices an eco-system-based approach to forest management that permits one-third of the volume harvested that conventional logging allows. It strives to achieve eco-certified status for all the wood it harvests and markets.¹²

The co-op's goal for its forestry operations is to create three to four jobs for every thousand cubic metres of wood harvested. The average in B.C. is less than one job for every 1000 metres of wood cut. HPCC believes that value-added activities will help in achieving its goal. A portion of the Community Enterprise and the Columbia Basin Trust grants the co-op received was directed to work with the Kootenay School of the Arts Co-operative, located in Nelson, to assess what would be required to build a value-added wood production plant.¹³ Logging activities were slated to begin in September 2001.

Sunshine Bay Botanicals

An essential part of the HPCC's business plan is the activities of Sunshine Bay Botanicals, the farm and herbal products business component of the co-op. Sunshine Bay is overseen by a steering committee made up of directors and other members of the co-op; it has a half-time manager. This business is part of the co-­op's plan to create diversified economic activities intended to off-set the lower volumes of wood harvested in the community forest. The operation uses pieces of several properties of co-op members to grow its various plants and it uses the barns of various co-op members to dry the herbs grown. Dedicated to growing and harvesting medicinal and other herbs without the use of pesticides or chemical fertilizers Sun­shine Bay Botanicals is starting to produce small batches of tinctures, herb teas, bath soaps, home remedies, and so on; it intends to sell it products locally.

In 2000/2001 Sunshine Bay sold a number of gift baskets consisting of its various products through stores in Nelson and at local craft fairs in surrounding communities. In addition, Sunshine Bay has forged links with several local health and natural food stores and farms, and with the Wild Rose Herbal Clinic and College in Calgary, which has provided a link to the clinician and herbal practitioner market. The co-op was actively examining the market potential of a variety of other local plants, and it is also interested in the possibility of growing and marketing Chinese medicinal herbs. It expects organic certification is the key to success in this market segment. Sunshine Bay believes that it can grow a high quality product and that it will be able to charge an extra premium because of the certified organic label. Another aim of Sunshine Bay is to harvest and market forest botanicals with the farm products.

A portion of the grants received from the Community Enterprise program and the Columbia Basin Trust paid for the labour costs associated with farming, processing, and packaging activities at the Sunshine Bay operation. Sunshine Bay hopes to reduce and then eliminate its dependence on grants within three years.

Eco-Tourism

Part of the co-op's long-term plan for the community forest is to develop a recreational strategy. The community seemingly is inclined toward a "very gentle, light development of eco-tourism"(Kane, 2001). For the time being, the co-op has decided that until it receives certainty of a longer forest tenure it will proceed slowly in any eco-tourism related activity. In the summer of 2000 the co-op received provincial government funding that supported the employment of Environmental Youth Teams (or e-teams). The co­op was able to hire six young people in the summer of 2000 to do work (primarily trail building and fixing) in the community forest. Mountain Equipment Co-op provided additional funding for the projects. HPCC oversaw the transformation of an old prospector's trail into a modern hiking trail; the revamped Mill Creek Trail has stairs on the steeper sections, boardwalks over wet areas, and campsites at the seven and eleven kilometre points. The e-team also did some preliminary work on the Alexander Trail, which is in an area above Procter. Surveys will be done to ascertain the level of community interest in expanding the network of trails. Part of the e-team arrangement was that twenty percent of the work had to be training for the youth. HPCC complied by providing training in bridge building, trail building, fire safety, basic forest block layout, carpentry, sign painting, bee keeping, forest tree identification, bear awareness, and résumé skills.

Members of the community also donated supplies and time to these trail-building projects, and the e-team was comprised entirely of Harrop-Procter residents. The e-team program stipulated that each member was between the ages of 16 and 24, and that twenty percent of the participants' time had to be for job and skills training. The program fit well with the HPCC's commitment to both local and youth employment. It also helped to demonstrate the need for jobs: the co-op received fifty applications.

Links to Communities at Home and Abroad

Interest in the HPCC (and HPWPS) is found at the provincial, national, and international levels. HPCC board members have given presentations about its story in many communities in British Columbia. A co-op member even travelled to Russia to share the Co-op's (and the Society's) experiences. HPCC has also been providing information about its organisational model and offering advice to two other BC communities, Cortes Island and Kimberly, which are both hoping to develop a similar forestry initiative. Ramona Faust commented that it was difficult to remember the number of outreach activities that HPCC members have participated in. When contacted by people eager to emulate the HPCC model, Kane explains that HPCC policy is to advise them to do first things first. According to Kane, "you have to start off at this point - get your group, elect a board, and go from there." At times, some of HPCC's members feel stretched thin when it comes to sharing resources especially since many of the early efforts were strictly voluntary.

In 1998 Rami Rothkop, a member of HPWPS and a founding member of HPCC, was involved in the formation of the "Saanich Statement", a groundbreaking proclamation which outlines key principles necessary to sustain forests and the communities that depend on them around the world. Closer to home, the HPCC has a partnership with the Kootenay School of the Arts wood design program, which hopes to help the co-op start its value-added wood manufacturing shop (Nelson Daily News, Feb. 4/99).

