Defined Forest Area Management

1
Defined Forest Area Management
October 2002
Senior Manager's Meeting
2
Core Review Decisions

• Timber Supply analysis and Basic Forest Health
  will no longer be core functions
• Increase accountability of forest licensees for
  delivery of these functions within a defined
  forest area management model
• Through implementation of DFAM, provide a
  foundation for planning and forest management at
  the timber supply area level

3
Achievements since January 2002

• February 15/02
• Preliminary decision on model made by exec.
• March/02
• workshops held in 6 TSAs
• June 28/02
• Proposed policy and legislative framework
  approved by executive
• July 2/02
• Request for Legislation submitted

4
Achievements since January 2002

• Mid July/02
• Industry process initiated
• Sept 11/02
• DFAM government/industry issues team engaged
• Sept 26 27/02
• Workshops held in Kootenay Lake and Quesnel TSAs
  to road test policy assumptions

5
Current/emerging proposal

• DFAM has 2 stages
• Basic DFAM
• Mechanism for collective delivery of forest
  management activities by licensees at management
  unit level (I.e. timber supply analysis, and
  basic forest health)
• Requires co-operative approach
• Enhanced DFAM
• Foundation for more advanced stewardship
  activities (I.e. strategic (tactical level)
  planning enhanced forest management
  certification etc.) and TSA level efficiencies
  associated with new code provisions.
• key linkage to land use planning framework
  initiatives

6
Joint Objective

• Build a policy framework that enables basic
  DFAM (I.e. the delivery mechanism) but does not
  constrain (I.e should encourage) the ability of
  licensees to collectively OR individually engage
  in enhanced stewardship activities.

7
DFAM - current/emerging proposal

• ?Retain existing TSAs and licence structures
• ?Legislate requirements for specified licences to
  fund and collectively deliver certain forest
  management activities at the TSA level
• ? Funding and performance obligations lie
  withRFLs BC Timber Sales
• ? Funding obligations lie with NRFLs, PAs
  (operational), TSL(major)
• should also lie with other users (I.e Licence to
  cuts)

8
DFAM - current/emerging proposal

• ? Specified licensees will be individually and
  jointly liable for non-performance
• penalties should be enabled through regulation,
  and applied at the discretion of the SDM
• ? Assume obligation costs are recoverable
• ? Do not need to require a prescribed Governance
  model or default model
• ? Provide government with mechanism to access
  funds to carry out work in event of default
• ? Incentives are not necessary as part of basic
  DFAM

9
Legislation

• Would specify
• what types of licenses are obligated
• nature of obligations
• consequences of non-performance including
• ability of MOF to seek costs for carrying out
  work
• ability to prescribe penalties

10
Timber Supply Analysis -Proposed responsibilities

• Licensees responsible for TSR data collection and
  analysis in accordance with standards established
  by government
• Ministry would review industry's data and
  analysis and approve DFAM current management
  practice data and assumptions.
• Chief Forester would determine AAC
• Modeled after TFL process

11
Basic Forest Health - Proposed Responsibilities

• Licensees prepare forest health strategy for the
  TSA
• Conduct detection and treatments according to the
  FH strategy on the entire TSA (minus parks,
  private federal, municipal lands, WL, TFL)
• Report on activities annually
• Largely restricted to beetle detection at this
  time
• DFAM has no harvesting responsibility - only
  guides strategic harvest priorities

12
Basic Forest Health - MOF role

• Forest Health activities in Parks
• DFAM strategic plan review and approval
• Aerial overview survey
• Provincial strategic planning (regions and
  districts support)
• Provincial standards
• Monitoring, evaluation and CE support
• Provide expert advice, some training and research
• Defoliator management - TBA

13
Key Issues

• Require efficient cost recovery mechanism
• Align standards with available funding
• Inventory issues must be addressed
• Require joint transition strategies for TSAs
• Reaction of FNs and ENGOs

14
Outstanding Milestones and Timelines

• Complete policy review with industry issues team
  (October 15)
• Draft legislation (October 15)
• Develop cost recovery mechanisms
• Circulate discussion paper (late October)
• Formulate TSA specific MOF/industry transition
  strategies (Begin in Oct.)
• Introduce enabling Legislation (Spring 03)

15
Key Messages

• No changes in assumptions or direction from
  government with regard to the Core decision and
  implementation timelines.
• Industry team has taken up the challenge to work
  with MOF towards DFAM implementation
• no longer viewed as just an MOF problem