intact forest landscapes (ifl) techncial working … · addresses the ecological aspects of ifls....

Forest Stewardship Council® FSC® Canada

INTACT FOREST LANDSCAPES (IFL) TECHNCIAL WORKING DOCUMENT

Version 1

Release Date: December 6, 2016

Page i of 24

The IFL Technical Working Document aims to provide an overview of the possible Canadian approach for the identification of Intact Forest Landscapes (IFLs), and their incorporation into the new FSC Canada Forest Management Standard. In its current state, this document only addresses the ecological aspects of IFLs. However, it is recognized that the social component of IFLs, including Indigenous engagement, rights and interests, as well as the socioeconomic needs of workers and communities will also play a role in determining how IFLs are integrated into this standard. Ultimately, IFLs will be incorporated into the Standard in concert with considerations related to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), as well as Aboriginal landscape management, including Indigenous Cultural Landscapes (ICLs). Therefore, it is recognized that the ideas, guidance, and indicators in this document are a work-in-progress, and will need to be revised in order to better integrate the vision for FPIC, ICLs and Aboriginal landscape management ideals. For details regarding FSC Canada’s current approach to ICLs, refer to the ICL Discussion Paper.

Status of Concurrent FSC International Work Related to IFL and ICL A small handful of countries encompass a significant portion of the world’s IFLs. These countries (Canada, Brazil, Russia, Congo Basin1) have been identified by FSC as priorities for implementing the process to define national approaches to address Policy Motion 65. Therefore, Canada’s efforts to address IFLs and ICLs have considerable prominence in the international FSC Community. Concurrently, through an HCV Technical Working Group, FSC International is developing International Generic Indicators (IGIs) for IFLs. Once these IGIs are finalized, each country will be required to transfer these IGIs into their Standard, which will then be approved by FSC International through the standard approval process. Additionally, ICLs are a recognized concept that will have close association with HCV 5 & 6, and FPIC. The development of ICLs is still in very early stages. While there is coordination between FSC Canada and these international processes, discussions are underway to ensure these processes (e.g. national efforts, IFL IGI’s, ICLs) will align. FSC Canada is committed to work with FSC International to understand and align requirements.

Ownership of this Document The concepts proposed in this document are the product of engagement with FSC Canada’s IFL subcommittee, and have been reviewed by FSC Canada and the chamber-balanced Standard Development Group (SDG). However, varying degrees of support for Motion 65 exists, therefore participation in the development of the approach proposed herein should not be considered an endorsement by the IFL subcommittee or SDG members to the Motion itself.

1Congo Basin actually includes portions of several countries, including Congo-Brazzaville, Cameroon, Gabon, Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

https://ca.fsc.org/preview.icl-discussion-paper-v1-en.a-1319.pdf

Page ii of 24

Although there is acknowledgement that there is more work to be done in refining the Canadian IFL indicators, including ensuring that the indicators are consistent with the IGIs, the SDG supports the foundational concepts and process. Going forward, it is expected that the next iteration of this document will follow the normal vetting process by the SDG, as is the current approach for other aspects of the National FSC Canada Forest Management Standard.

The Right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) Statement of Intent on FPIC from Aboriginal Chamber Members The historical and political context of the relationship between the Crown and Indigenous Peoples in Canada is part of the reality of the Canadian forest sector and FSC forest certification. Most recently, Canada, through its endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), has opened the door for discussion on the application of the right of Indigenous Peoples to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). FSC has already adopted FPIC as a central tenet of Principle 3 – Indigenous Peoples Rights. The development of FSC Canada’s FPIC Guidance document (version 1) is a testament to this commitment. The challenge now is to integrate our evolving understanding of FPIC into FSC processes, including normative requirements such as the identification and management of large intact forest landscape (IFLs) that may significantly impact the rights of Indigenous Peoples. FSC Canada attempted to design and implement a standard development process for IFLs that was inclusive of Indigenous perspectives on Motion 65. This included the interpretation of the Motion 65 requirement to “respect Free, Prior and Informed Consent of indigenous peoples, traditional peoples and forest dependent communities in affected FMUs”. A consultant was hired to assist in the process and members of the Principle 3 TEP were included in the IFL subcommittee charged with the technical work contained in this document. FSC invested in a national forum to assist chamber members from across the country to engage with each other on the topic of FPIC and Indigenous Cultural Landscapes ICLs). However, the outcomes of these processes did not result in a clear understanding of the role FPIC plays in the identification of IFLs or the development of IFL indicators. The Aboriginal Chamber members expressed concern about this failure and FSC Canada initiated a supplementary process to address this shortfall in the IFL process. Members of the Aboriginal Chamber of FSC Canada were provided with an opportunity to review this IFL Technical Working Document (version 1) in advance of the public comment process and have agreed that the technical direction provided within these documents is still in early stages, with more work needed to develop the concepts so that they are applicable, implementable and meet the requirements set out in Motion 65. The Aboriginal Chamber encourages all Chambers and members of the public with an interest in FSC certification to review this document. Work on Indigenous Cultural Landscapes (ICLs) continues within FSC Canada and the outcome of the ICL work will undoubtedly influence our collective understanding of the role and function of large intact forests.

https://ca.fsc.org/preview.free-prior-and-informed-consent-fpic-guidance-document.a-1273.pdf

Page iii of 24

FSC Canada Work Plan for Progressing the Development of IFLs Up to this stage of the process, the focus has been to develop a technical response to Motion 65. Moving forward, FSC will seek chamber-balanced engagement with stakeholders and members on the proposed technical approach. The key points of FSC Canada’s work plan moving forward are as follows:

