summary of forestry & tourism resource stewardship ... · operators, sfls, mnr, mtr and mndm) 2...

Final Report

Summary of Forestry & Tourism Resource Stewardship Agreement Summit

Prepared for Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association

by

BioForest Technologies Inc. 105 Bruce Street

Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 2X6 Telephone: 705-942-5824 Facsimile: 705-942-8829

E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.bioforest.ca

**SECTION 4 OF THIS REPORT HAS BEEN EDITTED BY NOTO IN THE INTEREST OF

UTILITY AND CLARITY

January 2005

mailto:[email protected]

RSA Summit Final Report

Executive Summary This document records the written output from two, one-day workshops held in Sudbury and Dryden that examined the challenges, solutions and best management practices that have grown out of Resource Stewardship Agreements (RSAs) between the tourism and forest industries. The atmosphere in both workshops was open, constructive and lively. The workshop was designed by a steering committee made up of representatives from the forest and tourism industries, Nature & Outdoor Tourism Ontario (NOTO), and the Ministries of Tourism and Recreation (MTR), Natural Resources (MNR), and Northern Development and Mines (MNDM). Members of the RSA Summit Steering Committee are listed in Appendix 1. The participants included 22 representatives from the forest industry, 43 tourism industry representatives, 37 government representatives, 9 RSA consultants and one graduate student. Participants are listed in Appendix 2. Both workshops followed similar formats through plenary sessions and four breakout sessions, although the topics addressed in the fourth breakout session differed between the two workshops. The fourth breakout session in the Sudbury meeting was challenged to address the pro and cons of completing land use planning on Crown lands. In Dryden, groups were asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the RSA process in their fourth session. There were common comments between the two regional workshops. Both confirmed that the most effective business-to-business communication was the development of a one-on-one relationship and both regarded this as a key, long-term benefit of the RSA process. The RSA consultants were found to be useful and the development of an understanding of each other’s business was seen as key to developing a productive and respectful relationship. Both sessions cautioned not to get captured by the formality of the actual RSA (the agreement itself) and advocated a simple and sensible approach to creating an agreement. There were difficulties in getting approaches accepted by other stakeholders and approved by MNR. Discussions in the Sudbury workshop led the group to evaluate the pros and cons of land use planning on Crown lands. All four groups that examined this reported that updated land use direction would improve the planning certainty for both industries, clear up expectations among the general public, and greatly reduce the time spent discussing access issues at the forest management planning stage. There were several other potential benefits noted. However, all four groups also noted that land use planning was a difficult and potentially threatening exercise and that there was no apparent government will to support it.

BioForest Technologies Inc. January 2005 i


The fourth session in the Dryden workshop was asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the RSA process. Twelve groups offered comments. All of the groups stated that the RSA process was working, and all added some qualification to their endorsement. Evaluating this question in more depth will be the subject of a further independent review conducted by March 31, 2005. This workshop has provided some useful starting points for this more complete assessment of the effectiveness of the RSA process. Except for Section 4 the record below is exactly what was recorded in both of the facilitated sessions. Section 4 has been edited in the interest of utility and clarity.

BioForest Technologies Inc. January 2005 ii


Table of Contents Executive Summary........................................................................................................... i 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Summit Agenda..................................................................................................... 5 3.0 Summary of Summit presentations..................................................................... 7

3.1 Sudbury ............................................................................................................... 7 3.1.1 Overview of the RSA process..................................................................... 7 3.1.2 Case study: An RSA that worked well ....................................................... 7 3.1.3 Case study: An RSA that was challenging ................................................. 7

3.2 Dryden................................................................................................................. 8 3.2.1 Overview of the RSA process..................................................................... 8 3.2.2 Case study: An RSA that worked well ....................................................... 8 3.2.3 Case study: An RSA that was challenging ................................................. 9

4.0 Results from Summit breakout sessions ........................................................... 10 4.1 SESSION 1- BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES:...................................... 10

4.1.1 Topic One- Communication Between Parties........................................... 10 4.1.2 Topic Two- Managing Remoteness/Access To Wood Supply ................. 12 4.1.3 Topic Three- FMP Prescriptions & Innovative Ideas To Resolve Issues. 13 4.1.4 Topic Four- Building Relationships.......................................................... 14

4.2 SESSION 2 & 3- CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH RSA PROCESS & POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS ..................................................................................... 15 4.2.1 Topic One- Format and Outline of RSAs ................................................. 15 4.2.2 Topic Two- Integrating the RSA With FMP Process ............................... 16 4.2.3 Topic Three- Managing Remoteness/Access to Wood Supply ................ 17 4.2.4 Topic Four- Communication Challenges.................................................. 19

4.3 SESSION 4 ....................................................................................................... 21 4.3.1 Land Use Planning Pros and Cons- Sudbury Summit .............................. 21 4.3.2 Is the RSA Process Effective? Why or why not? -Dryden Summit ......... 23

5.0 Conclusions.......................................................................................................... 27 Appendix 1: Members of the RSA Summit Steering Committee ............................... 28 Appendix 2: Lists of Summit Attendees ....................................................................... 32 Appendix 3: Summit Agenda......................................................................................... 38 Appendix 4. Overview of the RSA process: Presented in Sudbury by Peter Street,

General Manager, Nipissing Forest Resource Management and The Vermilion Forest Management Company ........................................................ 44

Appendix 5. Case study of an RSA that worked well: Presented in Sudbury by Steve Munro, General Manager Westwind Forest Stewardship Inc. ...................... 50

Appendix 6. Case study of a challenging RSA: Presented in Dryden by Brad Greaves, Ignace Outposts and Ignace Airways and Niels Carl, Superintendent, Aboriginal Business Development, Bowater Canadian Forest Products Inc............................................................................................. 60

BioForest Technologies Inc. January 2005 iii


BioForest Technologies Inc. January 2005 iv


1.0 Introduction In 2001, the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association (NOTO- operating as Nature & Outdoor Tourism Ontario) began providing implementation services to the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation (MTR) in support of the resource-based tourism industry’s involvement in Resource Stewardship Agreements (RSAs). As part of its duties, NOTO was responsible for hosting an event titled the “Forestry & Tourism Resource Stewardship Agreement Summit.” The Summit consisted of two, one-day workshops held in Sudbury and Dryden on November 2, 2004 and November 3, 2004, respectively. The workshops examined the challenges, solutions and best management practices that have grown out of RSAs between the tourism and forest industries. This report records the written output from the Summit. The Summit was designed by a steering committee made up of representatives from the forest and tourism industries, NOTO, MTR, Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), and Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM). Members of the Steering Committee are listed in Appendix 1. The Summit was attended by 112 people. The participants included 22 representatives from the forest industry, 43 tourist industry representatives, 37 government representatives, 9 RSA consultants and one graduate student. Participants are listed in Appendix 2. Craig Howard and Anne Hayes of BioForest Technologies Inc. facilitated the workshops. 2.0 Summit Agenda The Summit agenda was developed by the RSA Summit steering committee and the detailed Summit agenda is attached in Appendix 3. The first part of the Summit was dedicated to providing participants with background information on the RSA process. Summit participants were given an overview of the RSA process and two case studies, one that looked at an RSA that worked well and one that looked at an RSA that was challenging. The remainder of the Summit consisted of four facilitated breakout sessions that addressed: Best management practices associated with the RSA process (Session 1); Challenges associated with the RSA process (Session 2); Potential solutions to the challenges associated with the RSA process (Session 3); and Land Use Planning: Pros and Cons (Sudbury) / Is the RSA Process Effective? – Why or Why Not? (Dryden) (Session 4). To address these broad concepts in some detail, Summit participants were divided into four groups and asked to focus on a particular topic related to each broad concept. The topics discussed during each session are listed in Table 1.

