UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Addressing uncertainty in forest planning Cerda, Juan Pablo 2002

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_2002-0352.pdf [ 13.67MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0075307.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0075307-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0075307-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0075307-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0075307-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0075307-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0075307-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

ADDRESSING UNCERTAINTY IN FOREST PLANNING by JUAN PABLO CERDA B.Sc. F., Universidad Austral de Chile, 1995 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF FORESTRY in The Faculty of Graduate Studies THE FACULTY OF FORESTRY Depar tment of Forest Sciences We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 2002 © Juan Pablo Cerda, 2002 In p resen t ing this thesis in partial fu l f i lment of t h e requ i rements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty o f British C o l u m b i a , I agree that the Library shall make it f reely available f o r re ference and study. I fu r ther agree that permiss ion f o r extens ive c o p y i n g o f this thesis f o r scholar ly purposes may be granted by the head o f my d e p a r t m e n t or by his o r her representat ives. It is u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r pub l i ca t i on of this thesis fo r f inancial gain shall n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t m y w r i t t e n permiss ion . D e p a r t m e n t o f rV^.SV S^CKQiQ&S The Univers i ty o f Brit ish C o l u m b i a Vancouver , Canada Date DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT Forests are complex 'systems' w i th forest ecosys tem, resource, stakeholder and policy 'subsystems' . Knowledge about forest systems is always incomplete, and uncertainty pervades decis ion-making. Uncertainty produces risk of losses and potent ia l oppor tun i t ies , which have to be recognized and character ized. From t h e n , the best probabil istic predict ions, guesses, j u d g m e n t s , and scenario models can be made. Good planning addresses uncer ta in ty , and adapts to changes. I t is based on constant learning, and includes processes that enable feedback on past outcomes to inform fu ture p lanning. British Columbia (BC)'s forest land area is 60.6 mil l ion hectares. Most of it is publicly owned , and forest harvest ing is l icensed. Licensees must prepare Forest Development Plans (FDP's), which describe specific areas proposed for harvest. These plans allow for discussion and resolut ion of env i ronmenta l and socioeconomic issues. The annual cost of prepar ing and reviewing FDPs province-wide exceeds $30 mil l ion. I n spite of th is expense, actual outcomes rout inely dif fer f rom those described in the original FDPs because of uncer ta in ty . This is due mostly to natural d isturbance events, shifts in social values or policy, and t imber marke t changes. FDPs are constant ly amended . The annual cost of preparat ion and review exceeds $12 mi l l ion. Fur thermore, unexpected outcomes and f requent amendments undermine public confidence in the planning process. In addit ion to highl ight ing the weaknesses in the cur rent planning processes, a me thod to address uncerta inty th rough bet ter forest planning in BC is proposed. Complexi ty in the forest system and uncertainty in planning have a spatial d imens ion, which is representable and analyzable using Geographic In fo rmat ion System ii (GIS) tools. Ecosystem dynamics, and the impact on biophysical at t r ibutes of the landscape of changes in resources prices and policies, and people's values can be mapped, and spatial ly matched with unexpected outcomes of p lanning. Using the "SAFEPLAN" method these outcomes can be expla ined, and improvements to the planning processes can be recommended. Results obtained fo r southeastern BC show how the adopt ion of this method could increase the efficacy of forest plans, and improve the cost-effect iveness of the whole planning process, including its role in the proposed context for forest planning in BC. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF FIGURES viii ACRONYMS x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi I. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Goals and Objectives 1 1.2 Structure 2 CHAPTER I I . A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR FOREST PLANNING 3 2.1 An Introduction to Forest Management 3 2.2 Forest Management, Sustainability and Emergent Paradigms 4 2.3 Forests as Systems 6 2.4 Determinism, Stochasticity and Chaos in a Forest System 11 2.5 Complexity of a Forest System 12 2.5.1 Complexity in the Forest Ecosystem Subsystem 12 Characteristics and Dynamics of Forest Ecosystems 14 2.5.2 Complexity in the Forest Resources Subsystem 17 The Economics of Forest Management 18 2.5.3 Complexity in the Forest Stakeholders Subsystem 20 Dealing with Stakeholders 23 2.5.4 Complexity in the Forest Policy Subsystem 24 Dynamics of Forest Policy 25 2.6 Conclusion 27 iv CHAPTER I I I . UNCERTAINTY AND BETTER FOREST PLANNING WITH INCOMPLETE KNOWLEDGE 28 3.1 Uncertainty. A kind of Ignorance 28 3.1.1 Origin, Assessment and Representation of Uncertainty 29 3.1.2 When Uncertainty becomes Risk 30 3.1.3 Crippling and Overlooked Uncertainty 31 3.2 Forest Decision-Making Under Uncertainty 32 3.2.1 The Information Channel 34 3.2.2 The Context for Decision-Making 36 3.3 Better Forest Planning: A Constant Learning Process 39 3.3.1 Better Present and Future Forest Plans 42 3.3.2 Forest Plan Efficacy and Indication of Planning Uncertainty 44 3.3.3 Estimation of Planning Uncertainty: A Spatial Approach 45 3.4 Conclusion 47 CHAPTER IV. FOREST PLANNING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA. A CASE FOR BETTER PLANNING 48 4.1 Introduction to Forest Planning in BC 48 4.2 Current Challenges to Forest Development Planning in BC 52 4.3 Province-wide Quantification of How Uncertainty is Affecting Forest Planning in BC 54 4.3.1 Methods 54 4.3.2 Results 56 4.3.3 Discussion and conclusions from survey results 61 4.4 Conclusion 64 v CHAPTER V. A METHOD FOR SPATIALLY ANALYZING FOREST PLANNING EFFICACY AND UNCERTAINTY (SAFEPLAN METHOD). A CASE STUDY 65 5.1 The Need for the SAFEPLAN Method 65 5.2 Goals and Objectives of the SAFEPLAN Method 65 5.3 Description of the SAFEPLAN Method 67 5.4 Data Requirements for the SAFEPLAN Method 74 5.5 Test of the SAFEPLAN Method in the Lemon Landscape Unit 75 5.5.1 Introduction to the Case Study 75 5.5.2 Objectives of the Case study 77 5.5.3 Methodology of the Case study 78 5.5.4 Results and Discussion of the Case Study 81 Proposed and Approved Harvesting 82 Cutting Permit Issuance 83 Harvesting 84 Indicators of Forest Planning Uncertainty 85 Analysis of Sources of Uncertainty Affecting Planning 87 The Forest System as a Source of Uncertainty 87 Spatial Association of Uncertainty and Landscape Attributes 91 The Information Channel as a Source of Uncertainty 95 The Context for Decision-Making as a Source of Uncertainty 98 5.5.5 Conclusions and Recommendations from the Case study 101 5.6 Conclusion 106 v i CHAPTER VI . FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR FOREST PLANNING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA. A NEW CONTEXT FOR THE SAFEPLAN METHOD 107 6.1 Forest planning in BC in a time of transition 107 6.1.1 Innovative Forestry Practices Agreements (IFPAs). Addressing Uncertainty by Improving the Information Channel 109 6.1.2 Results-Based Forest Practices Code Pilot Projects. Addressing Uncertainty by Improving the Context for Decision-Making 112 6.1.3 A Result-based BCFPC and Better Planning 114 6.2 Conclusion 117 VI I . CONCLUSION 118 VI I I . REFERENCES 120 APPENDIX 1. GLOSSARY 152 APPENDIX 2. PROVINCE-WIDE QUANTIFICATION OF HOW UNCERTAINTY IS AFFECTING FOREST PLANNING IN BC 156 v i i LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: Levels of interaction within forest systems 10 Figure 2.2: Definition of a forest ecosystem 13 Figure 3.1: The environment for forest decision-making 34 Figure 3.2: Planning and stages in the learning cycle 41 Figure 3.3: Discrepancies between the 1995 forest development plan 46 and 1998 harvesting Figure 4.1: Main information requested for FDP preparation 5 u Figure 4.2: Percentage of FDP reviewed by BCMOF Forest Regions 56 Figure 4.3: Principal causes of major amendments to FDP in BC 58 Figure 4.4: Principal causes of minor amendments to FDP in BC 60 Figure 5.1: Compilation of planned and actual harvesting in ArcView® 68 Figure 5.2: Preparation of grid cells and centroids 69 Figure 5.3: Attachment of feature data to cells 70 Figure 5.4: Data query s Figure 5.5: Aerial view of Lemon Landscape Unit and location of Lemon in BC 7 5 Figure 5.6: An example of obvious mapping shifts 80 Figure 5.7: Proposal of harvesting in FDPs between 1995-1999 82 viii Figure 5.8: History of ha proposed in the 1995 FDP 83 Figure 5.9 Area under CP in Lemon between 1995-1999 84 Figure 5.10: Harvesting for proposed, approved and CP issued ha 85 Figure 5.11: Indicators of forest planning uncertainty (effort made to complete planning) for Lemon Landscape Unit. 86 Figure 5.12: Indicators of forest planning uncertainty (time required to complete planning) for Lemon Landscape Unit. 86 Figure 5.13: Sources of uncertainty for discarded and non-harvested 88 approved ha. Figure 5.14: Example of ha approved in 1996 and 1997 and then dropped due to their location in low quality stands. 92 Figure 5.15: Example of ha approved in 1995 and then dropped due to concern for visual values. 93 Figure 5.16: Example of ha approved in 1997 and 1999 and then dropped due to BCFPC requirements for wildlife reserves. 94 Figure 5.17: Example of ha approved in 1995, 1996, and 1997 and dropped due to beetle outbreaks. Proposed ha were "chasing beetle". 95 ix ACRONYMS AAC Annual Al lowable Cut BC Province of Brit ish Columbia, Canada BCFPB Forest Practices Board of British Columbia BCFPC Forest Practices Code of British Columbia BCLUCO Land Use Coordinat ion Office of Brit ish Columbia BCMOF Ministry of Forests of British Columbia BCMSRM Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management of British Columbia FSC Forest Stewardship Council COFI Council of Forest Industr ies CP Cutt ing Permit FDP Forest Development Plan GIS Geographic In fo rmat ion Systems ha Hectares IFPA Innovat ive Forest Practices Agreement TSA T imber Supply Area UBC Universi ty of Brit ish Columbia x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was funded in part by Forest Renewal BC through the Arrow Innovative Forest Practices Agreement. Although not responsible for any of its final products, many people made this dissertation possible: Special recognition to Ken Day, UBC Alex Fraser Research Forest; Paul Jeakins, Kokanee Forest Consult ing; Robin Clark, RBC Inc.; Peter Lewis, John Sherbinin, George Edney, and Pat Field, BC Ministry of Forests; Yolanta Kulis, Arnold Moy and Nicole Robinson, UBC Faculty of Forestry; Kerry Rouck, Gorman Bros Lumber Ltd.; Stan Hadikin, Kalesnikoff Lumber Company Ltd. ; Harold Waters, Riverside Forest Products Ltd. ; and distr ict and regional officials of the BC Ministry of Forests throughout the Province. Gratitude to Kathy Howard, Alex Ferguson, and staff of Slocan Forest Products Limited for sharing their fi les, which enriched analysis, and giving an example of searching excellence on managing forests. Appreciation to Gordon Weetman and Gordon Baskerville for helpful personal communications and also for their legacy, which inspired in part this research. Dr. Weetman is an Emeritus Professor at the UBC's D e p a r t m e n t of Forest Sciences. Dr. Baskerv i l le is a f o r m e r professor of Integrated Resources Management at the UBC's Department of Forest Resources management. Special thanks to thesis committee members Dr. Gary Bull and Dr. John Nelson, who guided on the contents of the thesis. And to Dr. Steve Mitchell, supervisor of the thesis. xi I. INTRODUCTION For anyone concerned wi th the effects of uncer ta in ty in forest p lanning, it is hard to imagine a more interest ing place than British Columbia (BC), Canada at present. Forests here are mul t i faceted and highly dynamic , and forestry is controvers ia l . Forest planning processes are compl icated, represent ing the enormous var iety of forest ecosystems and stakeholders in the Province. Consequent ly uncerta inty pervades decis ion-making. Forest planning in BC is in a t ime of t ransi t ion. Processes are cri t icized. Licensees, off icials, NGOs and the public want improvements . These changes are expected to allow more f lexibi l i ty and reduct ion of costs, w i thout compromis ing env i ronmenta l qual i ty . Requirements for planning will va ry , and are expected to be more resul t -or iented. Compliance will require new approaches for addressing uncer ta inty , control l ing per formance (e .g . efficacy) and account ing for outcomes. 1.1 Goals and Objectives The goal of this thesis is to develop an approach for addressing uncertainty and thereby improve forest p lanning. Specific object ives are: 1) to develop a quant i ta t ive method for evaluat ing forest planning outcomes and uncer ta in ty ; and 2) to test the capabil i t ies of the quant i ta t ive method in a case study in southeastern BC. To provide context for this work , a new conceptual f ramework for forest planning is presented, weaknesses of present planning processes in BC are descr ibed, and applications of the quant i ta t ive method in a re formed context for planning are discussed. l 1.2 Structure The thesis is composed of two parts. The f i rst part contains a l i terature review f rom which a conceptual f ramework for forest planning is proposed. In Chapter I I forests are def ined as complex systems wi th dynamic ecosys tem, resource, stakeholder, and policy subsystems. Chapter I I I discusses how uncertainty pervades forest p lanning. Better forest planning is introduced as a learning process tha t provides feedback f rom past outcomes for fu ture plans. Spatial representat ion of uncerta inty as a source for feedback is expla ined. The second par t o f the thesis presents results of invest igat ions into forest planning outcomes in BC, a method for analysing planning outcomes, and strategies for reducing uncer ta in ty . Chapter IV describes current weaknesses of forest planning processes in BC and provides results of a survey of the Ministry of Forests and licensees operat ing th roughou t BC. Chapter V introduces a GIS-based method called SAFEPLAN for analysing forest plans efficacy and sources of uncerta inty. The method is applied in an area in southeastern BC to extend the analysis of planning weaknesses descr ibed in Chapter IV. Principles for s t rengthening planning th rough addressing uncertainty are proposed. Chapter V I discusses key issues and ini t iat ives in the t ransi t ion in forest policy tha t is moving BC towards a more results-based context for management . The need for addressing uncerta inty in this new contex t is h ighl ighted, and applications of the SAFEPLAN method and principles for bet ter planning are proposed. Throughout the thesis technical te rms are indicated in italics on the f irst use. These te rms are defined in a glossary in Appendix 1. 2 CHAPTER I I . A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR FOREST PLANNING 2.1 An Int roduct ion to Forest Management Forest management , or fo res t ry 1 , consists of a regime of integrated and coordinated act ions tha t shape the forest 's a t t r ibutes for specific purposes (FAO, 1998 ; Romm, 1998) , in a manner tha t provides desired values (Erdle and Sul l ivan, 1998) . Gordon Baskervil le (personal communica t ion , March 2002) summar izes forest management as " the process of creat ing a def ined fu ture forest f rom a present forest" . Forest management then is about def ining values and sett ing purposes, and direct ing and control l ing act ions in the forest. This requires planning and organiz ing. However, the specific actions included in forest management are not precisely def ined, and change wi th t ime. According to the Santiago Declaration (1995) and Shindler and Cramer ( 1 9 9 9 ) , management changes in response to new knowledge of how forest ecosystems funct ion and respond to in tervent ions, and to changing public demands for forest products and services. Si lviculture is only part of forest management (Smi th et a l . , 1997) . Fedkiw (1998) sees si lviculture as being in tegrated wi th other disciplines in forest management , such as ecosystem and landscape management , economy, and sociology. As J. Wilson ( 1 9 9 8 ) , Hayter ( 2 0 0 0 ) , Tollefson (2000 ) and Cashore et al. (2001) chronicle in thei r reviews of the evolut ion of forestry in BC, product iv i ty o f forest sites and accessibil i ty were the ma jo r constraints on producing t imber unti l the late 1970's. Forest decis ion-making was most ly concerned wi th improv ing yield and surpassing technical 1 Forest Managemen t and fo res t ry are s y n o n y m s (Dic t ionary of Science and Techno logy , 1 9 9 2 ; Ox ford English D ic t ionary , 1 9 9 6 ; The New Encyclopaedia Br i tann ica , 1 9 9 7 ; McGraw-Hi l l Dic t ionary of Scient i f ic and Technical T e r m s , 1 9 9 7 ) . 3 engineering dif f icult ies. More recently however , act ions dealing wi th wood yield have become j u s t a f ract ion of the actions required to manage forests acceptably. Sheppard (2001) for example summarizes actions required to deal wi th the new dimension of public perceptions towards forest ry . Forest managers carry out act ions tha t interact not only wi th forest ecosystems but wi th communi t ies and markets . Also, they must act w i th considerat ion for cur rent generat ions and generat ions to come. Propper de Callejon et al . (1998) describe this new context for managemen t , where wood yields are only opt imized to the extent tha t o ther goods produced by the forests are not weakened. People expect these goods, and demand tha t they persist into the fu ture . Forest managers are making decisions wi th respect to a broad and more complex sys tem. In dealing wi th this new context , they are encounter ing not only new obl igat ions, but also new opportuni t ies (e .g . new non- t imber resources). Confl ict ing demands and requi rements dictated by ecological l imi tat ions, technological constraints, and socio-economic realit ies have to be harmonized (Kleine, 1997) . Forest management is moving along a pathway of emergent paradigms towards broader sustainabi l i ty. 2.2 Forest Management, Sustainability and Emergent Paradigms The World Commission on Envi ronment and Development in 1987, and the United Nations Conference on Envi ronment and Development in 1992 broadened the fo rmer most ly biological and economic concept of forest sustainabi l i ty to include social issues. The concept of sustainable forest management has been constructed to f i t d i f ferent values and needs (Schanz, 1994) , and as such has more than four teen di f ferent 4 categories of def ini t ions (Schanz, 1998) . Dovers and Handmer (1993) have identi f ied many contradict ions among the e lements of exist ing def ini t ions, such as g rowth versus l imits, individual versus collective interests, in tergenerat ional versus in t ragenerat ional equi ty , and adaptabi l i ty versus resistance. Al though there is no clear def ini t ion of what const i tutes sustainable forest ry , there is a general consensus that sustainable forest ry in some form or another should be practiced (Sedjo et a l . , 1 9 9 8 ) . I t is presented by Schanz (1998 ) as the main object ive of all e f for t in forest ry . A succession of paradigms have emerged f rom the concept of sustainabi l i ty. Schools of sustainable forest management include social forestry (Gregersen et a l . , 1989) , new forestry (Frankl in, 1990) , holistic forestry ( H a m m o n d , 1991) , ecosystem management (Society of American Foresters, 1993) , and eco-forestry (Drengson and Taylor, 1998) , among others. Kuhn (1970) defines paradigms as beliefs, accepted s tandards, procedures and exemplars . According to Barker (1993) , each paradigm is a theory or dogma tha t establishes boundaries and regulat ions. Paradigms are dynamic , and can complicate forest management . Managers are permanent ly challenged to understand t h e m . As Barker (1993) notes, data conforming wi th the paradigm are overemphas ized, prevent ing new developments that come f rom outside the parad igm. Knowing wha t people want , and what they expect f rom a paradigm is dif f icult . Meanwhi le, managers have problems convincing people tha t adequate forest management can be carr ied out w i thou t subscribing to a given parad igm. As an example, S tanbury (2000 ) identif ies diff icult ies in being pressured to managing in accordance wi th ecological paradigms. Forestry is challenged not only by having to operate inside of establ ished paradigms, but also by the necessity of proving to people tha t it is not 5 operat ing outside of t h e m . Al though economic, scienti f ic, and political debates precede and fol low the proposit ion of each new parad igm, there is no def ini t ive agreement on what const i tutes "adequate" , or socially desirable, forest management . Forest management should be by defini t ion sustainable. Management actions are planned (e .g . integrated and coord inated) , and they are directed toward previously defined object ives (e .g . desired values). A main chal lenge, however , is tha t " i t is impossible to be certain a t any moment tha t a forest is being sustainably m a n a g e d " (Poore et a l . , 1998) . Consequent ly , numerous criteria and indicators by which to judge the sustainabi l i ty of management regimes are being discussed wor ldwide under var ious schemes. These ini t iat ives pursue envi ronmenta l ly responsible, socially beneficial, and economical ly viable management of the forests in response to public forest concerns (e.g. FSC, 1999) . The more than 100 indicators of sustainabi l i ty are a good indication of the breadth of people's concerns about forests. They refer to issues as diverse as land tenure , indigenous people's wel fare, ecosystem conservat ion, reduct ion of env i ronmenta l impacts, opt imal ut i l ization of forest products and services, and part ic ipatory management planning (FSC, 1999; Meridian Ins t i tu te , 2001) . 2.3 Forests as Systems A system is a ne twork of hierarchically related components and processes tha t work as a whole to mainta in its part icular propert ies (Sinnot t , 1998 ; Ford, 2 0 0 0 ) . The system's uniqueness is given by its components , which have internal relat ionships tha t are closer than wi th those of components in the surrounding env i ronment (Naveh and Lieberman, 1994) . Subsystems are parts of the larger system and are defined by a subset of its components (Odum, 1994) . Components of 6 subsystems have a relat ionship tha t is closer than the one wi th the rest of the components of the sys tem. Since the beginnings of modern forest ry , forests have been seen as systems including more than jus t t rees. Fernow (1902) s ta ted, "A forest... is by no means a mere collection of t rees , but an organic whole..." Pinchot (1903) s ta ted, "A l though it is composed of t rees, the forest is far more than a collection of t rees standing in one place..." Forestry has fu r ther broadened f rom the view of these vis ionary men. Oliver et al . ( 2001 ) recommend a systemic approach to the management of forest ecosystems, which concentrates on the relations among grouped biophysical components . Marshall (1984) goes fur ther , and visualizes forests as systems being composed of a biophysical port ion and a social component . However, he ment ions only biological and physical mechanisms of the forest system when comment ing on wha t should be understood about the system to adequately manage it. Systemic visions are common in natural resource management (Odum, 1994 ; Grant , 1998) . Hawor th et al . ( 1 9 9 8 ) , Kiang ( 1 9 9 8 ) , and Kropff et al. (2001) describe a systems approach to agr icu l ture, Charles (2001) to f isheries, Robinson et al . (1999) to ocean resources management , and Clayton and Radcliffe (1996) to env i ronmenta l and sustainabil i ty problems. Systemic approaches towards the management of forest systems are scarcely repor ted. Prabhu et al. (2001) aim in this direct ion by introducing the concept of "systemic sustainabi l i ty" as a sys tem of indicators of forest sustainabi l i ty , which would be holistic and greater than the sum of its parts. The Clayoquot Sound Scientif ic Panel (1995) const i tutes an operat ional example of v iewing forests as broad systems. In its 120 recommendat ions towards the sustainable ecosystem management of the forests of western 7 Vancouver Is land, BC, the Panel made recommendat ions on the management of t rees, wildl i fe and s t reams. Fur thermore , it made recommendat ions on the integrat ion of recreat ional and spiri tual demands, and commun i t y and f irst nations interests. A ' forest sys tem ' is composed of ecological and socio-economic subsystems, which interact w i th each o ther to funct ion as a whole. Major subsystems are : 1. Forest ecosystems subsystem, wi th t rees, s t reams, wi ldl i fe, f i re, w ind , and stored carbon. 