In the earlier case studies, intermediary documents were argued to be actors participating in negotiations over archaeology policy implementation. In forest management, these
documentary actors are enrolled and mobilised in support of particular interests in an
increasingly destabilised policy contest. In this section, I describe three uses of intermediary documents that show how they have been used in implementation contests between forestry and archaeology interests. These contests are recorded in the 2007 MNR Guide, an
intermediary document that records the obligations assumed by the Ministry of Natural Resources and forestry interests for cultural heritage values protection. These obligations represent the outcome of policy contests between the two Ministries, and traces of this contest remain visible in the references that are made to other documents. These references stand in place of direct interaction between planning team members and Ministry of Culture,
ostensibly to avoid potentially conflicting direction, but also to avoid destabilising the approaches codified in the guide. Support for the MNR approach to cultural heritage values management is also sought from the forest industry, where some of the less operationally appealing guidance in Ministry of Culture documents is used to secure support for the Guide
among planning teams, particularly among those who might view cultural heritage as an unnecessary burden on planning and operations.
In this section, I discuss three intermediaries that are deployed to steer the implementation network toward desired outcomes. The three intermediaries discussed in this section are: the Ministry of Culture archaeological sites database; the archaeological potential checklist; and the proposed operational prescriptions for forest operations in areas of archaeological potential. Each of these represent the outcome of earlier negotiations or contests, and each seek to control the scope of the implementation contest and steer implementation outcomes toward specific outcomes.
The archaeological sites database maintained by the Ministry of Culture is the source of archaeological site information for use in forest management plans (MNR 2007, 18). The database information has been collected by a range of archaeologists over the intervening years since the Ontario Heritage Act was proclaimed, and there is a high variability in the quality of the data and the types of sites registered. In some cases sites that are not archaeological were registered as there was no other clear mechanism for recording the
presence of a heritage value.139 The sites database is also inconsistent in recording when sites have been excavated and the land redeveloped, or when the site consisted of an isolated artefact find. In the latter case, collection of the artefact obviates the need for further protection. Locations provided for individual sites vary with the quality of the mapping available and the ability of the researcher to read those maps. Data inconsistencies noted during the initial transfer of archaeological site locations for use in developing archaeological potential maps created a general sense that the database was both inaccurate and incomplete. Clarifying the nature of the archaeological sites represented in the database is not
straightforward: the site location, and details of the work completed and recoveries made at the site may be incomplete or unavailable, and considered sensitive by MCL. Site
information is available to a licensed archaeologist on submission of a data request, but is not available to planning teams. The 2007 guide presents the planning teams with the option of accepting the data as received, or engaging a licensed archaeologist (at a cost) to obtain additional information on the nature and disposition of the sites to be protected, including the registration form and any reports that have been prepared for the site.
139
For example, my colleague Bill Ross has taken out a registration number for a petroglyph (rock carving) site. The image was carved into local bedrock using a power tool in the late 1980s as part of the set preparation for a film entitled Clear Cut (1991). He registering the site, not to promote it as authentic, but to prevent confusion in the future regarding its origin and cultural affiliation.
The MNR guide presents the options available to planning teams on receipt of the MCL archaeological sites data (MNR 2007, 30), with each option being described in terms of the risks and costs to the planning team and to the archaeological record. Planning teams are directed to either: establish a reserve on the location identified; engage an archaeologist to conduct a more detailed review of the available documentation to accurately locate the site on operations maps; or conduct an archaeological assessment to define the limits of the site, or remove it through excavation. The first option places the risk onto the archaeological record, for if the site location has been mapped incorrectly the protection measures will be emplaced in the wrong location, leaving the site open to adverse impact. Reviewing the original site documentation holds the potential for removing cultural values that are not archaeological, or, archaeological values removed through prior archaeological fieldwork. Engaging an
archaeologist to conduct additional fieldwork, increases the costs of site protection to the forest operators, but a completed archaeological assessment leads to clear site boundaries, changing the area to be protected from a blanket reserve of 200 metres to the mapped boundary of the site, plus a ten metre buffer. This use envisions the Ministry of Culture database engaging a variable network of actors, including the original site recording instruments, the data coordinator, planning teams, and licensed archaeologists. As these actors are engaged, the control of the outcome, in terms of forestry operations may shift away from both Ministry of Culture and the planning teams.