BioForest Technologies Inc. January 2005 5


Table 1. Topics discussed during RSA Summit breakout sessions.

Breakout Session Concept Group Topic

1 Communication between parties (i.e. tourism operators, SFLs, MNR, MTR and MNDM)

2 Managing remoteness / access to wood supply

3 FMP prescriptions and innovative ideas used to resolve issues

Session 1 Best management practices: what worked, why it worked, and can it be improved

4 Building relationships 1 Format and outline of RSAs 2 Integrating the RSA with FMP process

3 Managing remoteness / access to wood supply

Session 2 Challenges associated with the RSA process

4 Communication challenges 1 2 3

Session 3 Potential solutions to challenges identified in Session 2.

4

Same as Session 2

1 2 3

Session 4 Land Use Planning: Pros and Cons (Sudbury) / Is the RSA Process Effective? – Why or Why Not? (Dryden) 4

All groups discussed the session concept (Note: For this session in Dryden, rather than breaking into four groups, the participants stayed at their tables, of which there were 12)

To help facilitate discussion during the breakout sessions, groups were given a series of questions related to their topics. After the discussion period, groups were asked to report summaries of their breakout sessions to the large group. Results from the breakout sessions are presented in Section 4.0 of this report.



3.0 Summary of Summit presentations Presentations were given at the Summit that provided participants with an overview of the RSA process and case studies on RSAs that worked well and ones that were challenging. This section briefly summarizes the presentations. 3.1 Sudbury

3.1.1 Overview of the RSA process In Sudbury, Peter Street, General Manager, Nipissing Forest Resource Management and The Vermilion Forest Management Company, presented an overview of the RSA process. The presentation outlined the key elements of the RSA process and described the roles of the various parties involved. Peter explained that the RSA process adheres to the following guidelines for good planning:

Plan ahead (start early); Identify the players; Understand each other; Define your interests (not positions) and map your values; Collaborate – work cooperatively to develop planning solutions that address your

interests; Steer the plan input through the planning process; Monitor the implementation of your planning solution; Honour your commitments; Maintain the relationship with your planning partner - consider yearly meetings, etc.

A copy of Peter’s PowerPoint presentation is attached in Appendix 4.

3.1.2 Case study: An RSA that worked well In Sudbury, Steve Munro, General Manager, Westwind Forest Stewardship Inc., presented a case study of an RSA that worked well. Steve provided background information on the forest that Westwind manages, including the number of resource based tourism operators associated with the forest. The presentation provided information on how Westwind has participated in the RSA process. To date, Westwind has completed three RSAs, one of which Steve summarized during his talk. Steve emphasized that the three critical components of their successful RSAs are promoting business concerns, communication, and innovation. A copy of Steve’s PowerPoint presentation is attached in Appendix 5.

3.1.3 Case study: An RSA that was challenging

In Sudbury, Peter Street presented a case study of an RSA that was challenging. As part of the RSA process that Peter was involved in, 250 letters were sent out to tourist operators. From those contacts, 30 RSAs were completed, one of which was with a fly-in operator. Some of the issues that made the process challenging included the following:



Trails

Snow mobile trails Formal recognition by MNR of trails Trails that go through Living Legacy parks Handling unauthorized trails on crown land;

Wilderness recreation classifications; Significant number of cottages near lakes; Environmental concerns associated with canoe routes; Remoteness; Increased access; Different opportunities provided to tourists depending on tourist operator.

Peter discussed the importance of bringing the interested parties together to address these issues and indicated that the RSA process forced people to talk to each other, which turned out to be enjoyable. 3.2 Dryden

3.2.1 Overview of the RSA process In Dryden, Todd Eastman, Lands & Forests Issues Manager, NOTO, presented an overview of the RSA process. The presentation was the same as that given by Peter Street in Sudbury. A brief summary of the presentation can be found in Section 3.1.1 of this report, and the PowerPoint presentation is attached in Appendix 4.

3.2.2 Case study: An RSA that worked well In Dryden, Bob Huitikka, Owner Operator, Wilderness Air Limited, presented a case study of an RSA that worked well. Bob has been in the tourism industry for 35 years. He has tourism values on six different forest management units. The MNR used to be Bob’s main contact for forest management issues. About 15 years ago, Bob started dealing directly with the forest companies and found that to be much more efficient. The MNR then played the role of assisting with conflict resolution. For 20 years, Bob has been annually contacting the forest companies that manage the forests of interest to him. He meets face-to-face with the companies that work on the forests in which he has the most interest, and by phone with the companies that work on the forests in which he has limited interest. The annual meetings focus on access, areas of concern, and, when necessary, alternative harvesting routes. Direct contact between Bob and the forest companies has allowed for the establishment of good working relationships. For Bob, the RSA process simply formalized what he was already doing with the forest companies. He has signed a 20-year RSA that is reviewed every five years and the parties



meet annually, just as Bob has done in the past. Bob outlined the following as being keys to successful RSAs:

Being willing to compromise; Meeting one-on-one annually to look at blocks to be harvested, roads, etc.; Respecting each other’s interests; Recognizing that there are many ways to negotiate deals.

3.2.3 Case study: An RSA that was challenging

In Dryden, Brad Greaves, President, Ignace Outposts and Ignace Airways, and Niels Carl, Superintendent, Aboriginal Business Development, Bowater Canadian Forest Products Inc., presented a case study on an RSA that was challenging. The parties had worked together in the past on previous plans and had developed techniques that protected each other’s interests. In spite of this established relationship, when it came time to develop an RSA, which both parties wanted, they encountered several obstacles such as the following:

Time constraints resulting in poor communication; An increasingly complicated document; Disagreements on the format of the document.

Brad and Niels outlined the following solutions that allowed them to overcome their disagreements:

Created own RSA format; Developed a timeless and dynamic document; Developed a one page introduction outlining objectives, interests, and responsibility; Outlined principles for developing prescriptions to protect tourism values; Decided that the agreement would be signed by the outfitter, the Manager of

Planning, and, to ensure commitment from the level that will negotiate/implement the FMP prescriptions, several “on the ground” personnel of the forest company;

Included only three appendices in the RSA: contact information, FMP prescriptions, and one, all-inclusive map.

Brad and Niels emphasized that the keys to their success in overcoming the challenges associated with their RSA were trust, corporate responsibility, and simplicity. A copy of Brad and Niels’ PowerPoint presentation is attached in Appendix 6.