• November - December 2016: consultation on Version 1 of IFL and ICL documents with Certificate Holders, stakeholders and Certifying Bodies

• January - April 2017: Field testing • Spring 2017: Version 2 of IFL and ICL requirements • Summer 2017: Deadline for Version 2 consultation • TBD: IFL required to be included in new National Standard (see Advice Note)

Note to Readers The FSC Canada Board of Directors and Standard Development Group are committed to working with members and stakeholders in finding solutions for managing large landscapes and the involvement of Indigenous People in landscape-level management planning. While it is recognized that these are evolving and complex issues, FSC seeks constructive input to solving these technical issues at this point in the process.

https://ic.fsc.org/en/certification/processes-and-reviews/current-processes/advice-note-on-the-development-of-indicators-for-the-protection-of-intact-forest-landscapes-and-indigenous-cultural-landscapes-in-brazil-canada-the-congo-basin-and-russia-adv-20-007-018/document-under-consultation

Page iv of 24

Table of Contents

Introduction to IFL Technical Working Document .................................................. 5 HCV Guidance Content for Identification of Intact Forest Landscapes and

Intact Forest Landscape Core Areas ....................................................................... 61.1 Terminology ............................................................................................................................. 61.2 Identification of Core Areas .................................................................................................. 7

Intact Forest Landscape Indicators ................................................................. 16 Indicators in which IFLs are Contributing Elements ........................................ 21 Draft Technical Guidance for IFL Delineation ................................................. 22

of 24

Introduction to IFL Technical Working Document Recognition of the value of large contiguous forest ecosystems has existed for some time. Important ecological qualities and services provided by Intact Forest Landscapes include: high levels of biodiversity, provision of habitat for sensitive wildlife species, and maintenance of landscape-scale ecosystem processes. Intact Forest Landscapes came to striking prominence within FSC as a result of Policy Motion 65, passed at the 2014 General Assembly, which has the protection of Intact Forest Landscapes as its basis. Internationally, FSC has been challenged in developing an approach to achieve the aspirations of the Policy Motion while balancing the interests of its chambers, which in Canada address Aboriginal, Environmental, Social and Economic interests. The definition of Intact Forest Landscapes adopted by FSC is as follows:

A territory within today’s global extent of forest cover which contains forest and non-forest ecosystems minimally influenced by human economic activity, with an area of at least 500 sq. km (50,000 ha) and a minimal width of 10 km (measured as the diameter of a circle that is entirely inscribed within the boundaries of the territory).

This definition provides context for this document and all of FSC Canada’s efforts. This Working Document reflects the progress made to date in developing guidance, indicators, and supporting material for the eventual integration of Intact Forest Landscapes into FSC Canada’s National Standard. The document has four sections:

1. Guidance – This is planned as an annex to the Standard providing direction the considerations that should be taken into account in identifying IFLs and IFL core areas. Forest companies are encouraged to implement the guidance as laid out in this document, although they may employ alternate approaches.

2. IFL Specific Indicators – These are indicators whose focus is entirely related to IFLs. All the indicators are in Principle 9 (High Conservation Values). Indicators identified in this section are intended to be implemented in concert with the ‘normal’ Principle 9 indicators that address assessment, strategy development and implementation, and monitoring.

3. IFL Related Indicators – These are indicators for which IFLs are contributing elements; the focus is not specifically IFLs but they are important in addressing the requirements of the indicators.

4. FSC’s Draft Technical Guidance for IFL Delineation – This is an approach being developed by FSC in concert with industry partners to provide specific technical guidance in the identification of IFLs. Forest companies may use the final version of the guidance, or may use the IFLs identified and available from Global Forest Watch Canada.

of 24

IFLs

MgmtUnit

AreaofEcologicalInfluence

HCV Guidance Content for Identification of Intact Forest Landscapes and Intact Forest Landscape Core Areas

This Guidance provides direction on identifying Intact Forest Landscapes* and Intact Forest Landscape* core areas*. Organizations* are encouraged to implement the guidance as laid out in this document, although Organizations may employ alternate approaches as described in Indicator 9.1.x.1. The overall approach taken in this Guidance is to carefully identify Intact Forest Landscapes* as a basis for identifying core areas* and subsequently incorporate a landscape-context and socio-economic considerations into the development of a final suite of core areas* for Management Units*.

1.1 Terminology

Some terms are needed to explain how Intact Forest Landscapes* and Core Areas* and are to be designated and managed. Core Area: The Core Area* is the portion of an Intact Forest Landscape that has the most important ecological values. The Core Area* need not be in the middle of an Intact Forest Landscape*, as it is determined more by its values than by its location. Conservation priorities are higher for core areas*, but other portions of Intact Forest Landscapes* have considerable value too. Reference Area, Areas of Ecological Influence, and Management Units: The Reference Area is the area for which Intact Forest Landscapes* are to be identified for use in setting management strategies for Core Areas* within the Management Unit*. The Reference Area may be either the Management Unit* itself, or the Area of Ecological Influence*, which includes the entire area encompassed by ecological units (for example ecodistricts or biogeoclimatic zones) that occur at least partly within the Management Unit*. Ideally, the Reference Area will be the Area of Ecological Influence* so that that a broad landscape context can be considered. However, because it may take considerable effort to gather and work with information regarding Intact Forest Landscapes* in the Area of Ecological Influence*, it is also acceptable to use the Management Unit* as the Reference Area. • It is acceptable if the Reference Area is

the Management Unit;

• But it is preferable If the Reference Area is the Area of Ecological Influence

Baselines and Targets: The baseline Core Area* size for each Intact Forest Landscape* is defined in Step 3 and is related to the size of the Intact Forest Landscape*. Generally, larger Intact Forest Landscapes* have larger baseline Cores Areas*. The initial target size for Cores Areas*, calculated in Step 5 is derived from the baseline size and takes the abundance and security of Intact Forest Landscapes* in the Reference Area into account. If there is a large

of 24

area of Intact Forest Landscapes* in the Reference Area and they are secure, the initial target sizes can be less than the baselines, but if there are few Intact Forest Landscapes* and they are not secure, the initial target sizes should be greater than the baselines.