2. Forest resources subsys tem, w i th the wide range of env i ronmenta l , economic and social benefi ts der ived f rom the forests ecosystems and perceived by present and fu ture forest stakeholders. 3. Forest stakeholders subsystem, wi th forest owners and workers , local communi t ies , inhabitants of the forests, and forest resources and services processors and consumers. 4 . Forest policies subsys tem, wi th the goals and object ives, ins t ruments , and specific ins t rument set t ings of policy tha t direct how forest users intervene forest ecosystems to benefi t f rom forest resources. Dynamism is also an inherent component of each subsystem. The ecosystems subsystem includes a series of endemic processes and disturbances, the stakeholders subsystem includes shifts in stakeholder values, the resources subsystem includes changes in resources valuat ion and prices, and the policies subsystem includes policy changes. Forestry, t h e n , encompasses the management of a forest system - t h e assemblage of given subsystems- , which is unique and part icular to a 8 location and t i m e , and has part icular propert ies. Based on what Amen (1966) , and then Beishon and Peters ( 1 9 7 2 ) , Maturana and Varela (1980) , O'Neill et al . ( 1 9 8 6 ) , Odum ( 1 9 9 4 ) , and Sinnot t (1998) , describe as general propert ies of systems, a forest system has the fol lowing proper t ies: 1. Hierarchy. I t is composed of subsystems, which are composed of o ther subsystems and so on. The sys tem, itself, is a component of larger suprasystems (e .g . the national economy sys tem) . 2. Boundaries. I t can be arbi t rar i ly del imi ted in t ime and space. I ts components can be circumscribed by a boundary (e .g . a wa te rshed ; 120 years) . 3. Openness. I t connects in space and t ime wi th o ther systems. I ts funct ioning may change in response to external st imulus (e .g . economic crisis affects demand for forest resources). 4. Dynamism. I t changes over t ime as a whole. I ts individual components change over t ime as well (e .g . t ree g r o w t h ) . 5. Synergy. A m o n g its components posit ive and negat ive synergy coexists. I ts behavior is not predictable by looking at the sum of the components , due to emergent propert ies (e .g . ecosystem resil ience, stabi l i ty , and eff ic iency). 6. Autopoesis. I t tends to sel f-organize. The interact ion among its components creates new internal s t ructures and f lows tha t are more "e f f ic ient " for the funct ioning of the system (e .g . demand for and supply of forest resources). According to O'Neill et al . 's (1986) Hierarchy Theory , wi th in systems components interact wi th other components at the same level of hierarchy and between di f ferent levels of h ierarchy. Each component in the forest system (e .g . a t ree , w ind , a recreat ionist , the price of 9 t imber , etc) behaves, or it is induced to behave, act ively, inducing changes in subsystems and eventual ly in the forest system (Figure 2.1) . Lemon Landscape Unit Forest ecosys tems Forest s takeho lders Watershed O ld -g r o w t h fo res ts Lakes and s t reams Inhab i tan ts of the area " Forest resources consumers Env i ronmenta l g roups Trees and shrubs Wildl i fe and f isher ies Soil Fire, beetle: w ind Slocan Val ley Watershed Al l iance Mounta in b ikers First Nat ions T i m b e r l icensees Interaction at the same level of the hierarchy Interaction at different levels of the hierarchy Figure 2.1. Levels of interact ion wi th in forest sys tems. Simpli f ication of a forest system in Lemon Landscape Unit, BC and some components of its ecosystem and stakeholder subsystems. The dist inct iveness of a forest system is the result of constant change over t ime. For this change to occur, Sinnott (1998) states tha t some entropy - o r d isorder- has to be present. From this disordered state, systems tend toward homeostasis th rough feedback f rom wi th in and f rom wi thou t the i r boundaries (e .g . autopoeis is) . Axelrod and Cohen (2000) explain tha t components of the system change to adjust to a context (subsys tem/sys tem) in constant change. External st imul i also change the system as a whole. Forest systems are complex systems that progress th rough deterministic, stochastic, and chaotic processes. 10 2.4 Determinism, Stochasticity and Chaos in a Forest System Determinism refers to the principle tha t exact laws are fo l lowed, so tha t what wil l happen in the fu ture is a necessary consequence of states at any given m o m e n t in the past (McGraw-Hil l Dict ionary of Scientific and Technical Terms) . Given suff icient knowledge of the initial state of a determinis t ic sys tem, its fu ture can be determined exactly (Denny and Gaines, 2000) . However, very few systems are purely determinist ic (Gi l lman and Hails, 1997) . Stochastic processes incorporate chance. Even if the exact state of a stochastic system is known at one t ime , exact states in the fu ture can never be predicted (Denny and Gaines, 2 0 0 0 ) . Determinism and stochast ic i ty are not rigid propert ies, t hough . Denny and Gaines (2000) describe the commonly known stochastic f l ipping of a coin as a process wi th an outcome that could be exact ly predicted. Knowing enough about the factors affecting the landing of the coin ( i .e. the initial state of the coin, height above the ground at which the coin is f l ipped, the initial angular veloci ty, and air resistance, etc.) it would be possible to know exact ly when the coin will land heads up. Flipping a coin in a context of suff icient knowledge and understanding would be a determinist ic process. Some outcomes, however, are ex t remely sensit ive to the initial s tate. These outcomes are said to exhib i t determinis t ic chaos (Sarewitz e t a l . , 2000) because they are unpredictable due to non-measurable shifts in initial condit ions. These outcomes can reasonably be assigned to "chance" (Denny and Gaines, 2 0 0 0 ) . Forest systems contain many determinist ic processes. As Kimmins ( 1 9 9 7 ) , K immins et al . ( 1 9 9 9 ) , and Baker and Mladenoff (1999) i l lustrate th rough numerous examples, science and forest expert ise have deepened knowledge and understanding of many of these i i determinist ic processes (e .g . t ree g rowth , mor ta l i ty and compet i t ion, and biomass accumulat ion in forests) . T i m m e r m a n s (1991) describes some determinist ic components of human decis ion-making processes and choice behaviour on relating wi th the env i ronment . Many outcomes in forest sys tems, however, appear to be far f rom determinist ic . Complexity and subsequent uncer ta inty make many of these outcomes and the underlying processes seem stochastic. Further, even if complete knowledge were possible, chaotic and non-linear interactions l imit knowing all fu ture outcomes. 2.5 Complexity of a Forest System Viegas (1982) points out tha t when decis ion-making involves several deciding bodies and several sets of values and interrelat ions, complexi ty arises. Complexi ty makes acquir ing knowledge for bet ter decisions chal lenging in forest ry . The abil i ty to manage forests systems ul t imate ly depends on acquir ing knowledge and addressing the complexi ty arising f rom ecosystems, s takeholders, resources and policies. 2.5.1 Complexity in the Forest Ecosystem Subsystem The te rms 'ecosys tem' and ' fo rest ' are var iously defined (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA, 1997a; Commission on Sustainable Development , 1996) . More than one hundred def ini t ions were found during this thesis research. Kimmins (1997) suggests tha t few people really know what the t e r m ecosystem means, and Seastedt (1996) believes tha t ecosystem may mean whatever the users want it to mean. The t e r m forest , according to Meridith ( 1 9 9 3 ) , may also mean everyth ing and whatever we want it to mean. Definit ions of ecosystem and forest are constructed f rom ambiguous concepts, such as 12 communi t ies and env i ronments , which themselves have hundred of defini t ions. The lack of precise and operat ive def ini t ions makes it diff icult to know how intervent ions relate to forest ecosystems, given that ecosystems do not have boundaries natural ly f ixed in t ime or space (Dunster and Dunster, 1996; Perry, 1994) . In a practical sense, ecosystems are funct ional units relative to given management object ives (BCMOF, 1998a ; Seastedt, 1996; Jensen et a l . , 2001) . Division of forest ecosystems into manageable units is one of the very f irst issues tha t foresters have to deal w i th , and const i tutes a good example of how forest decis ion-making should involve the four subsystems of the forest system (Figure 2 .2) . ...-r Select ion of spat ial and tempora l ecological scale V Forest resources ...k^ .. .•** Appl icable pol icy to pr ior ize > < ' . ' . ' . . • • . ; > * • • . . . X .... : ...•*** V A g r e e m e n t w i th / *• s takeholders •* Figure 2.2. Defini t ion of a forest ecosystem. The fi l led area shows the convergence of components of the four subsystems of the forest system in answer ing the quest ion: Which is the uni t of management? 13 Forest managers mus t agree wi th stakeholders of the forest system on the tempora l and spatial boundaries of forest ecosystems, in accordance wi th the scientif ic, management , or policy quest ions being considered. Al though in forest ry the basic subdivision is a stand, depending upon specific purposes a single forest s tand, a watershed, or an entire forest region may be the spatial uni t for management . The temporal scale of management may be the present s ta te, only one human generat ion, a stand ro ta t ion, or perpetu i ty . Characteristics and Dynamics of Forest Ecosystems Complexi ty pervades forest ecosystems. They are the most biologically diverse terrestr ia l ecosystems, as acknowledged by the Convent ion on Biological Diversi ty (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA, 1997b) , and present an intr icate s t ruc ture , made up of many biological components wi th a high degree of interact ion and often a considerable degree of interdependency (Mauersberger , 1995; K immins, 1997) . Instead of averaging ou t , the most ly non- l inear interact ions among components of ecosystems modi fy the characterist ics and funct ioning of the ecosystems (Jorgensen and Muller, 2000 ; Green, 1997) . Through both positive and negat ive feedbacks, some outcomes of interact ions return as inputs to the ecosys tem, fu r ther affecting some characterist ics and processes. A forest ecosystem is hierarchically s t ruc tured. According to Perry (1994) each ecosystem when defined in space comprises numerous smaller ecosystems and , at the same t ime , is part of and in interacts wi th a hierarchy of larger ecosystems. Van Dyne (1966) summar izes basic ecosystem funct ions as t rans fo rmat ion , c i rculat ion, and accumula t ion-o f ma t te r and f low of energy th rough the medium of living organisms and thei r act ivi t ies, and th rough natural physical 14 processes. As open systems, ecosystems exchange energy and materials w i th o ther systems, including adjacent forests , downst ream ecosystems, and the atmosphere (U.S. National Science and Technology Counci l , 1996 ; Waring and Schlesinger, 1985) . Forests are not stat ic. Many authors argue tha t they are rarely in equilibrium (War ing and Schlelsinger, 1985 ; Botk in , 1990 ; Perry, 1994; Pahl-Wostl , 1995 ; Carpenter, 2000 ; Jensen et a l . , 2001) . Their composi t ion, s t ructure and funct ioning are dynamic (Wilds and Whi te, 2001) . Many states of equi l ib r ium, or optimal operating points, may exist for an ecosystem (Carpenter , 2 0 0 0 ; Perry et a l . , 1990 ; DeAngelis and Waterhouse, 1987) . Dif ferent states of forests .present a great range of tu rnover rates, which range f rom forests tha t are replaced by disturbances wi th f requencies of thousands of years , to forests tha t are natural ly d isrupted much more f requent ly (Carpenter ; 2000) . Forests owe the i r propert ies to an interplay between determinist ic processes and stochastic events , which include: • gradual changes or t rends in ecosystem's characterist ics that occur at broad scales and over very long t ime periods (DeAngelis and Whi te , 1994) . Jensen et al. (2001) refer to these changes as succession along mult ip le pathways, and Turner and Johnson (2001) as t rans ient dynamics ; • natural periodicit ies tha t const i tute seasonal var iat ions or semi-periodic env i ronmenta l f luctuat ions (DeAngelis and Whi te, 1 9 9 4 ) ; and • d isturbances. DeAngelis and White (1994) refer to these as discrete, d isrupt ive events ; Carpenter (2000) refers to t hem as surprising outbreaks and collapses; and Jensen et al . (2001) 15 refer as discont inuit ies and unexpected changes. These te rms give a sense of how disturbances are considered stochastic events for the most part . Gradual changes and natural periodicit ies const i tute determinist ic processes tha t tend to be smooth ly absorbed by forest ecosystems (Scheffer et a l . , 2 0 0 1 ) . As discussed in Section 2.5, these can be fair ly well descr ibed. However , forest deve lopment is not an order ly and predictable process. Rather, in most forests succession is periodically disrupted by d isturbances, deflecting them f rom some otherwise predictable successional path (Whi te, 1979 ; At t iw i l l , 1994 ; K immins, 1997; Parminter, 1998) . Disturbances may be arti f icial or natural . Forest management , clearance and burning of forests , agr icu l ture, and urbanizat ion art i f icial ly d isturb forest ecosystems. Wi ldf i re, insects and pests, w ind , f loods and landslides natural ly d isturb t h e m . Forests are in fact highly dependent or cont ingent on natural d is turbance and its spatial and tempora l d istr ibut ion for survival (e .g . maintenance of propert ies) as repor ted by White and Pickett ( 1 9 8 5 ) , Wilds and White ( 2 0 0 1 ) , and Forman ( 1 9 9 5 ) . Each forest reflects a part icular disturbance regime (e .g . d is t r ibut ion, f requency, and return interval of f i re ) , which affects not only the state of an ecosystem immediate ly fol lowing a d is turbance, but also the rate, degree and nature of its recovery (Pickett and Whi te, 1985; Wilds and Whi te , 2001) . Disturbance regimes vary along env i ronmenta l gradients , which reflect spatially vary ing features of the landscape, which t r igger disturbances or influence the impacts tha t they have on the forests (Naveh and Lieberman, 1994) . A l though natural disturbances may be necessary for long te rm ecosystem health and surv ival , they do not necessarily serve forest management object ives (e .g . w indthrow of part ial cut residual t rees) . Disturbances disrupt communi t ies and populat ion st ructures, 16 and change resources, the availabil i ty of suitable habi ta ts , and/or the physical habi tat (Parminter and Daigle, 1997 ; Whi te and Pickett, 1985) . Ecosystem dynamics is the result of many interact ing factors. Understanding these factors for managing forests is a chal lenging task and requires signif icant knowledge. Understanding determinist ic processes requires knowledge of present states and cause-effect processes occurr ing in ecosystems. Understanding disturbances requires knowledge of both determinist ic processes and random events and how they affect those predictable pathways. 2.5.2 Complexity in the Forest Resources Subsystem Forest resources are a compound array of goods and services obtained f rom forests tha t are valued by people (Roll ins, 2 0 0 1 ) . These resources include t imber products, such as lumber , pulp and paper and p lywood, and fue lwood; non- t imber products, such as herbs and mushrooms, t ree bark and leaves, and medicinal p lants; ecological funct ions, such as carbon storage, water regulat ion, and soil stabi l i ty; and social funct ions, such as habitat for human communi t ies ( i .e. First Nat ions), recreat ion, and spir i tual solace. Provision of some of these resources ( i .e. t imber ) is most ly achieved through forest management . Other forest resources, even when not directly provided by forest management , are affected by it. As the capabil i ty of ecosystems to provide forest resources is f in i te, the people tha t can benef i t f rom each ecosystem are also l imi ted. To know who , how, and in what quant i ty people benef i t f rom forest management is dif f icult . What makes this task even more diff icult is the fact tha t people vary in thei r valuat ion of resources. Even the 17 same individual 's valuat ion of a resource varies dur ing h is /her life. Adding the many individual rat ionales behind valuat ion is a very onerous scheme for managing forests. The Economics of Forest Management Duerr and Vaux (1953 ) state tha t most forest ry concerns are economic concerns. Economics enters into the solut ion of all the ma jo r practical problems in a forest sys tem, such as decisions about w h e n , where and how to harvest a forest , and do so wi th effectiveness and efficiency (Pearse, 1990) . Production of t imber , by far the most requested forest product, presents unique characterist ics, such as (Ghebremichael et a l . , 1996) : • the dual nature of t imber . Trees are both a f inal product ( t i m b e r ) , and a "manufac tur ing p lant" tha t produces the final product ; • a long product ion per iod. T imber product ion takes years to reach a harvestable age. This makes the choice of an appropr iate discount rate a vital mat ter . I t also requires est imates of fu ture benef i ts, which are ex t remely uncertain due to the length of t ime invo lved; • jo in t product ion of mult ip le outputs . Multiple benefi ts are associated wi th the product ion of t imber ; • immobi l i ty . T imber is f ixed in a specific place; and • der ived demand . Demand for t imber is der ived f rom the demand for the var ious in termediate input products (e .g . lumber, p lywood, pu lp) . In t u r n , demand for these is der ived f rom the demand for end-use products (e .g . housing, fu rn i tu re , paper) . 1 8 Forest managemen t is challenged by this diverse array of characterist ics. Adequate knowledge is necessary for solving the many questions tha t arise in t imber management , such as harvest ing the t imber f rom the forest in the very best m o m e n t , choosing an appropriate discount rate, est imat ing fu ture benefi ts of t imber I harvest ing in the long r u n , selecting which o ther forest resources will be priori t ized along wi th t imber product ion, and which will be sacrif iced, pricing t imber , and forecast ing demand for t imber , f rom the many individual demands for forest products (e .g . Gunter and Haney 1984, Klemperer 1996) . Markets give answers to many of these quest ions. Numerous forest resources do not have a marke t value, however. As Van Kooten and Kremar (2000) argue, " in seeking to value env i ronmenta l ameni t ies and public goods, individuals often have t rouble t rad ing off the (vague) ameni ty or good against a monetary measure" . The value of non-marke t resources has to be est imated th rough evaluat ing the wil l ingness of people to pay for t h e m , instead of establ ishing a marke t value for t h e m (Kengen, 1997) . As they do not have an exchange value, thei r value is not comparable wi th marke t value of o ther resources. This issue is a ma jo r challenge for forestry. As the chapter 11 of Agenda 21 emphasizes, a major reason for the fai lure to practice sustainable forest ry is the inadequate recognit ion and the underest imat ion of the value of the total package of resources provided by forests (Commission on Sustainable Development , 1992) . Market condit ions for forest resources are not stat ic. Prices of products rise and fall due to changes in quant i t ies of products being demanded and supplied (Pearse, 1990) . Markets become less at t ract ive not only due to reduct ion in prices, but also due to lack of economic supports given in the past (Ko ln , 1998) , decreases in vo lume of d e m a n d , and 19 internal social and political instabil it ies (Chambers, 1999) . Markets also impose sani tary , pol i t ical, economic, ethical and env i ronmenta l barriers to the exchange of products (World Trade Organizat ion, 2001) . As PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2000) argues, global izat ion has become a two-edged sword for forest ry , of fer ing the possibil i ty of marke t expansion but also increasing the chances of costly damages f rom new barr iers. Barbier (1996) identif ies the most common non-tar i f f barr iers as quant i ta t ive restr ict ions a n d / o r qual i ty controls tha t have been targeted at specific products, wood species and even individual expor ters . Abrup t shifts in consumer a t t i tudes also change markets . For example , in August 1999 Home Depot surpr ised the forest industry w i th the announcement t ha t the company intends to avoid all wood products made f rom lumber harvested f rom endangered or env i ronmenta l ly sensit ive forests by the end o f 2002 (The Home Depot, 1999) . Fur thermore , in November 1999 HomeBase and IKEA resolved tha t they would be phasing out all purchases of forest products of non-cert i f ied origin ( I . Lumber, 1999a ; I . Lumber , 1999b) . The main task in forest ry is to solve the many quest ions tha t arise in deciding what resources to prior i t ize. Another task is to deal wi th the issue of who eventual ly benefi ts and who potent ial ly loses f rom intervent ions in the forest . 