4.0 Results from Summit breakout sessions This section presents the results of the breakout sessions in Sudbury and Dryden. This section is based on comments that were recorded by the breakout groups. Recorded feedback was edited in the interest of utility and clarity. 4.1 SESSION 1- BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES:

what worked, why it worked, and can it be improved

4.1.1 Topic One- Communication Between Parties Useful Methods of Communication One-on-one meetings help form better relationships as parties have the opportunity to understand one another’s business. There is value in meeting in a neutral location or having a meeting at both parties place of business. One-on-one meetings should be held in a private setting, not for instance at a scoping session, where parties may feel more comfortable opening up about their business needs. Participants noted that there was value in getting involved in the process early and keeping MNR apprised of how negotiations proceed. Some forest industry representatives indicated that contacting operators each year during the preparation of the Annual Work Schedule was a good time to remind operators what activities are scheduled to take place that coming year so as to remove the element of surprise. Communication should also take place between the parties whenever previously agreed to prescriptions may have to be modified. RSA consultants have been helpful in bridging the information gap between tourism operators and SFL representatives. Written communication (fax, email, mail) was seen as an important means of documenting and following up on meeting outcomes. This documentation can also serve as a useful staring point for future discussions. Avenues for Improvement The scheduling of open houses, scoping sessions, and RSA meetings should accommodate where possible, the winter marketing schedule of many tourism businesses. Instances were noted where operators were negotiating RSAs with an individual from the SFL who was a few steps removed from the plan author. This created inefficiencies and frustrations for the tourist operator because the SFL representative would have to get back to the operator after he or she discussed the matter with the plan author or a senior company representative. Where possible, negotiations should take place between individuals who are in a position to make decisions. There is value in having some form and degree of communication with other interest groups in order to dispel any misconceptions or concern these people may have about the



RSA process. Explaining the tourism value requiring protection, and what it would mean to the business if the value were lost, may result in reduced conflict and improved support.



4.1.2 Topic Two- Managing Remoteness/Access To Wood Supply Different Approaches Being Used Breakout participants noted that where Enhanced Management Areas exist on the land base, road access restrictions or other measures to protect remote values is less controversial, since the management direction and intent for these areas is clear and has already been determined. When using signage to control access, signage should be erected prior to the commencement of operations, including road construction, and the wording should clearly state what the lifespan, utility and purpose of the road will be. Where the opportunity exists, timing of harvest (duration, season or time of day (i.e. night operations)) was recognised as an approach to protect remote values. A mini land use planning process was suggested to address access issues for a particular region or area. This would involve discussions with potentially impacted parties and those with a vested interest in the area. Avenues for Improvement Participants noted that improved enforcement of access restrictions was required and that plans for decommissioning of forest access roads must be adhered to. Parties to RSAs should keep MNR relatively informed of what is being negotiated early in the process, especially when it involves something that will influence the larger public interest. It was suggested that roads planning be enhanced, where possible, by building roads closer to lakes not possessing remote values in order to benefit road-based users. When developing approaches to protect remote tourism values there is merit in a site visit to truly understand protection requirements. Given that access restrictions generally lead to some degree of conflict and controversy, there is benefit in educating the public and other stakeholders about the value of remoteness. New or improved road access opportunities (e.g. boat launches, stocked lakes, etc.) should be made public.



4.1.3 Topic Three- FMP Prescriptions & Innovative Ideas To Resolve Issues Prescriptions- General Breakout participants noted several general approaches that had been agreed to during RSA negotiations to protect specific tourism values including:

o Location of forest access roads o Timing restrictions on harvest (cutting) and renewal operations (preparing sites

for reforestation) o Road abandonment plans including the removal of water crossings, placement of

cutover materials on road beds, and replanting of roads o Viewscape reserves o No road construction within 120 metres of tourism lake and no clear cutting

within 400 metres (selection harvest only) Prescriptions- Innovative Participants noted the following approaches to further protect identified tourism values.

o Do not use names of tourism lakes when naming forest access roads o Utilise a different type of harvesting equipment where possible to address noise

concerns o Variable width reserves may be employed depending on results of site visit o Plant or seed sites immediately following harvest o Using marten core guidelines or others (Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation)

to achieve tourism values protection at the same time (note that the guidelines referred to generally involve removing clumps or stands of trees of certain characteristics from harvest for a certain period of time)



4.1.4 Topic Four- Building Relationships Key Relationships Formed Breakout participants indicated that establishing relationships with the following individuals were key in helping them through the RSA process:

o SFL Forester (company forester) o MNR Area Forester o MNR Area Supervisor and District Manager o NOTO RSA Consultant o MNR Information Management Supervisor (for concerns related to Tourism

Values Map) o Overlapping Licensee (company with a fibre commitment from management unit

however not responsible for forest management planning activities) Building and Maintaining Relationships Participants noted that although distance and travel time may be a factor in arranging meetings, it is critical that face-to-face meetings take place between operators and forest industry representatives during RSA negotiations. Furthermore if these meetings can take place at either party’s place of business it helps the parties appreciate one another’s perspective. Meeting in person regularly, regardless of the circumstances, helps build trust between the parties. Although RSA Consultants are in place to assist tourism operators with the RSA process, participants noted that the consultants help discussions and the process move along. Important considerations in building and maintaining relationships between operators and forest industry representatives include both parties entering the RSA process with open minds, realistic expectations, and an accurate understanding of the objectives of the RSA process.



4.2 SESSION 2 & 3- CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH RSA PROCESS & POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

4.2.1 Topic One- Format and Outline of RSAs

Challenges Breakout participants identified the following as challenges associated with the format and outline of RSAs:

o Values Mapping – process and responsibilities are unclear o RSAs too formal/legalistic o RSAs not addressing key points of Memorandum of Understanding o RSA understood by related parties (overlapping licensees) o Business interests adequately described

Solutions

Values Mapping Participants suggested that more training and awareness activities be undertaken by MNR so that everyone, including MNR staff, understands the values mapping process. Making certain that values maps are available to the RSA parties at the appropriate time in negotiations is important to the mapping and RSA process. In order that MNR maintain accurate values information it was suggested that MNR hold annual verification meetings with the local tourism industry. There is also an ongoing need to continue to direct MNR staff to suppress sensitive values information to maintain certain tourism values. Formal RSAs Participants suggested that the parties to an RSA produce an agreement that can be easily understood so that it can be followed and implemented. The format of the document was seen to be not as important as its content. NOTO’s RSA Outline can serve as a starting point for negotiating parties: ultimately it will be left to the two parties to decide what format and content works best for them. RSAs and MoU To help ensure that the key points of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) are addressed participants suggested that the MoU be made available especially to new operators coming into the industry. Persons felt that the MoU could be included with information resources that MTR or Ministry of Northern Development and Mines provide to new RBT licensees. RSAs and Overlapping Licensees In order to ensure that the RSA is understood by overlapping licensees, participants suggested that the SFL holder could involve these individuals in RSA discussions and the development of prescriptions.



