Transcript of Summary Report on Experiences, Successes and Challenges in ...
Summary Report on Experiences, Successes and Challenges in
Implementing an Approved FSP
Implementation Workshop (February 7, 2008)
Version 1.0 February, 2008
Summary report on Experiences, Successes and Challenges in
Implementing an Approved FSP
From the Southern Interior Regional FRPA Implementation
Workshop
(February 7, 2008)
Table of Contents Document Change
Control........................................................................................................
3 Introduction
...............................................................................................................................
4 Presentations
Discussions
Additional
Information............................................................................................................
40
Document Change Control
Version Date of Issue Brief Description of Change 1.0 February 25,
2008 Original document containing the experiences,
successes and challenges as identified at the Southern Interior
Regional PFIT Implementation Workshop held in Kamloops, BC on
February 7, 2008.
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 4
Introduction
This document contains a summary of the experiences, successes and
challenges identified by some government and industry personnel who
have implemented an approved FSP. The information was collected in
a Southern Interior Regional FRPA Implementation Workshop held in
Kamloops, BC on February 7, 2008. The workshop focused on:
• Sharing the experiences and successes of those who implemented an
FSP; • Identifying learnings to share with others who will be
implementing an FSP in the future;
and • Identifying challenges that participants see in implementing
an approved FSP. These
challenges will be addressed, as appropriate, through the
Provincial FRPA Implementation Team (PFIT).
The experiences and opinions listed in this document were gathered
through the following activities:
• Presentations by industry and government personnel on their
organization’s experience in implementing an approved FSP;
and
• Break-out sessions covering eight topic areas. Participants
joined 2 break-out sessions to identify the successes and
challenges they see in the specific topic areas:
1. Compliance and Enforcement 2. Cumulative Impact 3. Exemptions,
FSP Tracking System and Amendments 4. First Nations 5. Monitoring
6. Orders 7. Professional Reliance 8. Public Consultation
Personnel who are preparing to implement their first FSP can review
this information to take advantage of the experiences and advice of
those who have already been through the process.
Readers should use caution when reviewing this information. The
information in this document reflects the experiences and opinions
of those who participated in the workshop—it does not reflect
government or industry policy nor does it summarize the
requirements in the legislation.
Copies of the workshop presentations and products can be found on
the PFIT website at:
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hth/timten/FRPA_implementation/index.htm.
Introduction
DISCLAIMER
This document reflects the opinions and advice from participants
who attended the Southern Interior Regional FRPA Implementation
Workshop on February 7, 2008.
These opinions, experiences and lessons learned are provided for
your information and are not legal requirements that you must
follow nor are they policy from government or
industry. The contents of this document reflect the items discussed
at the Workshop based on the participant’s experience with FSPs as
of February, 2008. It does not cover all activities involved in
operating under an approved FSP nor does it incorporate lessons
learned since the Workshop. Please refer to the Administrative
Guide for FSPs (AGFSP) and
the PFIT website at
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hth/timten/AGFSP/index.htm for a broader,
more complete and current coverage of FSP items and issues.
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 6
Operational Experiences (Industry
Summary
The success of FRPA and FSP implementation is directly related to
your ability to make the transition to a results based system. To
do this you must embrace the principles of professional reliance
and practice due diligence – “everyday”! You also need to be able
to effectively manage the transition from the FPC to FRPA.
Successes
Staff (and contractors) Training on: • Transition from FDPs to
FSPs. • What is an FSP? (e.g., results, strategies, measures). •
FRPA practice requirements. • Importance of practicing professional
reliance and due diligence (no reviewing agency up
front). • Dealing with species at risk. • Understanding and
creating FRPA site plans for cutblocks and roads. • Importance of
implementation and monitoring of results, strategies and
measures.
Internal Working Version of FSP Created to help staff see the
complete picture of how the FSP is related to the rest of FRPA and
our forest management obligations. The internal working version of
the FSP contains: • all FPPR defaults adopted as results or
strategies; • lists of all additional practice requirements that
are the law; and • links to key documents including species at risk
identification pictures, IWMS species
accounts and GAR orders.
FRPA Site Plan Template Developed a new FRPA Site Plan Template
with DR Systems (Phoenix Pro). The FRPA site plan acts as our key
file to document our professional reliance / due diligence detail
for each cutblock and road. The site plan contains details on how
each result, strategy and measure applies to the site and how the
site plan is consistent with that result, strategy or measure. The
site plan also contains additional information not directly tied to
the FSP. The site plan
Operational Experiences (Industry
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 7
includes any applicable GAR Orders and their General Wildlife
Measures. Peer reviews are conducted on the site plan along with
road permit and cutting permit applications to ensure the plan and
application is complete.
Drill Down Report Created a comprehensive drill-down report using
all applicable spatial data to ensure staff is aware of what
resource values exist on each cutblock and road. The report
includes the following types of information: • General Information;
• Policy LRMP information; • Higher level plan information; • GAR
order information; and • FSP result, strategy and measure
information.
Checklists To go along with the drill-down report, we created new
pre and post layout checklists to ensure layout staff are aware of
all requirements before they begin developing each new cutblock or
road and when writing site plans.
Referral Process We created an information sharing referral process
for First Nations, range tenure holders and other applicable
stakeholders. The referral process includes templates for letters
to send to stakeholders and a series of referral maps outlining new
cutblocks and roads.
CHR Referral Report We created a cultural heritage resource (CHR)
summary report to submit to the MFR on the completion of our
information sharing process with First Nations. This report aims to
reduce the turnaround time for MFR to issue cutting permits and
road permits. As a result of our efforts we are enjoying fairly
quick approvals of our cutting permit and road permit
submissions.
Site Plan Implementation We have modified our internal Final
Inspection form to enable our Operations staff to sign off that all
elements of the FRPA site plan have been implemented on the ground
post harvest / construction. This ensures our operations staff /
forest professionals are aware of their accountability for: •
Achieving all applicable FSP results, and • Carrying out all
applicable FSP strategies and measures as documented in the site
plan.
Operational Experiences (Industry
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 8
Monitoring Created an FSP implementation and monitoring process.
The process: • Audits a sample of completed cutblocks and roads to
ensure consistency with the site
plans and FSP and looks for efficiencies on the ground to “tweak”
the FSP. The process also checks if the plan was implemented on the
ground as intended and was the site plan and actions on the ground
consistent with the FSP;
• Includes office and field components; • Includes representatives
from Planning, Development and Operations; and • Links up with our
CSA indicators.