2.5.3 Complexity in the Forest Stakeholders Subsystem Stakeholders are all the people who have an interest in a forest and who may be af fected by any act iv i ty in i t , or who may have an impact on the forest (Bass et a l . , 2001) . Al though people of ten have more than one ' s take ' in forests, being hardly classif iable, ma jo r stakeholders of a forest (Higman et a l . , 1999) are : 20 • Forest managers . Their object ive is to fulfi l l the owner 's object ives th rough intervent ions of the forest . • Owners. They pursue object ives such as prof i t max imizat ion , steady income, aesthetic qual i ty, etc. • Forest workers . They depend on the wages result ing f rom forest management . • Residents/v is i tors. People who live in or near the forest , and people who live fu r ther away and who come to the forest . These people can be direct ly affected by forest management . • Environmental is ts. They of ten do not live in or near the forest , but inf luence other stakeholders on env i ronmenta l conscient iousness. • Forestry officials and polit icians. They set the rules for the context in which forest management occurs. • National and global cit izens. These people are f rom a country (on national issues) or f rom the wor ld (issues tha t surpass boundar ies) . Some of these are organized (e .g . env i ronmenta l is ts ) . • Consumers. They consume products result ing f rom forest management . Each forest system presents a part icular conf igurat ion of stakeholders. Concerns about the managemen t of an uninhabi ted forest wil l probably rise f rom env i ronmenta l is ts , as pristine forests are among the emblemat ic issues on which envi ronmental is ts engage people (Mercier, 1997) . Conversely, the management of a highly inhabited forest will mostly concern people living in it, who dr ink water f rom its watersheds, en joy its scenery, and make the i r income f rom it. To 21 identify the main stakeholders when managing a part icular forest ecosystem is dif f icult (Bass, 2001) . As the World Bank (1996) 's Participation Sourcebook states, not all part ies can automat ical ly be assumed to be re levant or i r relevant. For every deve lopment concern being addressed, a broad spectrum of stakeholders exists, ranging f rom directly af fected part ies to individuals or inst i tut ions wi th indirect interests. The spect rum of stakeholders in a system is not r igid, but changes, mainly because of what Mercier (1997) and Duerr (1982a) refer to as constant evolut ion of mot ivat ions and values of people respect to the i r relat ionship wi th forests, and because new people become involved. Forests affect people and people impact forests. This close relat ionship leads to the widely spread view of people as components of ecosystems (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA, 1999; Chr is tensen, 1997 ; Meyer, 1997; Suzuki and McConnell , 1997 ; Wodley et a l . , 2 0 0 0 ) . A l though many human actions impact forest ecosystems, only some of them disturb t h e m . From Franklin and Forman (1987) a forest is d is turbed only if modified. Veri f icat ion of modif icat ions in an ecosystem, even when possible th rough tests of ecosystem integr i ty (e .g . loss of nut r ients , loss of d ivers i ty ) , is very diff icult (Treweek, 1999 ; Holling et a l . , 1987) . Ul t imate ly , assessing signif icance of impacts on ecosystems requires an intr icate collective human j u d g e m e n t (Garl ing and Evans, 1 9 9 1 ; UNEP, 1996) . What some individuals perceive as signif icant might be non-signi f icant for others. As Kimmins (1997) notes, scientists and the public commonly do not agree about what human actions d isturb the env i ronment . Forest managers are chal lenged to explain to o ther stakeholders the actual signif icance of thei r management (Sheppard , 2001) . With respect to env i ronmenta l issues, however , people's knowledge - a n d 22 managers ' knowledge- is somet imes d is tor ted, more than being incomplete. This makes it dif f icult to reach agreements . Another issue that managers deal w i th is the tendency of people to not internalize the fact tha t captur ing benefi ts f rom the forests impacts and potential ly d isturbs these ecosystems (Mercier, 1997) . Crit icisms against in tervent ion in forests are directed not only at the way in which these in tervent ions are done, but also at the mere fact of in tervent ion. For example , more than 170 forest stakeholders cosponsored the bill "Nat ional Forest Roadless Area Conservat ion Act" introduced in the U.S. House of Representat ives in June 2002. In confront ing these chal lenges, managers have to deal wi th mult ip le stakeholders. These are not "externa l fac tors" tha t affect management , but a component of management itself. Dealing with Stakeholders Engaging stakeholders is essential in var ious stages of decision-making in forest ry . Bass et al. (2001) describe mul t ip le benefi ts of doing so, such as improv ing credibi l i ty of object ives and targets , making use of a broader range of ideas, skills and inputs, ensuring practicali ty and focus of result ing standards, object ives and targets , and building a s t ronger foundat ion of s takeholder t rus t and accountabi l i ty. However, managing stakeholder ' invo lvement is a dif f icult task. Stakeholders present d i f ferent r ights, capacit ies, responsibi l i t ies, interests, rewards, and relat ionships wi th o ther groups (Dubois, 1998; Bass et a l . , 2 0 0 1 ; Foteau et a l . , 1998) , and there are a number of potential constraints to effect ive public part ic ipat ion. These range f rom behavioural norms or cul tural practice tha t inhibit invo lvement of some groups, to legal systems tha t may be in confl ict wi th t radi t ional 23 systems, and cause confusion about r ights and responsibi l i t ies for resources (Burke and Trahant , 2000 ; Mercier, 1997 ; UNEP, 1996) . To surpass these dif f icult ies, managers consider d i f ferent modes of part ic ipat ion, such as coercion, co-opt ion, compl iance, consul tat ion, cooperat ion, co- learning and jo in t act ion, and collective action (Cornwal l , 1996 ; Bass et a l . , 2001) . As the per formance of each of these modes varies f rom stakeholder to stakeholder, selecting the best combinat ion of t h e m challenges managers. From simple improvements in public invo lvement in dec is ion-making, managers are being pressed to use highly e laborated tools tha t allow the visual izat ion of s imulated future scenarios resul t ing f rom harvest ing (Sheppard, 2 0 0 1 ) . 2.5.4 Complexity in the Forest Policy Subsystem Forest policy refers to the purposive course of action or inaction fol lowed in dealing wi th the use of forest resources (Cubbage et a l . , 1993) . I t guides how forests are managed, wha t resources are produced, and who benefi ts f rom forests. According to Duerr ( 1 9 8 2 b ) , the forest policy subsystem comprises an interre lated hierarchy of means and ends. I t includes not only part icular forest procedures and object ives, but also numerous other env i ronmenta l , economic, and social procedures and object ives. Forest policy is made up of s takeholders ' mot iva t ions , choices, and selections. According to Stanbury and Vert insky (2000) and (Hoberg, 2 0 0 1 ) , it considers goals and specific object ives tha t derive f rom the reasons tha t mot ivate the government to in tervene, ins t ruments tha t best help these goals and object ives, and the selected fo rm tha t ins t ruments acquire. Each one of these results f rom complicated decis ion-making processes tha t include mult ip le actors (e .g . policy makers , forest managers, 24 envi ronmental is ts) and an array of values (e .g . env i ronmenta l protect ion, economic eff iciency, social ef fect iveness). In addit ion to the widely described f ive steps in forest policy making (e .g . Howlet t and Ramesh, 1995) , Anderson (1994) includes an initial step, 'p rob lem fo rmat ion ' . Many issues concern stakeholders, but for these issues to acquire the status of problems in the view of policy-makers, intr icate power interact ions between stakeholders must occur. Issues tha t concern one group of people do not necessari ly concern another. As Cubbage et al . (1993) note, stakeholders struggle to impose the i r var ious pr ior i t ies, and this pr ior i ty can be to keep the status quo f rom which benefi ts are being obta ined. Hel lstrom (1997) reports a number of instances in which forest ry confl icts have been construct ive e lements of the forest policy cycle. For forest managers to know these priori t ies and processes, and f rom there predict what problems will eventual ly lead to what fu ture forest policy ins t ruments is diff icult. These fu ture policy inst ruments will s t rongly influence the way in which managemen t is done. For example , if ins t ruments are coercion-focused (Stanbury and Verst insky, 2 0 0 0 ) , or " c o m m a n d and cont ro l " as referred by Pearse ( 2 0 0 0 ) , the behaviour of managers will be restr icted by legal provisions (Cubbage et a l . , 1993) . I f they are incent ive-focused ins t ruments (Stanbury and Verst insky, 2 0 0 0 ) , or economic ins t ruments (Pearse, 2 0 0 0 ) , managemen t wil l be dr iven by economic incentives to perceive. I f reference-focused inst ruments (Stanbury and Verst insky, 2 0 0 0 ) , managers behavior will be modif ied by means of al ter ing the i r preference order ing. Dynamics of Forest Policy Policy processes conclude wi th policy evaluat ion. Hoberg (2001) and Cubbage (1993) connect the results of this step wi th the beginning of 25 the policy cycle th rough feedback. Forest stakeholders may be critical of the current outcomes of a forest policy (e .g . unexpected increase in costs of opera t ion, weakness in protect ing forest a t t r ibu tes) . These cri t icisms are concerns tha t can eventual ly result in problems tha t a refined forest policy has to deal w i th . The abil i ty of stakeholders to have thei r concerns included in the forest policy agenda varies. According to Cobb et a l . ( 1 9 7 6 ) , the agenda can be establ ished by an outside ini t iat ion mode l , which means that env i ronmenta l groups raise issues tha t are taken and expanded by many stakeholders, and eventual ly passed to pol icy-makers tha t include t h e m into the agenda; by a mobi l izat ion mode l , which means tha t issues are placed direct ly into the agenda by po l icy-makers ; or by inside ini t iat ion mode l , which means tha t issues are promoted by certain stakeholders tha t do not seek to have t h e m expanded by other stakeholders. Pol icy-makers perceive these issues and eventual ly incorporate them into the agenda. Forest managers have to be knowledgeable about the issues that stakeholders w i th part icular interests are t ry ing to integrate into the policy agenda. Various ins t ruments constrain managers ' act ions, but also present wi th other opportuni t ies for benefi t th rough incent ives. Complying wi th constraints and tak ing advantage of opportuni t ies requires a great deal of knowledge. I f forests are not managed according to current laws and regulat ion, eventual ly punit ive measures against the manager result. In addi t ion, if advantage is not taken of incentives offered to manage forests in a given way, managers may lose valuable opportuni t ies. 26 2.6 Conclusion Forests are systems made of ecosystem, resource, s takeholder and policy subsystems. Multiple components and the i r interact ions make a forest system a complex adapt ive sys tem. Management of this sys tem, including all its subsystems which are in constant change, is diff icult. Sufficient knowledge is required for planning and implement ing management act ions tha t are the best ecological ly, economical ly and socially for the present and fu ture . As this knowledge is always incomplete, forest planning is done under uncer ta in ty . 27 CHAPTER I I I . UNCERTAINTY AND BETTER FOREST PLANNING WITH INCOMPLETE KNOWLEDGE 3.1 Uncertainty. A kind of Ignorance Although uncertainty and ignorance are f requent ly considered synonyms (Vercel l i , 1998) , as Smithson (1989) argues, uncerta inty is not as broad a concept. The Oxford Dict ionary defines ignorance as lack of knowledge. Both ignorance and knowledge are constructs, so are determined by people (Golledge, 1991) . Once someth ing is considered valid knowledge, unawareness of it is considered ignorance in the context and t ime in which its val idi ty was de te rmined . Ignorance varies in k ind. In tent iona l ignorance arises f r o m inat tent ion to something due to personal convenience or social taboo. Some knowledge is considered i r relevant or undesirable, and learning it is neglected. In contrast , d istor t ion and incompleteness of knowledge are unintent ional ly created ignorance. Some ideas and concepts are considered re levant , and are acquired as knowledge. I f this knowledge includes bias, inaccuracies and confusion, it is d is tor ted. I f it is incomplete, it is uncerta in (Smi thson, 1989) . Uncertainty refers to a state of incomplete knowledge. Ideas and concepts are present but in a vague, probabil ist ic, ambiguous , fuzzy or non-specif ic state (Smi thson , 1989) . Uncertain knowledge, therefore, has the potent ial to be more complete. I t reflects the confidence wi th which any est imate can be accepted as represent ing the fu ture outcome of a process (U.S. EPA, 1999) . 28 3.1.1 Origin, Assessment and Representation of Uncertainty A system is not uncer ta in , but complex. Uncerta inty arises f rom a human incapabil i ty of having complete knowledge about the system due to its complex i ty (Viegas, 1982; Holling et a l . , 1987) . Incomplete knowledge impedes understanding of the original states of forests, and predictions of the i r fu ture development . This hampers wise decision-making (Hol loway, 1979) . Al though a necessary task (e .g . uncerta inty can be so large tha t predict ions are i r re levant ) , assessment of uncertainty is general ly dif f icult (Smi thson, 1989) . As Stewar t (2000) states, in some cases assessing the uncerta inty associated wi th a predict ion is more technical ly diff icult than making the predict ion. Mathematical approaches for assessing uncer ta inty include probabi l i ty theory (La Place, 1820) , classical set theory Cantor ( 1 8 8 3 ) , fuzzy set theory and fuzzy measure theory (Bel lman and Zadeh, 1970) , and rough set theory (Pawlak and Skowron, 1999) . A l though the most widely used (Su t ton , 1982 ; Klir, 1994 ; Isukapal l i , 1999 ) , these approaches are not the only way to est imate the degree of uncerta inty in specific decision si tuat ions. Sarewitz et al . ( 2000 ) indicate tha t apart of being dif f icult , one of the disadvantages of using purely probabil ist ic approaches to describe uncerta inty is tha t probabi l i t ies are built upon mostly uncertain assumpt ions. This fact leads Ritchie and Marshall (1993) to argue tha t uncer ta inty cannot be descr ibed based on another uncer ta in ty . In spite of th is, the public, managers and scientists seem to be t te r t rus t representat ions o f uncer ta in ty tha t use mathemat ics (Fahey and Randall, 1998) . Forest managers are f requent ly t e m p t e d to manage based on official mathemat ica l models leaving aside the i r instinct, and even somet imes, the i r common sense. As Ascher ( 1 9 8 1 ) and Pielke et al . (2000) a rgue, the last test of a predict ion of a fu ture outcome is to evaluate its accuracy against 29 actual outcomes as they unfold. Suff icient feedback makes assessment of uncerta inty a more s t ra ight forward mat te r (S tewar t , 2000) . Past predict ions can be matched wi th current data to assess f i t . Al though chal lenging, as Rayner (2000) discusses, " re t rod i c t i ng " past events has been central to the assessment of c l imate change models, for example. Together w i th adequate feedback, assessing uncer ta inty can involve j u d g m e n t (S tewar t , 2000) . Through exper ience, ranges of uncerta inty can be learned, and the associated risk can be taken in to considerat ion dur ing decisions. 3.1.2 When Uncertainty becomes Risk Risk has numerous def in i t ions, as acknowledged by Ritchie and Marshall ( 1 9 9 3 ) , Cool ( 1 9 9 9 ) , and Treweek ( 1 9 9 9 ) . Most def ini t ions, however, seem to converge on two key e lements : loss caused by an event , and probabi l i ty of occurrence of the event (e .g . a probabil i ty between 0 and 1 ) . As knowledge about a forest system's fu ture is incomplete, many outcomes are not known. For example, as Cool (1999) states, if at least one of these possible outcomes represents a loss, then there is risk involved. Risk therefore arises f rom uncer ta inty . The uncerta inty about the fu ture leaves people worr ied over which of several undesirable consequences may result (Ritchie and Marshal l , 1993 ; Holzheu and Wiedemann, 1993) . How worr ied people feel , and thei r wil l ingness to cope w i th an uncertain fu tu re , var ies among individuals (Starr , 1980) . People also change thei r percept ion and wil l ingness to take risks when confronted wi th d i f ferent s i tuat ions (Leiss and Chociolko, 1994) . Acquisit ion of adequate knowledge reduces uncer ta inty , and can eventual ly change percept ion of risk itself (Ritchie and Marshall , 1993 ; Rescher, 1983) . As wi th uncer ta in ty , feedback 30 and j u d g m e n t is useful for est imat ing and evaluat ing risk. Evaluation of past th reaten ing si tuat ions and vulnerabi l i t ies, the i r outcomes and associated losses, help to plan responses to potent ia l damaging events occurr ing in the system being managed. Mathematical quant i f icat ion of risk is c o m m o n . Probabil it ies of losses due to change in markets (e.g. Ritchie and Marshal l , 1993) , and natural d isturbances such as beetle attacks (e .g . Shore and Safranyik, 1992) , f ire (e .g . Thompson et a l . , 2000) , w ind th row (e .g . Mitchell at a l . , 2 0 0 1 ) , and landslide (e.g. Anbalagan et a l . , 1996) is knowledge available to forest managers. Retrodict ing past events to learn f rom previous damaging events in a systematic way , however , is less repor ted. 3.1.3 Crippling and Overlooked Uncertainty I f there was no uncer ta in ty , managers would always know exactly what course of act ion to take and exactly w h e n , where , why and how to take it. Though a fact of l ife, the effects of uncerta inty are f requent ly over looked. Conversely, uncer ta inty about the future worr ies and eventual ly cripples decis ion-making in certain people (Georgantzas and Acar, 1995) . The wai t -and-see approach is a common approach in managing natural resources (Rayner, 2000) . Some stakeholders propose str ict in terpretat ions of the precautionary principle as the best way of dealing wi th s i tuat ions of uncerta inty in forestry. As Dunton (1998) discusses, they suggest tha t no action should be taken if there is any l ikel ihood, however smal l , tha t env i ronmenta l damage could occur. Fear of uncer ta in ty narrows options for risk aver t ing managers, who wish to be certain about no possibil i ty of losses before making decisions (Ritchie and Marshall 1993) . Cour tney et al . (1999) state that assuming tha t the wor ld is completely uncertain can lead 31 managers to abandon analytical r igor when planning and base decisions purely on inst inct. However, inst inct cannot be excluded f rom decis ion-making (Fahey and Randall, 1998) . I . Wilson's (1998) descript ion of the " in tu i t ive logic" approach to scenario planning implemented by Dutch/Shel l in the 1970s i l lustrates the impor tan t role that gut feel ing occupies in decis ion-making. Other managers make decisions presuming tha t knowledge is complete (Chambers and Taylor, 1999) . They over look uncerta inty and, as a result , do not consider the chance of loss. Recognizing managers ' l imi ted understanding of forest processes, Nelson (2001) recommends incorporat ing into analysis of fu ture forest condit ions "appropr iate warn ings of the inherent uncer ta inty in forest management , especially the magni tude of catastrophic events such as fire and insects". As Courtney et al . (1999) point out , underest imat ing uncerta inty can lead to strategies tha t nei ther defend against threats nor take advantage of opportuni t ies. The importance of acknowledging uncertainty and eventual risk made Newman (1988) to predict that these tasks would be the next fundamenta l issue for forest economists to address. As Brazee and Newman (1999) note, there has been an explosion of papers on uncerta inty and risk in forest economics. 3.2 Forest Decision-Making Under Uncertainty A decision is the selection of a course of action (Rowe, 1992) . Forest decisions range in scope f rom those concerning day- to -day act ivi t ies, to those concerning the very long- term fu ture of the forest , and f rom small stands of t rees to ent i re forest regions (Buongiorno and Gilles, 1987) . At nearly every level in forest decis ion-making there are al ternat ives to be weighed (Duerr , 1982c) . As Hol loway (1979) states, when al ternat ives have known outcomes, and consequences are 32 described, then mak ing decisions is a simple task. This rarely occurs in forestry. Fur thermore , Rowe (1992) argues tha t full knowledge at a given point in t ime could assure one good individual decision at that t ime , but not all successive decisions. When making decisions, di l igent forest managers collect the best available in format ion and analyze it. From this, they learn about t rends and pat terns, and can infer much about the fu tu re . However, uncerta inty remains. Cour tney et al . (1999) classify th is uncer ta in ty into four levels: 1. A c lear-enough fu tu re . The manager can develop a single forecast of the fu ture - o r scenario- tha t is precise enough for planning management . 2. Al ternate fu tures . The manager can describe the fu ture as one of a few al ternate scenarios. I f the scenario were predictable, some of the e lements of the plan would change. 3. A range of fu tu res . The manager can ident i fy a range of possible fu tures. There are no natural ly discrete scenarios, and planning has to be f lexible enough to adequate to any changing condit ions and resul t ing scenario. 4. True ambigu i ty . Possible fu tures cannot be ident i f ied. Even t rends tha t define the fu ture cannot be ident i f ied, or their behavior predicted. Planning will hardly dr ive management , but has to be f lexible to incorporate knowledge once produced. As these authors a rgue, most decisions tha t managers make fall into the categories "a l te rnate fu tu res" and "a range of fu tures" . A prel iminary step in forest decis ion-making is to identi fy the level of uncerta inty t ha t sur rounds the decisions being made, as each level of uncertainty demands a di f ferent approach to deal wi th (Ritchie and Marshall, 1993) . 33 From wha t S tewar t (2000) describes as the general env i ronment for decis ion-making and predict ion, the env i ronment in which forest decis ion-making occurs can be conceptualized as: the forest system itself; the in format ion channel , which brings in format ion f rom the system to the manager ; and the decision contex t , tha t influences the way in which decis ion-making is done (Figure 3 .1) . Uncertainty pervades forest ry due to the combinat ion of propert ies of these three e lements. Figure 3.1 The env i ronment for forest dec is ion-making. 34 3.2.1 The In format ion Channel The in format ion channel includes ins t ruments , observers, data l inks, and var ious displays of data (Stewar t , 2000) . All these help managers to understand the forest sys tem. According to Zucchet to and Janson (1985) , people tend to organize thei r concept ion of (e .g . understand) the env i ronment w i th the aid of some fo rm of model . A model is an abstract representat ion of a system or process (Turner and Johnson, 2001) , a simple representat ion of a given understanding (Chambers and Taylor, 1 9 9 9 ) , o r an abstract ion of how we th ink nature operates (DeAngelis and Waterhouse, 1987) . Managers use models to simpli fy forest systems in order to understand t h e m . Models have many uses in forest ry , and guide the observat ion and representat ion of ecological phenomena (Haag and Kaupenjohann, 2 0 0 1 ; Turner and Johnson, 2001) . As models are to be used for specific purposes, to decide which to use is a chal lenge (Botk in , 2 0 0 1 ; Shenk and Frankl in, 2001) . Continuous evaluat ion of models should be a key issue in forest ry . As Caswell and Trevisan (1994) and Turner and Johnson (2001) argue, evaluat ion should be made in t e rms of how well they are meet ing object ives and agreeing wi th empir ical observat ions. Sensit ivi ty analyses are run , and the relat ive impor tance of part icular parameters wi th in the model is evaluated. Uncertainty analysis is also done (Ricott i and Zio, 1999) . Botkin (2001 ) points ou t t ha t a central challenge in model ing is to improve communicat ion between theory and observat ion. Landsberg (2001) argues tha t managers and scientists need to f ind common ground in this regard. Many current efforts in model ing a im to bet ter capture the part icular features of the forest sys tem. As LeMay and Marshall (2001) s ta te, models have new demands. Shifts in forest management have changed in format ion needed to make in formed decisions in forest ry . In using only the best 35 available models , managers can improve knowledge about the forest sys tem. Mathematical models, however , are not the only possible way of get t ing to understand the forest sys tem. Managers should use other approaches when cause-effect relations are too uncertain (Thompson, 1967) . Judgment , imaginat ion, and instinct as sources of knowledge are widely repor ted (Thompson, 1967; Mumpower and Stewar t , 1996; Schwartz, 1996 ; Fahey and Randall, 1998; Stewar t , 2 0 0 0 ) . In learning public at t i tudes towards forests, for example , the in format ion channel should include d i f ferent ins tances.o f direct communicat ion wi th the stakeholders of the forest sys tem. Possibly, however , the most impor tant way of acquir ing knowledge f rom a forest system to manage is direct moni to r ing o f the outcomes of managemen t act ions. Problems in the in format ion channel p romote confusion, decrease certainty, and produce ignorance th rough distor t ions. Failures in managing natural resources result ing f rom a weak in format ion channel are widely repor ted (e .g . Sarewitz et al. 2000) . A good example in BC forestry is the repor t dur ing the last round of the t imber supply review that revealed tha t many of site index est imates on which yield predict ions were based were poor. General ly site index has been underest imated (Site Productivi ty Working Group, 1997) . 