Moving to a results-based framework for forest practices

-- the B.C. experience --

Ian Miller, RPF

ian.c.miller@gov.bc.ca

OIFQ Colloquium; Trois-Rivieres, PQ

June 21, 2007

A few reminders…..

“Forestry is not rocket science, it is much more complicated than that.”

Dr. Fred Bunnell, University of BC, 1999

“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them made”

Otto von Bismarck, Germany, late 1800’s

Overview Historical context and timeline Getting started – the building blocks The process – how we did it The product – what we created (briefly) Implementation – lessons learned Public perception and response Challenges for government, industry & others

British Columbia’s forests 60 million hectares of forest lands About 65% of the BC land base About 95% of forests are publicly-owned 13.8% of the BC land base is fully protected A further 14% in special management zones Less than 1% of the forest land base is

harvested each year

Historical context and timeline 1978-1995: Forest practices by contract 1991: Forest Resources Commission 1995: Forest Practices Code (FPC) legislation 1998: FPC planning streamlined 2000-2001: RBC framework and pilot projects 2001: new administration with commitment to

results-based forestry 2002: RBC public discussion paper 2004: Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) 2005-2007: Transition from FPC to FRPA

Getting started – the RBC building blocks Political will and direction “SMART” legislation and de-regulation Proven record of good forest practices Mature resource professions Proof of the need for change Internal and external understanding and

support

Building blocks (con’t) Lessons/advice from other jurisdictions Proof-of-concept testing Informed and engaged stakeholders Legal principles for RBC Dedicated cross-government teams Agreed-to goals for RBC

Goals for FRPAReduce• Cost

• Administrative Complexity

Strengthen

• Global Competitiveness• C&E Regime

• Freedom to Manage

Maintain

• High Environmental Standards

• Public acceptance• Balancing social, economic &

environmental issues

• Timber supply

Resource Capacity

FRPA

Major elements of the process Policy teams – credible experts Managerial and executive oversight teams Project plan – thorough, but flexible Public discussion paper Open-house forums, technical forums Fully engaged forest industry stakeholders Dedicated legal counsel Business flow mapping (iterative)

FPC business flow map

Start

SDMExpectations

LicenseeSubmits draft

FDPsign and seal

by an RPF and licensee authorized signature

(minor amendments)

OPRassessments

First Nations consultation

MOF StaffRecommends approval FDP/

amendment

FDPamendment

process

LicenseePrepare and submit SP

(sign & sealed)

LicenseeSubmits

road layout and design

Cutting permit

issuanceprocess

Road permit

issuanceprocess

SDMConsistent with plan?

SDMSP content sufficient?

FDPamendment

process

Yes

No No

SDMReject SP

with rationale

LicenseeConducts harvesting

activities & on block roads

Yes

Harvest activities

compliant?

C&EActivities

No

LicenseePerforms

reforestation activities with

documentation

CP deleted

Yes

Regendelay met?

No

Silviculture and soil activities

compliant?Yes

LicenseeEstablishes free growing

stand (declared)

Yes

Accept free growing?

LicenseeEstablishes free growing stand

(declared)

C&EActivities

Yes

Finish

SDMConsistent with plan?

FDPamendment

process

No

SDMRL & D content

sufficient?

Yes

LicenseeBuilds and

maintains off block

roadways

Yes

No

SDMReject with

rationale

MoFField

inspection

Activities compliant?

No

No

GovernmentContinued obligation

Yes

Finish

Permanent deactivation

?

Is the road still

required?No

SDMGives exemption under section 64

Yes

LicenseePrepares

permanent road deactivation prescription

Yes

Deactivation plan consistent

with plan?

No

Prescription require

approval?

SDMApprove

based on 5 factors?

Yes

LicenseePermanently deactivate

No

YesNo

Deactivation acceptable?