General Successes • Built new processes that are working. • Cost
savings and efficiencies of moving to one plan for multi licenses,
licensees and
districts. On multi-licensee FSPs, one agreement holder typically
takes responsibility for administration of the FSP and
amendments.
• No more cutblock and road approvals at the front end of the
system. • No delays in cutting permit/road permit approvals. •
Culture change between the MFR and licensees moving in the right
direction. • Communications with public—focus on using every
opportunity possible to explain the
FSP to the public. Use other community events to explain and answer
questions on FRPA (results based model) and present plans for
operations.
Challenges
• FRPA section 196 transition issues and lack of timely clarity. •
FSP Tracking System functionality including:
o Issues with access to Stocking Standard ID numbers for multi
district, multi licensee FSP’s;
o Ability to enter more than one FSP amendment at a time in the
system; and o Not as efficient for major FSP amendments as
paper.
• Time and energy to train staff on FRPA / FSP Framework. • Back to
longer site plans due to professional reliance and due diligence
needs. • Where to address non FSP items such as Policy LRMP’s and
Federal Species At Risk Act
species (in the site plan)? • When to re-refer a cutblock or road
to the applicable First Nations group if the cutblock
or road has changed from the original referral shape (is it a
significant change or not?) No rules in place (e.g., refer cut
blocks if change greater than X ha)?
Operational Experiences (Industry
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 9
• Being clear on when a mandatory FSP amendment takes effect and
what cutblocks and roads it applies to.
• Ensuring consistent criteria is used when making declared area
amendments? • First Nations, stakeholders and the public lack
understanding of FRPA and FSP model. • Innovation and flexibility
lacking due to difficult time at approval phase especially
around stocking standards. • Formal exemption process required in
GAR when you can’t comply with a General
Wildlife Measure – more onerous than FPC. • Finishing the shift to
professional reliance in both Industry and Government. • How to
keep up communication with District MFR staff after the FSP is
approved (how
to keep up momentum in communications)? • First Nations information
sharing and potential MFR Consultation is a significant
concern for most licensees in the Region. • Costs to upgrade /
amend systems, such as site plan templates and training staff,
each
time a new GAR or LUOR order takes affect that require new results
or strategies.
FRPA Implementation Issues
• FRPA 196 issues not resolved satisfactorily. • Mandatory FSP
amendment clarity:
o When do orders take effect? o What cutblocks and roads are
protected?
• What do “actions and evaluations” mean when making declared area
amendments? • Allowing the flexibility and innovation provisions of
FRPA to come forward in FSP’s.
General Comments
• Relations with MFR staff have improved now that we are not
seeking approval of an endless stack of Forest Development Plan
amendments.
• More time available to work with MFR District staff on issues
outside of the FSP. • More time available to work on company forest
analysis and system related projects. • Staff are stepping up to
the challenges of practicing professional reliance and due
diligence. • Desire to make this results based model work
successfully – let’s give it a chance!
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 10
Operational Experiences (Government
Process changes and systems
MFR processes have been revised to accommodate the FRPA world. This
includes processes for issuing cutting permits and road permits as
well as processes for consulting with First Nations. Both these
processes have had licensee involvement in the re-design. The
flexibility in FSPs that reduces the amount of amendments the MFR
must process (relative to the FPC) is giving the MFR an opportunity
to charge ahead with other priorities (e.g., fuel management).
Several challenges remain in the transition to
FRPA—including:
• FSP Tracking System—it is a great tool that is working through
the initial implementation bumps;
• Emerging issues (e.g., section 196)—takes time to understand and
resolve as we move up the learning curve;
• Public education—some members of the public do not understand the
new model and the new roles. Many of the public’s questions
historically answered by the government cannot be answered by the
MFR and need to be forwarded to the licensee/BCTS or professional.
We need to promote and explain the trust in professionals and
industry; and
• Lack of innovation—one of the goals of FRPA was to encourage
innovation. This is starting and will build momentum once
professionals become more familiar with FRPA.
Monitoring
District staff are enjoying the opportunity to monitor—getting out
in the field and looking at results. District staff is spending
more time discussing activities and issues with licensees as well
as getting a better understanding of what is happening in the
field. The cutting permit application is sometimes used as a
communication tool by district foresters to discuss any “red flags”
with licensees/BCTS in a non-adversarial, proactive discussion to
help both parties understand their plans and obligations. The
cutting permit application is also helping C&E personnel with
their risk evaluation process in planning their inspections.
Operational Experiences (Government
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 11
The FREP program is also helping other monitoring activities in the
district with synergies and efficiencies. By working with the FREP
program, local monitoring protocols can be easily developed or
modified to address local needs such as yearly reports on mountain
pine harvesting and the corresponding decisions on uplift
volumes.
Relationships
There has been a huge growth in relationships and trust amongst
licensees, between licensees and government and with First Nations.
There is a willingness to listen and learn from each other. Local
communities of practice, site visits, professional discussions
across licensees and government are occurring and reducing
perceptions and issues between the groups. Licensees are inviting
MFR personnel to participate in monitoring activities to
demonstrate the licensee’s competence, discuss concerns and
perceptions and assist in identifying any areas for improvement.
Joint memorandum of understandings between licensees and the MFR
have been drafted to set expectations and communicate roles and
responsibilities (e.g., MFR will review an amendment within “X”
days). Some of these relationships are taking time to get started
due to the learning curve and timing. Many licensees are further
along the FRPA learning curve due to their efforts in drafting
FSPs. Government personnel are “sinking their teeth” into FRPA
later once the FSPs are submitted for review. This can be initially
frustrating for licensees as they wait for the MFR to get up the
learning curve.
Professional Reliance
Professionals across licensees and government are meeting and
discussing plans and issues. Communities of practice comprising
professionals from all types of organizations are forming. More
discussion is needed on how we envision professional reliance
working. A common vision and understanding of professional reliance
amongst the professional associations, industry and government is
still a work in progress. Additional guidance materials could be
provided on how professional reliance works in the day-to-day
world. Some essential elements are not well understood (e.g.,
deference—how much to do and when, balancing practices). Roles and
responsibilities could to be defined for each of the major
interactions between licensees and government (e.g., issuing a
cutting permit).
Operational Experiences (Government
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 12
The Okanagan Shuswap MFR district undertook a survey of the
understanding of professional reliance between professionals in the
government and industry. Some of the major differences in opinions
between government and industry professionals include the
following:
• Being a professional automatically gives you trust and all
professionals have the same trust regardless of experience, track
record or company affiliation;
• MFR should not be asking questions about cutting permits if the
legal requirements for issuance are met, even if it appears that
the cutting permit could cause significant environment, social or
economic consequences; and
• Professional proposals, perspectives, etc. should not be
questioned regardless of risk.