3.2.2 The Context for Decision-Making The context for decis ion-making is made-up of the procedural , social and bureaucrat ic issues tha t surround forest managers when making decisions. As Rowe (1992) points out , decis ion-making is not an isolated psychological act iv i ty , but a process tha t takes place in groups and involves confl ict. Thompson (1967) argues tha t what is decided 36 and features of the context tha t affect how this is decided are equal concerns to managers . Procedures used to make decisions may be specif ied and be r igid. As Iverson (1998) explains, forest decis ion-making is of ten forced into rigid s t ra ight jackets such as rational p lanning, or command and control dec is ion-making. As an example of how forest ry decisions are f ramed by a contex t , Nyberg (1999) identi f ies regulatory and inst i tut ional inf lexibi l i ty and reluctance of inst i tut ions to change practices, object ives or opinions as major barr iers to adapt ive forest management . The f ramework of goals and managemen t procedures for public assets are part icular ly r ig id, especially in public forests which are expected to generate a wide sort of benef i ts. Binkley ( 1 9 9 7 ) , for example, discusses how forest tenures can impose a rigid and uni form grid tha t constrains management . Other examples are given by Daniels and Walker (1997) and Solberg and Miina (1996 ) in describing how very specific requi rements for involving stakeholders in forest decisions create all sor t of tempora l constraints. Elements of the context for decis ion-making also constrain the informat ion channel , specifically how and where to obtain in format ion f rom the forest sys tem when making decisions. In fo rmat ion requi rements are set in many instances, such as BC, in where mandatory in format ion to be included in forest planning is specified by the Section 10 of the BCFPC and Sections 18-20 of the Operat ional Planning Regulation (BCMOF, 1995 and 1998b) . Rigidity goes fur ther , in legally def ining " k n o w n in fo rmat ion" to be included in forest plans in the Province. Requirements tha t in format ion focus on specific processes more than on results also challenge the acquisit ion of knowledge. In instances, acquir ing knowledge is constrained by an array of "o f f ic ia l " sources of in format ion, such as national stat ist ics, 37 public forest covers, and public env i ronmenta l moni to r ing data . This in format ion const i tu tes the basis over which the rest o f the in format ion has to be built up. Managers have to f i t the i r knowledge wi th this official in fo rmat ion , and if the official in format ion is wrong must defend their own knowledge. The acceptabi l i ty of uncer ta in ty and risk is also ref lected in the context for dec is ion-making. Stakeholders can be risk averse, and this is passed on to managers (Ritchie and Marshall , 1993) . Some contexts will be more to lerable to type two errors, whi le o thers will prefer to assume the risk of type one errors on predict ions of fu ture outcomes. In the context for forest decisions, where ecological risk is perceived, it is appropr iate to expect tha t managers t ry to demonst ra te that their management will not harm ecosystems. But on the other side, as Treweek (1999 ) descr ibes, regulators set thresholds for type two errors. Policies in the forest system reflect the to lerance to risk that governments are able to accept. Democrat ic governments are under greater scrut iny and tend to have low tolerance of fa i lure. As described in BCMOF's (1999a) "Managing Risk Within a Sta tu tory Framework" , forest policy somet imes allows for discretion in determin ing acceptable and unacceptable levels of risk. And governments usually assume a r isk-avoiding posi t ion, which increases constraints to forest decisions. Managers' decisions are also influenced by var ious social convent ions, restr ict ions, or incent ives. Decisions can be inf luenced by praise or crit icisms received for recent successful or unsuccessful predict ions and decisions (Stewar t , 2000) . Forest managers are increasingly under public scrut iny, and are professionally accountable for thei r work (Rat t ray, 1999) . As knowledge about e lements of the forests system commonly di f fers between the public and forest managers, agreements on many decisions are diff icult. Managers are a lmost 38 certain about many th ings that the public are uncertain or broadly ignorant about , and vice versa. For many people, for example , the biological processes tha t fol low harvest ing are not clear (K immins, 1997) , and concepts such as sustainable forest managemen t can have a completely d i f ferent mean ing. In compet i t ive business env i ronments , forest managers ' bosses can consider risky decisions tha t result in posit ive outcomes wor th tak ing , and will provide incentives to take t h e m . However, these same bosses are less likely to accept the downside of these same risky decisions, and this puts managers under stress. Changing condit ions wi th in the forest system also constrain the f reedom for making decisions. For example, Chambers and Taylor (1999) describe the pressure for rapid return on investments when market condit ions change. Responding to natural d isturbances in forests is another example of having to make decisions wi th a very narrow range of possibil i t ies, as the response to the present epidemic of bark beetle in BC forests shows (BCMOF, 2001a) . These rigidit ies in the context for decis ion-making contrast wi th the f lexibi l i ty tha t forest planning processes should be granted to occur in. Kimmins (1997) relates wise decisions about how forests are managed to careful p lanning. And , as Fahey and Randall (1998) argue, bet ter planning occurs in a f lexible and adapt ive forest planning scheme tha t allows for constant learning. 3.3 Better Forest Planning: A Constant Learning Process Planning is an integral and fundamenta l component of forest ry (Duerr , 1982c) . The FAO (1998) describes planning as an active process requir ing careful t hough t about what could or should happen in the future and tha t involves the coordinat ion of all re levant activi t ies for 39 the purpose of achieving specified goals and object ives. Chambers and Taylor (1999) ident i fy the stages in planning as: 1. Review and understanding. In this stage managers incorporate knowledge about the sys tem. 2. Goal fo rmu la t ion . Having identif ied the sys tem, goals for it are fo rmu la ted . 3. Problem fo rmu la t ion . The specific problem to approach is identi f ied and character ized. 4. Plans. A number of solutions to the problem are prepared. 5. Evaluat ion. Consequences of each plan are measured. Plans are compared in te rms of thei r accompl ishment of goals preset. 6. Select ion. The best plan is chosen for imp lementa t ion . 7. Imp lementa t ion and contro l . The plan is put in place and mon i to red . As Rowe (1992) asserts, decis ion-making and planning feed each other. Planning eventual ly results in what Johnston et al . (1967) described as anyth ing between a series of arb i t rary or dogmat ic decisions, and a crit ical and sophist icated invest igat ion into the whole range of possible choices open to managers. Uncerta inty goes together wi th these decisions. Sett ing adequate object ives and selecting the best way of achieving these in an ever-changing system has to be learned th rough practical experience (Fedkiw, 1998) . As Henriksson (1999) states, bet ter planning involves constant learning (e .g . acquisi t ion of knowledge) . Kolb (1984) has suggested four stages in a learning cycle (Figure 3 .2) . 40 Concrete Experience ( I m p l e m e n t i n g t h e p l a n ) Active Exper imentat ion ( I m p r o v e m e n t s t o t h e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s ) Reflective Observat ion ( A s s e s s i n g p l a n n i n g p e r f o r m a n c e ) Abstract Conceptual ization ( W e a k n e s s a n d s t r e n g t h o f p l a n n i n g ) Figure 3.2 Planning and the learning cycle (based on Kolb, 1984) Learning as a component of planning is widely repor ted as a condit ion for successful management (Rowe, 1992; Ritchie and Marshall , 1993; De Geus, 1997 ; Henr iksson, 1999 ; Mintzberg, 2 0 0 0 ; Mintzberg et a l . , 2001) . As Rowe (1992) discusses, some managers benefi t f rom abstract conceptual izat ion over reflective observat ions (pragmat is ts ) , while others priori t ize reflective observat ion over concrete experience ( theor is ts) . In fores t ry , Weetman (personal communica t ion , February, 2002) and Baskervi l le (personal communicat ion , March 2002) support the need of cont inuous learning, and references in art icles are not scarce (e .g . Wal ters , 1986 ; Kimmins, 1997 ; Wol lenberg et a l . , 2000) . Adaptive forest management has been inspired in this need for constant learning and incorporat ion of new knowledge (Taylor et a l . , 1997) . However, planning as a learning process has not received the same at tent ion f rom managers as adaptive management has. Adapt ive management wi th in rigid planning will not be successful. To be 41 efficacious, managemen t has to incorporate a f lexible and adaptive planning process tha t can be constant ly improved af ter showing weaknesses. This results not only in bet ter cur rent forest plans, but also in plans tha t can drive adequate management in the fu tu re . 3.3.1 Better Present and Future Forest Plans Forest plans state for what purposes forests will be managed and how (Duerr , 1982c) . Weetman (2000) recommends tha t plans have certain desired features, such as being credible, imp lementab le , audi table, and to conform wi th cont inuous learning and improvemen t th rough adaptive management . Dunster and Gibson (1989) discuss more specific requ i rements for adequate forest plans, such as hav ing: measurable and attainable object ives for the act iv i t ies; analysis of impediments to achieving these object ives; explicit means of overcoming these imped iments ; schedules of operat ions for implementat ion of the p lan; measures to determine the efficacy of these actions in mov ing towards the desired object ives of the forest act iv i t ies; and means of evaluat ing actual progress relat ive to desired progress toward the accompl ishment of the object ives of the forest act ivi t ies. Plans direct ing the management of forests tha t do not acknowledge uncertainty are fragi le (Duinker and Hay, 1994 ; Aber et a l . , 2000) . Experience in many discipl ines, such as economic p lanning, f isheries and ecology of c l imate change shows how dangerous it can be to rely too heavi ly on a plan based on predict ions about uncertain fu ture outcomes (e .g . Schwartz , 1996; Fahey and Randall, 1998) . Marsh (1998) , for example , reports how wrong have been tradi t ional predict ions about fu ture energy avai labi l i ty. In another example, Ringland (1998) reports how a group of scientists were asked in 1966 42 to predict the state of the wor ld twen ty years ahead. These scientists elaborated 335 predict ions. Twenty years f rom t h e n , nearly every predict ion was w r o n g . As a result , Sarewitz and Byerly (1999) recommend tha t predict ions not be considered as products , but rather processes wi th in dec is ion-making. Courtney et al . (1999) propose al ternat ive approaches to deal wi th uncertainty in p lanning. From these, bet ter forest plans respond to the amount and kind of uncer ta inty surrounding the knowledge of the forest system under management . When the fu ture is clear enough, a plan should be based in a single forecast, and object ives and actions should be built t oward this a lmost certain fu tu re . When a few al ternate futures are predic ted, plans should identi fy the possible futures outcomes and to clarify the paths to reach those a l ternat ive fu tures. I f a range of fu ture outcomes are ident i f ied, then plans should not only recognize these potent ial fu ture outcomes but equal ly impor tant ly , they should focus on the t r igger events or pat terns tha t could give an indication tha t change is going toward one or another scenario. Finally, if managers have no clue about probable fu ture outcomes or scenarios of the forest sys tem, and planning deals wi th t rue ambigu i ty , plans should identi fy at least a subset of variables tha t will determine the fu ture . Plans also should identi fy indicators of the evolut ion of these variables. An interest ing exper iment in addressing level 2 and 3 uncerta inty (Section 3.2.1) is underway at the McGregor Model Forest, located near Prince George, BC, and one of the 11 forest models in the Canadian Forest Model Network . McGregor's approach to sustainable forest managemen t consists of three l inked components : scenario planning, strategic and operat ional planning suppor t , and indicators and adapt ive management (McClain, 2002) . At the tactical level, 43 alternat ive fu ture scenarios are explored, br inging forest s takeholders ' interests together . What is needed to achieve agreed fu tu re scenarios is assessed. From t h e n , the best tools for model ing , forecast ing and visualization are selected to assess the likely impl icat ions of di f ferent management st rategies. Operat ional plans can be developed. Indicators are used to moni tor measurable forest a t t r ibutes to ensure compliance between planned object ives and actual per formance (McGregor Model Forest Associat ion, 2 0 0 1 ) . This actual per formance, therefore , refers to management ef fect iveness. Efficiency of management , and p lanning, is not assessed. Better fu ture management results f r om plans tha t incorporate cont inuous evaluat ion not only of the planning efficacy (e .g . effect iveness and ef f ic iency), but also of the factors tha t affect this efficacy. 3.3.2 Forest Plan Efficacy and Indicat ion of Planning Uncertainty The per formance of a plan should be t racked in t e rms of its efficacy. The forest plan is supposed to contr ibute to certain outcomes (e .g . to produce suff icient t imber according to a def ined object ive quant i t y ) . I ts effect iveness, f rom O'Connor (1983) and Hodgetts ( 1 9 8 2 ) , refers to how well its imp lementa t ion contr ibutes towards these outcomes (e .g . the plan is effect ive if al lows the manager to obtain tha t amount of t imber ) . I ts eff ic iency, f rom Hodgetts (1982) refers to the inputs required to reach the outcomes (e .g . an eff icient plan is one that uses relat ively l i tt le ef forts to produce the desired amoun t of t imber ) . Efficiency can be expressed in relative te rms (e .g . this year 's forest plan is more eff ic ient tha t the one of the past year ) . Efficiency can also be specified in absolute t e rms (e .g . this year 's forest plan required 2 0 % less t ime to be imp lemented) . An eff icacious forest plan should 4 4 be both effect ive and eff icient. Further, it has to per fo rm well in the future and in response to contingencies. Assessment of plan per formance is a necessary stage in improving planning and plans (Rowe 1992, De Geus, 1999) . The greater the discrepancy between actual and planned outcomes, the more uncertain was the knowledge that the manager had when designing the plan, and when implement ing it. This lack of knowledge can then be s t rengthened for the next p lan, thus improv ing planning per formance. Planning is done to bet ter conform wi th agreed ecological, social, and economic targets . Proving tha t harvest ing occurs as p lanned, t h e n , should represent a key ef for t in forestry. Assessment of cr i ter ia and indicators should be used not to t rack forest management eff icacy, but to help refining targets . 3.3.3 Estimation of Planning Uncertainty: A Spatial Approach A forest plan has a spatial component . For example , harvest ing is proposed for specific geographic areas of the landscape (planned outcomes) , which can be mapped. Actual harvest ing has also a geographic d is t r ibut ion in the landscape (actual outcomes) . Overlapping of planned and actual outcomes allows for identi f icat ion of specific areas of the landscape where harvest ing di f ferent iates f rom what one, or more than one, forest plan(s) propose(s) . I n th is thesis these areas of the landscape are referred as "areas of planning discrepancy" (Figure 3 .3) . Areas of planning discrepancy are due to ei ther planned harvest ing tha t did not take place, or unplanned harvest ing tha t did take place (e .g . salvage). 45 Figure 3.3 Discrepancies between the 1995 forest deve lopment plan (red line) and 1998 harvest ing. As discussed by Lang (1998) and O'Looney ( 2 0 0 0 ) , Geographic In format ion Systems (GIS) can assist forest managers in designing plans and in moni tor ing the outcomes of forest management . Uncertainty in forest systems has also a spatial d imens ion, and can be represented and analyzed using GIS tools. When concern shifts towards a part icular wildl i fe species, for example , the range of this species is representable in the landscape. The geographic distr ibut ions of " o l d " and " n e w " concerns can be mapped, and analysis respect to constraints to forest planning can be done. Following the same principle, the effect of a change in pulpwood prices on stand values can be mapped, as can the effects of new policies, and new forest resources. Uncertainty becomes much more concrete when visualized 4 6 as an area of landscape (But tenf ie ld, 2 0 0 1 ) . Once mapped, the influence of sources of uncer ta inty can be matched w i th maps of areas of planning discrepancy, to look for causes to explain t h e m . Analysis of areas of the landscape where planned outcomes were not reached provides feedback for the planning of next outcomes. Planning processes may well change for these areas (e .g . to use di f ferent tools for predict ing occurrence of natural d is turbances; to improve communicat ion tools for dealing wi th people's concerns) , and targets of management may be redirected to f i t newly known elements of the sys tem. 3.4 Conclusion The complexi ty of the forest sys tem, diff icult ies in character iz ing it, and a context tha t impedes acquisit ion of this knowledge means that uncertainty pervades forest ry . As complete knowledge is impossible at any m o m e n t in t i m e , and assessment of uncer ta in ty is not as s t ra ight forward as expected, bet ter planning has to be a constant learning process. This produces forest plans tha t can drive management under a broad range of fu tures . When plans fai l , improvements can be made if these fai lures are detected. Evaluating plan efficacy spat ial ly, and the association of uncer ta in ty wi th areas of the landscape, can contr ibute to constant improvement . 47 CHAPTER IV. FOREST PLANNING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA. A CASE FOR BETTER PLANNING 4.1 Introduct ion to Forest Planning in BC In BC, 9 5 % of forest land is publicly owned, and forest harvest ing is licensed to forest companies. Under the present legislat ion, licensees must prepare Forest Development Plans (FDPs), which describe in detail specific areas proposed for harvest. The BCMOF (1994) describes how forest practices in BC have gone th rough several stages: pre-regulat ion -before 1909- , early regulat ion and establ ishment of the forest industry - 1 9 0 9 to 1940- , sustained yield forestry and g rowth of the forest industry - 1 9 4 0 to 1970- , mult iple use forestry and l imits to g rowth - 1 9 7 0 to 1984- , and towards broad sustainabi l i ty -a f ter 1984- . The int roduct ion in 1979 of the MOF Act and the Forest Act marked a turn ing point for forest p lanning. Among other ini t iat ives, the Acts introduced a mul t ip le-use planning process, and requi rements for public review and part ic ipat ion. From 1987, licensees were required to prepare a pre-harvest si lviculture prescript ion for approval prior to receiving a cut t ing permi t . This prescript ion out l ined how env i ronmenta l and social values would be accomodated on harvested areas (BCMOF, 1988) . About the same t ime, the gove rnmen t established the f irst comprehensive processes to plan for land use at strategic levels, such as the South Moresby Land Use Agreement in 1988 (BCMOF, 1993) . The int roduct ion of the Forest Practices Code of BC (BCFPC) in 1994 establ ished new requi rements , and consol idated exist ing ones, for forest planning in BC. Presently, forest planning in BC is hierarchically s t ructured wi th three levels: 48 1) Strategic land use planning (e .g . strategic plans, regional land use plans, subregional land use plans). A f r a m e w o r k for public land use decisions over a broad region is prov ided. Stakeholders assign pr ior i ty to land use act iv i t ies, def ine object ives and strategies for an area. 2) Tactical p lanning (e .g . resource managemen t zone object ives, landscape uni t object ives, sensit ive area ob ject ives) . Object ives for specific landscape units are set, which are legally binding on subsequent operat ional activi t ies. 3) Operat ional p lanning (e .g . FDP, si lv icul ture prescr ipt ions, stand management prescr ipt ions). Site-specif ic object ives and strategies for operat ional activit ies in an area are designed in order to be consistent wi th higher level plans. In this scheme for planning in BC, FDPs are the cornerstone of operat ional p lanning. These plans, updated annual ly or every two years, describe how forest managers intend to access, harvest , renew and protect an area under license over the next f ive years. FDP approval of a cutblock al lows for its harvest ing a f te r a cut t ing permi t has been issued and a si lvicultural prescript ion approved. The Forest Development Plan Guidebook (BCMOF, 2001b) states the two pr imary goals of FDPs: 1) To provide in format ion covering a f ive-year period on the features of proposed act ions, in a manner which demonst ra tes management for biological d ivers i ty , soil conservat ion, water , f ish, wi ldl i fe, and other forest resources, and recognizes the economic and cul tural needs of peoples and communi t ies . 49 2) To describe how higher- level plans for the area will be carr ied th rough in subsequent operat ional plans. As a key vehicle for in ter -agency and public consul ta t ion, FDPs enable resolution of mult ip le interests and demands on the BC forest land base. FDP preparat ion requires considerable amoun t of detai led in format ion, which is specified by the BCFPC and its Operat ional Planning Regulation (Figure 4 .1 ) . Size, shape and locat ion of proposed cutb locks over the next f ive years Forest cover and topography of t he area. Ter ra in stabi l i ty and forest heal th in fo rmat ion Exist ing and proposed roads wh ich prov ide access to those cutb locks I n f o r m a t i o n on s t reams , we t lands , lakes. Object ives for Watersheds and r ipar ian m a n a q e m e n t zones W h e t h e r cu tb locks are c learcut , o r ano the r s i lv icu l tura l s y s t em Fish and f ish hab i ta t i n v e n t o r y . Ter ra in resource inven to ry . Levels of re ten t ion fo r coarse woody debr is and wi ldl i fe t rees Figure 4.1 Main in format ion requested for FDP preparat ion. (Based on BCMOF, 1998b) . As discussed in Chapter I I I , when prepar ing FDPs, managers have incomplete knowledge of the current and fu ture states of the forest system. From Haddock and Brewster ( 1 9 9 8 ) , managers preparing FDPs have to acquire spatial knowledge on complex biophysical issues of the forest (e .g . natura l d is turbances). And issues such as protected areas, wi lderness areas, sensit ive areas establ ished in accordance wi th 50 the BCFPC, wildl i fe habi tat areas, forest ecosystem networks, old growth management areas, scenic areas, ungulate w in ter ranges, communi ty watersheds, commun i t y water supply intakes and related water supply in f rast ructures, fish s t ream, r iparian class of s t reams and wet lands and lakes, tempora ry or permanent barr iers to vehicle access, object ives for known ungulate w in ter ranges, and water qual i ty object ives for commun i t y watersheds. I f this knowledge were complete, the spatial d istr ibut ion of forest system features in the landscape would allow for identi f icat ion of constraints and opportuni t ies for harvest ing. The best a l ternat ive plans would be selected according to best visualized fu ture scenarios under uncertainty. Candidate harvest ing areas would be then located, and cutblocks proposed in previous FDPs would be ref ined. Weaknesses in the al location of cutblocks, and fu r ther , in the planning processes, were identi f ied in the mid 1990's (BCFPB, 1999 and 2000) . In response, the Operat ional Planning Regulation of the BCFPC introduced signi f icant amendments to planning regulat ions, and specifically to cutblock requi rements in 1998. An impor tan t aim of these amendmen ts was to increase cer ta inty dur ing the planning process, specifically to reduce the l ikelihood tha t harvest ing would be rejected af ter licensees incurred planning costs and received initial approvals (Haddock and Brewster, 1998) . Various categories of cutblocks were in t roduced. Despite th is , and other changes to planning processes in BC, uncer ta inty remains. Forest plans of ten do not per form ecological ly, economical ly, and socially as desired by the mult iple stakeholders in BC forests. In consequence, forest plans fail to drive forest management . 