forest management planning 14 a comparison of bc and …sakaw.ca/2014saskagm_planningpresn.pdf · a...
TRANSCRIPT
Forest Management Planning A Comparison of BC and Saskatchewan
ASFP AGM – Prince Albert, SK
April 16, 2014
Cam Brown, MF, RPF
1
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
Outline / Overview
• Forest Planning in BC
• Forest Planning In Saskatchewan
• SFM Planning – the Ideal
• How each province stacks up…
• Conclusions
2
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
FOREST PLANNING IN BC
A Simplified Overview ….
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
3
Planning in BC
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
4
• Strategic Land Use Plans have been completed for vast majority of BC.
• Aimed at resolving land use conflicts and improving land use certainty/stability post Clayquot Sound.
• Reflects public’s values / interests.
• Each one is different in scope/scale/detail.
Planning in BC – Strategic Planning
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
5
• Involved a wide range of public and stakeholders with a goal of achieving consensus direction. [Public Interest]
• Large, elaborate, costly, slow and challenging processes.
• Set high level direction for land use activities through zoning and identification of priority uses.
• Most plans contain numerous overlapping zones with objectives and strategies.
• Biodiversity Emphasis (High , Inter, Low)
• Mule Deer Winter Range, Moose, Caribou, etc
• Visually Sensitive Areas (assigned visual quality objectives)
• Community / Domestic Watersheds
• Recreation Sites and Trails
• Timber Emphasis Areas
Planning in BC – Strategic Planning
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
6
• Portions of some plans have been made legal under the FPC, FPRA or Land Act:
• FRPA (CWS designation, UWR objectives through GAR orders, etc.)
• Land Act (Prohibit uses, designated areas, objectives for forest values)
• Park Act (Establish ark or conservancy)
• Wildlife Act (Designate Wildlife Management Areas)
• Other plans are “policy type” plans that have significant public buy-in and government endorsement. (Not legal but still important)
Planning in BC – Strategic Planning
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
7
• Currently…
• Little to no land use planning occurring (no appetite to reopen the plans/processes)
• Most implementation committee’s / monitoring have fallen by the wayside.
• Not addressing new sector interests in plans (hydro-electric, bioenergy, eco-tourism, SARA species, climate change)
• Plans becoming dated.
• Management guidance updated using FRPA tools (gov’t led)
Planning in BC – ‘Higher Level Plans’
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
8
Planning in BC – Operational Plans
• Forest Stewardship Plans (FSP)
• Map and text setting out Results, Measures or Strategies for meeting legally established objectives. (Meant to be auditable)
• Can accept defaults from legislation or propose alternative results/strategies with supporting rationale (very rare).
• Includes stocking standards.
• Includes Public and First Nation comment periods.
• Does NOT indicate where harvesting will occur.
• Is approved by government for a period of 5 years
• Site Plans
• Prepared for each cutblock /road
• Provides location, prescription, and how FSP issues are being addressed. Is NOT approved by government (Prof Reliance).
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
9
Planning in BC – Operational Plans
• Cutting /Road Permits
• Authorizes the harvesting of timber on crown land.
• Must be obtained from gov’t before harvest begins.
• Confirms there are no legal restriction on harvesting in the AOI and sets out the information required for stumpage calculation.
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
10
Planning in BC – Other Plan Types
• Other plans are occasionally done as gov’t funding allows but typically focus on specific issues (little integration):
• Wildfire management plans
• Access management plans
• Watershed management plans
• Strategic silviculture investment plans
• No one plan pulls all of this direction together into an integrated plan. Its is up to the operational planning forester to meet FSP commitments while considering other non-legal direction when implementing harvest blocks.
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
11
Forest Management Plans??
• In Timber Supply Areas (Volume based tenure)
• There are no coordinating plans
• Discussion are occurring around how to do this better.
• In Tree Farm License Areas (Area based tenure)
• Are required but have become simplified over time and provide little to link strategic outcomes to operational implementation.
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
12
H. Nelson UBC 2013
Harvest Rates and Allocations
• Timber Supply Review (TSR) • Completed at least every 10 yrs
• Focused on setting a short term harvest level after assessing short and long term timber harvest flows from a continuation of ‘Current Practice’.
• Intent is to show a controlled transition to future harvest levels with no major disruptions to timber supply in future generations.
• Does not explore alternative management options and is not meant to inform forest management planning or land use decisions.
• Is a determination by the Chief Forester, not a calculation.
• Considers model outputs, issues that cannot be modeled, and socioeconomic implications of changes.