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 13
FSP Tracking System
Presentation by: Bill Beard, Resource Tenures and Engineering
Branch, MFR
Overview
The FSP Tracking System is the planning component of the MFR’s
information systems with ties to other applications in the
post-planning world (e.g., RESULTS for silviculture). The FSP
Tracking System is designed to reflect and support the FSP business
process--facilitating the following:
• Submissions of FSPs and amendments by licensees/BCTS. Note: the
FSP Tracking System is not designed as a development tool for FSPs.
It does not support the development of FSPs by submitting
iterations of draft documents between the licensee/BCTS and
government. The application assumes the FSP is developed and ready
for adjudication when the plan is submitted;
• Review of FSPs and amendments requiring approval by MFR district
personnel; • Approval or rejection of FSPs and amendments requiring
approval by the DDM; and • Viewing of approved FSPs and amendments
by government and industry personnel.
Users from other licensees/BCTS will be able to see the approved
FSP but not the supporting materials. This is accomplished through
storage of the FSPs and amendments in a central repository.
The FSP Tracking System uses the same technical architecture as
other MFR applications. FSPs can be submitted through the
government portal (Electronic Submission Framework- ESF) as a
XML/GML file or entered and submitted through the FSP Tracking
System. Attachments containing the FSP legal document and other
materials are made in either the ESF or FSP Tracking System. Forest
development unit (FDU) boundaries can be submitted via the ESF as
part of the XML/GML file. The FDU boundaries can also be submitted
as an attachment in the FSP Tracking System (e.g., attaching a
zipped folder containing the spatial files and a PDF image of the
boundaries). This approach of submitting an attachment through the
FSP Tracking System must be discussed with the DDM first in order
to ensure the MFR has the resources to unzip and load the spatial
files into the LRDW on behalf of the licensee/BCTS. Stocking
standards must be submitted with the FSP. Once the FSP is approved,
all stocking standards will be automatically approved and made
available for use in RESULTS. Once the FSP is submitted to the
government, the licensee/BCTS cannot make changes to the content
unless they contact the DDM and request the FSP to be sent
back.
FSP Tracking System
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 14
Once the FSP is approved, no further changes can be made to the
plan. All future changes must be made through an amendment.
Amendments can be submitted as requiring approval or not.
Amendments not requiring approval are automatically approved and
stored in the central repository once they are submitted to the FSP
Tracking System. These amendments are also marked as approved
without DDM approval. Amendments requiring approval are flagged for
review and adjudication by MFR personnel. The benefits of using the
FSP Tracking System include the following:
• Alignment with the FSP business process. Stocking standards for
blocks harvested under the FRPA will be entered into the FSP
Tracking System with the FSP. Stocking standards for FRPA blocks
will no longer be entered into the RESULTS application;
• Assessing cumulative impact. Licensees/BCTS can use the FSP
Tracking System to identify forest development units in approved
FSPs from other licensees/BCTS that may be in the same area;
• Ease of submissions. Electronic submissions can be easier to make
than printing, collating and shipping paper versions to the MFR;
and
• Central repository. Storing the FSP, together with amendments, in
a central repository will ensure everyone has access to the latest
version of the FSP.
There are approximately 170 FSPs loaded into the FSP Tracking
System as of February 1, 2008. The next version of the FSP Tracking
System (Release 1.2) is planned for roll-out in April-May, 2008 and
will address the submission of declared areas as well as
enhancements to the submission of attachments and amendments. A
full list of changes in Release 1.2 will be posted on the FSP
Tracking System website in March.
More Information
Contact the MFR’s application help desk if you have any questions
with the FSP Tracking System. The application website contains
information, training and support tools for new and returning
users. The website can be found at:
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/his/fsp/. Access to the FSP Tracking
System can also be requested on the FSP Tracking System website at:
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/his/fsp/.
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 15
Compliance and Enforcement Experiences
Results Based Code
Successes • Using projects and teams to inspect multiple blocks and
multiple sites. It takes longer to
organize blocks for inspection and gather information but it is a
productive way to build teams and learn new inspection
procedures.
• Inspections can be broad (harvesting, visuals, pricing) or narrow
(just roads) scope-. • Can identify trends in licensee’s/BCTS
operations—easier to spot when working as a
team.
Challenges • In the shift from FPC process orientation to the FRPA
results based environment,
licensees submit less information for C&E to evaluate
compliance. We need to ask licensees/BCTS for information. C&E
will typically ask for a site plan when doing a major project
inspection. Day-to-day field inspections may not require access to
the site plan.
• Learning new processes for inspections--e.g. inspecting
results/strategies for landscape level objectives. There are also
new elements to inspect (e.g., visuals, community watersheds,
biodiversity).
Inspecting FSPs
Successes • Developed new procedures for conducting inspections in
new areas (e.g., community
watersheds, biodiversity, visuals, water quality). For example when
to inspect, how to inspect, where (office, field, both) and who to
inspect (C&E technician or C&E forester).
Challenges • Are results and strategies measurable and verifiable?
Some results or strategies are weak
in meeting the tests for measurable and verifiable. C&E may not
have procedures in place to deal with planning and conducting
inspections on areas with weak results/strategies. C&E is
looking at identifying areas with weak results/strategies and ways
to address.
• Drafting the FSP inspection framework—defining a common risk
rating and site priority for inspections. How to risk rate a FRPA
block and what is a priority over another block?
Compliance & Enforcement Experiences
Transition
Successes • Guidance has been drafted (e.g., bulletin for s196
blocks). • Compliance Procedures Manual drafted to assist with
basics for inspections. • Draft procedures, checklists--DAB making
field inspection checklists for FPC blocks,
FRPA blocks and eventually a compliance checklist for each and
every FSP – indicating whether a default practice requirement
applies or a result or strategy was elected and which subsets apply
at which time. Checklists can be found on the RBI Sharepoint
site.
Challenges • FSP results and strategies barely in effect -- FSPs
now effective – few blocks harvested
or roads built under FRPA. Limited areas to inspect. • s196
blocks-- Section 196 is confusing. • Various legislation to inspect
(e.g., FPC, FRPA). These regimes will continue for years.
Multiple rule sets to measure compliance – FPC, FRPA and FSP
original results and strategies, FSP amended results and strategies
- will exist for years.