51 4.2 Current Challenges to Forest Development Planning in BC Recent headlines in BC newspapers give a sense of the array of changing c i rcumstances in which forest planning occurs: "Forest fires break out" 2; "Pine beetle epidemic triples" 3; "Land-use issue inflamed"*; "Court halts logging in land-claim area" 5; "One owl cuts logging" 6; "Parameters in forest fight changing" 7; "Forest tenure, logging rules could be changed" 6; "Logging companies await review of AAC" 9; "Forestry faces market access uncertainties" 10. Imp lement ing FDPs under these circumstances is dif f icult . Frequently, expected outcomes (e .g . harvest ing of cutblocks) have to be delayed, or even discarded. As examples, the Coulson Group (2001a) reports, "This permi t is nearly 1 0 0 % hembal and was put on hold late 1997 af ter the hemlock marke t collapsed. I t has been in the bank wait ing for markets to improve" . Slocan Forest Products (2001) reports, "Compliance wi th the (Forest Practices) Code has increased operat ing costs and admin is t ra t ive requi rements for companies. . .and has resulted in delays in certain of act iv i t ies. . . " The same licensee adds, "...such si tuat ions (road blockades) cause delays in access to t imber . . . " On the other hand, forest management outcomes are of ten the result of in tervent ions tha t were not-or iginal ly p lanned. Contingencies force 2 Nat ional Post 0 5 / 2 3 / 2 0 0 1 3 Nat ional Post 1 1 / 1 1 / 2 0 0 0 4 Vancouver Sun 0 9 / 0 4 / 2 0 0 1 5 Vancouver Province 0 8 / 0 6 / 2 0 0 0 6 The Daily News 0 7 / 2 3 / 2 0 0 1 7 Vancouver Sun 0 8 / 1 0 / 2 0 0 0 8 The Daily News 0 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 1 9 Creston Val ley Advance 0 6 / 0 8 / 2 0 0 0 1 0 The Nor the rner 0 3 / 1 3 / 2 0 0 1 52 managers to change the original plans. The CLMA/NFPA Mountain Pine Beetle Emergency Task Force (2000) repor ts : Licensees on the f ront lines of the (mounta in pine beetle) infestat ion are redirect ing up to 100 per cent of the i r al lowable annual cut to beetle managemen t in the 2 0 0 0 / 2 0 0 1 season in an a t tempt to get ahead of the infestat ion. When not adequately addressed, uncerta inty affects forest plan efficacy. Expected act ions are not carr ied ou t , and non-expected actions are carr ied out . As concluded in an audi t made by the BCFPB ( 1 9 9 9 ) , "The posit ions and shapes of a substant ia l number of cutblocks approved in forest deve lopment plans... were modif ied to a moderate or m a x i m u m degree in subsequent cut t ing permi t submissions". The apparent weaknesses of forest deve lopment planning in addressing uncerta inty and accurately forecast ing forest in tervent ions challenge not only forest managers , but also other stakeholders in the forest sys tem. Tradi t ional planning is being quest ioned. The BCFPB (2000) concludes in its Review of the Forest Development Planning Process in BC: The reliance on ma jo r amendments to obtain approval of planned deve lopment and harvest ing may not ensure tha t forest resources are being adequately managed and conserved... The ef for t spent in prepar ing and reviewing a detai led original FDP may not be the best use of l imited resources, given tha t ma jo r amendments will dr ive forest harvest ing". . . the cost of the major a m e n d m e n t process was identi f ied as an inefficiency by some distr icts and licensees work ing in highly dynamic environments. . . in highly dynamic env i ronments (e .g . , bark beetle 53 infestat ions and natural disturbances such as ice s to rms) , FDPs cannot meet the intent of providing an order ly plan for deve lopment of roads and harvest ing and a meaningful oppor tun i ty for public review and comment. . . . In spite of these observat ions, the actual magni tude of the effect tha t uncertainty is having on forest planning has not been quant i f ied Province-wide. Neither have sources of this uncer ta in ty and their features been invest igated. 4.3 Province-wide Quantif ication of How Uncertainty is Affecting Forest Planning in BC Given tha t uncer ta in ty is strongly affecting forest planning efficacy in BC, it was considered re levant to quant i fy its effect on the part of licensees prepar ing FDPs and on the governmenta l agencies that review the plans. The approach taken was to direct ly survey FDP producers and rev iewers, asking them to ident i fy and comment on issues tha t are related wi th the effects of uncer ta in ty on planning. The results provide an overv iew of the current s i tuat ion at the provincial level. 4.3.1 Methods Between September and October of 2 0 0 1 an emai l survey (Appendix 2) was conducted th roughou t BC. The object ives of the survey were : 1) To de te rmine the number of FDP submissions and amendments per year in the Province, and to obtain an est imate of the average cost o f producing them and reviewing t h e m ; and 2) To ident i fy uncer ta in ty promot ing amendments to FDPs, and strategies used by licensees to deal wi th it. 54 The survey was sent by email to the six BCMOF Forest Regions (Cariboo, Kamloops, Nelson, Prince Rupert , Prince George, and Vancouver) . In some cases, officials asked the survey to be direct ly sent to some of the for ty BCMOF Forest Distr icts prov ince-wide. The survey was also sent to f ive randomly selected licensees operat ing th roughout BC (Slocan Forest Products L td. , Gorman Bros Lumber Ltd. , Kalesnikoff Lumber Company, Riverside Forest products L td. , and UBC Research Forests). The survey consisted of t w o d i f ferent sets of quest ions. Simi lar quest ions were asked to both licensees and the BCMOF, wi th some special questions for each par ty . BCMOF Regions/Distr icts were asked : 1. How many FDP's are submi t ted annual ly to your Region/Distr ict? 2. What is the est imated cost in the Region/Distr ic t for reviewing an FDP? 3. How many t imes are approved FDPs amended (ma jo r and minor) -on average- by licensees in the Region/Distr ict? and What are the main causes of these amendments? 4. What is the est imated cost for reviewing amendments to FDPs? ( total $, $ / m 3 , or $ /ha ) . Licensees were asked: • What is the est imated cost of producing an FDP? • What are the main causes, and costs, of amendments (ma jo r and minor ) to your FDP? • Is uncer ta in ty actual ly compromis ing the implementa t ion of your FDP approved blocks and cutt ing permits? • Do you assess FDP implementat ion? • Do you t rack forest planning performance? 55 • Do you have any strategies to deal wi th uncer ta inty affecting FDP implementat ion? All for ty BCMOF Forest Districts responded direct ly or th rough regional officials tha t compi led the informat ion for the r e g i o n 1 1 . The five licensees surveyed also responded. These answers were compi led and categorized. Due to the diff icult ies acknowledged by BCMOF officials and licensees on relat ing budgets to FDP preparat ion and revision, est imat ions of costs were made wi th caut ion. However, rough est imates of tota l costs involved in FDP processes made by each BCMOF region/d is t r ic t did not dif fer great ly (Appendix 2 ) . 4.3.2 Results About 301 FDPs are reviewed each year province-wide by the BCMOF 1 2 . A regional split shows variance among forest regions (Figure 4 .2 ) . CARIBOO VANCOUVER 12% Figure 4.2 Percentage of FDPs reviewed by BCMOF Forest Regions. 1 1 In some cases these responses did not include answers to all ques t ions . 1 2 According to the BCMOF Forest Practices Branch 500 FDPs are rev iewed per year in B C From the i n fo rma t ion col lected t h r o u g h the su rvey , 300 FDPs are rev iewed per year . A cause fo r th is d iscrepancy, as man i fes ted by m a n y BCMOF reg ions, can be t h a t m o s t of FDPs are now get t ing 2 -year approva ls , and the re fo re , are not rev iewed each year . 56 The review of each FDP involves staff t ime and capital costs (e .g . off ices, computers , so f tware, air photos) . The tota l cost for reviewing each FDP is about $11 ,000 . I f there is the need of extra field assessment, as occurs in about one th i rd of revis ions, this cost increases to $25 ,000 ( for helicopters to access remote sites, vehicles, accommodat ion , e tc ) . Annual costs involved in reviewing FDPs in BC are therefore approx imate ly $ 5.8 mil l ion. Adding o ther costs involved in FDP review (e .g . appeals, moni to r ing , BCFPB audi ts) this annual cost rises to about $ 6.6 mi l l ion. For licensees to produce a FDP costs between $30 ,000 and $50 ,000 . Adding costs of the review process (e.g. public par t ic ipat ion, publ ishing, field assessments) , licensees est imate tha t these costs are at least double. Annual costs involved in producing FDPs in BC would be approx imate ly $25 mi l l ion. About 2700 amendmen ts to FDPs are reviewed each year by the BCMOF. Indiv idual FDPs have an average of 2 ma jo r amendments (under Section 4 1 ( 1 ) of the BCFPC Act) per year. These amendments range f rom reshaping cutblock boundaries in a way tha t env i ronmenta l at t r ibutes can be affected (e .g . new boundaries incorporate a s t ream not or iginal ly cons idered) , to delet ing or adding whole cutblocks. In BCMOF Forest Regions of high cont ingency (e .g . wi th beetle epidemics) an individual FDP can have ten ma jor amendments . For the BCMOF, the review o f each ma jo r a m e n d m e n t costs between $2 ,500 and $7 ,000 . For licensees to put together a ma jo r amendmen t , and to comply wi th the required public part ic ipat ion and First Nations consultat ion tha t m a j o r amendments require, costs between $4 ,000 and $6 ,000 . In some instances major amendments are equivalent to a new FDP, in which case the cost of such a m e n d m e n t is closer to tha t of the original FDP. 57 According to the BCMOF and licensees, the principal causes of major amendments to FDPs are natural d isturbances, changes in t imber markets , and lack of higher level plans, social confl icts and policy changes (Figure 4 . 3 ) . Policy, First Nations, and social conflicts 15% Beetle, \ windthrow, defoliators, fire 50% Figure 4.3 Principal causes of major amendments to FDPs in BC. As an example , a BCMOF Distr ict official in the Cariboo Forest Region states: We are current ly dealing wi th a pine beetle epidemic in the distr ict so most licensees submit numerous amendments every year. We have processed in the order of 300 FDP amendments each year for the last th ree years... we amend each FDP between 50 and 100 t imes per year. In addit ion to the 300 FDP amendments we also process as many harvest author i t ies that are exempt f rom FDPs (minor salvage operat ions that do not need to be amended into and FDP before they can be logged)... Block layout 10% Changes in timber markets 25% 58 Another Distr ict official in the Vancouver Forest Region repor ts : Lack of Higher Level Plans and object ives provokes amendments . As we establish higher- level object ives for wildlife habi tat areas, ungulate win ter range areas, old growth managemen t areas, etc, theoret ical ly the task of balancing resource interests will be easier... A District official in the Prince George Forest Region adds: As First Nation issues also don' t always f i t into the operat ional p lanning t imef rames, so some deve lopment proposals may have to be amended later once consul tat ion has been concluded. Individual FDPs have an average of 6 to 10 minor amendments (under Section 4 3 ( 1 ) of the BCFPC Act) per year. These amendments include small changes to cutblock boundaries, in a way tha t env i ronmenta l at t r ibutes are not af fected (e .g . changing the access to the cutblock, accommodat ing boundar ies to f ine-scale features of the landscape). For the BCMOF, the revision of each minor a m e n d m e n t costs between $250 and $2 ,500 . For licensees to produce each minor amendmen t costs between $400 and $2 ,000 . According to the BCMOF and licensees, most minor amendments are due to " f ine t u n i n g " dur ing the layout of cutblocks in the f ie ld. Other causes are expedi ted salvage and reshaping of blocks to accommodate social concerns (Figure 4 . 4 ) . 59 Beetle, windthrow, defoliators, fire 80% Figure 4.4 Principal causes of minor amendments to FDPs in BC. As an example , a Distr ict official in the Cariboo Forest Region states: ...the number one cause (of minor amendmen ts ) is tha t licensees submi t an FDP having only done a map analysis. Af ter the blocks are approved, they lay t h e m out in the field and apply for an amendment to approved road and block changes. They are reluctant to do too much f ie ldwork up f ront because of the cost. I f they invest too much money and do not get approval , it is a loss... At least ninety percent of the CP applications tha t come in are accompanied wi th at least a minor amendmen t . Uncertainty is not expressly dealt in producing FDPs. FDPs are seen as living plans to be amended as in format ion is improved . As a licensee states: The purpose of ( l icensee) FDPs is to provide oppor tuni t ies for harvest , wi th the assumpt ion that it is a coarse f i l ter for weeding out those blocks where the harvest ing oppor tun i ty is very l imited f rom a social perspect ive. 60 Uncertainty is dealt wi th indirect ly th rough two main strategies used by licensees. The f i rst is to "ge t ahead on p lann ing" , so tha t a suff icient supply of annual allowable cut in FDP is ensured by maintain ing a stock of FDP approved and CP issued blocks. Licensees are typical ly keeping a stock of 3 to 5 years of area approved for harvest ing in the i r FDPs. One licensee reports having 10 years of FDP approved blocks. Another licensee states: (On having a stock of approved w o o d ) , if we propose deve lopment in a sensit ive area, we can plan at a s lower rate and spend more t ime educating the public on our proposals w i th the hopes of e l iminat ing fear and suspicion around our deve lopment . The second s t ra tegy is to shorten the period between cutblock proposal in an FDP and cut t ing permi t issuance. This al lows licensees to pass as soon as possible the si tuat ions in wh ich , at least in formal te rms, cutblocks can be rejected or restr ic ted. As a licensee states: With the deve lopment status we have (only) some cer ta inty as these blocks can still be pulled back by the agencies. So we t ry to know what rules are we playing wi th and once we star t deve lopment ( intense field work and assessment) on a block t r y to get it to the permi t stage as quickly as possible. No licensee repor ted t rack ing performance in FDP imp lementa t ion . 4.3.3 Discussion and conclusions f rom survey results Forest deve lopment planning represents considerable costs to both planners ( l icensees) and reviewers (BCMOF). A l though costs of assembling and reviewing original FDPs are impor tan t , in certain 61 districts of the Province they can eventual ly be less signif icant than the total costs of amendmen ts (e .g . Cariboo BCMOF Forest Region). The total annual cost of producing and reviewing FDPs in BC is about $ 31 mil l ion. The total annual cost involved in producing and reviewing amendments (ma jo r and minor ) is about $ 12 mi l l ion. Clearly, a way of reducing costs for the forest deve lopment planning process as a whole would be to reduce the number of amendmen ts to FDPs. The results of the survey suppor t the BCFPB's concerns about the efficacy of FDPs in areas of high cont ingency discussed in Section 4 .2 . There is a lack of incentives to address uncer ta in ty in forest deve lopment planning th rough direct methods , such as scenario planning, cont ingency models, etc. Minor amendmen ts represent a lower cost for l icensees than assembling accurate FDPs, which should include some compl icated and expensive field assessments. A licensee states: Many of the assessments required at the FDP stage require a great deal of up f ront work and risk in order to enter ta in approvals... you cannot develop accurate and effect ive assessments -Visual Impac t Assessment, for example-unless your cutblock design is implemented in the f ie ld. Rather, licensees prefer to keep a large stock of approved blocks in their FDP, to have room to deal wi th uncer ta inty . This however would not be the best a l ternat ive f rom a social perspect ive. The BCFPB (2001b) , concerned about potential constraints to fu ture high level p lanning, repor ts : . . .(al though) there is no restr ict ion on including more cutblocks than can be logged in the period of the plan, (approvals of more cutblocks than can be logged in the 62 period) may restr ict fu ture options for strategic planning and forest resource management . Fur thermore, the Board suggests tha t the gove rnmen t : ...initiate changes to the (BCFPC) Operat ional Planning Regulation to l imit the number of cutblocks tha t can be protected to be approx imate ly f ive years ' wor th of vo lume unless an approved landscape uni t plan al lows protect ion beyond f ive years. A final conclusion relates to the fact tha t no licensee repor ted t racking forest planning per formance (e .g . ef f icacy), even though some of t hem expressed interest in knowing it. Plans surpassed by cont ingencies are seen as a " fac t of l i fe". As stated by a l icensee: ...the over- r id ing influence on forest deve lopment planning here in recent years has been the ongoing Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic. The beetle is essential ly de termin ing where operat ions are conducted - if not for 1 0 0 % of the cut , certainly for close to all of it. This seems closely related wi th the lack of incentives for accurate planning. The present context for decis ion-making works in a way that accurate planning by s t rengthening the in format ion channel can signify bigger costs to licensees versus salvage. Since salvage rates are lower, is a cost-ef fect ive a l ternat ive. This compromises the i r wil l ingness to adopt innovat ive ways to improve planning per formance. I f mot ivated to do so, bet ter eff icacy would not only enable licensees and the government to save resources/ t ime, but also would benefi t o ther stakeholders in the forest sys tem. 63 4.4 Conclusion The current planning approach in BC is not eff icacious. Planning costs are higher than they could be, and the pr ivate and public budgets would be bet ter spent under a reformed planning sys tem. Current planning is based on too narrow a view of forests as systems and does not direct ly incorporate uncerta inty. Forest systems in BC are ext remely complex, and more comprehensive planning approaches are needed to build realistic plans that account for the dynamic nature of these systems. The use of tools that help acquir ing knowledge about the dynamic of the forest system (e.g . f i re , beet le, and windthrow hazard models ; innovat ive public part ic ipat ion schemes; economic forecast ing) could be bet ter directed to address specific sources of uncertainty previously detected. Eventual ly, plans should be more specific in the i r ta rge ts , al lowing for more f lexibi l i ty and discretion in processes. 64 CHAPTER V . A M E T H O D FOR S P A T I A L L Y A N A L Y Z I N G FOREST P L A N N I N G EFFICACY A N D U N C E R T A I N T Y ( S A F E P L A N M E T H O D ) . A CASE STUDY 5.1 The Need for the SAFEPLAN Method Private and public budgets , and public and consumer confidence are being signif icantly affected by the fai lure of forest planning in BC to address uncer ta in ty . Agreement on the need to redirect efforts towards innovat ive forest planning is broadening, making planning processes more f lexib le, resul t -or iented, and accountable to the public. More detai led in format ion about outcomes of forest planning and explanat ions for those outcomes will be needed in a context in which licensees need to dramat ical ly improve per formance to reduce costs, and government officials are even more pressed to provide just i f icat ion for harvest author izat ions. I n a more f lexible contex t for p lanning, the public is expected to ask for more certa inty tha t the env i ronment is not being damaged and demand more accountabi l i ty o f planners. The demand for managers to produce reliable plans and to bet ter explain unexpected outcomes will rise. The method for Spatial ly Analyz ing Forest PLANn ing efficacy and uncertainty (SAFEPLAN) was developed in response to these needs. I t is based on the basic concepts for bet ter planning introduced in chapters two and th ree . 5.2 Goals and Objectives of the SAFEPLAN Method SAFEPLAN is a GIS-based process for cont inuous evaluat ion of forest planning per formance, and the relat ionship of th is per formance wi th 65 sources of uncer ta in ty . Desired outcomes of forest management , specifically which areas are to be harvested, and which are to be left undisturbed are in plans. Comparison of planned wi th actual harvest ing outcomes reveals the efficacy of per formance. Where discrepancies have occurred, correct ions to planning procedures and future plans are proposed. Throughout this cycle sources of uncerta inty are identi f ied and addressed. Matching planned harvest ing is only one of the possible desirable outcomes of forest management . Other kinds of outcomes are prof i tabi l i ty, emp loymen t , protect ion of env i ronmenta l values, social support for fo res t ry , etc. Monitor ing of forest management per formance on accompl ishing these outcomes is widely repor ted , though (e .g . BCMOF, 1994 ; BCFPB, 2002) . Planning efficacy on harvest ing as planned is much less repor ted. The BCFPB has pioneered moni tor ing per formance of planning wi th respect to location of harvest ing in BC (BCFPB, 1999) . The lack of methods to do so in a more systemat ic and cost-ef fect ive way has compromised moni tor ing performance in a broader tempora l and special scale. The specific object ives of SAFEPLAN are : 1) to assess forest planning efficacy th rough compar ing planned and actual harves t ing ; 2) to identi fy factors - componen ts of the forest sys tem- tha t contr ibute to discrepancies between planned and actual harvest ing ; 6 6 3) to evaluate associations between factors contr ibut ing to discrepancy and physical at t r ibutes of the landscape; and 4) to provide feedback wi th in the planning process, improv ing the in format ion channel and adding new knowledge. 5.3 Description of the SAFEPLAN Method The SAFEPLAN method consists of f ive consecutive steps: Step 1. Compi lat ion of in format ion. Maps of planned and actual harvest ing are compi led in ArcView®. In the cur rent scheme for forest p lanning, planned harvest ing is represented by proposed cutblocks contained in a map at tached to an FDP submi t ted for approval to the BCMOF. Once dig i t ized, these proposed cutblocks fo rm layer number 1. Digit izing cutblocks f rom successive FDPs produces layer number 2, 3, and so on. Actual harvest ing is represented by cutblocks harvested in a given year. These cutblocks are identi f ied f rom BCMOF forest cover maps, h igh-resolut ion digital or thophotos, aerial photos, and field inventor ies. Once dig i t ized, these actual cutblocks fo rm layer l a . Digitizing cutblocks harvested in successive years produces layers 2a, 3a, and so on (Figure 5 .1) . 