1.2 Identification of Core Areas There are seven steps in identifying core areas*:

1. Identify the Reference Area – this is the area that is used as the basis for identifying core areas* for a Management Unit*.

2. Identify Intact Forest Landscapes*in the Reference Area. 3. Identify baseline core sizes – which vary depending on the size of the Intact Forest

Landscape*. 4. Develop landscape* context –identification of initial core targets by assessing the

abundance and risk of Intact Forest Landscapes* in the Reference Area. 5. Develop initial target core area* sizes – develop size targets for individual cores by

revising baseline core sizes by considering the abundance and risk of IFLs in the Reference Area.

6. Identify core area* locations within Intact Forest Landscapes* - based on ecological values.

7. Social Analysis – integrate Aboriginal perspectives and consider landscape* and socio-economic context in defining cores - The step will be of tremendous importance, but has yet to be defined. This is explained more in the discussion of Step 7 below.

of 24

Identification of Core Areas - Overview

Step 1: Identify Reference Area

Management Unit

Areaofecologicalinfluence

• Area of Ecological Influence (AEI) provides regional context

• Either AEI or MU can be used • Pros/cons to each approach

Step 2: Identify IFLs

PortionofIFLwithinMU<50,000ha

PortionofIFLwithinMU≥50,000ha • IFL is > 50,000 ha undisturbed

• All IFLs within reference areas, including all portions within MU are identified

D A

B

C

Step 3: Identify Baseline Core Sizes • Core Area identification continues

only for IFLs where portion of IFL within MU ≥ 50,000 ha (e.g. IFLs A, B)

• Portion of IFL within MU = distinct IFL • Size of core baseline is relative to

size of IFL

IFL50-75Kha=BaselineCore50Kor80% IFL75-200Kha=BaselineCore60Kor70%

Step 4: Develop Landscape Context

Within the reference area, assess: • Risk : protected status for each IFL, Overall % protection • Abundance : % IFL abundance

Abundance(%)

Risk(+/-)(%)

Step 5: Develop Initial Core Size Targets

Abundance+Risk

+

- +

-

• Table 2 outlines adjustments to baseline core area size based on risk& abundance factors (Step 4)

of 24

Identification of Core Areas - Detailed Process

Step 1. Identify Reference Area

The Reference Area is the area for which Intact Forest Landscapes* are to be identified for use in setting management strategies for Core Areas* within the Management Unit*. The Reference Area can be the Management Unit itself or, preferably, the Area of Ecological Influence*. Even if the Reference Area is the Area of Ecological Influence*, management strategies need only be developed for Core Areas within the Management unit. Identification of the Area of Ecological Influence* should take into account the relative size of the Management Unit* and the ecological qualities of the landscape* within which the Management Unit*is located. The Area of Ecological Influence*should be based on an existing ecological classification system in use in the Management Unit’s* province or region.

Step 2. Identify Intact Forest Landscapes

Intact Forest Landscapes* in the Reference Area may be identified either using FSC’s Technical Methodology for IFL Delineation (Part 4 of this Companion Document) or data on Intact Forest Landscapes available from Global Forest Watch Canada. Means other than that identified in FSC’s Technical Methodology or use of the Global Forest Watch Canada data can also be used to identify Intact Forest Landscapes provided that a precautionary approach* is taken (See Indicator 9.1.X.1 in Section 2 of this document). The result of this step should be identification of the entire suite of specific individual mapped Intact Forest Landscapes* in the Reference Area.

Step 6: Locate Cores • Consider ecological

characteristics within IFL when positioning cores

http://www.globalforestwatch.ca/node/252

http://www.globalforestwatch.ca/node/252

of 24

Step 3. Identify Baseline Core Sizes for Intact Forest Landscapes Table 1 below provides the baseline requirement for the size of Core Areas* relative to the size of the Intact Forest Landscapes* in which they occur. A baseline core size is to be identified for each Intact Forest Landscape* in the Management Unit. The size baselines identified Table 1 are points of reference only, the final Core Area* sizes will depend on the landscape* and socio-economic context in which they exist as identified in Steps 5 and 7 below.

Table 1. Baseline Core Sizes as a function of Intact Forest Landscape* size

Intact Forest Landscape* Size (ha) within the Management Unit 50,000-75,000 75,001-200,000 200,001 – 500,000 ≥500,000

Baseline Core Area

50,000 ha or 80% of the IFL, whichever is greater.

60,000 ha or 70% of the IFL, whichever is greater

140,000 ha or 65% of the IFL, whichever is greater

325,000 ha or 55% of the IFL, whichever is greater.

The results of this step should be identification of baseline Core Area*sizes for all Intact Forest Landscapes* in the Reference Area.