• New land use orders--as new land use orders establish new
objectives (there are 13 new orders in the OKLRMP effective Mar 31,
2008), the additional results and strategies will apply to new
blocks but not old ones.
C&E Resources
Successes • Getting assistance from local specialists in MFR. Other
agencies are providing resources
as well (e.g., MoE help with water quality, ILMB help with
biodiversity). • FREP training & procedures contains good
information on the fundamental processes for
monitoring that may apply to conducting inspections.
Challenges • Forest Sciences -- Need expert consultation and
support to understand and evaluate what
they see in the field as compliant or not (e.g., does it meet the
standard?). Require specialists such as hydrologists, biologists,
etc.
• GIS/analyst resources—require GIS analysis of landscape level
results and strategies. • FSP specific inspections—some FSPs have
specific requirements that may need different
inspection processes and/or resources. • C&E staff training--
Lack of knowledge in C&E staff in some fields (e.g.,
visuals,
biodiversity).
Systems
Successes • Good relationships with licensees/BCTS—providing the
information that C&E does not
have (e.g., soil stability studies). This relationship may be
impacted when non- compliance actions are taken (e.g., issue an
OTBH, warning).
• Functional systems (e.g., FSP Tracking System)—may not be
complete but available.
Challenges • RESULTS application is often out of date-- RESULTS is
seldom up-to-date so we ask
licensees to update our lists. • Limited CIMS functionality to
support inspections. Need to identify the business needs
for FSP inspections before making changes to CIMS. • Systems being
“down” or not available impacts productivity. • FSP Tracking
System. Not all approved FSPs are loaded into the FSP Tracking
System.
Need to get all FSPs, and amendments, loaded into the application
to function properly as a central repository of all FSPs.
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 18
FREP Experiences
FREP Mission & Objective
improvement. • be a world leader in resource stewardship monitoring
and effectiveness evaluations.
FREP Objective • evaluate whether practices under FRPA are meeting
the intent of current FRPA
objectives. • determine whether forest and range practices, and the
legislation itself, are meeting
government’s broader intent for the sustainable use of BC’s natural
resources.
FREP Continuous Improvement Cycle
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 19
Ask the Right Questions • what do we need to know to assess if FRPA
is a success or not? • FREP uses approximately 40 questions
covering the 11 FRPA values.
Develop Indicators • Determine how to measure and answer questions.
• Different indicators for each FRPA value (e.g., soils use aerial
photos and ground
truthing, cultural heritage resources uses surveys with First
Nations and licensees). • Specialists are involved to design the
sample to ensure statistical integrity.
Collect Data • Take random samples through a statistical process
that ensures no one is targeted.
Analysis & Recommendations • Utilize scientists or specialists
to do the analysis.
Communication • Communicate findings back to field personnel. May
ask field personnel to solve items
of concern. • Key principles of communication include striving for
transparency in monitoring (full
access to information), avoiding “pointing fingers” or providing
information to enable 3rd parties to target licensees/BCTS for
certain behaviours. Formal reports will not identify specific
licensees/BCTS but informal reports and information may be shared
with specific licensees/BCTS.
Decision-Making & Implementation • Build decision-making and
implementation at the field level.
Status of FREP
• Strategic plan has been signed off. • Funding from agencies,
Forest Practices Board and universities received to assist in
developing and testing indicators and other activities to minimize
overlap in monitoring activities.
• Developing and updating priority questions every 12-18 months. •
Developing, testing and implementing indicators and
protocols.
FREP Experiences
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 20
• Partnering with First Nations in the cultural heritage work done
under FREP— helping define the direction of the program (e.g., is
the consultation program working for First Nations, licensees and
government?).
• Collecting data into an information management system—need to
ensure the quality and accessibility of information in the
application.
• Achieving level 2 certification from the National Quality
Institute. Continuing to pursue additional levels of
certification.
• Analyzing lessons learned and continuous improvement to enhance
the FREP program.
FREP Priorities for 2008
efficient use of resources and sharing of information. This
includes building further relationships with the professional
associations to share information and findings with professionals
and soliciting the associations’ assistance in monitoring
projects.
• Pursue linkage to Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)
certification. • Look at cumulative impacts—need to determine how
to assess. • Assess innovation in results and strategies—is it
happening and is it
effective/efficient? How do the innovative results and strategies
relate to the default practice requirements? Need to pass this
information back to decision-makers.
• Expand cultural heritage monitoring. • Assess the
administrative-social-economic aspects of FRPA. Need to look at
the
administrative side (e.g., costs to industry, balancing all the
information, assessing if stakeholders are getting the information
they need, is innovation happening).
Issues to explore
Potential Linkage to Certification Can we use FREP monitoring and
protocols to meet licensee requirements for certification? Are the
objectives and purpose of FREP compatible with industry
certification organizations’ monitoring requirements (e.g., SFI,
CSA, FSC)? This is an opportunity to get more people involved and
assess what is working/not working as well as potential cost
savings.
FREP Experiences
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 21
Professional Reliance—Accountability Can monitoring create enhanced
knowledge and information sharing that can help build communities
of practice? Reports back to field staff—formal and informal—help
to close the loop between monitoring and practices by local staff
reviewing results and discussing what to do with information (e.g.,
address findings).
Role of Industry There may be a role for some additional
involvement by industry including partnerships in special projects,
sharing information, considering findings and making changes in
field.
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 22
Compliance and Enforcement Topic Area
Summary Compliance and Enforcement (C&E) personnel are liaising
and meeting with licensees/BCTS as part of the inspection
preparation activities. This is helping to ensure everyone is on
the same page before visiting the site. Several projects to help
flush out C&E procedures are underway (e.g., wildlife tree
retention project). Opportunities exist to undertake joint planning
sessions with licensees/BCTS to make efficient use of everyone’s
time when conducting an inspection. Conducting inspections and
investigations under FRPA is relatively new as licensees/BCTS are
gearing up their activating under FRPA. C&E has a few
challenges ahead in terms of building understanding and developing
the capacity to do inspections. The uncertainty and different
terminology can be a challenge that will be addressed through
information, training and experience. In a results based world,
C&E personnel will need to ensure they understand the
background and undertake the proper analysis before making a
decision on compliance.
Lessons Learned/Successes
• Participating in the review of FSPs—assessing if results are
measurable and/or verifiable. • Change between FRPA and the Code is
not major (practice wise—similar processes can
be used). Need to work with results, strategies and measures with
different information provided by licensee.