4.2.2 Topic Two- Integrating the RSA With FMP Process Challenges Breakout participants identified the following challenges associated with integrating the RSA and FMP process:

o Specific location of harvest areas is not known early in RSA discussions o Ensuring that parties talk/communicate at the appropriate times in order to keep

process moving o Finding the time for parties to talk o Input or pressure from parties external to RSA influence negotiated solutions o District boundaries and management unit boundaries can cause barriers to

negotiations if tourism values cross them o Dealing with issues in RSA negotiations that have broader implications o One prescription does not fit all circumstances

Solutions Although participants did not offer solutions for each challenge noted above they did offer the following: It is important that tourist outfitters and plan authors communicate regularly during the planning process and plan implementation. This includes specific obligations such as Annual Work Schedule reviews and amendments but also unplanned events such as fires or unauthorised access. Parties to the RSA should begin discussions in the early stages of FMP development and talk often after this time. In terms of the pressures and opposition other interests place on approaches to protect tourism values, participants indicated that it must be pointed out to individuals who oppose access restrictions that they still have the right to travel beyond an access control- just not in their vehicle. The percentage of roads on a unit that are closed to motorised travel is small- a large number of new and existing roads remain open to the public and this point should be made clear. The wording on posted signs should clearly define access limitations, but with a positive spin. A clear message will allow for a stricter enforcement of signs. Plan authors, tourist outfitters, and MNR staff all have a role to play in educating the public of the importance of protecting remote tourism values. Defining remote recreation areas on the land base and using Enhanced Management Area designations provide a way to protect these values.



4.2.3 Topic Three- Managing Remoteness/Access to Wood Supply Challenges Breakout participants identified the following challenges associated with finding solutions to managing remoteness and access to wood:

o Needs of forest industry not well understood (e.g. timing, techniques) o Needs of tourism industry not well understood (e.g. remoteness) o Getting approaches/prescriptions through MNR guidelines o Existing MNR planning framework and guidelines aren’t addressing remote

recreation and tourism values o Effectiveness of access control measures including enforcement o Public expectations regarding access roads o Preserving feeling of remoteness for drive-in operations o Impact on remote values/experiences of All Terrain Vehicles- how to control

ATV traffic o Definition of remoteness o Timing restrictions on forest operations are not always possible (only so much

summer wood) Solutions Although participants did not offer solutions for each challenge noted above they did offer the following: Parties to a RSA should discuss the term remoteness at the beginning of negotiations so that they have a clear understanding of one another’s perceptions and expectations. At this point it would be useful for the parties to agree how a prescription or approach will be gauged as being successful. When using timing restrictions, parties must understand that although such an approach may benefit one party, it may not come at no cost to the other. Although useful, parties must understand the impacts of such an approach. Participants indicated that efforts be made by government and the forest and tourism industries to address the common public perception that roads on Crown land are open to tax payers of the province. The value of remoteness should be defined economically and socially to the various forest users. In order to enhance the value of remoteness there may be opportunities to rehabilitate certain previously accessed areas. Planning for remoteness on a smaller scale for a particular area with users from that area may be an effective way to maintain existing level of remoteness. On the issue of ATV traffic, there is a need to have designated areas for this sort of activity to occur so as to minimise impact on remote users/values. Some sort of land use planning exercise was envisioned to deal with conflicting uses/interests in General Use Areas.



MNR has a role to play in ensuring that plans for road abandonment and decommissioning that are included in approved forest management plans are adhered to.



4.2.4 Topic Four- Communication Challenges Challenges Breakout participants identified the following communication challenges related to the RSA process:

o Party to process (operator or SFL representative) takes a position from outset o Party arrives at negotiating table bearing a grudge because of past

history/practices (e.g. previous agreements not honoured) o Either party acting in a degrading manner o Operators feeling intimidated by multinational forest company they are

negotiating with o Poor attitudes on the part of either negotiating party- e.g. Operator has a lake and

an outpost camp- what more do they need? Forest company has a big area- go away and leave me alone.

o Operators do not understand forestry terms, management process, etc. o Parties do not share similar understanding of key concepts (e.g. traditional access,

similar level of remoteness) o Staff turnover (government, forest industry)- dealing with one person today

somewhat different the next o Uncertain as to what can reasonably be requested o Finding the time to participate in process, meetings, etc. o Timing and scheduling of mailings, open houses, scoping sessions o Commitment from MNR to maintain remoteness o In the future, communication challenges may increase if RSA Consultants are not

in place to facilitate process. Solutions Although participants did not offer solutions for all of the above noted challenges they did offer the following: Scoping sessions or other early meetings related to the RSA process can serve as an opportunity to clarify terminology and concepts that will be covered during negotiations. Attitudes of both parties will be evident at early meetings related to the process. NOTO and RSA Consultants may help facilitate a change in attitude. Opportunities or actions to help change any negative attitudes should be identified. At initial meetings the expectations of each party should be quantified. It is important that discussions address topics that fit within the parameters of the process. Parties should attempt to reach common ground through compromise. The availability and time commitment of parties to the process should be clearly communicated. Tourist operators responding to the forest company’s RSA invitation letter, could identify blocks of time in the calendar year when they are generally available. Forest company representatives might find that the easiest way to meet with operators is to pay a visit to their place of operation. In the same respect, when tourism



operators are travelling through town (e.g. beginning/end of season, supply run, etc.) they could schedule a meeting or stop by the forestry office to touch base. Notices regarding open houses, scoping meetings, etc. should be made by way of regular mail and as far in advance of the session as possible. Newspaper advertisements inform the general public but do not always reach intended audiences. Operators are generally away from their operating geography in winter months and at their remote business locations in the summer months. In the event operators cannot attend a scheduled FMP open house, it is suggested that a delegate be sent or an appointment be made to view what is being planned for the FMP at the local MNR office. Open houses are not seen as the best venue to negotiate an RSA. This should be done before and in between open houses. Open houses provide an opportunity for operators to see that the FMP is addressing their concerns and to provide clarification/rationale to any person in attendance who may have a concern regarding the protection being afforded to tourism values. It is important that MNR be kept relatively and regularly informed throughout the RSA and FMP processes regarding the status of RSA negotiations. Opportunities for each industry to cross promote one another should be identified. This will help strengthen the relationship between the two industries.



4.3 SESSION 4

4.3.1 Land Use Planning Pros and Cons- Sudbury Summit Group 1 Pros: • Less conflict • Clearer Direction • Update existing guidelines (DLUGs outdated) • Protection of socio economic values • Reflect needs of local stakeholders • Clearer defined access • Aid longer range planning • Aid security – support investment • Consistency between regions/districts • Stability to industries • Resolve trail ownership / liability issues • Better plan access infrastructure Cons: • $ • Lots of work • Difficult to reach consensus at end • No political will! (perception) • Not sure how to approach the process • How to deal with First Nation issues – treaty rights • May introduce some instability – change current policy • Southern Ontario will drive process/decisions Group 2 Pros: • Greater planning certainty for industry • Clearer expectations for general public (won’t have to pre-sign roads) • Reduce complexity of resource management plans • Fewer bump-ups • Can be defined to recreational motor vehicle planning • Remote access EMAs could be prototype • Balance can be achieved over broader landscape not each forest • Four major stakeholder groups on record in support Cons: • Question political will • Difficulty of exercise • Public could see as infringement of rights