Considerations Related to Transboundary IFLs

Because IFLs are large, there will invariably be instances in which they cross the boundaries of Management Units*. To ensure appropriate strategies are developed for the area of all IFLs that occur within Management Units*, Organizations* are to identify the portions of transboundary IFLs that exist within their Management Units*. (So even if the area of a transboundary IFL that exists in a management unit is less than 50,000 ha, it must be identified as part of a broader IFL). This will require accessing information on lands beyond the boundaries of their Management Units*. Although it may not be possible to implement the specific approach identified in the Technical Methodology for IFL Delineation for transboundary IFLs, Organizations* are expected to take a precautionary approach* in identifying Intact Forest Landscapes* that abut the Management Units* so that portions of Intact Forest Landscapes* in the Management Unit* can be identified. Management Strategies for portions of Intact Forest Landscapes* that occur within Management Units* are addressed in Indicators 9.3.x.1 and 9.3.x.2 Step 2 above includes the requirements to identify IFLs that cross Management Unit* boundaries. This raises the question of how to identify cores* in these transboundary IFLs*. Because Organizations* can only be directly responsible for their own Management Units*, and not for neighbouring lands, the area of intact forest within the Management Unit* should be treated as a distinct IFL* for the purpose of calculating a core*size. So for example, if the intact area within the Management Unit* is 50-75,000 ha, application of Table 1 above, requires the baseline core area to be 50,000 ha or 80%, whichever is greater. This applies even if the total area of the IFL is much greater; the basis for calculating core size for the Management Unit is only that portion of the IFL that exists in the Management Unit. This in turn, raises the question of how to deal with circumstances in which the portion of a transboundary IFL* within the Management Unit* is less than 50,000 ha. Given the above

of 24

logic that Organizations* can only be responsible for their own Management Units, it is not necessary to identify cores for portions of transboundary IFLs* that are less than 50,000. Indicators 9.3.x.1 and 9.3.x.2 include the requirement for Organizations *to work within their Sphere of Influence* to affect management of the broader IFL* in a manner consistent with the requirements of this Standard’s Indicators. Furthermore, areas less than 50,000 should be considered for identification as large remnant patches (HCV Category 3) and managed accordingly.

Step 4. Develop Landscape* Context

The landscape* context is used to refine the baseline Core Area*sizes to develop initial Core Area* size targets. Two key characteristics of the Reference Area are to be considered in identifying initial Core Area* targets – security and abundance. Security is a reflection of the long-term protection of Intact Forest Landscapes*, and abundance is a reflection of the area encompassed in Intact Forest Landscapes* relative to the total size of the Reference Area.

Although legislated protected areas are not part of Management Units* or certified forests, they are to be included in assessing the landscape context for the Reference Area. However only areas that meet the definition of Intact Forest Landscape (whether in a protected area or not) are to be considered in assessing the security.

Security The security of Individual Intact Forest Landscapes falls into one of three classes:

I. Protected: includes legislated parks such as provincial parks or national parks in which no development is permitted or in which controlled or limited development is permitted.

Mgmt Unit

IFL A

IFL C

IFL B

IFL Cores ≥ 50,000 ha

In the example on the left, the portion of IFL A that is within the Mgmt Unit is > 50,000 ha, and so according to Indicator 9.3.x.1 must be considered a distinct IFL and have a core identified and delineated IFL B is completely within the Mgmt Unit and so a core of at least 50,000 must be identified The portion of IFL C that is within the Mgmt Unit is less than 50,000 ha and so that part of the IFL need not have a core identified. However, it should probably be recognized as an HCV Category 3 (large remnant patch) and be managed accordingly.

of 24

II. Somewhat Protected: includes areas not identified as parks or similar designations but in regions that are believed to be free of development pressures, or areas that have been designated as Cores Areas* and that have been identified as components of a Conservation Area Network* in an FSC-certified forest.

III. Not Protected: includes areas open to development in which existing management plans do not indicate protection is to be implemented or considered.

The following step is used to develop an overall Intact Forest Landscape security profile for the Reference Area:

1. Secure: More than 50% of Intact Forest Landscapes are protected (Category I above) 2. Somewhat Secure: More than 50% of Intact Forest Landscapes are protected and

somewhat protected (Categories I and II). 3. Not Secure: More than 50% of Intact Forest Landscapes are not protected (Category

III).

Abundance Intact Forest Landscape* abundance on the Area of Ecological Influence* is identified in three classes:

1. Extensive: More than 40% of the Reference Area is within Intact Forest Landscapes*. 2. Moderate: 20-40% of the Reference Areas within Intact Forest Landscapes*. 3. Few: Less than 20% of the Reference Area is within Intact Forest Landscapes*.

To identify the appropriate abundance class, the sizes of all Intact Forest Landscapes* in the Reference Area should be summed and compared to the total size of the entire Reference Area. The results of this step should be a categorization of the security of Intact Forest Landscapes in the Reference Area into one of three classes (i.e. either secure, somewhat secure, or not secure), and a categorization of the abundance of Intact Forest Landscapes into one of three classes (i.e. either extensive, moderate, or few). In developing landscape context, the area of IFLs that exist only partially within the reference area, and extend outside of the reference area should be included.

Step 5. Develop Initial Core Size Targets Table 2 provides direction on modifying baseline sizes to develop initial Core Area* size targets for each Intact Forest Landscape*. Generally initial targets are to exceed baseline sizes in circumstances where Intact Forest Landscapes* in the Reference Area are less secure and lower in overall area, and targets may be less than baseline sizes in circumstances where Intact Forest Landscapes* are secure and high in overall area.

of 24

Table 2. Amount of core area* (relative to baseline identified in Table 1) to be identified for Intact Forest Landscapes* located at least in part in the management unit in based on the abundance and risk of Intact Forest Landscapes in the Reference Area *.