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
14
Summary of BC Forest Planning
• Little to no strategic planning occurring. High level guidance that reflects the ‘public interest’ is in place – but dated.
• Govt updates direction to licensees through various legal mechanisms (i.e. new visual areas, new wildlife mgmt).
• Licensee foresters prepare and update FSP’s periodically but only include legal requirements.
• Most licensee time is spent planning harvest opportunities that are consistent with FSPs AND non-legal ‘social license’ issues.
• The Rule Maze is largely mapped out – just have to find your way through to viable harvest opportunities.
• Weak linkage between AAC’s and harvesting practices for timber profiles, harvest systems, geographic distribution.
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
15
FOREST PLANNING IN SK
A VERY brief overview…
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
16
Simpler Tenures – Mostly Area Based
• FMA
• Area-based
• 20-yr term
• FMP every 10 yrs
• Annual operating plan
• TSL
• Volume or Area based
• <=10-yr term
• FMP for full term
• Annual operating plan
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
17
Clear Planning Hierarchy
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
18 Lower level plans inherit direction from above where they exist.
Not a lot of the province’s forests are covered by land use plans.
Access Mgmt Plans
Additional Guidance from Standards
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
19
• Forest Planning Manual
• Dwarf Mistletoe Management
• Forest Inventory Standards
• FMA Specific Standards (riparian, roads, visuals, etc)
• Regeneration Standards (draft)
• Natural Forest Patterns (in progress)
• Etc
Forest Management Planning
• Is the backbone of the planning process
• Allows for forward looking exploration of options / alternatives and defines of a future desired forest.
• Environmental Considerations
• Social Considerations
• Economic Considerations
• Resulting tactical plan helps focus operational planning.
• Reporting / monitoring provides understanding on where we are going and what is working.
• But – care is needed to ensure businesses have the flexibility to operate in ever changing market conditions. [Strong principles – flexible details]
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
20
Summary of SK Forest Planning
• Well designed forest planning framework built around area based tenures with FMP’s.
• Good linkage between strategic planning outcomes like HVS and operational practices.
• Lack of land use plans in some areas buts larger burden on FMPs
• Lack of provincial direction on issues such as caribou and natural forest patterns put larger burden on FMP’s.
• The FMP process is critical in the absence of land use plans and provincial standards.
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
21
Contrasting Approaches to Setting Sustainable Harvest Levels
• Technical Calculation • AB, SK
• Absolute reliance on forest estate models / modelers to accurately reflect all relevant issues.
• No ability to consider issues that cannot be represented well in models
• social choices,
• future uncertainty / risk,
• New/better information not used during modelling.
• Process not amendment friendly
• Considered Determination • BC
• Modeling used to provide a technical assessment of sustainable harvest flows outcomes (alternatives).
• Decision maker considers forecasts, expert opinions, socio-economic implications, future concerns and then sets an appropriate harvest level for next 5-10yrs.
• Rationale is written.
• Process facilitates amendment
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
22
SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES
Strengths and Weaknesses of Provincial Planning Processes
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
23
SFM Principles
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
24
ASA
P A
GM
• Considers short term needs and long term sustainability.
• Integrates values and goals as a package
• Promotes resilience to maintain future options
• Manages values at a range of scales
• Is based around a vision of a desired future forest
• Is transparent
• Is a journey not a destination
• Has a manager who leads the process
• Is multidisciplinary and collaborative
• Guides forest operations
BC SK
Y Y
y Y
y Y
Y y
- Y
- Y
- Y
- Y
y Y
- Y
SFM Process/Steps
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
25
ASA
P A
GM
1. Define Management Area
2. Understand Context Information
3. Understand Expectations / Values / Goals
4. Explore Alternative Management Options
5. Define Vision of Future Forest (Indicators, Targets)
6. Translate Vision into Operations (Implement)
7. Monitor /Evaluate / Adapt
BC SK
- Y
Y Y
Y Y
- Y
- Y
- Y
y Y
Summary
• SK has been able to extract lessons learned on SFM from elsewhere and adopt them.
• SK is still working on establishing some key standards – such as Natural Forest Patterns. BC is further along this road.
• Size of SK sector means govt is more nimble and responsive – but also more limited in resources.
• SK planning can be simpler because there are typically fewer non-timber values than in BC.
• Forest planning in SK requires more from licensees than in BC (TFL’s are exception) but outcome is better (SFM perspective).
• Need to balance the idea of ‘idealized’ SFM with the reality of business needs. (i.e. Strong principles, flexible details)
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM
26
27
Ap
ril 1
5, 2
01
4
ASA
P A
GM