• Road accessible areas will require more management • May not have adequate resources for task in current fiscal environment • First Nation reaction unknown • Question re: liability for roads Group 3 Pros: • It sets the ground rules for an area – before you start • Makes forest management planning process much easier • For tourism – you know where you are starting with issues • All stakeholders know the “ground rules” • Will help prevent individual district manager’s interpretation of use – varies for each

district Cons: • Need to define the uses with land use planning – all categories • Element of risk to redefine meanings and uses • Currently – General Use Areas are not representative of all general users • Risk for more involvement by “Parks People” • More withdrawal of land from economic needs of northern industries Group 4 Pros: • Access issues largely removed from FMP • Land use direction affects all users and activities Cons: • Not simple • Reluctance of government • Number of stakeholders involved



4.3.2 Is the RSA Process Effective? Why or why not? -Dryden Summit Table 1

- Proper measurement tool is not the # of RSAs signed to date. - There is success if some RSAs signed - Education and awareness has created more positive involvement by tourist

industry in FMP process - they used to go to public forums to complain - In past – the open houses may have been their first knowledge of fmp process - Consultants have played a key role in reducing fear of operators to get

involved - Better understanding of the two industries by parties involved - Teaching people where to go to get information on the FMP process - Shotgun approach – was give everyone an RSA

Table 2 Pros:

- Resolves issues between tourism – forestry - Solidifies process that was in place in some areas - Raised profile of RBT within economy of northern Ontario - Building relationships

Cons:

- Does not resolve issues with MNR and other users - It may have complicated existing relationships with other groups - Must define social and financial stakeholders – tourism industry needs vs.

recreational users - MNR must have understanding of result / impacts of their decisions –

accountability - RSA process can be derailed by the comments of a few individuals

Table 3

- More to running a business than just the business – involved in forestry, how things work – learning process.

- Effective in making contacts, opens lines of communication - Process forces both parties to talk → opens communication (may not have

occurred before) - Raising awareness of tourism issues (economic benefit etc.) to industry and/or

possibly MNR - Has improved database – location/name, impacts (know who to involve) - Public perception that industry (tourism/forestry) are working together – this

is positive.



Table 4 – Has the RSA Process Been Effective?

- ½ yes, ½ no - Yes, provided educational forum and resources for those that choose to

participate to assist bridging the differences between forestry and tourism. - No, most operators are still dependent on being informed by MNR and

forestry as the plan is being developed. In these cases, many are still entrenched in opposite positions.

Table 5 – Has RSA Process Been Effective?

- Yes, but maybe not for the planned reasons Why

- Timing – the development of RSA came from the MOU that was holding the completion of the Tourism Guideline. Because the same people from government, NOTO and forestry industry were involved in all three, it forced us to start listening to each other and seeing each other’s problems. This led to good stuff.

Why Not

- Unfortunately the wording of a small part of the MOU raised some expectations within the tourism and forest industry.

Table 6

- The RSA process is a good tool to communicate intentions of the involved user groups before the initiation of the F.M.P. It provides an opportunity for people to discuss issues before anything is planned. A key point is the requirement to notify all involved parties to be involved. This process is also the framework for relationship building that brings people’s interest to the forefront.

Table 7 – Has the RSA Process Been Effective?

- Generally, yes, however, too early to be conclusive. Number of agreements are not there but: • Level of cooperation, communication is higher between two industries • Educated tourist industry on FMP process • Much better relationship between RBTs/SFLs • Improved values mapping • Better understanding of a wide range of values/interest • It’s not just donuts around outposts • Clean up / accuracy of information • There is a better recognition of each party’s issues



Table 8 – MNR & Industry Folks

- Corporate discomfort about creating a legal document – template favoured tourist operators

- Adding forest industry legal case – cumbersome document - Other parties excluded from process – perceived to be a formal “done deal”

before coming to FMP process - Only real controversial outcomes of RSA are access restriction prescriptions

not other types of prescriptions - Process has value if required to jump start relationship building where it did

not previously exist – process for sake of process where informal arrangements were working in past

- Proposed prescriptions developed by RSA proponents are not always realistic – can’t reasonably be expected to be accepted by public (or by MNR)

- MNR on sideline – expectation that results will be delivered – but not in MNR control

- Flounder – one or both parties seek MNR intervention – or trigger the mediation mechanism

- Timing concerns relative to bringing RSA results into FMP process (before 2nd information centre)

Table 9 – Effective? or Not? Effective

- Engaged RBT industry in FMP planning formally Information available widely Direct contact

- Standardized nature of agreement process - Raised awareness of RBT in MNR/SFL - Better corporate relationships between industries - Not about number of RSAs – who has been engaged - Reduce conflict

Inefficient

- Does not address wider recreational considerations (i.e. areas) → more strategic

- Indirectly tries to regulate recreation through access planning Table 10 – Is the RSA process effective/successful? Yes

- Encourages one-on-one agreements - Facilitates long term relationship and agreement



- Encourages innovative solutions – trades offs – “these trees for that access control”

No

- Same battle – different rules - Complication of formerly successful agreements - Without a definition of remoteness, our negotiating position is no better than

before - No provision for group scenarios/agreements – conquer and divide perception

Conclusion

- Jury still out – funding can’t end - industry and consultants just climbing learning curve.

Table 11 Successes

- Relationship is much better - Respect for each other’s interests - Better understanding of each other’s interests - Generated better prescriptions in forest management planning to benefit of

both industries - Enhanced relationship between MTR and MNR - Recognize need to continue to evolve

Table 12 – Has it been effective – why or why not?

- RSAs are working to a point. • Help to protect existing tourism businesses • Gives tourism a say in the management of resources • Sets out clear direction for forest company to follow when operating

around or in vicinity of tourism establishment • Has helped to encourage discussions/meetings that can lead to agreements

and understandings between the two industries

- Has not been effective in some places or with specific forest companies/tourism outfitters due to: Lack of flexibility with one party or both Other users demanding access not be decommissioned afterward Lack of enforcement of access restrictions



5.0 Conclusions There were common comments between the two regional workshops. Both confirmed that the most effective business-to-business communication was the development of a one-on-one relationship and both regarded this as a key, long-term benefit of the RSA process. The RSA consultants were found to be useful and the development of an understanding of each other’s business was seen as key to developing a productive and respectful relationship. Both sessions cautioned not to get captured by the formality of the RSA template and advocated a simple and sensible approach to creating an agreement. There were difficulties in getting agreements accepted by other stakeholders and approved by MNR. Discussions in the Sudbury workshop led the group to evaluate the pros and cons of land use planning on Crown lands. All four groups that examined this reported that land use guidelines would improve the planning certainty for both industries, clear up expectations among the general public, and greatly reduce the time spent discussing access issues at the forest planning stage. There were several other potential benefits noted. However, all four groups also noted that land use planning was a difficult and potentially threatening exercise and that there was no apparent government will to support it. The fourth session in the Dryden workshop was asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the RSA process. Twelve groups offered comments. All of the groups stated that the RSA process was working, and all added some qualification to their endorsement. Evaluating this question in more depth will be the subject of a further study to be conducted by March 31, 2005. This workshop has provided some useful starting points for this more complete assessment of the effectiveness of the RSA process.