IFL Security in Area of Ecological

Influence

Area Encompassed by IFLs in the Reference Area Extensive Moderate Low

Secure Up to 20% less than Baseline, but not less

than 50,000 ha

Baseline Baseline or More

Somewhat Secure Baseline Baseline or More 20% or more greater than Baseline

Not Secure Baseline or More 20% or more greater than Baseline

20% or more greater than Baseline

The following examples provide illustrations for development of initial core size targets based on Table 2. Example 1.

• IFL size: 75,000 ha • Security in Reference Area: not

secure • Total IFL area in Reference Area:

low

According to the Table 1 instructions, the baseline Core Area* for this IF should be 60,000 ha (80% of 75,000). Because there is a low area of IFLs in the Reference Area and because they are not secure, the initial Core Area* size target should be at least 72,000 ha (i.e. 20% greater than baseline).

IFL Security

in Reference Area

Area of IFLs in the Reference Area Extensive Moderate Low

Secure Up to 20% less than Baseline


Somewhat Secure


20% or more greater

than Baseline

Not Secure Baseline or More

20% or more greater than

Baseline

20% or more greater

than Baseline

Example 2.

• IFL size: 100,000 ha • Security in Reference Area:

somewhat secure • Total IFL area in Reference Area:

moderate

According to the Table 1 instructions, the baseline Core Area* for this IFL should be 70,000 ha (70% of 100,000). Because there is a moderate area of IFLs in the Reference Area and because they are somewhat secure, the initial Core Area* size target should be at least 70,000.

IFL Security

in Reference Area




Somewhat Secure


20% or more greater

than Baseline



Baseline

20% or more greater

than Baseline

of 24

Example 3.

• IFL size: 250,000 ha • Security in Reference Area:

secure • Total IFL area in Reference Area:

extensive According to the Table 1 instructions, the baseline Core Area* for this IFL should be 162,500 ha (65% of 250,000). Because there is an extensive area of IFL in the Reference Area and because they are secure, the initial core size could be reduced by 20% to 130,000 ha.

IFL Security

in Reference Area




Somewhat Secure


20% or more greater

than Baseline



Baseline

20% or more greater

than Baseline

The results of this step should be identification of initial core size targets for all Intact Forest Landscapes in the Reference Area, based on the abundance and risk of Intact Forest Landscapes in the Reference Area.

Step 6. Locate Cores After the initial core size targets have been developed in Step 5, the next task is to identify the location of cores areas* in each of the Management Unit’s Intact Forest Landscapes*. The cores areas* to be identified based on the ecological characteristics identified in Indicator 9.1.x3:

1. The contribution of the area within the Intact Forest Landscapes* to landscape* values such as connectivity*, ecosystem integrity*, and representation;

2. Areas of high species richness; 3. The habitat requirements of broad-ranging wildlife species that use the Intact Forest

Landscapes*; 4. Concentrations of ecological values within the Intact Forest Landscapes*; 5. Proximity to legislated protected areas* within, or continuous to, Management Unit*

boundaries; and 6. Threats to Intact Forest Landscapes in the Management Unit*.

The characteristics of each Intact Forest Landscape* should be evaluated in such a way so as to ‘position’ its core to encompass the optimal configuration of the values noted above. The assessment of the Intact Forest Landscapes* values should be documented, their locations mapped, and the rationale used to locate the cores clearly explained.

Core Contiguity

Normally an Intact Forest Landscape* core should consist of a contiguous area to address landscape* values such as connectivity, as identified in Indicator 9.1.x3. However, there may be circumstances in which it is practical and beneficial for an Intact Forest Landscape* to have more than one core. Such circumstances may exist when key ecological values are far apart within an IFL. These circumstances will generally be uncommon and evidence

of 24

should exist providing rationale for the disjunct nature of core areas. If more than one core is considered for an IFL, each core within the Intact Forest Landscape* must be at least 50,000 ha, and the sum of the area of the cores must at least equal that calculated in Step 5.

The results of this step should be mapped locations of Core Areas within the Management Unit.

Step 7. Social Analysis

Up to this point in the process, the identification of core areas is solely based on ecological and technical landscape analyses. Moving forward, there is a need to include practical and socio-economic considerations to potentially re-adjust core area distribution. Additionally, consideration of the goals and aspirations of Indigenous People will be required, as well as their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). This is in line with the Policy motion’s requirement to respect FPIC in affected Management Units. The mechanism or guidance for applying the social and Indigenous context and considerations to the identification of IFLs and core areas has yet to be developed, and will be a key component of the next stage of this document’s development. Some key issues and question to be resolved in providing direction for social and Indigenous considerations include:

• developing guidance to address the ‘mathematics’ of social circumstances in the identification of core areas (e.g. should the total core area in the Management Unit* remain the same after adjustments to individual cores occur?);

• are there ecological values that merit special consideration when considering adjustments?;

• how should the distribution of IFLs across the landscape be considered?; • articulating the framework for safeguarding aboriginal rights and values in the IFL

identification process; • at what stage in the IFL process does the Policy Motion require FPIC to be applied?