Opportunities
• Need more internal communication around the Compliance Procedures
Manual. • More dialogue with licensees to clarify intent of their
plans.
Challenges Identified
• Developmental stage—C&E processes under FRPA will evolve with
experience and capacity.
• Landscape issues: o Definitionsconsultation. o Accepted processes
and intent.
• Building expertise: o limited capacity to train and build
experience in staff. o stewardship consultation.
Compliance and Enforcement Topic Area
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 23
• Overlapping FDUs: o Consultation and/or dialogue with licensees.
o Information—timing in planning cycle.
• Data protocols. • Wildlife Tree Patches (WTP)—external and
interior (WAP). • Ungulate Winter Range (UWR). • Basis of
information (analysis). • Management of dynamic systems—impacts to
results and strategies. • Other agents. • Roles—changing from
observation to observation and analysis. • Changing information
flow:
o Request site plans. o Need to have up-to-date information. How to
know when information has
changed? What is the timing of updates to information? • Systems
challenge to support C&E program. • Integration across agencies
and industry (FREP?):
o Information, procedures and referrals and data (to a lesser
extent). • Assessing information as a basis for due diligence. •
Complexity of investigations:
o Changing roles of forester. • Roadswater quality. • Professional
reliance.
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 24
Cumulative Impact Topic Area
Summary
Participants commented on the high level of information sharing
activities between all stakeholders on the cumulative impact issue.
Licensees/BCTS are taking advantage of opportunities to show plans
to other licensees, public, etc. (e.g., TSA steering committees,
IFPA meetings). Several licensees/BCTS are designing their FSPs to
minimize the cumulative impact through multi-licensee FSPs and
designing their FDUs that consider the impacts on others. Several
challenges were reported in reaching smaller licensees, other
tenure holders and addressing new entrants. Some licensees are
having trouble finding incentives to coordinate their activities to
minimize the cumulative impact. Clarity on the roles and
responsibilities of agencies and licensees/BCTS regarding
cumulative impact could help improve the process. Some objectives
are easier to assess than others—spatial vs. aspatial
objectives.
Lessons Learned/Successes
Communication vehicles being used to share information on plans and
activities in order to partially address cumulative impact of
multiple licensees operating in the same landscape include the
following: • Hosting information sharing meeting with stakeholders
(public, licensees, MFR,
agencies, First Nations, other agreement holders). • TSA committees
that also facilitate the sharing and coordination of information on
plans
and activities. GIS software, maps and dialogue between parties is
used to share block information (e.g., notice of intent).
• IFPAs—can help coordinate information and activities. • IAMC
committees. • First Nations meetings—conducting meetings with one
First Nations group and all
licensees/BCTS operating in the area. Participants share
information on their activities and plans.
• Presenting to Public Advisory Groups (PAG) that are part of a
licensee’s certification initiative.
Tools and techniques that licensees and government are using to
assist in assessing and minimizing the cumulative impact of
multiple licensees operating in the same area include the
following: • Cost sharing agreements between licensees and the MFR
for sharing the costs of analysis. • Data sharing agreements
between licensees and First Nations. • MOUs between licensees
covering how to address higher-level plans (e.g., objectives)
in
shared landscape units. The MOU includes expectations for reporting
out to each other.
Cumulative Impact Topic Area
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 25
• MFR providing roll-up place for data from each licensee. • Using
MFR data systems (e.g., FSP Tracking System, FTA, RESULTS, LRDW,
ILRR)
to find out where everyone else is (e.g., viewing declaring areas
in the FSP Tracking System, using FTA to view proposed
blocks).
• Designing the FSP to consider cumulative impact. For example: o
Preparing a multiple licensee FSP; and o Preparing separate FSPs
for area and volume based tenures (e.g., TFL, TSA).
Challenges Identified
• Agreement holders that are not part of any multi-licensee FSP
(e.g., new entrants, existing other licensees such as smaller NRFL
licence holders, range agreement holders).
• What do licensees/BCTS need to do? How to share information
between licensees (e.g., who leads, who pays)? How to create an
incentive to collaborate when everyone has similar objectives
(e.g., harvest good wood)?
• What are the roles of the various agencies (MFR, ILMB)? • How can
the DDM make adjudication and permit issuance decisions with
limited
information? Who can assist in doing the analysis? Cumulative
impact not picked up via FREP.
• Mountain pine beetle impact. • Spatial/aspatial objectives. •
Lack of understanding of FRPA amongst members of the public and
other stakeholders:
o Hard to get the public and other stakeholders to participate in
advisory committees.
o Public perception—risk to take to Forest Practices Board via
complaint (e.g., hydrology).
• How to know where everyone else is? Communication between
licensees can be tough due to the number of licensees to contact
and the different types of licensees (range, salvage, majors,
BCTS). Lack of data sharing to find out where harvesting is planned
and occurring. Rely on operating area agreements and computer
applications (e.g., FTA). There are no consolidated maps.
• How to know where you are (e.g., what constraints and new orders
apply)? • Changes in operating areas can result in new players and
possible loss of data and
relationships. • Costs override discussion factors
(environment/cultural). • Mining/IPP. • Lack of access management
planning. • Political influence. • Data. • Jurisdiction
issues.
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 26
Exemptions, FSP Tracking System and
Amendments Topic Area
Summary
PFIT has developed tools to provide information and advice on
exemptions and amendments. These tools, such as the FRPA Bulletins,
Administrative Guide for FSPs (AGFSP) and Cutting Permit/Road
Permit Administration Manual are highly regarded as good sources of
information. Several participants requested addition guidance
materials in the following areas: • Effective date of GAR orders; •
Exemptions inside FRPA; • Multi-district FSPs (see Northern
Interior Region); and • Stocking standards that apply to section
196 blocks (need further guidance above FRPA
Bulletin # 13). In addition, participants requested additional ways
to advertise the availability of FRPA bulletins, for example, by
having a subscription service or email distribution list.
Exemptions
Opportunities • provide additional guidance, via the AGFSP, on
exemptions (e.g., intention behind
section 25 vs. section 12(7) of the FPPR, section 17 of the
FPPR).
FSP Tracking System No successes, opportunities or challenges
identified.
Amendments
Opportunities • Mandatory amendments--develop a PFIT bulletin
and/or AGFSP content to clarify the
effective date of orders (mandatory FSP amendments) as they relate
to FSP cutblocks and roads.