Appendix 1: Members of the RSA Summit Steering Committee



RSA Summit Steering Committee Members Name Affiliation Jim Antler Ministry of Tourism and Recreation John Cameron Ministry of Tourism and Recreation Todd Eastman NOTO Brad Greaves Ignace Outposts and Ignace Airways Rick Groves Tembec Stephen Harvey Ministry of Natural Resources Betty McGie Watsons Algoma Vacations Mark Melisek Ministry of Northern Development and Mines Peter Street Nipissing Forest Resource Management Inc.


RSA Summit Summary

Appendix 2: Lists of Summit Attendees


RSA Summit Summary


RSA Summit Summary

List of Attendees at the Sudbury Summit Sudbury November 2 Name Organization Title Telephone Email Gabriele Aleksa Acorn Forestry Services RSA Consultant 705-945-8410 [email protected] Jim Antler MTR Policy Advisor Meredith Armstrong Partners in Eco Adventure Tourism (PEAT) Ecotourism Development Coordinator 705-566-7599 [email protected] Don Bazeley Tembec Phil Bunce Northshore Forest John Cameron MTR RSA Coordinator Gord Campbell MNR Sault Bill Chambers Pinegrove Resorts Lisa Clarke Madawaska Forestry RSA Consultant Tom Croswell Tembec Spruce Falls Plan Author 705-337-9773 [email protected] Todd Eastman NOTO Lands & Forests Issues Manager Brad Ekstrom Hearst Forest Management 705-362-4464 Rob Galloway MNR Northeast Region Regional Director Jose Garcia South Bay Guesthouse Bob Garson Garson's Fly-In Outposts Owner Operator 807-822-2222 [email protected] George Graham Hearst Forest Management Chief Forester 705-362-4464 [email protected] Stephen Harvey MNR Forest Management Branch RSA Advisor [email protected] Anne Hayes BioForest Technologies Summit Facilitator [email protected] Martha Heidenheim MNR Hearst Area Supervisor [email protected] Craig Howard BioForest Technologies Summit Facilitator [email protected] Colette King Saenchiur Flechey Owner Operator 705-898-2660 [email protected] Jean Lam MTR Assistant Deputy Minister Sheila Larmer MTR Director- Tourism Branch Tim Lehman MNR Sudbury Planning Forester 705-564-7875 [email protected] Keith Ley DOMTAR- Espanola Gillian Lloyd Kegos Camp Owner Operator 705-841-2503 [email protected] Mike Loney Sportsmans Lodge Owner Operator 705-853-4434 Bob Lowe Black Bear Camp Owner Operator [email protected] Vicki Lowe Black Bear Camp Owner Operator













RSA Summit Summary

Sudbury November 2 Name Organization Title Telephone Email Don MacLachlan North To Adventure Owner Operator Betty McGie Watson’s Algoma Vacations Owner Operator Dave McGowan Bosque Consulting RSA Consultant 705-949-0376 [email protected] John McNutt Tembec Jan Meijer Agnew Lake Lodge Owner Operator 705-869-2239 [email protected] Stephen Mitchell Westwind Forest Bonnie Moylan Olivers Fly-In Operator 807-868-2337 [email protected]

Steve Munro Westwind Forest General Manager 705-746-6832 ext. 22 [email protected]

Steve Osawa MNR Northeast Region Senior Forest Management Planner [email protected] Mike Palmer Hartley Bay Company Ltd Owner Operator Karen Pederson Flame Lake Lodge Owner Operator 705-864-2588 [email protected] David Prior Redwood Lodge Owner Operator 705-848-2692 [email protected] Zoe Pullen Pullen Nagagami Lodge Owner Operator 705-735-0326 [email protected] Brenda Renwick South Bay Guesthouse 705-671-9611 [email protected] Doug Reynolds NOTO Executive Director James Steele MNR [email protected]

Peter Street Nipissing Forest Resource Management and The Vermilion Forest Management Company General Manager

Peter Terris MNR Hearst [email protected] Sylvia Tomlinson Silv'ry Moon Lodge Owner Operator Mark Vincent MNDM North Bay Tourism Advisor [email protected] Shaun Walker MNR Kirkland Lake District Planner 705-568-3231 [email protected] Glen Warren MNDM Sudbury Tourism Advisor [email protected] Marg Watson Sudbury Aviation Owner Operator 705-983-4255 [email protected] Gerry Webber MTR Coordinator- RBT Unit Paul Wyatt RSA Consultant
















RSA Summit Summary

List of Attendees at the Dryden Summit Dryden November 3 Name Organisation Title Telephone Email Steve Allen MNR Sioux Lookout Area Forester [email protected] Jim Antler MTR Policy Advisor Peter Barber Barber's Owner Operator 807-224-6411 [email protected] Frank Bastone MNDM Kenora Tourism Advisor Sarah Browne School of Resource & Envtl Mgmt

Simon Fraser University Graduate Student [email protected]

John Cameron MTR RSA Coordinator Niels Carl Bowater Cathy Cavalier MNR Northwest Region Forest Program Specialist [email protected] Steve Crawford Kimberly Clark 807-876-4015 [email protected] Bob David MNR Dryden Bud Dickson Canoe Canada Darrell Donnelly Donnelly's Minitaki Resort Owner Operator 800-563-5423 [email protected] Stephen Duda MNR Kenora District Planner Todd Eastman NOTO Lands & Forests Issues Manager John Fahlgren Sydney Lake Lodge Owner Operator 807-662-7171 David Fisher Totem Lodge Dennis Forbes RSA Consultant Mike Furlong Peak Performance RSA Consultant 807-938-6800 [email protected] Brad Greaves Ignace Outposts Ltd Owner Operator 807-934-2273 [email protected] Jack Green Green's Fly-In Jason Green Green's Fly-In Anne Hayes BioForest Technologies Summit Facilitator [email protected] Judy Hendrickson Uchi Lake Lodge Owner Operator 807-737-1356 [email protected] Colin Hewitt Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. Senior Planning Forester [email protected] Rachel Hill MNR Fort Frances District Planner [email protected] Verne Hollett Slate Falls Outposts Owner Operator 775-841-9275 [email protected] Cecil Horne Cecil Horne Consulting RSA Consultant 807-274-6516 [email protected] Craig Howard BioForest Technologies Summit Facilitator [email protected] Bob Huitikka Wilderness Air Owner Operator 800-760-0924 [email protected]
