(e.g. IFL identification stage vs. IFL management strategy stage)? What are the pros and cons of either approach?

of 24

Intact Forest Landscape Indicators The indicators identified in this Section are those that specifically address identification or management of Intact Forest Landscapes or Intact Forest Landscape Core Areas and topics that apply uniquely to them and not generically to all High Conservation Values. These indicators (or those that evolve from these) are to be integrated with the existing indicators in the Standard. For example, Indicator 9.2.2 requires that “Affected and interested stakeholders, Indigenous Peoples, and qualified specialists and/or experts are engaged in the development of management strategies to maintain ...HCVs”. Therefore, because IFLs are HCVs, there is not a separate indicator requiring engagement of stakeholders in the development of management strategies specifically for IFLs because that requirement is already addressed in Indicator 9.2.2.

Criterion 9.1 - Identification of High Conservation Values

9.1.x.1 The assessment of HCVs and HCV Areas includes the identification of Intact Forest

Landscapes* and Intact Forest Landscape Core Areas* using the methodology identified in the HCV IFL Guidance Content for Identification of Intact Forest Landscapes* and Intact Forest Landscape Core Areas*, or a comparable methodology that includes the following: 1. Identification of Intact Forest Landscapes* using FSC’s Technical Methodology for IFL

Delineation or based on data available from Global Forest Watch Canada; 2. Identification of all Intact Forest Landscapes* and portions of Intact Forest

Landscapes* in the Management Unit* or the Area of Ecological Influence*; 3. Best efforts* to incorporate a landscape context into the identification of Intact

Forest Landscape core areas* in the Management Unit*; and 4. Consideration of socio-economic factors in determining the final extent of cores to

be included in the Management Unit. Where identification of Intact Forest Landscape Core Areas* is completed using a methodology other than that identified in the HCV IFL Guidance, the total area of Intact Forest Landscape Core Areas* in the Management Unit* does not comprise less than 80% of the total area of Intact Forest Landscapes* in the Management Unit.*

Intact Forest Landscapes that Cross Management Unit Boundaries

This indicator requires the identification of all portions of Intact Forest Landscapes that occur within the Management Unit. This will require accessing information on lands beyond the boundaries of the Management Unit. Although it may not be possible to implement the specific approach identified in the Technical Methodology for IFL Delineation for transboundary IFLs, Organizations are expected to take a precautionary approach in identifying Intact Forest Landscapes that abut the Management Unit so that portions of Intact Forest Landscapes within the Management Unit can be identified. Management Strategies for portions of Intact Forest Landscape that occur within a Management Unit are addressed in Indicators 9.3.x.1 and 9.3.x.2.

of 24

9.1.x2. The size of individual Intact Forest Landscape core areas* identified in Indicator 9.2.x1 or using the HCV Guidance for Identification of Intact Forest Landscapes* and Intact Forest Landscape Core Areas* is not less than 50,000.

Core Area Size

The requirement for individual core areas to be at least 50,000 ha is not intended to imply that this is an ideal or preferred size, it merely identifies a minimum. Larger Intact Forest Landscapes* should contain larger core areas*.

9.1.x3 Identification of individual Intact Forest Landscape Core Areas* is based on:

1. The contribution of the area within the Intact Forest Landscapes* to landscape* values such as connectivity*, ecosystem integrity*, and representation;

2. Areas of high species richness; 3. The habitat requirements of broad-ranging wildlife species that use the Intact Forest

Landscape*; 4. Concentrations of ecological and cultural values within the Intact Forest

Landscapes*; 5. Proximity to legislated protected areas within or continuous to Management Unit

boundaries; and 6. Threats to Intact Forest Landscapes in the Management Unit*. The rationale used to evaluate and locate cores is documented. Locations of intact forest landscape cores areas are mapped.

Locating Cores and Conservation Areas Network

The characteristics of each Intact Forest Landscape* should be evaluated in such a way so as to ‘position’ its core to encompass the optimal configuration of the values noted in this indicator. The assessment of the Intact Forest Landscapes* values should be documented. Core areas* identified in this indicator (and through implementation of the HCV Guidance Content for Identification of Intact Forest Landscapes* and Intact Forest Landscape Core Areas*) and strategies for managing core areas identified through Indicator 9.2.x.1 are incorporated into the process of identification the Conservation Areas Network* through Criterion 6.5. In essence core areas* identified in Principle 9 are ‘passed to’ Criterion 6.5 where a determination is made as to what type of protection is most appropriate for each core area. This is described in more detail in Criterion 6.5

of 24

Criterion 9.2 - HCV Strategies

9.2.x.1 Management strategies for Intact Forest Landscapes* and Intact Forest Landscape

cores* are identified based on: 1. Levels of protection within Intact Forest Landscapes*Management Unit* and/or in

the Area of Ecological Influence*; 2. The ecological and cultural values contained in the cores as identified in Indicator

9.1.x3 3. The contribution of cores to the ecological integrity of the Management Unit* and/or

Area of Ecological Influence*; and 4. Threats* to Intact Forest Landscapes* in the Management Unit* and/or in the Area of

Ecological Influence*.

Indicator 9.2.x.1 identifies the considerations that need to be taken into account when developing management strategies for IFL cores. Examples of strategies: inclusion in the conservation area network, and ‘referral’ to Criterion 6.5, identification of the extent of limited development that may occur, identification of the ecological values that should have priority for management, incorporation into a restoration strategy, etc.

9.2.x2 The strategies for Intact Forest Landscape cores areas* not managed as part of an

approach to Intact Forest Landscape* restoration (reference to Restoration Annex – yet to be written) only include development activities if such operations: 1. Produce clear, substantial, additional, long-term conservation and social benefits;

and 2. Do not cause the core area* to exceed 5% anthropogenic disturbance 3. Cannot be located outside core areas*.

