Forest Management Planning A Comparison of BC and Saskatchewan

ASFP AGM – Prince Albert, SK

April 16, 2014

Cam Brown, MF, RPF

1

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

Outline / Overview

• Forest Planning in BC

• Forest Planning In Saskatchewan

• SFM Planning – the Ideal

• How each province stacks up…

• Conclusions

2

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

FOREST PLANNING IN BC

A Simplified Overview ….

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

3

Planning in BC

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

4

• Strategic Land Use Plans have been completed for vast majority of BC.

• Aimed at resolving land use conflicts and improving land use certainty/stability post Clayquot Sound.

• Reflects public’s values / interests.

• Each one is different in scope/scale/detail.

Planning in BC – Strategic Planning

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

5

• Involved a wide range of public and stakeholders with a goal of achieving consensus direction. [Public Interest]

• Large, elaborate, costly, slow and challenging processes.

• Set high level direction for land use activities through zoning and identification of priority uses.

• Most plans contain numerous overlapping zones with objectives and strategies.

• Biodiversity Emphasis (High , Inter, Low)

• Mule Deer Winter Range, Moose, Caribou, etc

• Visually Sensitive Areas (assigned visual quality objectives)

• Community / Domestic Watersheds

• Recreation Sites and Trails

• Timber Emphasis Areas

Planning in BC – Strategic Planning

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

6

• Portions of some plans have been made legal under the FPC, FPRA or Land Act:

• FRPA (CWS designation, UWR objectives through GAR orders, etc.)

• Land Act (Prohibit uses, designated areas, objectives for forest values)

• Park Act (Establish ark or conservancy)

• Wildlife Act (Designate Wildlife Management Areas)

• Other plans are “policy type” plans that have significant public buy-in and government endorsement. (Not legal but still important)

Planning in BC – Strategic Planning

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

7

• Currently…

• Little to no land use planning occurring (no appetite to reopen the plans/processes)

• Most implementation committee’s / monitoring have fallen by the wayside.

• Not addressing new sector interests in plans (hydro-electric, bioenergy, eco-tourism, SARA species, climate change)

• Plans becoming dated.

• Management guidance updated using FRPA tools (gov’t led)

Planning in BC – ‘Higher Level Plans’

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

8

Planning in BC – Operational Plans

• Forest Stewardship Plans (FSP)

• Map and text setting out Results, Measures or Strategies for meeting legally established objectives. (Meant to be auditable)

• Can accept defaults from legislation or propose alternative results/strategies with supporting rationale (very rare).

• Includes stocking standards.

• Includes Public and First Nation comment periods.

• Does NOT indicate where harvesting will occur.

• Is approved by government for a period of 5 years

• Site Plans

• Prepared for each cutblock /road

• Provides location, prescription, and how FSP issues are being addressed. Is NOT approved by government (Prof Reliance).

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

9

Planning in BC – Operational Plans

• Cutting /Road Permits

• Authorizes the harvesting of timber on crown land.

• Must be obtained from gov’t before harvest begins.

• Confirms there are no legal restriction on harvesting in the AOI and sets out the information required for stumpage calculation.

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

10

Planning in BC – Other Plan Types

• Other plans are occasionally done as gov’t funding allows but typically focus on specific issues (little integration):

• Wildfire management plans

• Access management plans

• Watershed management plans

• Strategic silviculture investment plans

• No one plan pulls all of this direction together into an integrated plan. Its is up to the operational planning forester to meet FSP commitments while considering other non-legal direction when implementing harvest blocks.

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

11

Forest Management Plans??

• In Timber Supply Areas (Volume based tenure)

• There are no coordinating plans

• Discussion are occurring around how to do this better.

• In Tree Farm License Areas (Area based tenure)

• Are required but have become simplified over time and provide little to link strategic outcomes to operational implementation.

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

12

H. Nelson UBC 2013

Harvest Rates and Allocations

• Timber Supply Review (TSR) • Completed at least every 10 yrs

• Focused on setting a short term harvest level after assessing short and long term timber harvest flows from a continuation of ‘Current Practice’.

• Intent is to show a controlled transition to future harvest levels with no major disruptions to timber supply in future generations.

• Does not explore alternative management options and is not meant to inform forest management planning or land use decisions.

• Is a determination by the Chief Forester, not a calculation.

• Considers model outputs, issues that cannot be modeled, and socioeconomic implications of changes.

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

14

Summary of BC Forest Planning

• Little to no strategic planning occurring. High level guidance that reflects the ‘public interest’ is in place – but dated.