RSA Summit Summary

Dryden November 3 Name Organisation Title Telephone Email Len Hunt MNR Social Science Analyst [email protected] Paul Jewiss Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. Divisional Forester 807-274-5311 ext. 1891 [email protected] Terry Kluke Merkel's Camp Owner Operator 807-938-6428 [email protected] Angie Korzinski Rusty Myers Flying Service Owner Operator 866-707-7637 [email protected] Sheila Larmer MTR Director- Tourism Branch Charlie Lauer MNR Northwest Region Regional Director Kerri MacKay Weyerhaeuser Marshall Mans Canoe Canada Paul McAlister RSA Consultant Bob McColm MNR Dryden Betty McGie Watson's Algoma Vacations Owner Operator John McLaren MacKenzie Forest Products Woodlands Manager Dan McLeod Slippery Winds Wilderness Resort Owner Operator 204-982-9684 [email protected] Lisa McLeod Slippery Winds Wilderness Resort Owner Operator Iain Mettam MNR Thunder Bay Debbie Mossip Woman River Camp Owner Operator 866-347-4972 [email protected] Paul Mossip Woman River Camp Owner Operator 866-347-4972 [email protected] Glen Niznowski MacKenzie Forest Products Divisional Forester 807-737-2521 [email protected] Trevor Park MNR Red Lake Area Supervisor 807-727-1345 [email protected] Del Parker Parker Forest Solutions RSA Consultant 705-949-9071 [email protected] Paul Poschmann Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. Divisional Forester 807-625-7300 [email protected] Ed Pries Caribou Falls Lodge Karen Pries Caribou Falls Lodge Operator 807-224-3401 [email protected] Doug Reynolds NOTO Executive Director Graeme Swanwick MNR Red Lake District Manager 807-727-1333 [email protected] Dave Thomson KBM Forestry Consultants 807-345-5445 x59 [email protected] Mal Tygesson Evergreen Lodge Owner Operator Gary Wearne Weyerhaeuser Operations Forester [email protected] Gerry Webber MTR Coordinator- RBT Unit Gretchen Wetendorf Wenasaga Lodge Operator 807-222-3482 [email protected] Steve Winsor MNR Sioux Lookout Resource Management Technician [email protected]



















RSA Summit Summary

Appendix 3: Summit Agenda


RSA Summit Summary


RSA Summit Summary

NOVEMBER 2, 2004 NOVEMBER 2, 2004 SUDBURY SUDBURY DAYS INN ON ELM STREET DAYS INN ON ELM STREET

NOVEMBER 3, 2004NOVEMBER 3, 2004DRYDENDRYDEN

BEST WESTERN ON HIGHWAY 17BEST WESTERN ON HIGHWAY 17

AGENDAAGENDA 8:00 – 8:30 Continental breakfast 8:30 – 8:40 Welcome

Sudbury - Jean Lam – Assistant Deputy Minister, Tourism Sport and Recreation Division,

Ministry of Tourism - Rob Galloway – Northeast Regional Director, Ministry of Natural Resources Dryden - Sheila Larmer – Director, Tourism Branch, Ministry of Tourism - Charlie Lauer – Northwest Regional Director, Ministry of Natural Resources

8:40 – 8:50 Opening remarks

Sudbury and Dryden - Betty McGie, CEO, Watson’s Algoma Vacations Ltd. and Watson’s Skyways Ltd.

8:50 – 9:10 Overview of the RSA process

Synopsis of the RSA process, including the roles of the tourism and forestry industries and the government (MNR, MTR and MNDM)

Sudbury - Peter Street, General Manager, Nipissing Forest Resource Management Dryden - Todd Eastman, Lands & Forests Issues Manager, NOTO

9:10 – 9:35 Case study: An RSA that worked well

Case study will explore the key elements (e.g. initial communication, timing of meetings, addressing business concerns, innovative ideas for problem solving) of an RSA that worked well and evaluate if the process was equally beneficial for both parties. Sudbury - Steve Munro, General Manager, Westwind Forest


RSA Summit Summary

Dryden - Bob Huitikka, Owner Operator, Wilderness Air Limited, Vermillion Bay

9:35 – 10:00 Case study: An RSA that was challenging

Case study will identify the barriers that made the RSA process challenging and examine where the problems arose (e.g. communication, timelines, issues resolution, cost, negotiations). Sudbury - Peter Street, General Manager, Nipissing Forest Resource Management Dryden - Brad Greaves, President, Ignace Outposts and Ignace Airways - Niels Carl, Superintendent, Aboriginal Business Development, Bowater Canadian

Forest Products Inc. 10:00 – 10:15 Break 10:15 – 10:45 Session 1: Best management practices: what worked, why it worked, and can it be

improved Group #1 – Communication between parties (i.e. tourist operators, SFLs, MNR,

MTR and MNDM) Group #2 – Managing remoteness/access to wood supply Group #3 – FMP prescriptions and innovative ideas used to resolve issues Group #4 – Building relationships

10:45 – 11:30 Breakout groups report to large group on Session 1 11:30 – 12:00 Session 2: Challenges associated with the RSA process

Group #1 – Format and outline of RSAs Group #2 – Integrating the RSA process into an FMP Group #3 – Managing remoteness/access to wood supply Group #4 – Communication challenges

12:00 – 1:00 Lunch 1:00 – 1:45 Breakout groups update large group on progress with Session 2 1:45 – 2:15 Session 3: Potential solutions to challenges identified in Session 2

Same groups as Session 2 2:15 – 3:00 Breakout groups report to large group on Session 3 3:00 – 3:15 Break


RSA Summit Summary

3:15 – 4:00 Session 4: Objectives, roles, and responsibilities for key issues identified at the

Summit Synopsis of the concerns and issues identified throughout the day and discussion of RSA future Plenary session

4:00 – 4:30 Next Steps and closing remarks

Facilitator

Summit facilitated by Craig Howard and Anne Hayes

BioForest Technologies Inc.


RSA Summit Summary


RSA Summit Summary

Appendix 4. Overview of the RSA process: Presented in Sudbury by Peter Street, General Manager, Nipissing Forest Resource Management and The Vermilion

Forest Management Company


RSA Summit Summary


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 1

Resource Stewardship Agreements Resource Stewardship Agreements

Overview of Resource Overview of Resource Stewardship Agreements (Stewardship Agreements (RSAsRSAs))

Peter Street, General ManagerPeter Street, General Manager

Nipissing Forest Resource Management &Nipissing Forest Resource Management &The Vermilion Forest Management CompanyThe Vermilion Forest Management Company

Slide 2


RSA ProcessRSA ProcessThe RSA process is quite simple; it follows the tenets of good planning:

1. Plan ahead (start early).2. Identify the players.3. Understand each other.4. Define your interests (not positions), map

your values.5. Collaborate - work cooperatively to develop

planning solutions that address your interests.


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 3


RSA Process … continuedRSA Process … continued

6. Steer the plan input through the planning process.7. Monitor the implementation of your planning

solution.8. Honor your commitments.9. Maintain the relationship with your planning

partner – consider yearly meetings etc.

Slide 4


Key ElementsKey Elements

RSA process is voluntary - there are some compelling reasons for the parties to use it. Start early – identify the parties and develop information base (values mapping). Use the scoping session with MNR to ensure policy context such as land use direction is understood.


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 5


Key ElementsKey Elements

Consider values information – MNR provide draft map, both verify.Develop proposals for “area of concern” prescriptions, road locations, and road use controls. Convey proposal to MNR and the planning team in a fashion that guarantees the source (i.e. joint signatures on a letter) in a timely manner.Respond to change as FMP development proceeds to finish.

Slide 6


RolesRoles

Forest Industry - develop RSA including FMP input and advocate their proposals.Government - values information manager, identifies licensed resource-based tourism establishments, informs parties of the policy context to which the parties’ proposal must conform and, approves forest management plan.


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 7


In ConclusionIn Conclusion

RSAs are for the two industries; both industries and governmentt have invested considerable resources to make sure RSAs have every opportunity to work.