Development Activities

This indicator places restrictions on the extent and type of activities that can occur in Intact Forest Landscape Core Areas*. One of the restrictions is that the activities do not cause the core area to exceed 5% anthropogenic disturbance. This disturbance limit is one of the defining characteristics of Intact Forest Landscapes and must be observed in order for the Core Area* to continue to meet the definition of an Intact Forest Landscape*. Implementation of this Indicator’s requirements should be implemented in consideration of the requirements of Indicator 9.3.x.3 related to forestry operations in cores. Refer to the Technical Methodology for Delineating Intact Forest Landscapes for guidance on determining extent of disturbance in Intact Forest Landscapes*.

of 24

Criterion 9.3 - Implementation of HCV Strategies

Transboundary IFLs

Indicators 9.3.x.1 and 9.3.x.2 address situations in which portions of IFLs* overlap Management Unit* boundaries. Indicator 9.3.x.1 refers to circumstances in which an area of intact forest of at least 50,000 ha (the minimum size for an IFL*) exists in the Management Unit* and additional area of the same IFL* extends into neighbouring lands. In this circumstance, the area of intact forest within the Management Unit is treated as a distinct IFL*. So for example, if the intact area within the Management Unit is 50-75,000 ha, application of Table 1 of this document requires the baseline core area to be 50,000 ha or 80%, whichever is greater. Subsequent calculations of initial core size would similarly be based on the area of core within the IFL*. The location of the core area* is to be entirely within the Management Unit*. Although this approach may lead to different baseline and target core sizes than if the entire area of the IFL* (i.e. including the portion outside of the Management Unit*) were to be considered, this approach is practical in that it is based on the area of IFL* that is within the domain of the Organization and covered by the FSC Certificate. However, the indicator also requires the Organization to work within its Sphere of Influence* to affect management of the broader IFL* area (i.e. including those portions that are outside of the Management Unit) in a manner consistent with Indicators in this Standard. Indicator 9.3.x.2 refers to circumstances in which the portion of an IFL* that exists within the Management Unit is less than 50,000 ha. In this circumstance the Organization must work within its Sphere of Influence* to affect management of the broader IFL* in a manner consistent with the requirements of this Standard’s Indicators. In addition, these areas should be considered for identification as large remnant patches (HCV Category 3) and managed accordingly.

Mgmt Unit

IFL A

IFL C

IFL B

IFL Cores ≥ 50,000 ha

In the example on the left, the portion of IFL A that is within the Mgmt Unit is > 50,000 ha, and so according to Indicator 9.3.x.1 must be considered a distinct IFL and have a core identified and delineated. IFL B is completely within the Mgmt Unit and so a core of at least 50,000 must be identified. The portion of IFL C that is within the Mgmt Unit is less than 50,000 ha and so according to Indicator 9.3.x.2, that part of the IFL need not have a core identified. However, it should probably be recognized as an HCV Category 3 (large remnant patch) and be managed accordingly.

of 24

9.3.x.1 Where an Intact Forest Landscape* that occurs within the Management Unit extends into neighbouring lands: 1. The process identified in Steps 2-6 of Annex X or comparable steps as permitted in

Indicator 9.1.x.1 is implemented using the area of the Intact Forest Landscape* within the Management Unit* as a basis for calculating baseline size and initial core targets;

2. The requirements of all indicators in this Standard are implemented for the portion of the Intact Forest Landscape* within the Management Unit*; and

3. The Organization* works within its Sphere of Influence* to affect management of the broader Intact Forest Landscape* area (i.e. including the Intact Forest Landscape Area* that extends outside of the Management Unit* boundary) consistent with the Indicators in the Standard.

9.3.x.2 Where an area of intact forest that is less than the minimum size of an Intact Forest Landscape* exists within the Management Unit* and constitutes a portion of an Intact Forest Landscape* that extends beyond the Management Unit*, the Organization* works within its Sphere of Influence* to affect management of the broader Intact Forest Landscape area (i.e. including the Intact Forest Landscape Area* that extends outside of the Management Unit* boundary) consistent with the Indicators in the Standard.

9.3.x3 Forestry operations occur in Intact Forest Landscape core areas identified through Indicator 9.2.x1 only as follows: 1. They are implemented over a short period so as to limit the amount of time in which

significant human presence occurs in the core; 2. They include complete removal of infrastructure on an on-going basis such that no

infrastructure exists beyond the time necessary to facilitate operations in the core; 3. In collaboration with regulatory authorities, best efforts are made to strictly control

access for non-forestry activities through the period during which operations are being implemented;

4. They include prompt regeneration of harvest areas to a naturally-occurring forest type.

IFL Restoration

No indicators or guidance have yet been produced that address IFL restoration, although there is agreement within the IFL subcommittee to continue to pursue this topic with the objective of eventual incorporation into the Standard. Restoration, including the concept of bringing some non-IFL areas back to an intact condition to facilitate operations in existing IFLs, has the potential to be an important component of the approach to striking a balance between the protection aspirations expressed in the Policy Motion and the practicality associated with existing tenures and forest management operations in Canada. The subcommittee is cautiously pursuing this, and other ideas related to IFL restoration in recognition of the variety of interests and concerns related to managing IFLs. FSC hopes this topic will feature prominently in ongoing discussions with all parties interested in the management of intact forests.

of 24

Indicators in which IFLs are Contributing Elements As described earlier, there are indicators in Draft 2 of the National Forest Management Standard whose focus is not specifically IFLs, but for which IFLs are important contributing elements. These indicators, and the role of IFLs are described in the table below. Table 3. Indicators which IFLs are important contributing elements.

