Syktyvkar, Komi RepublicApril 1, 2009

Presented by Marcelo LevyResponsible Forestry Solutions

HCVF in Canada – The contextCanadian forests facts

Forest lands in Canada: ownership, forest types, harvesting rates, certification status

Laws & Regulations: Tenure system, licensing

arrangement& certification

National interpretation;

Implementing HCVF on the ground

Canadian Forest Types

Canadian Forests FactsArea (million of hectares)Total Area: 979.08 Forest Area:  402.09

Forest lands - ownershipFederal 16%Provincial 77% Private: 7%

Forest TypesHardwood: 12%Mixedwood 22% Softwood (conifers)

66%

Pine: 17% Poplar/aspen: 14%Spruce: 34%

Predominant tree species – by volume

Canadian Forests Facts

National Parks Area

27.6 M (has)

Insect infestation (killed trees ) & Forest Fires (2007)Area trees killed: 19.5 M

(has)Area burned: 1.6

M(has)No. of Fires:

6,324

Forest managementArea available: 294.8 M (has)Area under FM: 143.7 M (has)Area harvested/y: 0.9 M (has)Volume Harvested: 182 .1 M (m3)

CSA: 82.7 M (has)FSC: 27.3 M (has)SFI: 39.4 M (has)TOTAL: 145.7 M (has)

Area certified (as of 2008)

Canadian Forest Regulatory RegimeRegulatory System

Provincial JurisdictionLicensing systemStumpage Fees, Area feesHarvest rates, protected areas, conservation

areasIFA processRelations with Aboriginal peoples

Developing a National InterpretationDuring the development of the National Boreal

Standard (approved 2004), FSC Canada developed a National Framework for Assessment of HCVF

The Framework is based on the work initially done by WWF Canada with Tembec, a large forest company in Canada holding about 13 million hectares of forest licenses in 5 provinces

FSC Canada followed a process similar to the one described in Part 2 of ProForest ‘s Defining HCVF at a national level but with a different purpose

Developing a National InterpretationPurpose of the Framework: to assist applicants

for certification in the assessment of HCVF. The framework is an interpretation of HCVF in

Canada as it provides specific guidance on how to conduct an HCVF, consistent with standard requirements; however it does not identify HCVFs at the national or regional level.

Very few thresholds were included in the Assessment framework. Notably large landscape level forests

FSC Canada delegated the development of the Boreal Standard to the Boreal Committee structured in typical FSC chambers, but included a mixture of regional and national representation as well as academics, and government representatives.

The Boreal Committee established a taskforce with individuals nominated by the chambers who can represent the perspective as well as have technical “HCV” expertise (i.e. ecological, cultural, social, etc).

The committee also included experts not associated to a particular sector.

Developing a National Interpretation – The Process

Developing a National Interpretation – The ProcessWWF-Tembec’s document was used as a starting

point. Taskforce discussed it in “plenary” sessions. Subgroups were formed to address specific topics.

Key approaches involved ecological aspects (use of the concept of focal species) and on the social side, issues around Aboriginal rights (claims, tenure) and culture

Once the taskforce achieved consensus on the framework, it was submitted to the Boreal Committee first and to the FSC Canada Board for final approval. It was appended to all Canadian standards.

National FrameworkThe framework is organized as a series of questions to guide

the applicant in making the assessmentThe checklist suggests a hierarchical approach to defining

HCVs that starts with a broad scale and works down to a finer scale assessment

The questions have been structured as Yes/No answersThe significance of the question in determining HCV status is

indicated by the words DEFINITIVE or GUIDANCEA positive response to any question considered DEFINITIVE

means that the elements under consideration are HCVs

National Framework

HCVF Implementation in North AmericaHow was Principle 9 and HCVF addressed?Preliminary study conducted for WWF Canada, Key

points:Data was stratified by date of certificate, tenure, size,

certifier, etc. The date of the original certification assessment provided a

significant variation in the level of HCVF analysis carried out. The assessment and identification of HCVs has been the key

activity that preoccupied both stakeholders during standards development process as well as forest managers.

About 75% of the operations certified have fully addressed the standard or have initiated work as a result of Corrective Action Requests (CARs)

HCVF Implementation in North America - in ConclusionHCV1 and HCV3 were the most frequent attributes

identified (likely as a result of existing regulations (RTE, critical habitats).

The information in summary reports is insufficient to have a clear picture of the HCVF assessment

Most standards tended to have greater expectations from large and public forest operaitons

HCVF6 More prevalent in Canada (Aboriginal issues).More consistent implementation in Canada because of

the guidance provided by the National Framework

ChallengesThe key challenges facing HCVF remain:

Scale and implications for assessment and management;

Thresholds: when a forest value becomes and HCV attribute?

Need to advance the identification and management of other HCVs

Need to focus more on management strategiesHCV outside the certification process and beyond

forestry: while great potential, there is a risk of inconsistent application of the concept and the methodology