RSA Summit Summary

Appendix 5. Case study of an RSA that worked well: Presented in Sudbury by Steve Munro, General Manager Westwind Forest Stewardship Inc.


RSA Summit Summary


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 1

An RSA that Worked well!An RSA that Worked well!November 2004November 2004

Steve MunroSteve MunroGeneral ManagerGeneral Manager

..

Slide 2

How did it Work?How did it Work?

Three Critical Components!• Business Concerns• Communication• Innovation


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 3

Parry Sound-Muskoka AreaPop: 76,000

79% of the area occupied by forest.

12,094 square kmsof land

5,251 square kmsof water.

122 cottage associations

We are within a three hour drive of nine million people

Slide 4

Hardwood Forests

Pine Forests


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 5

BackgroundBackground

• French/Severn Forest• 1,209,436 hectares of land being 50%

crown and 50% private• First Large Public Forest FSC certified

in Canada!• 28 Forest Operators• 318 Resource Based Tourist Operators!

Slide 6

How do we work together on the landbase?


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 7

RSA Process!RSA Process!

• 318 letters; about one third responded• Most folks were satisfied with FMP• Several wished to discuss RSA• 4 RSA’s were discussed• 3 Were completed; 1 on hold • Woodland Echoes RSA- Ken Turner• Westwind Forest Stewardship Inc

Slide 8

Business ConcernsBusiness Concerns

• Tourism Concerns– Trans Canada /

Trail Forgotten Trails Visual Impact

– Pristine Condition of Old Nipissing Road-

– Winter Dog Sled Use

• Forestry Concerns– Timing of

Harvesting– Access to Block– AOC Restrictions– Loss of Wood

Supply


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 9

CommunicationCommunication

• First and foremost priority –• Get to know each other• Ask questions about each other’s

business• Alternate meetings at each place of

business - see first hand each others operations!

Slide 10

Communication cont’dCommunication cont’d

• Ken interested in seeing our planning maps

• Talked about business interests on the landscape

• Did not work against each other• Take a perspective not a position!


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 11

InnovationInnovation

• Promote each other’s business• Westwind promotes Forgotten Trails

with contribution to trail signs• Woodlands recognises FSC

certification and would promote visitors to the area.

• Work together • Conflict equates lost opportunities!

Slide 12

What did we agree on!What did we agree on!

• Review AWS & FMP at critical stages• Agree to AOC’s in present FMP• Modified on the ground with RBT, SFL

and Discovery Routes• Field Visits to explain and reduce

confusion


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 13

Agree to cont’d!Agree to cont’d!

• Minimize visual or sound impact

• Maintain aesthetics along Trail; align peninsular patches; buffers if agreed to;

Slide 14

Impact on Old Nipissing RoadImpact on Old Nipissing Road

• Oct to March forest Operations

• Road & Landing Location


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 15

To Be Successful!To Be Successful!

• Don’t be shy; talk!• Take a perspective

not a position!• Promote each

other’s business.• Continual working

with each other• Keep each other

informed!


RSA Summit Summary

Appendix 6. Case study of a challenging RSA: Presented in Dryden by Brad Greaves, Ignace Outposts and Ignace Airways and Niels Carl, Superintendent,

Aboriginal Business Development, Bowater Canadian Forest Products Inc.


RSA Summit Summary


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 1

Ignace Outposts and Bowater Case Study of a

Challenging RSA

Slide 2

Situation Analysis

• Both parties wanted an RSA for English River Forest• Almost 20 years of agreements working on TMPs and

FMPs .• The individuals were not strangers – had worked

together on previous plan and developed techniques that protected both businesses interests.


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 3

Slide 4


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 5

Slide 6


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 7

RSA Obstacles

• Time constraints resulted in poor communication resulting in mistrust

• Pressure to complete agreement, others were watching this RSA since Brad and Bowater were part of the development of the MOU

• Bowater not willing to enter legal agreement, which was misinterpreted as lack of commitment to protect tourism business in spite of successes on the ground

• An increasingly complicated document, (more words, less trust)

Slide 8

Disagreement On

• Purpose of RSA • Legal vs non legal• Formatting, where things belonged in the

agreement• Detailed lengthy agreement vs. concise

agreement• How to bind an over-lapping licensee as per

the MOU• Who is responsible if prescriptions not followed


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 9

Turning Point

Put the legal drafts and Guides aside and re-evaluated why we were doing this RSA – what was the real motivation:

a) to ensure that Ignace Outposts Ltd. and Bowater agree on the basis for developing forest management plan prescriptions

b) To cement a long-term relationship based on respect and trust and make use of each other’s skill, knowledge and resources to protect values, maximize fiber harvest and prepare better FMPs

c) To develop good prescriptions we need good principles

Slide 10

Addressing the ObstaclesFound we had a few major obstacles1) Entrenched positions and constraints: We started from

scratch with a clean sheet of paper and no guides2) Opposition to complex legal agreement: Legal requirements

already spelled out in CFSA3) Issues of responsibility: Bowater and the Over-lapping

licensees are bound by the FMP. Therefore if the prescriptions are adequate the responsibility is adequate.

4) Complicated document and format: We implemented the proven business principle of KISS. We had to think outside the box since the MOU guides and format was not going to work for us.


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 11

Solution

a) Created our own format, “Tourism and Forestry Agreement” in the form

of a letter of understanding ……based on corporate responsibility/credibility

b) Developed a timeless and dynamic documentc) Developed a one page introduction outlining

objectives, interests, and responsibility

Slide 12

Objective

• The objective of this Resource Stewardship Agreement is to ensure that Ignace Outposts Ltd. and Bowater agree on the basis for developing forest management plan prescriptions for the 2004-2009 and 2009-2019 Forest Management Plans.

• This Agreement increases the mutual respect and understanding between the parties and provides long-term documentation of their interests and the corresponding "Principles for Developing FMP Prescriptions."


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 13

Contractors and Overlapping Licensees

• Under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, Bowater, its contractors and any overlapping licensees are required to conduct operations in accordance with the approved forest management plan.

Slide 14

Solution

• d) 2 more pages outline principles for developing prescriptions to protect IOL tourism values : remoteness,

a road issue, natural view-scapes, noise, wildlife concerns.


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 15

Principles For Developing FMP Prescriptions

• Bowater and Ignace Outposts will use the "Principles For Developing FMP Prescriptions" in this Agreement to guide the development of Forest Management Plan prescriptions.

• Those prescriptions requiring MNR approval will become effective upon approval of the 2004 to 2009 English River Forest Management Plan.

Slide 16

Solution

e) Document is signed by the outfitter, Manager of Planning and several “on the ground” personnel of the forest company to ensure commitment from the level that will negotiate/implement the FMP prescriptions.


RSA Summit Summary

Slide 17

Solution

f) Only three appendices: contact info, FMP prescriptions and one all inclusive map.

Slide 18


RSA Summit Summary


Slide 19

Keys to Our Success

• Trust• Corporate responsibility• Simplicity

summary of forestry & tourism resource stewardship ... · operators, sfls, mnr, mtr and mndm) 2...

Documents