Exemptions, FSP Tracking System and Amendments Topic Area
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 27
• Multi-district FSPs—provide guidance, via the AGFSP, to districts
to deal with adjudicating multi-district FSPs. Further direction is
under development in the MFR Northern Interior Region. Communicate
this guidance out via the AGFSP.
• Implementing non-legal land use plans—provide guidance through
PFIT bulletins and/or AGFSP guidance on implementing government
(cabinet) approved (non-legal) land use plans.
• Weak results & strategies—require guidance on remedies for
improvement (e.g., how to address weak results and strategies in an
approved FSP).
Other
Opportunities • PFIT bulletins-- enhance the communication of the
availability of PFIT bulletins.
Current system is not getting to all users. • Section 81.1 (Forest
Act)--Need guidance around the use of section 81.1 of the
Forest
Act. • PFIT Bulletin # 13--Need further clarification around the
issues raised in bulletin #13
(e.g., when).
First Nations Topic Area
Summary
Communication between licensees/BCTS, government and First Nations
is improving. Agreements and memorandum of understandings are being
signed between First Nations and licensees/BCTS to address
information sharing. These agreements are helping to build
relationships. Some licensees/BCTS commented that it was not easy
to get agreements with all First Nations. Several licensees/BCTS
report challenges in getting meaningful information back from First
Nations. Having the correct spatial data available will help
mitigate this issue. Other licensees felt the requirements for
field assessments and information sharing with First Nations was
slowing down the process for obtaining cutting permits and road
permits. An inconsistency between information sharing requirements
across districts was also noted.
Lessons Learned/Successes
• Licensees and ministry personnel are building excellent
relationships with First Nations—resulting in better communication.
As a result, First Nations are becoming more engaged in the plans
and operations of licensees/BCTS. The interpretation and
information exchange around cultural heritage resources is
improving.
• FROs are helping to identify areas of interests, issues and
needs. MFR district offices have used FROs to develop maps
(spreadsheets) identifying areas of interest and who to refer
issues to.
• Licensees/BCTS more active in seeking First Nations information.
Several licensees have established agreements with some bands for
referrals and information sharing around cultural heritage
resources.
Challenges Identified
• How to get the right information to the right people (process).
Many licensees are not sure who, where, when and how to share
information with First Nations. Resources within the MFR to assist
licensees with First Nations issues is not understood by some
licensees and often fluctuates and is inconsistent across
districts. Limited guidance coming from district(s) largely due to
the changing “court” environment.
• Cutting permits can be stopped if “consultation” not done—never
the intention of FRPA. • Not a clear identification of First
Nations areas of interest—ever increasing. • “Openness” of process
under current political conditions. • Cultural heritage assessments
on all blocks—cultural heritage resource objectives—some
bands requesting this. • Who and how is the cultural heritage
resource objective monitored? Are the objectives
being met?
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 29
• Bands want to deal government to government. • Getting meaningful
comments back from information sharing activities. Correct
spatial
data of interest area is not available. How to accommodate First
Nations interest and input if comments lack substance? Costs are
increasing—there are concern about money paid and no information in
return.
• Getting agreements for all bands for referral process. Each band
wants something different. Agreements between bands and
licensees/BCTS may or not work for all licensees--especially for
small licensees.
• How to handle cutting permits issued in a litigation area? This
is creating an uncertainty for licensees. They want to maintain the
relationship with First Nations but have business case (harvest
rights issued) to proceed with harvesting in an area.
• Increased requirements to do PFRs. Therefore slows cutting permit
issuance especially due to winter.
• How will professional reliance work for cultural heritage
resources?
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 30
Monitoring Topic Area
Summary
The FREP program is setup and building momentum. The Forest
Practices Board has accredited the FREP program and the National
Quality Institute has given the program its level 2 certification.
There is some overlap between the monitoring that FREP will do and
the monitoring that licensees/BCTS must do as part of their
certification obligations. FREP will be looking into this overlap
to see if the monitoring efforts can be streamlined.
Districts are undertaking some monitoring of FRPA activities and
then discussing and communicating the findings to others. These are
mostly informal observations but are helping to build awareness and
experience in monitoring. It is important to ensure the
communication of findings from the monitoring activities is
working. Is there a role for the FSP Tracking System in capturing
and providing access to findings of monitoring activities on FRPA
blocks? There is a large number of FSPs containing many results,
strategies, measures and stocking standards that need to be
monitored. This is a tremendous workload for the FREP program. We
also need to ensure we are asking the right questions during
monitoring. We will not get the full picture if we only look at the
FSP (e.g., higher level plans, certification).
Discussion
How is monitoring linked to FSPs? o It will take time to refine the
process of linking monitoring to FSPs. Opportunities: o Need to get
feedback from monitoring to licensees/BCTS. o Need to consider
non-cutblock as well (e.g., measures). Challenges: o
Workload—number of FSPs and results and strategies to
monitor.
What is happening at regions and district levels with monitoring
FSPs? o Districts are participating in FREP. Opportunities o Need
to encourage all participants conducting monitoring activities to
document their
activities and findings. Some monitoring activities and findings
are not documented.
Monitoring Topic Area
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 31
o Need more communication of activities and findings. Is this a
role for the FSP Tracking System?
Will monitoring help us determine if results and strategies are
meeting government objectives?
o Need to ask the right questions (e.g., are objectives the right
ones). Opportunities o need to look at the legal and non-legal
realm (outside FSP). o Could licensees/BCTS help address the
workload issue by having licensees monitor
results and strategies while government monitors objectives?
What is currently happening with respect to monitoring FSPs o It is
early in the monitoring of FSPs—not many blocks harvested or roads
built. Most
people seem to be around the same point (based on discussions at
the Workshop). Some monitoring interest from C&E and FREP.
Unsure if districts are monitoring FSPs (except C&E).
o some monitoring tools are being developed at the MFR district
level (e.g., 100 Mile House).
o Level of monitoring exists through the “evaluation and approval
process”. Opportunities o Provide more communication on what is
happening in monitoring. o Raise awareness and provide guidance on
how/when/what to start a monitoring
program for both licensees and resource agencies (e.g., priority
setting, what to monitor).
o Investigate the potential of the FSP Tracking System to
facilitate monitoring of FSPs (e.g., identify results and
strategies).
o Draft a matrix listing roles and responsibilities for
monitoring/evaluating (e.g., C&E, stewardship, tenures). Use a
continuous improvement process to maintain the roles and
responsibilities matrix as experience grows.
Challenges o Workload issue--we need to look into each FSP for
results and strategies. o Difficulty in conducting
cumulative/landscape assessments.