Future Plans

Creating an eco-certified forestry practice based on local concerns and sound environmental practices, growing and experimenting with botanicals, investigating the possibilities for non-timber forest products, and contemplating how an eco-tourism industry might fit into its community's vision, seems to suggest HPCC has a full plate of activities. The co-op hopes that both Sunshine Bay Botanicals and Harrop-Procter Forest Products both become financially self-sustaining in the next few years, and members are working hard to achieve that goal. The co-op does not want to rely upon, nor does it expect, external funding from government and NGO sources.

The local Community Futures office, situated in Nelson, has worked with the co-op to determine the economic potential the co-op's activities might offer to other businesses. In particular, the office was interested in the co-op acting as an anchor business from which other businesses could spin off. It is aware that there are other people and businesses interested in the wood supply situation. While the possibilities are of great interest to the co-op it is not sure that it wants to get into community economic development, yet.

The HPCC does not intend to make many changes to the over-all structure of the co-op. As stated above, defining roles is viewed as an important, ongoing goal; the co-op is taking a pragmatic view of the process by seeing how things work out and adjusting accordingly. After all, in many ways the co-op is experiencing new terrain.

The co-operative continues to face daunting challenges. It is borrowing a substantial amount of money in order to finance the start-up of its forest operations. There are some formidable challenges, such as the difficult forest topography, which creates added operational expenses and complications. Furthermore, it has to work within the constraints of the existing forest tenure system, which continually limits innovation. In the long run, the co-op expects that its ecosystem-based operations, eco-certified products, and valued-added products will produce the revenues it needs to conduct a sustainable business.

The HPCC was given five years to prove that it could transform its ideals into practice in an economically viable way. It has made a sound beginning and has inspired others to think about similar models. Volunteerism has proved to be an essential ingredient in the success of the co-op and through volunteering many individuals have increased their skills, and collectively they have increased the social capital of their community. The innovative measures taken, and the energy, resiliency, and plain hard work expended by the co-op's (and society's) membership to date is a tribute to a remarkable community with an exemplary vision. And despite the many hurdles the co-op must yet surmount there is every indication that the dream and the commitment are firmly entrenched.

End Notes

¹ The surrounding forests are classified as interior rain forests and are within the Southern Columbia Mountain Ecosystem. There is a wide variety of tree species including Douglas fir, western larch, paper birch, western white pine, Englemann spruce, western red cedar and western hemlock (Community Forest Pilot Agreement Proposal, 1999). A forest fire in 1901 destroyed the existing forest, which explains why most of the trees are now about 100 years old. There are some forest stands, mostly in riparian zones, with trees that are as old as 300 years.

² Stumpage is probably best understood as a kind of royalty paid by wood extractors to government for wood harvested on crown-owned lands.

³ The Silva Forest Foundation is a non-profit society that offers training programs, carries out research and undertakes
projects in ecosystem-based forest use. Its goal is to provide workable, ecological responsible alternatives. More information is available on the SFF website: http://www.silvafor.org

⁴ Rami Rothkop, Heather Pinnell, Ken Foot and Kenji Kage

⁵ The aim is to market only wood eco-certified by the Forest Stewardship Council. This council is widely recognised in Europe and HPWPS believes that providing European customers with a firm environmental guarantee will help to offset the general downturn in BC's forestry industry.

⁶ The advisory committee was separate from the Ministry of Forests. It was comprised of community leaders, municipal
leaders, First Nations leaders, and Forestry experts.

⁷ The development of the Harrop-Procter Community Co-op is explained in the next section. You will see that the workings of the co-op and the society are deeply intertwined. Briefly, the mandate of the society is to steward the Harrop-Procter Community Forest and the co-op's mandate is to manage the forest. The proposal for the pilot forest agreement was submitted by and awarded to the society; however, the license was shifted to the co-operative through an amendment to the agreement.

⁸ The co-op is doing trial harvests and reporting growth values. In the spring of 2001 it had done two years of its own
research following a rigorous methodology (Ramona Faust, 2001).

⁹ The co-op had submitted a proposal for a five-year study that would systematically conduct an inventory of forest botanicals and carry out propagation trials. Partners for the project would be Ktunaxa First Nation, Canadian Forestry Services, University of Manitoba, and University of Victoria. The goal of the study is to provide a framework for creating policy and regulations regarding the extraction of non-timber forest products.

¹⁰ A program initiated by the former Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers. It provided support to communities to implement local economic and social development plans and to help co-ops enter niche markets.

¹¹ For more information about the Columbia Basin Trust see http://www.cbt.org/

¹² See footnote 6.

¹³ The Kootenay School of the Arts Co-operative, among other programs, offers coursed in wood product design. For more information see the KSA website at http://www.ksac.bc.ca. Also you can read the BCICS case study of KSA at http://web.uvic.ca/bcics/casestudiesindex.htm

Case Study Information

This case study was developed for a report entitled Situating Co-operatives in British Columbia -2000 ­2001, which was prepared for the Province of B.C. (Ministry of Community Development, Co-operatives and Volunteers) by the British Columbia Institute for Co-operative Studies, University of Victoria. To obtain the information for the case study BCICS and the co-op entered into a partnership agreement. BCICS is grateful to the co-op members for their contributions and time. The case study is published with the approval of the co-operative. Further information regarding this study includes the following:

Researcher: Colleen Shepherd

Date of research: 2001

Author: Colleen Shepherd & BCICS editorial group

Date of writing: 2001-2002

Editing: BCICS editorial group

Supervision: Kathleen Gabelmann, BCICS Research Co-ordinator

Location