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.
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
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.
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)?
• 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!
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.
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).
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.
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
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/.
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.
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
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
• 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
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.
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
• 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.
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.
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
• 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).
• 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.
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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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?
• 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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
• 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.
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.
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
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).
• 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.
• 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.
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.
• 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.
• 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?
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 ([email protected] )
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rco/pfit/
Administrative Guide for FSPs (AGFSP)
Kerri Brownie ([email protected])

Summary Report on Experiences, Successes and Challenges in ...

Documents

Transcript of Summary Report on Experiences, Successes and Challenges in ...