67 Figure 5.1 Compi lat ion of planned and actual harvest ing in ArcView® A data- table describing legal and biological features of cutblocks is associated wi th each result ing layer. Layers of annual ly planned cutblocks link to data tables wi th cutblock ID , cutblock category ('A proposed' , 'A approved ' , 'Salvage' , 'Cut t ing Permi t ' ) , cur rent year, and year in which harvest ing is expected. Layers of annual harvest ing link to data tables wi th cutblock ID and current year. Step 2. Preparation of grid cells and centroids. Geographic boundaries of the area of planning are digit ized in a new layer. This layer is then gridded ( 1 0 0 * 1 0 0 met res) using the 'conver t to g r i d ' tool in ArcView® Spatial Analyst extension (McCoy and Johnston, 2 0 0 1 ) . The result is a raster map of l h a cells. Finally, the whole raster is converted to a point shapefi le using the ArcView® Raster to Vector Conversion script which makes use of the asPointFtab, asPolyLineFtab, and 68 asPolygonFtab avenues to convert a grid to e i ther a point l ine, or polygon shape file (McVay, 1998) . Each l h a cell inheri ts a centroid (Figure 5 .2) . Figure 5.2 Preparat ion of grid cells and centroids Step 3. A t tachment of feature data. Image layers and data tables result ing f rom Step 1 are jo ined to the 1 ha cells result ing f rom Step 2 using ArcView® Assign Data by Location funct ion. This funct ion provides the abi l i ty to per form a spatial jo in between two selected themes (ESRI, 1998 ; Ormsby and Alvi , 1999) . As a result , clicking on any central point wi th in the area of planning displays a window describing planned and actual harvest ing, legal history and biological features of the cell (Figure 5.3) . 69 \3 _ Point ID i 7640 Cutblock 350-1 1995 FDP status P _ 1995 FDP year 1998 Years in plan 1 R. Changes 95-96 / _ 1996 FDP status P 1996 FDP year 1997 Years in plan 2 3 R. Changes 96-97 W. Reserve _ 1997 FDP status A 1997 FDP year 1999 Years in plan 3 4 _ R. Changes 97-98 Beetle _ 1999 FDP status CP (90-9) Years in plan 4 5 Harvested 1999 4 • M h i I H I Figure 5.3 A t tachmen t of feature data to cells Step 4 . Query ing da ta . The data table result ing f rom Step 3 is queried using ArcView® Query Builder. This tool allows creat ion of an equat ion to examine part icular themes and to answer specific quest ions (ESRI, 1998) . Potential quest ions to analyze using ArcView® Query Builder include: Which cells were proposed for harvest ing? Which of these were approved for harvest ing and for which cut t ing permi ts were issued? Which are harvested? How long did it take to harvest approved cells? Where were approved cells deleted w i thou t being harvested? Where are cells t ha t are not -approved for harvest ing cut? (Figure 5 .4) . 70 | [Charge 8753 (Rj^j |T]|17]|^ d] 000 • 0 0 Value; _[1 933.FDP Statu?!; [Years in Plan$4| (Wndthrow] [Insects] 0 1935 1936 1397 1333 1 9 9 ? " ..J-2000 1 Update Values | (1935 FOP Status] - ""1 and f|199b FD P S talus] = aid ||1997FDP Status] = '"*] and Q1999 FDP Status] - ' " ] and ([Logged] >« 1935) New Set Add To Set Select From SeJ Figure 5.4 Data query. In this example, cells tha t were harvested wi thout been proposed in any FDP, are ident i f ied. From the answers to these quest ions, indicators of forest planning uncertainty are calculated. Through ratios these indicators quant i fy the magni tude of uncer ta in ty affect ing the di f ferent stages of the planning cycle. The higher the rat ios, the deeper the way in which efficacy of planning has been compromised by uncerta inty . These ratios are: • P/H, the ratio of the set of cells proposed (p lanned harvest ing) to harvested cells (actual harvest ing) . • P/A, the ratio of the set of cells proposed to approved for harvest ing cells (approved harvest ing) . • A / H , the ratio of the set of cells approved for harvest ing to harvested cells. 71 • A/CP, the ratio of the set of cells approved for harvest ing to cells wi th cut t ing permi t issued ("ready to g o " harvest ing) . • CP/H, the ratio of the set of cells wi th cut t ing permi t issued to harvested cells. • T ime between P and H, the average period of t ime in years between the proposal of a cell and its harvest ing. • T ime between A and H, the average period of t ime in years between the approval for harvest ing of a cell and its harvest ing. • Time between CP and H, the average period of t ime in years between the issuance of cut t ing permi t for a cell and its harvest ing. These indicators of planning uncerta inty can be calculated yearly ( i .e. 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000) , or for a period of t ime ( i .e. 1995 to 2000) . As FDPs in BC are submi t ted year ly or every two years, and they propose harvest ing wi th a horizon of f ive years, periods of t ime for analysis can be considered in many ways. One FDP can be considered alone and indicators can be est imated for its specific f ive years horizon of p lanning. Several successive FDPs can be considered individual ly, or considered together over lapping the i r horizons of planning. Either way , t rends in uncer ta inty can be es t imated. The planning area can be strat i f ied according to characterist ics of interest and indicators of uncer ta in ty can be calculated and then compared for di f ferent planning areas. Step 5. Invest igat ing causes of unexpected outcomes. For areas of discrepancy (p lanned harvest ing does not occur or unplanned harvest ing does occur ) , or where indicators of forest uncerta inty are 72 too h igh, causes are invest igated. Natural d isturbances ( i .e. w ind throw, beetle outbreaks, f i res) , social concerns ( i .e. communi ty watersheds, visually sensit ive areas, o ld -g rowth forests) and ecosystem at t r ibutes ( i .e. forest types, wildl i fe ranges, s t reams) within the planning area are added as new layers into the Arcview® view. Patterns of association between these disturbances, concerns and at t r ibutes, and areas of discrepancy are invest igated by visual scrut iny of the displayed or thophotos and themes , and by analysis of the results f rom query ing the data tables, and cont ingency tables and Chi square tests if needed. Some pat terns of association can be fair ly obvious (e .g . most non-planned harvest ing can occur in beetle outbreak areas, or an A/H ratio can be especially high in an area wi th low value t imber and costly access). Other pat terns , t hough , are less obvious, and more research has to be done. Using the ArcView® Query Builder, new quest ions are posed (e .g . cells t ha t were approved for harvest ing and were not harvested tha t are located in communi ty watersheds) . In format ion f rom FDP documents , cut t ing permits submissions, BCMOF's approval and reject ion le t ters , and comments f rom the public comp lement the GIS analysis in th is step. Forest managers and officials are interv iewed to determine the reasons for specific outcomes. On these interviews or thophotos are d isplayed, al lowing for easier visual izat ion. Contingency tables can be used to conf i rm association between variables and outcomes. Results f rom this analysis lead to conclusions and recommendat ions. Conclusions refer to what is going wrong and what is going well in the planning process, and what are the causes for those (e .g . deficiencies of the in format ion channel , challenges in the context for decision-73 making) . Recommendat ions provide feedback to the planning process to improve wha t is going wrong and to reinforce wha t is going well (e .g . improve maps, databases, and identi f icat ion of where tools, research, and new processes are warranted to reduce uncer ta in ty ) . 5.4 Data Requirements for the SAFEPLAN Method Imp lementa t ion of the method does not require generat ion of spatial data other than tha t required for t radi t ional planning in BC. This consists of: • FDP maps ( 1 : 2 0 , 0 0 0 - 1:50,000) showing cutblocks by status (proposed, approved, and wi th cut t ing permi ts issued). Cutblock at t r ibutes (e .g . legal history, natural d is turbances, harvest ing) are in databases l inked to the maps; • forest cover ( 1 : 2 0 , 0 0 0 ) , which fol lows the BC Geographical System (BCGS) of mapping. This cover strat i f ies the landscape into polygons and for each one of these, stand at t r ibutes and general d is turbance history are described (BCMOF, 1998a) ; • o r thophotos for the planning area. Scale depends on the issues to be dealt w i th . As e x a m p l e s , the BC Land Use Coordinat ion Office (LUCO) uses 1:250,000 aerial photographs to identify Landscape Units and Biogeoclimatic Zones; 1:63,000 aerial photographs to elaborate regional hazard maps for landslides, snow avalanching, areas of active eros ion, and active f loodplains; and 1:15,840 for forest inventory (BCLUCO, 1999) . On the o ther hand, Mitchell et al. (2001) recommend using 1:15,000 scale color aerial photographs for w ind th row detect ion; 74 • specific legal in format ion for each cutblock. Submissions for approval and permi ts , approvals, re ject ions, issues on public consul tat ion and agency review. Documents tha t contain the rat ionale for changing plans for proposed or approved cutblocks. Most of this data is already in the possession of l icensees; however there may be problems wi th accuracy and dated in format ion (Sierra Systems, 2 0 0 1 ) . 5.5 Test of the SAFEPLAN Method in the Lemon Landscape Unit 5.5.1 Introduction to the Case Study The Lemon Landscape Unit (Lemon) is located wi th in the area covered by the Arrow IFPA wi th in the Arrow T imber Supply Area. The 41,000ha unit is set in a mounta inous area in the southwest port ion of the Nelson Forest Region, immediate ly adjacent to the town of Slocan in southeast BC (Figure 5 .5) . Figure 5.5 Aerial v iew of Lemon Landscape Unit and location of Lemon in BC. 75 Forestry act ivi t ies occur th roughout the unit at lower and mid -elevat ions, and env i ronmenta l , social and economic values are key dr ivers of forest management . The forest system includes diverse ecosystems including inter ior cedar-hemlock and Engelmann spruce-subalpine f ir forests (Arrow IFPA, 1999) , wildl i fe ranges and a var iety of natural d isturbance regimes, such as f i re , w ind th row, insects and other pathogens, and landslides (BCMOF, 2001c) . Forest resource availabil i ty is diverse in these ecosystems. Di f ferent sites present part icular y ie ld , economic potent ia l , and social sensi t iv i ty for t imber , wildlife ranges, water qual i ty , and visual a t t r ibutes. Multiple stakeholders are very active in demanding part ic ipat ion in forest decis ion-making and appreciate numerous non- t imber values, such as recreation areas, and commun i t y and domest ic watersheds (Arrow IFPA, 2000) . These concerns, and the at t i tudes, values and behaviour of people are being surveyed by the Col laborat ive for Advanced Landscape Planning at the University of Brit ish Columbia (Meitner et a l . , 2001 ) . The high level of public concern means tha t this area "under the microscope", as reported by McDonald ( 1 9 9 9 ) , is one of the env i ronmenta l " h o t spo ts " in BC. Policy in Lemon also has a part icular relevance in shaping the forest sys tem. The BC Chief Forester in the rat ionale for AAC determinat ion in Arrow T imber Supply Area (TSA), wi th in which the Arrow IFPA occurs, acknowledged " fo r this determinat ion I am mindful of the diff icult ies of locating harvest ing operat ions in the Arrow TSA as a result of the var ious pressures exer ted on the land base" (BCMOF, 2001c) . This recogni t ion led to the Arrow Forest License Group being awarded an Innovat ive Forest Practices Agreement (IFPA) in 1998 to help " increasing the wood supply for forest l icensees whi le at the same t ime ensuring the most advanced and sustainable forest practices 76 possible" (Ar row IFPA, 1999) . As part of the Arrow IFPA, forest management act ivi t ies in Lemon are carr ied using an ecosystem management approach. The IFPA's work ing def in i t ion of ecosystem management includes "a process of dec is ion-making, tha t uses an understanding of local and regional in format ion about ecological and human social processes, funct ions, s t ructure and composi t ion , and the interconnect ions between t h e m " (Arrow IFPA, 1999) . Scenario planning is a fundamenta l component in this managemen t process. Dif ferent fu ture scenarios are forecasted and the i r sustainabi l i ty is assessed based on cr i ter ia and indicators of. forest management sustainabi l i ty. The Lemon Landscape Unit was selected as a case s tudy due to the complexi ty of the sys tem in which forest management occurs. Another factor was the expl ici t focus on improving forest planning approaches that are being taken in the area. As mani fested at the governmenta l and licensee level , w h a t is being looked for in the Ar row IFPA is a more flexible and accountable approach to planning (Arrow IFPA, 1999) . Scenario planning and cri teria and indicators project ion based on models, need to include under ly ing uncerta inty. 5.5.2 Objectives of the Case study The SAFEPLAN method was applied in Lemon wi th the general object ive of evaluat ing the per formance of harvest planning dur ing the period 1 9 9 5 - 2 0 0 0 , and the sources of uncer ta in ty af fect ing it. Specific object ives were : • to describe planned and actual outcomes of FDP proposed harvest ing between 1995 and 2 0 0 0 ; 77 • to identi fy ecological, social, economic, and policy sources of uncer ta in ty , which contr ibute to discrepancies between these planned and actual ou tcomes; • to evaluate associations between sources of uncer ta inty and ecosystem or geographic at t r ibutes, and to review the process of cutblock approval and cut t ing permi t issuance, ident i fy ing the socia l / regulatory issues that occurred, how they were resolved, or if un-resolved the causes and potent ial solut ions; • to identi fy where -and how- informat ion sources and predict ive tools could be used by managers to reduce uncer ta in ty in p lanning; and • to describe the support ive role that SAFEPLAN could have wi th respect to bet ter planning in Lemon. 5.5.3 Methodology of the Case study Application of the SAFEPLAN method in Lemon consisted of the five consecutive steps described in section 5.3. Some features, however , were specific to this case study. Paper and digital maps for Lemon were obtained f rom var ious sources. Or thophotos, forest health surveys, forest covers, and salvage permi t maps, wi th ecosystem at t r ibutes and disturbances, were obtained f rom the BCMOF. FDPs submi t ted in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999, aerial photos, cut t ing permi ts , application and approval le t ters, and maps of commun i t y watersheds and visually sensit ive areas were obtained f rom Slocan Forest Products Ltd. (SFP) 1 3 . This mater ial was 1 3 Slocan Forest Products was the only Licensee submi t t i ng FDP's dur ing 1 9 9 5 - 1 9 9 9 for harvest ing in Lemon Unit . 78 supplemented wi th the FDP texts received f rom the BCMOF and SFP, and clearcut edge windthrow mapped f rom the 1998 aerial photographs. In te rv iews wi th forest managers and BCMOF officials provided in format ion for specific outcomes. Maps showing proposed and actual harvest ing between 1995-2000 in Lemon were added as themes in ArcView®. Further in format ion on proposed harvest ing was obtained f rom the FDPs submi t ted during 1995-1999. Actual harvest ing was taken f rom the BCMOF 1998 and 2000 forest cover maps, which were checked and corrected using August 2000 or thophotos . Data-tables containing cutblock ident i f icat ion, a rea, deve lopment s tatus, years in plans, planned harvest ing year , actual harvest ing year were at tached to these maps. The aggregated digital in format ion consisted of f ive layers: Layers 1 to 4 described proposed cutblocks in the 1995 FDP, 1996 FDP, 1997 FDP and 1999 FDP respect ively. Layer 5 described actual cutblocks on the landscape for the per iod. Just as the sources of these layers var ied, so did the qual i ty of the i r data . Duplicate maps existed - m a p s for the same FDP year f r om the BCMOF and the l icensee- for some years. Data f rom the two sources was compared, and double-checked wi th 1 -meter pixel resolut ion 1998 digital or thophotos for Lemon. The high resolution of these or thophotos al lowed ident i f icat ion of activit ies on the landscape. In 3 0 % of cases, cutblocks in successive plans had the same shape but were shif ted relative to each o ther or to the cutblock on the o r thophoto (Figure 5 .6) . These were considered to be obvious mapping shifts and were re- located to match the cutblock locations on the or thophotos to avoid inf luencing subsequent analysis. Data qual i ty , though , was a pr imary source of uncerta inty for planning in Lemon. I ts consequences are discussed below. 79 Figure 5.6 An example of obvious mapping shif ts. The area wi th in the borders of Lemon was gr idded ( 1 0 0 * 1 0 0 meters ) , result ing in 4 0 , 9 8 1 1-hectare cells. This grid t heme was converted to a point shapefi le. On at taching feature data , the data was l inked to each one of the 4 0 , 9 8 1 points at the centre of the cells. A click on anyone of the points wi th in the boundaries of Lemon opens the history of the cell between 1995 and 2000 . On query ing the point data table, a number of quest ions were answered, such as: How many ha were proposed for harvest ing between 1995-1999 in Lemon? How many of t h e m were approved? How many cut t ing permi ts were issued? How many of t hem were actually harvested? How many years passed between the proposal and the harvest ing areas? Were there delays? Why were blocks deleted, re-shaped, made larger or smaller? For each query , each cell was 80 counted once. I f a cell was proposed for harvest in consecut ive FDPs, it was at t r ibuted to the year when f i rst proposed. Results were displayed in charts to help the visualization of distr ibut ions and t rends in the data. The results of these queries enabled calculat ion of the indicators of planning uncer ta in ty described in section 5.3. These indicators show how uncerta inty af fected planning efficacy in Lemon between 1995 and 2000. Where areas of discrepancy occurred, and indicators of uncerta inty were h igh, causes of discrepancies and uncer ta in ty were invest igated. Printed or tophotos for Lemon were displayed to managers and reasons for specific outcomes were asked. Discrepancies were spatial ly related wi th themes featur ing w ind th row, f i re, and beetle outbreaks, communi ty watersheds, visually sensit ive areas, forest types, and old growth forests. The pat tern of association of these features wi th cells showing unexpected outcomes was evaluated. 5.5.4 Results and Discussion of the Case Study The SAFEPLAN method was applied for a single 5-year t ime span. The data, there fore , was in some cases l imited in scope. The analysis, therefore, used special precaut ion in analysing resul ts, and addit ional data was obtained for some stages of analysis. When results were unclear, they were clarif ied wi th interv iews and bibliographical research. Yearly analysis can be done for 5-year - o r o ther t ime span-moving f rames, which would enable identi f icat ion of s t ronger t rends. 81 Proposed and Approved Harvesting In the four FDPs submi t ted between 1995 and 1999 a total of 1,914 ha were proposed for harvest ing in Lemon. The area proposed each year dropped between 1995 and 1999 (Figure 5 .7) . 1995 FDP 1996 FDP 1997 FDP 1999 FDP Figure 5.7 Proposal of harvest ing in FDPs between 1995-1999 . One year a f ter the submiss ion, 4 4 % of ha proposed for harvest ing was dropped, and 1 4 % were approved. 8 0 % of dropped ha were wi th in blocks tha t were whol ly discarded and 2 0 % were wi th in blocks tha t were reshaped. During the period 1 9 9 5 - 2 0 0 0 , 513 ha ( 2 7 % of proposed) were approved. A l though they had been approved, 2 5 % of the ha were dropped before the nex t p lan. Of these, 2 5 % were wi th in blocks tha t were discarded and 7 5 % were in blocks tha t were re-shaped. 82 Very few of the blocks proposed in the 1995 FDP appeared as approved in the 1996 FDP. Of the 827 ha proposed, 4 0 % were dropped and only 9 % were approved one year af ter the submission. From this 9 % of approved ha, nearly half ( 4 5 % ) of t h e m were dropped before the 1997 FDP. Proport ional ly, approved status ha were dropped more f requent ly than proposed status ha (Figure 5 .8) . 33 ha Dropped • 1996 FDP 1997 F D P I s suance : Figure 5.8 History of ha proposed in the 1995 FDP. Cutting Permit Issuance From the total area of 1,914 ha proposed for harvest ing between 1995-1999 , cut t ing permi ts had been issued for only 384 ha ( 2 0 % ) by March 2 0 0 1 . Including blocks proposed before 1995, and blocks proposed th rough amendments to FDPs dur ing 1995-1999 , cut t ing permi ts were issued for 886 ha between 1995 and 2000. Sixty three percent of these ha received a cut t ing permi t wi th in two years a f ter submiss ion. From the 827 ha proposed in the 1995 FDP, only 2 4 % got a cut t ing permi t 83 within the next 5 years af ter submission. For Lemon, the stock of area under cut t ing permi t var ied f rom year to year, more than doubl ing in recent years (Figure 5 .9) . 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Figure 5.9 Area under CP in Lemon between 1995-1999 Harvesting During the period 1995-2000 a total of 608 ha was harvested, which represents less than 1.5% of the gross area of Lemon and 3 . 8 % of its harvest ing land base. From the tota l area proposed for harvest ing between 1995-1999 (1 ,914 ha) , 2 7 % was h a r v e s t e d 1 4 . An addit ional 80 ha was harvested wi thout being proposed in any FDP, ei ther because of minor salvage, or because of boundary modif icat ions pr ior to CP issuance tha t did not appear in any FDP. From the 513 ha tha t obtained approved status, The blocks proposed for harvest ing previous to 1995 were not cons idered in th is percentage. 8 4 4 6 % were harvested. From 220 ha that received a CP prior 1 9 9 8 1 5 , 6 8 % had been harvested before March 2001 (Figure 5 .10) . After receiving a cut t ing permi t , 3 7 % had been harvested af ter one year, 5 6 % after two years , and 8 3 % after three years. Figure 5.10 Harvest ing for proposed, approved and CP issued ha. Prior to 1998, FDP's were required to include a detai led harvest schedu le 1 6 . Of the 827 ha proposed in the 1995 FDP for harvest ing during the next 5 years , only 1 7 % were cut according to the proposed schedule. For the 1996 and 1997 FDP's these rates were 8 % and 1 2 % respectively. Indicators of Forest Planning Uncertainty Quanti f icat ion of discrepancies between planned and actual outcomes of planning in Lemon al lowed for est imat ion of indicators of uncertainty. These indicators refer to the level in which uncerta inty affected the efficacy of the planning process (Figure 5 .11 and 5 .12) . 1 5 Only CP issued before 1998 were cons idered fo r th is e s t i m a t i o n . 1 6 This requ i remen t for FDPs was d ropped by the 1998 BCFPC a m e n d m e n t s Proposed Aproved CP Issued 85 7 . 3 3 . 7 2 . 