FSP Learnings

To Do or What Not To Do

On April 27th, the Provincial FRPA Implementation Team (PFIT) hosted a day long workshop with the Forest Stewardship Plan pilots to glean the learnings that both the licensees and agency staff noted in the carrying out of the pilots. It should first be pointed out that we owe a great deal of gratitude to all of the pilot groups for working under very difficult circumstances. Items such as unstable legislation and, due to the confidentiality of the regulations, the inability to communicate outside their groups only added to the complexity of the exercise. It should be noted that the pilots all employed elements of the principles of continuous improvement to understand and map the processes that they were going to employ. The results of these maps can be seen in the district approval process found in the Administrative Guide for FSP’s (AGFSP) prepared by Resource, Tenures and Engineering Branch. The following table lists the licensees and districts involved in the pilots:

Table 1: FSP Pilot Locations

AREA

/ LEAD LICENSEE / ASSOCIATED DISTRICT
Zeballos / Western/Doman / Campbell River
Chasm / West Fraser (100 Mile House) / Kamloops
Fort St. James / Canfor / Fort St. James

The day followed a traditional format of using the morning for each participant to identify their learnings and pass on their issues and areas for improvement. The afternoon was then spent in a workshop format synthesizing what was heard in the morning and developing the learnings by phase. The phases noted were from the provincial FSP process designed by PFIT and found in the AGFSP. They are:

  • Information Gathering*
  • Plan Preparation*
  • Review and Comment
  • District Review

* - It should be noted that the first two phases may be carried out either concurrently or with a certain level of overlap.

The following tables provide a summary of the workshop results hilighting the key learnings or actions required of the workshop portion along with recommended action plans. They are organized by the phases noted above with the Review & Comment phase condensed with the District Review Phase:

A. Information Gathering Phase

What are the Key Learnings?
  • Transfer HLP/LRMP objectives and strategies into FSP language
  • OSBG matrix is good but the presentation style is not
  • Central information source (website) for inventories, orders, special data, DM procedures, etc)
  • Consistent risk management process for evidentiary information/package
  • Collection/examination/availability of FN information due to it’s confidentiality and sensitivity is required
/ Recommendations
  1. PFIT should complete reports 2&3
  1. Reformat the matrix – moving it to Access database by contract
  2. Expectations meetings (which is optional) can set beginning framework for accessing localized information sources
  3. MSRM and WLAP websites should provide links to provincial data sets
  4. As licensee participants develop new information in developing their FSP, they should maintain communication around findings for agencies and other licensees to access
  1. Further communication/training should be held so all agencies understand the process for determining initial and subsequent levels of risk in various section 149 subject areas
  2. PFIT should confirm and communicateexpectations to all Districts
  1. Direct issue to Aboriginal Affairs for further direction and clarity (may need to deal with sustenance issues first)
  2. PFIT to followup with Aboriginal Affairs

B. Plan Preparation Phase

What are the Key Learnings?
  • Agency will
  • Provide relevant information
  • Direct people to information and available clarification/interpretation of objectives
  • Need to identify guidelines relevant to plan area
  • Need to write results and strategies that are measurable and verifiable (who, what, why, where, how)
  • Maintain communications within TOR (line in the sand)
  • Surprised that non legal expectations would be included in FSP
/ Recommendations
No specific recommendations required or developed
Include some direction in the AGFSP
Any direction needs to maintain consistency and flexibility
Process is in progress
Process is in progress
Need continuing communication of pilot information by PFIT
Some Outstanding Issues:
  • Factors
  • Map scale and format direction
  • Delegation with direction
  • Orders/objectives anticipated
  • Resolution of FSP pilot issues

C. Review & Comment AND District Review Phase

Key Learnings / Challenges / Outstanding Issues
Overall
  • Understand shift – where are cutblocks?
  • Explaining role of commenters
  • Tools to stimulate input from the public(e.g. red dots on map concept) and the use of companion guides to provide explanatory information for the public
  • Communication and culture shift challenges
  • Meeting public expectations where a small amount of information is in the FSP
  • Different levels of information for different groups (First Nations, licensed stakeholders, general public, agencies, etc.)
  • Overlap of FSP’s in these phases will create a higher degree of analysis
  • Comments received are pre-submission comments which may or may not cause changes in the final submission of the FSP product
Public Review and Comment
  • Understanding the culture shift – cutblocks to FDU
  • Differences between plans
  • There is mistrust of the unknown
District and Other Agencies Review and Comment
Considerations need to be given to their:
  • Capacity
  • Expertise
  • Timing
  • Confirming measurable and enforceable
  • Interpretation
  • The culture shift of getting out of the middle
  • Understanding their roles
First Nations
  • Addressing accommodation for FSP and multiple Licensees for entire traditional territory
  • Capacity (First Nations / Agencies)
  • Distinction between Review & Comment and Consultation
  • Shift from cutblocks/roads to FDUs
  • What are reasonable efforts?
  • Varies amongst agreement holders
  • Being specific with concerns
Licensed Stakeholders
  • Understanding rights of other stakeholders at CP issuance
/ Recommendations
  1. Clarify “Measureable and Enforceable”
  • AGFSP will do this
  1. Public information/education regarding the shift so public understand FRPA, and recognize strategic vs. operational timeframes – public information modules being delivered the last week of June.
  1. Complete AGFSP with training / industry training
  • Currently occurring with AGFSP
  1. Provide answers to:
-Reasonable
-FN Issues
-Capacity
-Expertise
  • Currently occurring with AGFSP
Additional Comments from Group Discussion:
  • Need to ensure that the consultation processes are done up front and not at the CP stage
  • Accommodation issues (overlapping) need to be dealt with at levels higher than the FSP
  • Declared area processes likely
  • Need to education/communicate with FN with respect to “co-management” concept – provide input to FSPs prior to delineating actual blocks on a map or in a site plan

Learnings Summary:

In short, some key learnings were:

  • The FSP pilot process has been rejuvenated however we are no longer in pilot mode – we’re moving to implementation
  • The legislation is being implemented but the learnings have identified some areas requiring improvement
  • Government must start getting ahead in the development of objectives
  • Tremendous culture shifts are required not only on the part of agency and licensee staff but also by the public, 1st Nations and other license holders relative to the amount of information that will be available to someone scanning an FSP for the first time
  • There is more work required to be done by professionals relative to manage the social context