The development of an archaeological predictive model by the Ministry of Natural Resource was a commitment made in the 1991 guide (MNR 1991); however, initial acceptance of this modelling approach among foresters as valid was low. To build acceptance, and to avoid additional negotiation with Ministry of Culture, the 2007 guide offers planning teams the option of using either the predictive model outputs, or the MCL checklist. The checklist is identified as both the only available option, and the less desirable (MNR 2007, 32). The areas of archaeological potential defined by the checklist require protection, and can only be
modified through an archaeological assessment. In this, compliance with the 2007 direction is pursued by mobilising the threat of extended participation in planning by Ministry of Culture, licensed archaeologists, the Standards and Guidelines, and the archaeological potential checklist. As noted previously, training messages demonstrating the increased cost and planning burden that would result from this were also mobilised in supported of the MNR approach. This strategy constructed dealing with Culture, as represented by its unyielding and aggressive representative the potential checklist, as a penalty to non-compliant planning teams, and is intended to steer this aspect of the implementation network, especially
Prescribed operations in areas of archaeological potential also requires that a range of intermediaries are mobilised. For areas of archaeological potential, the top 30cm of soil is identified as the critical area to be protected, and either modified operations which create only limited mineral soil disturbance, or regular operations following an archaeological assessment must be prescribed. This standard reinforces the interest of both Ministries: modified
operations support the forestry interest in not having forest management planning become the principle means of funding an archaeological resource inventory in northern Ontario, while Ministry of Culture sees archaeological potential modelling as an effective means of safeguarding the most likely areas for archaeological sites to be present, but where field survey has not yet been conducted. The prescription represents the negotiated compromise limiting archaeological assessment requirements for areas of archaeological potential in advance of forest operations that would raise forest management costs. Underlying this negotiation was the recognition that increasing the costs of archaeological protection to the forest industry beyond an acceptable level could raise the visibility (cf. Schattschneider 1957) of the implementation contest. I interpret the comments of one informant140 as suggesting that increasing costs for archaeological resource protection may result in political action, with the forest industry engaging additional, political actors in the policy contest over
archaeological potential. This would almost certainly place cultural heritage protection overall under threat, and lower archaeological resource protection obligations to the forest industry could result. The negotiated compromise on archaeological assessment requirements is also seen in Ministry of Culture policy, with a lower standard for field assessment in
forestry than in other undertakings in the province (MCL 2009a, Section 1.4.3; 2.1.3; MCL 2009c). Here, the outcome of this contest is recorded in policy, in a manner anticipated by Schattschneider (1983).141
Three key intermediary documents were used in developing policy objectives for
archaeological resource protection in forest management planning. Use of these intermediary documents reduced the contact between Ministry of Culture and the cultural heritage guide review team, and forest management planning teams. The archaeological potential checklist was mobilised to enlisted support for the Ministry of Natural Resources archaeological potential modelling. Archaeological assessment reports completed as a results of earlier modelling were seen as both a compliance tool, and as a source of information that can reduce
140
The comments made concerned how far up the MNR hierarchy the forest industry representatives might go the challenge the costs of protecting archaeological sites that “might not even be there”. The suggestion was that drawing senior management into the implementation contest, and arguing that archaeology was threatening a primary industry’ profitability – and therefore ability to create employment, archaeology would “lose”. (F4) 141
“The legislature referees groups struggle, ratifies the victories of the successful coalitions, and records the terms of the surrenders, compromises, and conquests in the form of statutes…” Schattschneider 1983, 43).
forest management obligations. Compliance with the Ontario Heritage Act and the provincial interest in archaeological resource protection is addressed in the Guide in the requirement for an assessment report to be completed and reviewed by MCL before acting on the
recommendations of the licensed archaeologist. This hands responsibility for compliance with the Ontario Heritage Act back to the archaeologist and MCL. Assessment reports are also indicated as a source of information on the dimensions of archaeological sites and appropriate measures for altering the appropriate reserves or mitigation approaches based on the reported results of assessment are identified. Interagency difficulty in defining the locus of responsibility for safeguarding and verifying the accuracy of archaeological site data is also reflected in the Guide.