Linking FSPs to FREP Effectiveness Evaluations
Opportunities o Could link to reporting out. Depends on samples. o
Compare default practice requirements against alternative results
and strategies to
assess how well they are working.
Monitoring Topic Area
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 32
o Need to get feedback to licensees/BCTS. Effectiveness of
strategies linked back to government objectives on a value by value
basis and on an individual results and strategy basis.
Challenges o Determining if rules are effective will take several
years—weaving into
legislation/regulations changes will take additional time. o
Linking results and strategies to whatever value we are monitoring
(need to know
their strategy to determine if effective). This will require access
to site plans. o Are results and strategies compared to government
objectives? o As practices change (e.g., innovative practices),
will monitoring change? How will
we pick up innovation through effectiveness evaluations? o What
about commitments other than results and strategies for cutblocks
and roads?
How to monitor commitments for First Nations, range barriers,
noxious weeds, etc.?
Effectiveness of results and strategies o Large number of authors
of individual results and strategies. Many of which are very
similar. Challenges o How to evaluate and report out meaningfully?
There are not enough samples at this
point.
Will monitoring help us determine if results and strategies are
consistent with government objectives?
o Monitoring cumulative impacts (i.e., multi-licensees on
landscape) depends on type of monitoring.
o Asking the right questions will be key. o Legal bits as well as
non-legal (outside of FSP) should be considered. o Need to look at
individual FSP’s results and strategies and compare against other
FSP
results and strategies. Then communication and link to “Admin
FREP”. Opportunities o Need a matrix defining who does what, when,
etc. o Government could check licensees’/BCTS results and
strategies monitoring
programs. o Use indicators to play a role in defining objectives.
Consistency tests for results and
strategies requirements and gaps. o Communication of monitoring
results (and types) is key. Challenges o Who assesses if objectives
are adequate and correct? Which ones to begin with?
Monitoring Topic Area
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 33
o Monitoring would need to measure objectives as well as results
and strategies. o Results and strategies highly variable—assume
they all meet objectives. o Is monitoring of results and strategies
a licensee role as a part of due diligence to
facilitate tweaking of results and strategies? Also a role of
government to measure against objectives (not results and
strategies) and objectives statements themselves.
o How to monitor if FSP content written for C&E/approval/legal
requirements vs. a true stewardship purpose.
o Challenge is value. FRPA objectives—what are actual objectives? o
Are results and strategies measurable? Must be if can monitor. o
FSPs do not capture the entire stewardship picture. There are
SFMPs, certification,
etc. which we will need to consider in full context when
determining if we have success.
What is the role of licensees to ensure due diligence? o This is a
work in progress. Monitoring has links to certification and
public
confidence. o Licensees/BCTS need to monitor in order to have data
to back up their plans—prove
they did what they said they would in their FSPs (e.g.,
professional responsibility). o Stocking standards may lead to
changed standards. o c/list for each block captures site plan/FSP
obligations. Opportunities o Increase communication on the FSP and
site plan (what, who, when) from planners to
loggers. Information needs to be given to everyone that needs it
along the operating chain. Explain what needs to be done and
results/outcomes, etc.
o Define link to professional reliance under FRPA. Challenges o
link to economy. FRPA model built under normal economic conditions.
Can’t staff
monitoring if can only meet legal requirements—short term?
What is the role of the Forest Practices Board (FPB) in monitoring?
o The FPB mostly focused on performance of individuals. They
respond to specific
complaints and do special projects/reports (e.g., mountain pine
beetle secondary harvesting, high-grading).
o Results (reports) are advisory to MFR, licensees, public.
Opportunities o Could the FPB’s expertise in monitoring
techniques/tools be used by others? o FSP audits useful for
issues—specific guidance for practitioners. o Could the FPB audit
C&E and FREP for validation?
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 34
Orders Topic Area
Summary
Several orders have been released since the implementation of FRPA.
Several participants expressed challenges with finding information
on orders (e.g., where are the orders and when do I need to amend
my FSP?). An objectives matrix with orders may help communicate
this information.
Lessons Learned/Successes
Some licensees/BCTS and MFR are communicating and sharing
information on new orders.
Opportunities
• Need a method to communicate the establishment/release of new
orders and provide a central inventory of orders.
• Need organized/coordinated releases of orders along with a
“subscribe” feature for new orders. Additional vehicles are
required to circulate orders so all licensees/BCTS can find the
information and access it.
Challenges Identified
• How to tie orders to timber supply impact. Lack of internal
process in government to track/compare the impact of orders to
timber targets in landscape unit plans.
• What is the role of agencies (e.g., IAMC)? • Risk if something
missed.
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 35
Professional Reliance Topic Area
Summary
It’s happening! The model is being used and professional reliance
is being embraced although some parts of the province are farther
ahead than others. Results (both legal and non-legal) are being
accomplished on the ground. In terms of challenges in the
professional reliance arena, participants felt there was still some
culture shift needed. Some participants felt there is still the 5%
of professionals that aren’t practicing to an acceptable level.
Some participants also thought the professional associations’
discipline process may be too onerous and, as a result, not used as
often. However, more dialogue between professionals is happening as
professionals try and work out issues without having to go through
the discipline route.
Lessons Learned/Successes
Overview • Attitudes towards professionals has changed for the
better (especially C&E):
o there is more openness to work issues out rather than go to the
adversarial role. Some participants thought there could be more
communications between professionals. A lack of budget and
willingness to interact were cited as the key reasons for not
communicating with other professionals.
o There is more respectful regard amongst professionals. Many
professionals seem willing to work together in approving and
implementing the FSP. There is still a gradient between working
together and “handling the issues” without working together. This
culture shift will take time to make.
• Professional associations are producing discussion papers that
are spurring on conversations on both the role of professionals in
forestry as well as discussion around issues that arise when
implementing the FSP “on-the-ground”.
Process • Planners are using training, developing “layman terms”
FSP, using checklists and
monitoring results to help operational staff implement the FSP. •
Site plans are entirely in the professional realm. Professionals
are taking the lead in
developing these plans. They are utilizing information in the
non-legal realm to develop their site plans (and FSP). Peer reviews
are common although some felt that more peer reviews could be
conducted to increase the quality of the plans.
• Professionals are trying to solve issues in ways that avoid
having to go through the discipline process. However, if the
situation warrants it, professionals are taking issues to the
professional associations. The MFR is supporting professionals
going through the discipline process. Some participants felt the
discipline procedures are too complicated
Professional Reliance Topic Area
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 36
and being avoided while others were not sure of the association`s
willingness to take issues forward to the discipline process.