2 1.3 1 • 5 7.3 ha w e r e p r o p o s e d for e a c h ha h a r v e s t e d 3.7 h a w e r e p r o p o s e d for e a c h ha a p p r o v e d 2.2 h a w e r e a p p r o v e d for e a c h h a h a r v e s t e d 1.3 h a w e r e a p p r o v e d for e a c h ha w i t h CP i s s u e d 1..5 h a o b t a i n e d C P for e a c h ha h a r v e s t e d Figure 5.11 Indicators of forest planning uncer ta inty (ef for t made to complete planning) for Lemon Landscape Unit Time between P- M t \ m m betw e&n A- H 1mm between CP- H i • * 4.5 years IK 4.0 years ^ 2.2. years Figure 5.12 Ind icators of forest planning uncer ta inty ( t ime required to complete planning) for Lemon Landscape Unit 86 Analysis of Sources of Uncertainty Affecting Planning The Forest System as a Source of Uncertainty From one year to the next , the number of ha proposed var ied great ly. Entire cutblocks were discarded, and new ones were added. Other cutblocks were re-shaped, reduced or increased in size. Of the ha that were proposed and discarded before the next FDP, or approved and discarded before the next FDP, about half of the cases were due to reject ion by governmenta l agencies. Complex i ty in the policy subsystem was a key de terminant in planning. Rules changed, they were not clear, and the licensee had to respond to this new real i ty. Af ter the enac tment of the BCFPC in 1995, the BCMOF asked the licensee to submi t a 1996 FDP substantial ly compl iant wi th the new regulat ions, especially wi th the ones referr ing to biodiversi ty. This accounted for the major i ty of the approved blocks discarded f rom the 1995 FDP. The licensee completed considerable f ie ldwork dur ing 1995 and 1996 ( including ter ra in mapping, hydro logy, fish and wildl i fe, visual impact , and operat ional assessments) , and re-worked the FDP to be consistent w i th the newly imposed biodiversi ty regulat ions. The effects of the BCFPC were ful ly reflected in the 1997 FDP. Several new areas were proposed, and many of the areas proposed and approved in earl ier FDP's were complete ly discarded. While it was a major factor disrupt ing the cont inui ty of the planning process dur ing the f i rst half ( 1995 -1997) of the period of s tudy, policy change was not the only source of uncer ta in ty in Lemon. Ident i f icat ion of the main sources of uncerta inty was completed for the 226 ha tha t obtained FDP approval for harvest ing status and were discarded in consecut ive FDP or had not been harvested after 3 87 years . For 2 0 % of these ha no reasons were repor ted or could be ascertained. From FDP documents , BCMOF correspondence, public part icipat ion and interv iews wi th managers, it was possible to evaluate sources of uncer ta in ty for the remaining 8 0 % of the cases. These sources were economic and operat ional , social, legal and ecological (Figure 5 .13) . Figure 5.13 Sources of uncerta inty for discarded and non-harvested approved ha. Economic and operat ional reasons explained 4 0 % of cases. Stands with marginal merchantabi l i ty were not harvested because they ei ther could not be harvested economical ly due to low pulp prices or they contain most ly non-commerc ia l t ree species. Social constraints explained 3 5 % of cases. These approved ha were not harvested af ter social pressure (e .g . th rea t of appeals to courts, boycotts and blockades f rom people expressing thei r d isapproval) . Even when the licensee had been granted approval status for 1 7 For th is par t icu lar analys is , harves t ing dur ing 2001 was recorded and approved cells t ha t obta ined CP were not cons idered . 88 harvest ing, these areas were set aside e i ther because of the impract ical i ty of actual ly harvest ing or to prevent more social conflicts and prevent fu r the r damage to company's image. Legal/wildl i fe requ i rements explained 1 5 % of cases. These approved ha were not harvested as a direct result of requ i rements arising f rom the enactment of the BCFPC. Some ent ire blocks were discarded, and others were reshaped to accommodate BCFPC requi rements for reserves. Response to t imber damaged by natural d isturbances explained 1 0 % of the cases. These approved ha were discarded af ter the f ield layout work showed tha t beetle infestations and w ind th row had reduced merchantabi l i ty . These areas were discarded and not salvaged due to low value wood and o ther harvest ing prior i t ies. In some cases, uncer ta in ty had more than one source. As an example, the 1999 FDP submi t ted by the licensee describes how: A previous hemlock looper at tack is ev ident in the area on Wragge Face which is bounded by Valhalla Park and Slocan Lake... ( the l icensee) had intended to have a salvage program for this area in 1993, however due to public concern regarding the visual modi f icat ions, the program was cancelled 1 8 . Uncertainty af fected the planning cycle not only a t ear ly stages (e .g . between the proposal and the cutt ing permi t issuance). Even af ter FDP approval and CP issuance, revisions to ha were c o m m o n . Of the ha 1 8 The resul ts descr ibed are the ma in source of uncer ta in ty in cases where the re is more than one source. In th is par t icu lar e x a m p l e , cel l -ha were counted under social concerns. 89 under cut t ing permi t , 3 2 % were not harvested dur ing 1 9 9 5 - 2 0 0 1 i y . Most of this percentage was due to cutblock re-shaping or re-siz ing. Of this 3 2 % , 1 1 % had not been harvested by 2 0 0 1 but intent ions were to proceed as in the original cut t ing permi t . For 1 5 % of the ha no reasons were repor ted. From FDP documents , BCMOF correspondence, public part icipat ion and interv iews wi th managers, it was possible to evaluate sources of uncer ta in ty for the remaining 7 4 % of the cases. These sources were : • economic and operat ional reasons, especially unforeseen low pulp prices, for 5 5 % of cases; • new legal/wi ldl i fe requ i rements , result ing f rom enactment of the BCFPC, for 2 9 % of cases; • natural d is turbances, especially pine beetle outbreaks, in 6 % of the cases; and • unresolved social issues, especially concerns due to dr inking water qual i ty , in 1 0 % of cases. For 2 0 % of approved and 1 5 % of CP issued ha t h a t were not harvested, a key issue was considered to be block layout in the f ield. The fine scale used in this analysis ( 1 ha) al lowed to t rack dif ferences between final layout and proposed boundaries of cutblocks. In terv iews with managers suppor ted this assumpt ion, and analysis of the in format ion channel discussed below seems to conf i rm it. As s ta ted, some 80 ha were cut w i thou t being proposed in any previous FDP. Endemic pest problems tha t occurred in Lemon dur ing 1995-2000 are mounta in pine beetle, douglas f ir bark beet le, spruce 1 9 For th is par t icu lar analys is , harves t ing dur ing 2001 was recorded. 90 bark beet le, grey spruce looper, whi te pine bl ister rust and root disease. Mountain pine beetle reportedly affected j u s t 72 ha in Lemon during the per iod, whi le w indthrow along clearcut boundaries affected 74 ha. Of this total area of 146 ha, jus t 6 ha were harvested as salvage, 3 ha of which were proposed in FDP's. Spatial Association of Uncertainty and Landscape Attr ibutes The 181 FDP-approved ha tha t were discarded in consecut ive FDPs, or had not been harvested af ter 3 years, and to which sources of uncertainty were a t t r i bu ted , were mapped. Thei r association wi th landscape at t r ibutes was examined. The BCMOF def ines "prob lem forest t ypes" as stands which are physically operable and exceed low site cr i ter ia and ye t are not current ly uti l ized or have marginal merchantabi l i ty (BCMOF, 1998a) . According to the l icensee, these stands grow sub-alpine f ir , pure hemlock, lodgepole pine, hemlock- leading and sub-alpine fir -spruce stands greater than 140 years, or deciduous broad- leaved species. These areas were ident i f ied f rom the 1998 BCMOF forest cover. Fifty six percent of to ta l approved ha was located in "prob lem forest types" . From the 72 ha not cut due to economic and operat ional reasons 8 7 % of these were growing "p rob lem forest types" . I n addit ion many were located in high al t i tudes and in areas of steep slopes. Access is chal lenging and is pr imari ly by hel icopter, which involves high operat ional costs. As a result of low pulp log prices, these stands were not used because they could not be harvested economical ly (Figure 5 .14) . 9 1 Figure 5.14 Example of ha approved in 1996 and 1997 and then dropped due to the i r location in low qual i ty stands. Sixty percent of total approved ha were located ei ther in visually sensitive areas and /o r in communi ty watersheds. Of the 63 ha not cut for social reasons, 7 3 % of these were located wi th in scenic areas classified as to be 'v isual ly sens i t i ve ' 2 0 . Seventy-e ight percent of the 63 ha were located wi th in commun i ty and domest ic watersheds. Visual and water qual i ty issues together accounted for 9 0 % of ha not harvested due to social reasons (Figure 5 .15) . 0 I n the Ar row TSA, scenic areas were off ic ial ly made known by the Dis t r ic t Manager in June 1998. Visual Qual i ty Ob jec t ives have not been es tab l ished. 92 Figure 5.15 Example of ha approved in 1995 and then dropped due to concern for visual values. 27 ha not harvested due to legal/wildl i fe uncer ta in ty were evenly scattered th roughou t Lemon, and the BCMOF forest cover showed no common pat tern among these areas. No correlat ion between legal/wildl i fe reasons tha t affected planning and at t r ibutes of the landscape was observed, including prox imi ty to s t r e a m s 2 1 (Figure 5.16) . 2 1 Winter range maps were not avai lable to be included in th is analysis 93 Figure 5.16 Example of ha approved in 1997 and 1999 and then dropped due to BCFPC requi rements for wildl i fe reserves. Fifteen percent of total approved ha was located e i ther in areas of beetle outbreaks and /o r w indthrow. The 18 ha not harvested due to t imber damaged by natural disturbances were compared wi th 1998 and 1999 beetle outbreak maps. 7 0 % were located in one of these outbreak areas (Figure 5 .17) . Another 2 0 % of areas were located adjacent to old cutblocks wi th in w indthrow polygons mapped f rom aerial photos. From BCMOF forest cover, beetle outbreak areas did not relate wi th any one of the features of individual polygons but species composi t ion. All w ind th row occurred in the edge of polygons where harvest ing had already taken place. 94 Figure 5.17 Example of ha approved in 1995, 1996, and 1997 and dropped due to beetle outbreaks. Proposed ha were "chasing beet le". The Information Channel as a Source of Uncertainty The capabil i ty of the informat ion channel to ful ly t ransmi t forest system at t r ibutes is l imi ted. Most of the in format ion used in planning in Lemon was produced outside of a GIS env i ronment , therefore a number of correct ions had to be made prior to analysis. Frequently, the shapes of harvested polygons do not coincide wi th the cutblock shapes on the or thophotos . Examinat ion of digital FDP maps revealed other mapping discrepancies. Almost 2 0 % of proposed cutblocks were shifted and did not correspond to the actual locations on the or thophotos. In many cases non-correspondence was found between the same block in consecut ive FDP's. In a few cases, blocks were proposed for harvest ing in areas that were already cut. 95 The BCMOF 1998 and 2000 forest cover maps lack some current in format ion. Some areas do not show as harves ted, even when harvest ing has occurred. Other areas show as harves ted, even when harvest ing has not ye t occurred. Natural d isturbances are also not well documented. As acknowledged by the BCMOF 2 2 , problems wi th exist ing forest databases are numerous. Major problems are tha t BCMOF forest cover files do not meet the requi rements of modern geographic informat ion systems and most exist ing files do not meet the standards of qual i ty now def ined for the Province. These problems are reported also by Sierra Systems (2001) . The BCMOF (1999b) specifically recognizes the need for improvements in t he : ...quality of the minist ry 's geographic in fo rmat ion , the s tandard izat ion, rat ional izat ion and consol idat ion of the minist ry 's geographic in format ion (spatial and a t t r ibu te) datasets, the deve lopment and maintenance of spatial and at t r ibute in tegrat ion links and the integrat ion of the business processes and applications tha t use geographic in format ion. As Thrower & Associates (1999) report , the BCMOF is implement ing several ini t iat ives to improve col lect ion, s torage, and handling of spatial and a t t r ibute data . Eventually these ini t iat ives will lead to bet ter knowledge on the BC forest systems, helping management . But in the mean t ime , managers have to cope wi th a context of in format ion data in a dynamic t rans fo rmat ion . 2 2 M e m o r a n d u m 6 6 4 0 - 2 0 / I N C O sent by John Ellis, D i rec tor BCMOF I n f o r m a t i o n Sys tems Branch, to Regional and Dist r ic t Managers in July 1997 w i th re fe rence: " W h a t is INCOSADA and why are we doing i t" . 96 Data accessibil i ty was also an issue. Where in format ion was produced within a GIS env i ronment , it came in three di f ferent f o r m a t s : Pamap®, ArcView®, and Arc/ In fo®, and early FDP maps were created using MicroStation®. Data needed for planning is of ten contained in paper maps, non geo-referenced digital images and maps. Digital data is easier to assemble and f i l ter than paper records, provided the formats are compat ib le w i th the GIS sof tware and the hardware in use. Digital geo-referenced map-based files can be easily incorporated into Arcview®. As repor ted by the BC Land Use Coordinat ion Office ( 1 9 9 9 ) , forest digital map-based data in BC is s tored in PAMAP GIS, MOEP Binary Compressed, SAIF/ZIP, Microstation CAD, ARC/INFO and Arcview® fo rmats . While these problems sor t themselves as agencies and licensees move to ful ly digital data and reconcile sof tware, to t ranslate files into useable data is t ime-consuming , and can affect the accuracy of the data . Another challenge concerned the scaling of the da ta . Stine and Hunsaker (2001) c o m m e n t on generat ion and propagat ion of er ror by combining data w i th d i f ferent grain and extent. Cutblock layout (e .g . the precision of proposed cutblock boundaries) in the FDP was not as f ine scaled as o ther features tha t forest covers described for the landscape, such as s t reams and exist ing clearcuts. Natural disturbance map scales were coarse when compared wi th commun i t y watershed maps and even coarser when compared wi th s t ream classification maps. As the EPA-California (1998) states, "whi le spatial data of all map scales (e .g . 1 :1 ,000,000 to 1:1200) can be displayed in the same view by a GIS, the i r relat ive posit ions wi th respect to one another will vary great ly due to the i r accuracy". A chal lenge, discussed by Edwards and Fortin ( 2 0 0 1 ) , is tha t techniques to t ransfer data f rom one scale to another are f requent ly compl icated. 97 Signif icant new in format ion about landscape features was obtained during the period 1995-2000 . The licensee completed at least 20 assessments and inventor ies, such as an archaeological overv iew assessment, ter ra in stabi l i ty assessment, recreat ion inventory , and visual impact assessment, among others. Most of this in format ion, however, referred to the present state of the landscape, and nei ther acknowledged uncer ta in ty nor predicted fu ture states. During the period s tud ied, the licensee not only met the regulatory requi rements fo r public part ic ipat ion (BCFPB, 1998b) , but also implemented new ways of sharing decis ion-making wi th the public. However, this new knowledge of the "pu lse" of the public did not material ize in any tools to forecast fu ture social concerns or behaviors, nor result in maps showing constraints for harvest ing due to social concerns. The numerous assessments, inventor ies and public part icipat ion ini t iat ives carr ied out dur ing the period by the licensee signif ied a good basic knowledge of the forest sys tem being managed. However, most of this new knowledge was to comply wi th newly enacted regulat ions and did not identify signif icant changes to the planning processes for increasing certa inty. The Context for Decision-Making as a Source of Uncertainty Decisions made in Lemon are constrained by numerous procedural , social and admin is t ra t ive factors. As an example , in prepar ing the 1998 FDP the licensee had to respond to the fo l lowing: • The BCFPC Act, regulat ions and guidebooks. 98 • Other features object ives or th ings made known by the District Manager pr ior to April 30 , 1998. • The Kootenay Boundary Land Use Plan and its implementat ion st rategy. • The 1998 FDP Memorandum of Understanding between BCMOF and BCMELP. • The Distr ict Manager's instruct ion for prepar ing the 1998 FDP. The procedural and adminis t rat ive f ramework is r ig id, and was especially so dur ing the period 1995-1998 . The licensee has a very good record on act ing wi th in this f ramework , as repor ted by the BCFPB (1998a ; 1998c) . The Board concluded: ...(the l icensee's) practices complied wi th the Code in all signif icant respects. There is a high degree of compliance in an operat ing area wi th eleven commun i t y watersheds and steep te r ra in . In the same audit it is suggested that the licensee goes fu r ther than complying wi th legal requi rements . In spite of comply ing wi th this f ramework , however , the result ing plans still did not obtain a social l icense. The FDP process dur ing the f i rst half of the period (1995-1998) required a schedule of harvest ing. The requ i rement to specify the year of harvest was e l iminated in 1998, but the requ i rement for describing specific location of blocks remains. The level of detai l of in format ion requested at the FDP stage generates uncer ta inty . The licensee cannot have complete knowledge about issues tha t location of harvest ing will generate unti l the very last stage of p lanning. The discussion about 99 management approaches, block design, wildl i fe management strategies, etc. cont inues to the cutblock layout and prescript ion phase, instead of being dealt wi th dur ing higher level p lanning. The assessments of landscape at t r ibutes completed by the licensee dur ing 1995-2000 required a great deal of up f ron t work . Accurate and effective assessments and simulat ions of cutblock impacts on such things as visual qual i ty or habi tat supply cannot be developed unless cutblock design is complete. This creates an adversarial c l imate in which the licensee must take on the risk of complet ing the major i ty of the design work in the field and then present ing the in format ion to the government and the public for review. In a rigid scheme tha t requires very precise location of harvest ing, once blocks are laid out on the g round, it is costly to the licensee to make changes requested by the reviewers and the public. Rather than focusing all of the planning ef fort on individual cutblocks, it would be preferable for licensees to engage the public and agencies in planning for desired forest condit ions. These condit ions should be negot iated for the landscape unit and sub-uni t scale. The test for operat ional plans becomes thei r consistency wi th these desired condit ions. Legal r e q u i r e m e n t s are not the only ones f raming decis ion-making in Lemon. Unfulf i l led social expectat ions create legal challenges and add complexi ty to this context . As reported by the BCFPB ( 2 0 0 1 a ) : The Board f inds tha t , at that t ime ( 1 9 9 6 ) , watershed assessments did not have to be done unless the distr ict manager specifically required t h e m . I f an assessment was requi red, there was no legal requ i rement for water -user representat ion. Al though the Code's In te r io r Watershed Assessment Procedure guidebook, the Kootenay-Boundary 100 Land Use Plan and local practices created some public expectat ions for water -user part ic ipat ion in watershed assessments, they were not legally requi red. Even though the stages in the FDP and CP approval process are somet imes v iewed as one-way 'gates' (e .g . w i th increased cer ta inty as each gate is passed), unresolved social issues and changing regulat ions along wi th responses to marke t f luctuat ions lead to amendments and deferral of harvest ing. The r igidi ty of FDP processes does not allow for simple amendments to FDPs once some of these factors arise. Numerous amendments practical ly const i tute whole FDPs, and are proposed in advanced stages of the planning cycle. The licensee gets cer ta inty th rough f lexibi l i ty, f rom keeping a stock of approved cutblocks and issued cutt ing permi ts . There is no restr ict ion on including more cutblocks than can be harvested in the period of an FDP. However, as discussed, the BCFPB (2001b) has repor ted the drawbacks of this approach. Fur thermore, self-discarding of approved areas by the licensee can lead to bet ter compl iance wi th new regulat ions and bet ter response to social concerns, but at the price of wasted ef fort . 5.5.5 Conclusions and Recommendations from the Case study Application of SAFEPLAN method for analyzing planning outcomes revealed the efficacy of planning and the principle sources of uncertainty in Lemon Landscape Unit in Southeastern BC. The case study conf i rms apprehensions surrounding current planning processes identif ied in the provincial survey described in Chapter IV. From this application of the method on a small scale it was possible to make numerous recommendat ions to improve planning in Lemon. The recommendat ions also include measures tha t should be taken to 101 improve the policy context in which planning is current ly conducted in BC. Planning in Lemon appears to be react ive. Ins tead of a strategic rationale der ived f rom a higher- level plan dr iv ing harvest ing proposals towards given ta rge ts , var ious cont ingent factors inf luence what is harvested and what is not harvested. These factors inc luded: • the enac tment of new regulat ions in 1995 tha t dramat ical ly changed the contex t in which forest ry was pract iced in Lemon; • low wood prices which put large areas of Lemon below the economic m a r g i n ; • unresolved social concerns; • bark beetle outbreaks and some w ind th row; and • the requ i rement for addit ional resource in fo rmat ion . The net effect of these factors was substantial revisions in plans f rom year to year , including removal of substant ia l numbers of FDP approved blocks f rom the plans, and a large number of amendments to FDP's. A number of conclusions and recommendat ions result f rom this case study. These refer not only to improvements in planning by the licensee, but also to improvements in the context in which planning occurs in BC. A f i rst conclusion is tha t planning efficacy is signif icantly affected in Lemon by unaddressed uncer ta inty . As the indicators of uncerta inty show, only 1 out of 7 hectares proposed in FDPs was harvested. The major loss of hectarage occurs between FDP proposal and approval , but 2 5 % of FDP approved hectares are dropped pr ior to the CP stage. 1 0 2 From the licensee's perspective it could be argued tha t these high ratios indicate adequate effect iveness because they show tha t they are being responsive to social expectat ions and ecological condit ions of the landscape. Since the system is dynamic, having large stocks of approved blocks, for example , will lead to the need to revisi t t hem and improve management . This will make easier to reach legal object ives. These rat ios, however , show how uncer ta inty has constrained efficiency of the planning process. Fur thermore, they show how in the current context for planning in BC, the more effect ive are licensees, the less eff icient is the i r p lanning, and the less efficacious is the planning process as a whole for other stakeholders. Calculating these indicators year ly , and for d i f ferent operat ing areas would allow t rends in per formance to be identi f ied and compared. There is a spatial pat tern in planning outcomes in Lemon. Social uncertainty is higher wi th in commun i ty watersheds and in scenic areas. Economic uncer ta in ty was higher wi th in "p rob lem forest types" . Broader studies of the associations of social and env i ronmenta l factors wi th unexpected outcomes wi th in the Arrow TSA would identi fy where predict ive models would be useful , and faci l i tate the deve lopment or cal ibration of these models. Where sources of uncer ta in ty are dr iv ing FDP's, the incorporat ion of the most adequate predict ive model ing (e.g. beetle hazard models and windthrow risk models where beetles and wind are ma jo r agents of d isturbance) and innovat ive approaches to uncerta inty (e .g . creat ion of instances for exper t j u d g m e n t , and possible fu ture scenarios) should be a high pr ior i ty for improv ing the in format ion channel . Natural d isturbances were present as a ma jo r cont r ibutor to uncertainty wi th in the period of interest , but did not have major direct 103 incidence on unexpected outcomes (e .g . several blocks were added to the FDP because of bark beetle, in what const i tu ted a sort of "salvage th rough FDP" s t ra tegy ; occurrence of landslides not related wi th forest operat ions was a key component of social concern and subsequent ly non-harvested approved areas) . Social concerns should be identi f ied and incorporated into the higher level planning process, as a way of addressing t h e m early in the FDP process as targets to reach. This has been also suggested by the BCFPB ( 1 9 9 8 b ) . Social values surveys of the kind of Meitner et al. 