Moving to a results-based framework for forest practices -- the B.C. experience -- Ian Miller, RPF 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  : Forest practices by contract  1991: Forest Resources Commission  1995: Forest Practices Code (FPC) legislation  1998: FPC planning streamlined  : 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)  : 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 FRPA Reduce 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

FRPA business flow map

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:  “Expectations that affect the management of public forest and range lands in BC – looking outside the legislation” a discussion paper: looking.html