• Important to have the right professionals in the right positions.
Training and development of professionals has been good so
far.
Observations • Professionals are spending less time reviewing
materials and more time spent on the
ground. The results on the ground are thought be to as good or
better than prior to the implementation of FRPA. There is a
reduction in time spent reviewing and revising plans between the
licensee and MFR. Professionals are getting involved in the right
issues and building relationships with others to address issues and
consider more innovation approaches and practices (e.g., new and
innovative stocking standards). Continuous improvement processes
are also used to enhance standard operating procedures.
• Professionals are building/maintaining their expertise through
training, communities of practice and scientific/technical material
in the non-legal realm. Continuous training, education and
knowledge transfer will be necessary to maintain knowledge of the
latest scientific and technical material.
Opportunities
• Continue to education the public and other stakeholders on the
value and results of professional reliance in the FRPA world.
Licensees, government and professional associations should work
together to build trust in the public`s eye.
• Provide guidance in “tough” areas (e.g., high retention
harvesting).
Challenges Identified
• Reluctance of MFR to engage in difficult watershed issues with
licensee’s professionals. • Professionals having difficulty
interpreting “legal” FSPs. • Communities of practice having a hard
time getting up and running. More communities
of practices could be established. • Maintaining professional
independence due to the fact professionals don’t always
control
the funds. • Smaller operators experiencing challenges in terms of
professional reliance (no one to
bounce ideas off, legislation is weak, etc.). • BCTS—developed the
plan but don’t implement the plan. Challenge for monitoring. • Do
professional associations have the capacity to ensure professional
standards are being
maintained? • Trust—difficult at times—lots of questions around
deference. • Trying to grapple with amount of
review—risk/trust.
Professional Reliance Topic Area
• Initial FSP submissions not always measurable/verifiable. How
does professional reliance weave in here?
• Professionals not always in the loop when implementing FSPs
(e.g., SSS). • Accuracy of appraisal data. Needs to be dealt with
in professional realm but ministry
reluctant to do this. • Some professionals saying “if it’s not
legal, I’m not doing it”. • Defining the “public interest”. Hard to
keep up with what the “public interest” is. “Public
interests” are defined by interest groups. Professionals are
looking at and following “non legal” documents based on the fact
that they are part of the “public interest”.
• Cutting permits/appraisals not always at a professional level.
Loopholes being taken advantage of.
• Deference and balance missing from ABCFP/ministry/licensee
guidance.
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 38
Public Consultation Topic Area
Summary
Some regions are reporting excellent response from public
consultation efforts while others are not. One rule for public
consultation across the Province may not be possible. Local issues
and relationships with local interest groups will drive the agenda
for public consultation. Licensees/BCTS generally find that they
get more feedback when they provide more detail to the public.
Challenges in public consultation include the following:
• Audience—who is the public? The relationship between
licensees/BCTS and public is very important in identifying who to
talk to. Identifying the public becomes easier over time as
contacts and relationships are built.
• Expectations—what does the licensee/BCTS want and what do the
public want to see? Some of the information being sent to the
public is not at the right level of detail for the public to
understand and comment on.
Lessons Learned/Successes
• There are efficiencies in knowing your audience in terms of
identifying, contacting and communicating with them:
o maintain a database of members of the public in the local area
and how to contact them. Contact the MFR District office when
operating in a new area to leverage their contacts.
o Understand the types of issues and information the public in your
area likes to see and in what level of detail and format (e.g.,
maps, plain English, site tours). Clearly defining and presenting
the issues appropriate to the audience will increase the quality of
the feedback.
o People comment when they see something that affects them.
Generally, more feedback is obtained from members of the public
when more detail is provided
o Ensure expectations are set in terms of what the public is
commenting on and what the licensee/BCTS will do with the comments
received.
• Relationships developed before and during the approval of the FSP
are being used to continue communications in the post-FSP world—for
those members of the public that want to be involved.
Licensees/BCTS and government will need to look for ways to involve
new players as they arrive.
• Forums for public consultation include meetings with special
interest groups and open houses (e.g., LRUP type sessions organized
by MFR stewardship personnel).
Public Consultation Topic Area
Opportunities
• The quality of consultation increases as people get involved and
engaged. Continue to look for ways to assist the public get
involved:
o Look for opportunities to assist them understand the new FRPA
model (e.g., explain the FRPA model at public forums, raise
awareness through public education/national forestry week);
o Assist the public understand who they should talk to. Refer
members of the public to appropriate stakeholders. Some members of
the public are being referred to the licensee via the MFR;
o Explain to the public how the information will be used. Build
trust with the public that their comments will be taken seriously
and incorporated where possible and appropriate; and
o Consider tools to assist the public become involved (e.g.,
posting FSPs on a website, publishing user friendly versions of the
FSP).
• Licensees/BCTS and government should look for ways to assess the
effectiveness of the consultation efforts. Collect feedback after
each consultation session on the quality, quantity and format of
the information presented. Monitor situations where people weren’t
aware of some activity and determine how to address next time.
Analyze results of each consultation and look for ways to improve
next time. Always room for improvement!
• Provide guidance and/or advice to Licensees/BCTS and government
on how to consult with the public. Provide suggestions on
information to present, when and how to present it and everyone’s
roles and responsibilities in the consultation effort.
Challenges Identified
• Who is the public? o What is the role of PAG in consultation
efforts? o How to identify and contact the many special interest
groups with individual hot
topics (e.g., water)? • What do the public need to know to become
involved?
o Mountain pine beetle has changed public perception of forest
industry. o The “Getting Involved” brochure didn’t seem to
help.
• Is there value in public input at the FSP stage? Is there value
received from the effort exerted? Some areas are not getting a lot
of public feedback during the FSP review and comment phase.
• How to manage the costs of public consultation for value
received? For example, managing the time cost and out-of-pocket
expenses to identify and invite members of the public, prepare and
distribute maps and other information to explain the plan. Does
this cost more or less than under the Code?
Version 1--February, 2008 Page 40
Additional Information
Additional information on the implementation of an FSP can be
obtained from the following locations/resources:
Provincial FRPA Implementation Team (PFIT) Website
PFIT Chair – Charlie Western (Charlie.Western@gov.bc.ca )
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rco/pfit/
Administrative Guide for FSPs (AGFSP)
Kerri Brownie (kerri.brownie@gov.bc.ca)