• Govt updates direction to licensees through various legal mechanisms (i.e. new visual areas, new wildlife mgmt).

• Licensee foresters prepare and update FSP’s periodically but only include legal requirements.

• Most licensee time is spent planning harvest opportunities that are consistent with FSPs AND non-legal ‘social license’ issues.

• The Rule Maze is largely mapped out – just have to find your way through to viable harvest opportunities.

• Weak linkage between AAC’s and harvesting practices for timber profiles, harvest systems, geographic distribution.

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

15

FOREST PLANNING IN SK

A VERY brief overview…

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

16

Simpler Tenures – Mostly Area Based

• FMA

• Area-based

• 20-yr term

• FMP every 10 yrs

• Annual operating plan

• TSL

• Volume or Area based

• <=10-yr term

• FMP for full term

• Annual operating plan

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

17

Clear Planning Hierarchy

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

18 Lower level plans inherit direction from above where they exist.

Not a lot of the province’s forests are covered by land use plans.

Access Mgmt Plans

Additional Guidance from Standards

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

19

• Forest Planning Manual

• Dwarf Mistletoe Management

• Forest Inventory Standards

• FMA Specific Standards (riparian, roads, visuals, etc)

• Regeneration Standards (draft)

• Natural Forest Patterns (in progress)

• Etc

Forest Management Planning

• Is the backbone of the planning process

• Allows for forward looking exploration of options / alternatives and defines of a future desired forest.

• Environmental Considerations

• Social Considerations

• Economic Considerations

• Resulting tactical plan helps focus operational planning.

• Reporting / monitoring provides understanding on where we are going and what is working.

• But – care is needed to ensure businesses have the flexibility to operate in ever changing market conditions. [Strong principles – flexible details]

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

20

Summary of SK Forest Planning

• Well designed forest planning framework built around area based tenures with FMP’s.

• Good linkage between strategic planning outcomes like HVS and operational practices.

• Lack of land use plans in some areas buts larger burden on FMPs

• Lack of provincial direction on issues such as caribou and natural forest patterns put larger burden on FMP’s.

• The FMP process is critical in the absence of land use plans and provincial standards.

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

21

Contrasting Approaches to Setting Sustainable Harvest Levels

• Technical Calculation • AB, SK

• Absolute reliance on forest estate models / modelers to accurately reflect all relevant issues.

• No ability to consider issues that cannot be represented well in models

• social choices,

• future uncertainty / risk,

• New/better information not used during modelling.

• Process not amendment friendly

• Considered Determination • BC

• Modeling used to provide a technical assessment of sustainable harvest flows outcomes (alternatives).

• Decision maker considers forecasts, expert opinions, socio-economic implications, future concerns and then sets an appropriate harvest level for next 5-10yrs.

• Rationale is written.

• Process facilitates amendment

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

22

SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES

Strengths and Weaknesses of Provincial Planning Processes

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

23

SFM Principles

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

24

ASA

P A

GM

• Considers short term needs and long term sustainability.

• Integrates values and goals as a package

• Promotes resilience to maintain future options

• Manages values at a range of scales

• Is based around a vision of a desired future forest

• Is transparent

• Is a journey not a destination

• Has a manager who leads the process

• Is multidisciplinary and collaborative

• Guides forest operations

BC SK

Y Y

y Y

y Y

Y y

- Y

- Y

- Y

- Y

y Y

- Y

SFM Process/Steps

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

25

ASA

P A

GM

1. Define Management Area

2. Understand Context Information

3. Understand Expectations / Values / Goals

4. Explore Alternative Management Options

5. Define Vision of Future Forest (Indicators, Targets)

6. Translate Vision into Operations (Implement)

7. Monitor /Evaluate / Adapt

BC SK

- Y

Y Y

Y Y

- Y

- Y

- Y

y Y

Summary

• SK has been able to extract lessons learned on SFM from elsewhere and adopt them.

• SK is still working on establishing some key standards – such as Natural Forest Patterns. BC is further along this road.

• Size of SK sector means govt is more nimble and responsive – but also more limited in resources.

• SK planning can be simpler because there are typically fewer non-timber values than in BC.

• Forest planning in SK requires more from licensees than in BC (TFL’s are exception) but outcome is better (SFM perspective).

• Need to balance the idea of ‘idealized’ SFM with the reality of business needs. (i.e. Strong principles, flexible details)

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM

26

27

Ap

ril 1

5, 2

01

4

ASA

P A

GM