Indicator and Topic Role of IFLs Notes 6.1.1 Environmental Values

IFLs are included in the list of values for which Organizations are expected to assemble information.

Inclusion of IFLs here links to the requirements in Principle 9 to conduct assessments of IFLs.

6.4.3 Caribou

Management of IFLs is linked to the requirements related to managing forests within caribou ranges.

There is considerable synergy between managing for IFLs and managing for caribou habitat.

Criterion 6.5 Conservation Areas Network: • 6.5.2 Gap Analysis

• 6.5.5 Conservation Area

Network Management Strategies

• 6.5.7 Extent of

Conservation Areas Network

There are considerable linkages between this Criterion 6.5 and IFLs given the expectation of protection for a significant proportion of IFL cores.

• The gap analysis (6.5.2) includes consideration of a variety of ecological values including IFLs;

• Management strategies for IFL cores identified in Principle 9 are used determining the designation as either candidate protected areas or special management areas (6.5.5)

• The area of IFL cores is one of several considerations in determining the extent of the conservation areas network (6.5.7)

6.8.2 Patch Sizes

IFLs can contribute to achieving targets for the distribution of large forest patches.

Patch size targets are to be based on an assessment of existing and historical condition of the forest.

https://ca.fsc.org/preview.national-forest-management-standard-draft-2.a-1271.pdf

of 24

Draft Technical Guidance for IFL Delineation The following guidance, presented in the form a table, is a draft product that will eventually provide direction related to specific aspects of defining and delineating IFLs. FSC is continuing to work with industry partners to test the practicality of the rule set and review the implications the direction provided. Table 4: Rule set for measurement of IFL. Descriptor Quantitative measure Application

Base Size > 500 km2 (50,000 ha) patch size

All patches >500 km2 contiguous and intact. This includes patches contiguous with IFL outside the FMU. The Area of Ecological Influence (AEI) of the contiguous IFL will be considered in a later analysis.

Disturbance <5% affected by recent human disturbance

Intent is that one or two roads into an IFL do not invalidate the whole IFL. The 5% disturbance measure should be applied strictly and include the appropriate buffering around roads and other disturbances.

Roads and utility corridors

Road disturbance and corridors should be defined using local road classification methods. Buffers around these disturbances should follow regional guidance.

Alternatively here are buffers used by one company: Harvest blocks 0 m Highways 500m Municipal/Town Roads 250m Primary Roads 100m Branch Roads 50m Railways 250m Utility/Pipe Lines 50m

The buffers suggested at left are from the first case study, which are consistent with Caribou guidelines in some parts of Canada.

Note that the road and buffer are used to include in the <5% disturbance for an IFL.

It is not appropriate to allow for additional future road building up to the 5% disturbance level. IFLs with a very low level of disturbance may have unforeseen road building occurring in the future, for example from other tenure holders. The 5% is not intended to be used for new forestry.

Minimum width

The minimum width of an IFL is ten km as measured by a 10 km diameter circle that is entirely within the boundaries of the territory).

A circle of this diameter has an area of 7850 ha. The intent of this criterion is to safeguard against long narrow IFLs which would be difficult to calculate and not really the intent of the IFL concept.

Non Forest - Rock

Bare rock of any extent can be included. There are no constraints on the total area.

There were no reasons for a maximum size limit, as there is for open water. It is functional terrestrial habitat, and even in areas dominated by rock, it appears consistent with the intent of an IFL, provided that the area exists within a forest

of 24

Descriptor Quantitative measure Application ecosystem

Non Forest -Open water

Open water can be included for up to 1 km off shore, an area that could be considered biologically functional for larger terrestrial animals. This can be included for a maximum length of maximum 10 km, after which the shoreline should be followed as the end of the IFL. Larger areas are unlikely to occur, but if they do, please not these. The maximum area for a single contiguous block of open Lake water is 10,000 ha.

Note that areas defined as wetland (bog, fen, marsh) are not be considered open water.

The 10,000 ha maximum is provided because this approximates a 1 km stretch of water running along 10 km of shoreline. A one km distance across water is biologically functional for larger terrestrial animals.

Non forest - Wetlands Grasslands

IFLs may contain non-forest areas as part of a broader ecosystem including:

• Wetland - bogs, fens, marshes • Grasslands • Non-production forest

Non-production forest is included, which could have a number of different labels: sensitive forest lands, hazard lands, inoperable, etc., as long as it is undisturbed.

Natural Disturbance

Natural disturbance (fire, blow down, insects) can be fully included as long as the area remains un-accessed, and salvage is not occurring.

Note that salvage areas are not allowed because roads are required. As this guidance was prepared, there were no exceptions, such as salvage in winter.

Non Forestry land uses

Protected areas and FSC Candidate Protected areas can be included in IFL.

Obviously, non-forestry resource extraction is not included.

Contiguous Patches

Small patches contiguous to IFLs external FMA/SFL/defined forest area (For area calculation, the measure area inside of the license area).

Intact patches smaller than 500 km sq that are contiguous with other intact areas outside of the management zone should be included as IFLs.

Time since disturbance

No disturbance is currently allowed at any previous time.

There is currently no allowance for a time since disturbance, regardless of how natural an area may now appear.

Bottlenecks Bottlenecks are constrictions of the IFL to a

distance of less than 2 km measured across the narrowest portion of the neck.

A 2 km bottleneck would divide the IFL into two portions. If either side or both sides of the constriction is greater than 50,000 ha, then one or both would be considered IFL.

intact forest landscapes (ifl) techncial working … · addresses the ecological aspects of ifls....

Documents