MoFField

inspection

No

MoFRoad permit

deletedYes

Finish

No

LicenseeAdvertizing

for review and comment

-Known information

LicenseeConsiders comments(revise and

submit)

MOFReview

FDP

SDMApproves FDP

(41.1 (a&b)

MoFDiscuss

issues with Licensee

LicenseeRequest

submission to SDM FDP/amendment

SDMReject with rationale

No

No

No

Public Review and

comment(Agency referrals)

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

October 1, 2002

FRPA business flow map

Othersources

Forest and RangePractices Act

Defined Values

ManagementRegimes

(as defined inAct and

regulations)

Outcomes

JointManagementCommittee

(JMC)

EffectivenessEvaluation

(E2)

PracticesAdvisoryCouncil

Joint SteeringCommittee

(JSC)

AACDetermination

Minister ofForests

Cabinet /Legislature

PublicReports

State of theForestReport

Example of a FRPA Business Map

LicenseeActivities

Enactchanges

Enactchanges

C & EProcess

Recommendchanges

Recommendchanges

Technicalsupport

Recommendchanges

Establishingpriorities

Recommendchanges

LicenseePrepares

FSP

MinisterApproves

FSP

What is the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA)? Governs forest and range activities on Crown

lands Protects forest values Creates efficiencies Encourages innovation Backed by rigorous compliance and

enforcement

Functional Architecture

Moving from FPC to FRPA “command and control” TO “results based” “development plans” TO “stewardship plans” “Gov’t approves” TO “professional certifies” “Gov’t approved site plans” TO “professionally

prepared site plans” “MoE review of draft plans” TO “MoE identifies

areas, objectives and guidance as input to plans” “Cookbook forestry” TO “professional reliance” “Due diligence”: from mitigating factor TO

“complete defence

Legal Realm

Resource statutes e.g. FRPA Professional

statutes

Scientific / technical knowledge(Underpins societal expectations, and

some aspects of the legal realm)

Common law: professional negligence

Common law: civil liability

Societal expectations

Non-Legal Realm

Legal and non-legal framework: the “iceberg” analogy

Professional statutes Self-regulation and exclusive right to practice

High standards and close scrutiny

What would reasonably be expected of peers?

Peers will be experts

Professional reliance Collaboration of 4 professional associations “the practice of accepting and relying upon

the decisions and advice of professionals who accept responsibility and can be held accountable for the decisions they make and the advice they give”

PR = codes of ethics + standards of conduct and competence + professional principles + common law + due diligence

What has worked well? Co-operation among government agencies

Multi-stakeholder implementation teams Monitoring: internal and external Focus on problem finding and solving

“FRPA…has the potential to become a world-leading system of forest regulation”

-Forest Practices Board

What has worked well? (con’t) Effective support materials:

Training packages Workshops for professionals Statutory interpretations Guidance on administrative processes Technical guidance (i.e. terrain stability, stream

crossings)

What has not worked well? unrealistic timelines Insufficient co-ordination with large forest

policy changes in pricing and tenure Legislation drafting before policy analysis

complete “Rules of engagement” with industry Transition provisions not fully thought-out “Culture shift” - understanding our new roles

Public perception and response FRPA not on the general public’s radar screen Limited, but negative, press releases from

environmental organizations Government increasing communications

planning for FRPA “Bite-sized” messages, regularly released Increasing complaints to Forest Practices

Board, especially on review and comment

The challenges ahead Improve communications to, and

understanding by, all stakeholders and public Facilitate culture shift, especially among

professionals in industry and government Move transition past stewardship plan

preparation into implementation of practices Close the “design – implement – monitor –

redesign” loop

Summary: Lessons we learned Guiding principles are vital Consultation is critical Need experienced and cunning policy developers Transparent dispute resolution mechanism is

essential If you can’t map it, it won’t work The technical aspects are the simplest Keep your eyes on the prize!

Where to find out more? Legislation, training materials and

effectiveness evaluations:

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/code/ “Expectations that affect the management of

public forest and range lands in BC – looking outside the legislation” a discussion paper:

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/code/training/frpa/looking.html