's (2001) at the higher level planning stage can help to identi fy these social targets for management . The average t ime between proposal in FDP approval and CP issuance was relat ively shor t (2.2 years) for harvested blocks. This would appear to reflect a t ime eff icient planning process, but this may actually reflect the dropping of blocks wi th more diff icult operat ional /social issues f rom the plan. Over t ime this means areas tha t are cont r ibut ing to calculation of AAC, area in fact deferred f rom harvest ing. This concentrates the harvest in 'avai lable ' port ions of the landbase. The real ism of harvest ing and deferred areas should be addressed, and AAC adjusted where necessary. The two main aspects of the context for dec is ion-making, which helped to reduce eff icacy, were lack of f lexibi l i ty and lack of cer ta inty. Small modif icat ions to proposed blocks re-opened discussion of the ent i re block. In some cases the incorporat ion of new in format ion rather than resolving issues, opened new issues and lead to the areas being dropped. Frequent amendments of approved and author ized activi t ies reduced the t rus t of all part ies who contr ibuted to the FDP process including the public. As the BCFPB (2000) suggests, some of the 104 contents of FDPs, such as object ives for the full range of forest resources, should be moved to higher level plans (e.g Landscape Unit Plan). These object ives would represent social agreements . As the BCFPB states, this would reduce " the costs and t ime required to prepare, review and approve FDPs, e l iminat ing unnecessary dupl icat ion". The degree of cutblock modi f icat ion war rant ing FDP review should be clarif ied for all part ies in the planning process. The stages in the FDP-CP approval process are somet imes v iewed as 'gates' . As blocks pass each gate, the confidence of the part ies involved in the planning process tha t the block will be harvested should increase. The uncer ta inty ratios indicate tha t CP issuance added cer ta inty, however , unresolved social issues and changing regulat ions, along wi th responses to marke t f luctuat ions, still lead to amendments and deferral of harvest ing. Mechanisms should be in place to give certainty to CP issued blocks. I f policies change such tha t these blocks do not con fo rm, there should be a mechanism for review and amendment , however there should also be compensat ion for added costs. The governmen t should stand behind the results of the planning process and suppor t the licensees in resolving si tuat ions where social act ivism prevents harvest ing of CP's. The stock of issued CP's may appear suff ic ient, but includes blocks in areas wi th low economic value or unresolved social object ions. Where CP approved blocks are not in fact available for harvest , there is increasing pressure to rapidly process new proposals, and the integr i ty of the planning process is jeopard ized. I t would be preferable for the stock of CP's to include a balance of economic opportuni t ies representat ive of the landbase included in the t imber supply. CP's should be valid for a f ixed t e r m . 105 Within the forest indust ry , there is a tendency to use GIS only for producing and updat ing maps. The SAFEPLAN method i l lustrates how GIS can be used for problem analysis, spatial ly and non-spat ial ly. Forest planners should use the full capabil i t ies of GIS to relate uncertainty to mappable areas in the landscape. This spatial knowledge can be used to identify areas wi th special challenges for p lanning, assist w i th the design of specific fu ture condi t ions, and give direct ion to plans. GIS can be used to rout inely assess the per formance (e .g . eff icacy) of p lanning, and to detect in format ion weakness. Under the Arrow IFPA, a new scenario planning approach is being tested (Arrow IFPA, 1999) . These scenarios ident i fy potent ial fu ture stand and landscape condit ions which mee t specific management object ives. These scenarios will have to account for factors tha t will certainly occur, but they also have to take in considerat ion uncertain and probabil ist ic events . The GIS-based methodology presented in this study could play a support ing role in analyzing the sensit iv i ty of forecasted scenarios to these sources of uncer ta in ty . 5.6 Conclusion A method to address uncerta inty th rough bet ter forest planning in BC is proposed. Results obtained for southeastern BC conf i rm apprehensions respect to current planning processes, and show how the adopt ion of th is me thod could increase the eff icacy of forest plans, and improve the cost-ef fect iveness of the whole planning process. 106 CHAPTER V I . FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR FOREST PLANNING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA. A NEW CONTEXT FOR THE SAFEPLAN METHOD 6.1 Forest planning in BC in a t ime of transit ion As discussed in Chapters I I and I I I , complex i ty of the BC forest systems makes uncer ta in ty an ever-present issue. This together wi th the diff icult ies of planning described in Chapters IV and V, have led to the growing demand to change the context in which forest decision-making is done. The government has recognized tha t " increased certainty has been a key goal for industry , as companies need to coordinate personnel , equ ipment , suppl iers, marke ts and f inancing on a mul t i -year basis" (BCMOF, 1999c) . The forest industry has voiced the need for a new planning process tha t is more f lexible and adaptable, enabl ing t h e m to avoid losses and take advantage of unforeseen oppor tuni t ies. Licensees recognize, t h o u g h , tha t regulatory changes are j us t part of what is needed. Slocan Forest Products (2001) acknowledges: While our business env i ronment changes dai ly, c l imate and biodiversi ty change over many centur ies. We understand that nature defines the u l t imate l imit of what 's possible in our business env i ronment . Riverside Forest Products (2000) points out : Forestry in th is province involves constant change. Everything f rom env i ronmenta l considerat ions to aboriginal land claims affects us. We have two opt ions. We can sit back and wai t and see what happens, or we can get involved and help shape change.. . 107 Coulson Group (2001b) states: ...there are several variables wi th in the wood products marketp lace tha t are out of our cont ro l , but what we can control is our daily performance... . Allowing for improvements in per formance, however , implies changes in the context for dec is ion-making. As the gove rnmen t acknowledges, "For too long, the forest industry has been captured in an ineff icient and ineffective legislative maze..." (BCMOF, 2002c) . The BCFPB (2000) suggests: A more f lexible approach may be needed to plan for the deve lopment of roads and harvest ing, recognizing the short lead t ime and the dynamic nature of operat ions in (highly dynamic env i ronments) circumstances... f rom government , we must have an adaptable, resul ts-based regulatory f ramework tha t makes companies responsible for outcomes but al lows f lexibi l i ty to apply innovat ive technologies and approaches. The forest industry (COFI, 1999) agrees: . . . implementing a results and incentive based approach to regulat ing forest practices tha t is in line wi th o ther jur isdict ions and subst i tutes new cert i f icat ion systems for exist ing moni tor ing and audi t ing. Innovat ive Forestry Practices Agreements (IFPAs) and Results-Based Forest Practices Code Pilot Projects are ma jo r ini t iat ives tha t the BC Government has taken to answer to these requests (BCMOF, 1997) . Further, profound changes to the BCFPC towards more result-based 108 forest practices are being discussed, and imp lementa t ion of new legislation is expected in Apri l 2003 (BCMOF, 2002a) . In the meant ime, more than 44 mil l ion hectares of forest land have been cert i f ied in BC as being managed sustainably (BCMOF, 2002b) . Neither of these two innovat ive approaches, the IFPA and Pilot projects, includes expl ici t evaluat ion of plan outcomes in te rms of achieving the specific goals of harvest ing. Monitor ing efficacy of plan implementat ion is not discussed. Both ini t iat ives use detai led sets of indicators to t rack env i ronmenta l and social per formance. Both init iat ives present potent ial for addressing uncer ta in ty in forest p lanning, th rough improvements in the in format ion channel (IFPA) and in the context for decis ion-making (Pilot Projects). The principles for addressing uncer ta in ty and bet ter planning upon which the SAFEPLAN method is bui l t apply in each one of these ini t iat ives. 6.1.1 Innovative Forestry Practices Agreements (IFPAs). Addressing Uncertainty by Improving the Information Channel IFPAs are tenure agreements tha t are awarded to holders of vo lume-based licenses tha t enable to test new and innovat ive forestry practices to improve forest product iv i ty . On providing evidence that forestry practices will increase sustainable t imber supply while addressing all o ther resource values, IFPA holders would increase the harvest levels under the i r exist ing licenses (BCMOF, 2000) . IFPAs ensure f lexibi l i ty in forest ry practices. Practices tha t allow for f lexibi l i ty, however , are l imi ted, and include harvest ing methods or si lvicultural sys tems, act ivi t ies tha t result in f ree-growing stands, si lviculture t r e a t m e n t s , collection of da ta , and act ivi t ies tha t will enhance and protect non- t imber resource values (BCMOF, 1997) . No f lexibi l i ty for operat ional planning processes is in t roduced. 109 Current ly, seven IFPAs are at di f ferent stages of imp lementa t ion in BC. Arrow IFPA, in the Nelson BCMOF Forest Region, was awarded the IFPA in 1998 (Arrow IFPA, 1999) . Af ter 4 years , it is a good example of some of the advantages of collective work ing in a complex env i ronment , but also gives a sense of how changes in BC should go fur ther to allow for f lexibi l i ty. A key requ i rement for being awarded an IFPA is the proposal of a forestry plan tha t mani fests the object ives and strategies of licensees for the area. The Arrow IFPA forestry plan is based on : ...the need for an innovat ive and balanced solut ion to address forest resource issues in the Arrow TSA including downward pressures on short and long t e r m t imber supply, as well as env i ronmenta l and social values (Arrow IFPA, 1999) . This forestry plan is j o in t proposal by the f ive licensees operat ing in the area. I t sets strategic and management object ives, and introduces the ecosystem management approach under taken. I t also introduces init iatives to be carr ied out to improve the knowledge of the area. As acknowledged by the l icensees, they are not seeking and do not expect an immedia te increase in AAC. Rather, they expect that " the Province's Chief Forester takes the IFPA's planned practices and expected results into account determin ing an AAC for the Arrow TSA" (Arrow IFPA, 1999) . On put t ing together this forest ry p lan, licensees have received input f rom other stakeholders in Ar row, what has al lowed for agreement on certain targets at the tactical level. The fact that this forest ry plan is not direct ly related wi th the FDPs tha t each licensee has to submi t to the BCMOF, however , compromises the opportuni t ies of signif icantly improving planning processes. Social sources of uncer ta in ty still arise in the proposal of cutblocks in n o confl ictive areas (e .g . commun i t y watersheds) , and in some cases licensees have problems harvest ing blocks wi th issued CP. FDPs are still going th rough f requent amendments af ter approval . The context for decis ion-making remains pret ty much the same and is still r igid. What makes Arrow IFPA an interest ing exper iment is its potential for improvements in the in format ion channel for p lanning. Licensees are sharing the i r needs for knowledge, and are coordinat ing to f ind ways for improving it. The Arrow IFPA's Five Year Work Plan (Arrow IFPA, 1999) describes many init iat ives being carried out under the umbrel la of a sustainabi l i ty pro ject , which provides the context for the IFPA ecosystem management approach. Most of these ini t iat ives, in one way or another , imply the acquisit ion of new knowledge for understanding the natura l , social, and economic components of the forest systems under management . Good examples of the relevance of this new knowledge are the clarif ication of social values (Mei tner et a l . , 2001) , and pat terns of natural disturbances (Dorner , 2001) for Arrow. This new knowledge is al lowing for the discussion of targets and al ternat ive fu ture scenarios, and the simulat ion of d i f ferent strategies for dealing wi th these. The SAFEPLAN method was tested in A r r o w w i th s u p p o r t f rom the IFPA (Chapter V) . As descr ibed, application of the method to one licensee's operat ions provided useful knowledge about the forest system under management . Appl icat ion of the method to sample landscape units f rom Arrow IFPA as a whole would identi fy wi th more clari ty the knowledge needed to make planning and plans more eff icacious, and bet ter strategies to get it (e .g . specific models, forecast ing ef for ts, visualization too ls ) . i n A key component of innovat ive management in Ar row is the concept of planning towards more than one possible fu ture scenario (Arrow IFPA, 1999) . Through SAFEPLAN, inputs f rom individual l icensees and other stakeholders can be gathered to assess al ternat ive fu ture scenarios (e .g . due to level 2 and 3 uncer ta inty , as described in Section 3 .2 .1) . These can be spatial ly compared, uncerta inty can be descr ibed, and most probable scenarios can be l inked to tactical and operat ional planning. On ident i fy ing sources of uncer ta inty (e .g . people's concerns) , and spatial ly relat ing them wi th features of the landscape which would constra int location of harvest ing, licensees can have a broader support for jus t i fy ing changes to the AAC in Arrow. 6.1.2 Results-Based Forest Practices Code Pilot Projects. Addressing Uncertainty by Improving the Context for Decision-Making Results-Based Forest Practices Code Pilot projects are explor ing new ways to regulate and enforce BC forest practices to increase efficiency and save costs for both industry and government (BCMOF, 1999d) . There are seven pilot projects, which are at var ious stages of development , around the Province. One of these, St i l lwater Pilot Project, is the most ambi t ious current ini t iat ive. St i l lwater encompasses 180,000 hectares near Powell River, BC, managed under Weyerhaeuser 's Tree Farm License 39. According to the l icensee, " the Pilot Project will re invent the forest management approval process" for the area (Weyerhaeuser , 2001a) . Flexibility is introduced to the context for decis ion-making on al lowing the licensee to replace the sequence of FDPs being submi t ted year by year, by a single plan te rmed the "Forest Stewardship Plan". This plan defines agreed forest managemen t strategies and measurable targets for the 112 system managed. Immed ia te benefits of this shif t in the number of plans are: focus on landscape planning instead of block planning, incorporat ion of public part ic ipat ion in early stages, a permanent communi ty advisor board, and f lexibi l i ty to adapt to changing condit ions in the sys tem (Weyerhaeuser, 2001a) . These issues will al low for a more adapt ive management , and will resul t in clear benefi ts for the licensee and the BCMOF, such as reducing cost of producing and approving plans by a m in imum of 5 0 % , and get t ing cut t ing permi t approvals wi th in 24 hours. Stakeholders will direct ly benefi t by the maintenance or improvement of env i ronmenta l s tandards for forest management However, as another example of the controversy surrounding forestry in BC, St i l lwater is not exempt f rom cri t icisms (Weyerhaeuser , 2001b ; West Coast Envi ronmenta l Law, 2001) . These cr i t ic isms refer mainly to the fact tha t pi lot projects focus a lmost exclusively on al lowing the proponents to reduce or remove the need for public consul tat ion and government invo lvement , wi th little or no changes to the actual practices being carr ied out . Critics (e .g . Forest Caucus of the B.C. Environmental Network) argue that forest planning instead should use the precaut ionary principle where there is uncer ta in ty o r imperfect in format ion. In cont rast to these v iews, however , the licensee intends that St i l lwater will be closely moni tored and evaluated in te rms of its env i ronmenta l and public part ic ipat ion per formance, and economic eff iciency. This cont roversy shows how in a context of more f lexibi l i ty, wi th fewer instances at the operat ional level for public part ic ipat ion, managers have to gain the t rus t o f s takeholders. All the potent ial for acquir ing certainty tha t a more f lexible context offers can be jeopard ised if people do not t rus t what is being done. 113 Accountabi l i ty, there fo re , becomes one of the cornerstones of the planning process. The SAFEPLAN method can help managers in St i l lwater to spatial ly evaluate uncerta inty dur ing plan deve lopment . By retrodict ing per formance of past plans, some undesirable outcomes anticipated and conf ronted. Uncertainty (e .g . possible beetle epidemic) can be discussed wi th the public and agencies, and potent ial scenarios can be worked out together (e .g . if a Douglas-f i r bark beetle epidemic occurs, should salvage be allowed in visually sensit ive areas?) in advance. Present uncer ta in ty can be refined in the landscape. When amendments to the FSP have to be made, they can be bet ter explained both to agencies and to the public th rough mapped uncertainty using documenta t ion developed th rough SAFEPLAN. Future amendments will be reduced selecting bet ter predict ive tools and ways of acquir ing knowledge. On tracking plan imp lementa t ion , uncerta inty can be detected in an incipient state (e .g . a social issue tha t has the potential for expanding and being introduced into the forest policy agenda). 6.1.3 A Result-based BCFPC and Better Planning Reducing complex i ty of the BCFPC is becoming one of the key issues in the t ransi t ion in forest policy in BC. Al though the fo rm tha t new policies will have is not clear yet , it is fair to suppose tha t management will be more or iented towards achieving certain targets , or outcomes, than fol lowing rigid and mandato ry processes. As proposed by the BCMOF (2002c) , in this context social, economic and ecological ta rgets would be agreed on th rough the establ ishment of landscape level zones and object ives, and managers would be responsible for managing towards these targets . Areas of deve lopment (e .g . deve lopment uni ts) tha t pursue the strategic object ives of 1 1 4 higher- level plans would replace specific location of cutblocks in plans. Management in these areas would require a Resource Development Permit (RDP). The RDP contains suff icient in format ion and meets BCMOF tests tha t the proposed management respects legal r ights, complies wi th land use zoning, and incorporates public input. The f ramework for forest practices being described in the "Result-Based Code Discussion Paper" (BCMOF, 2002c) and "Sustainable Resource managemen t Planning: A Landscape-level St rategy for Resource Deve lopment " (BCMSRM, 2002) documents recently proposed const i tute a very serious a t tempt for making management -and planning- more efficacious in BC. Fur thermore, they describe a context wi th possibil i t ies and risk to l icensees, and o ther stakeholders. They also provide an oppor tun i ty for s t rengthening the principles that bet ter planning should fol low. These principles, rev iewed th roughout the chapters of th is d isser tat ion, are: 1) The forest sys tem comprises more than forest ecosystems. Planning should consider ecosystems (ex t rac t ion , conservat ion) , resources (harvest ing techniques, si lvicultural measures) , stakeholders (par t ic ipat ion, negot ia t ion) , and policy subsystems. 2) Multiple components and interact ions make forest systems complex. Planning should acknowledge tha t knowledge will a lways be incomplete, and tha t ignorance and uncerta inty will not only be present in the planning process, but will pervade th rough the whole implementat ion cycle. 3) An uncertain fu ture represents both constraints due to risk of losses and potent ial opportuni t ies. Planning should aim not only to avoid these losses ( r isk-adverse) , but also captur ing unforeseen oppor tuni t ies ( r isk- tak ing) . 115 4) Uncertainty mani fests itself in d i f ferent f o rms , and affects in var ious ways forest management . Planning should recognize and character ize uncer ta in ty , and propose the best way of addressing each fo rm of it. Planning should be open not only to probabil ist ic predict ions, but also to guesses, j u d g m e n t s , and scenarios. 5) Sett ing adequate object ives and selecting best ways of achieving them in a complex system fil led wi th uncer ta in ty has to be learned by practical experience. Planning should be based on constant learning, as a way of making incomplete knowledge more complete. Planners have to acknowledge the most eff icient way to learn, f rom thei r own personal experience (pragmat is ts , theor is ts) . The planning process should include a process where feedback on past outcomes informs fu ture plans; and 6) Efficacious forest plans are the ones tha t reach the i r goals (ef fect iveness) , and do so wi th less inputs (ef f ic iency). Planning should include mechanisms to rout inely evaluate plan per formance. I f goals are not being reached, or do so wi th excessive inputs, planning should include mechanisms to address these weaknesses. From this new contex t for p lanning, however, arise new challenges for both managers and agencies. Agreement on ecological, and socio-economic targets is not an easy task. When specific processes for managing forests are not specif ied, to have targets toward which to aim becomes fundamenta l . Questions rema in : Who will assume the responsibi l i ty for assuring tha t targets are in place? In the absence of agreed targets , does management occur w i thou t restr ict ions? Or does management occur at all? I f targets are in place, how their accompl ishment will be cert i f ied? Where natural events confl ict wi th 116 the accompl ishment of ta rgets , are licensees released f rom managing towards those targets? How responsible will managers be for including in format ion tha t leads to predict ing disturbances? Will the targets acknowledge the re tu rn periods of " in f requent " events? How f requent ly will targets be amended to cope wi th shifts in social values? None of these quest ions are easy to answer. A l though changes in policy are expected to be in place by 2003 , these quest ions will remain for a long t ime . They reinforce the need for a holistic v iew of the forest system and a systemat ic method for addressing uncerta inty in planning. 6.2 Conclusion Forest planning in BC is in a t ime of t rans i t ion. IFPAs and Pilot Projects are ma jo r ini t iat ives to tes t for improvements in cur ren t management and planning processes. New forest legislation towards a more f lexible f ramework for planning is expected by 2003 . I n this new context , principles for be t te r p lanning, and appl icat ions of the SAFEPLAN method , help on addressing uncer ta inty , control l ing per formance, and account ing of ou tcomes. 117 V I I . CONCLUSION A forest is a complex adapt ive system made up of dynamic ecosystem, resource, s takeholder and policy subsystems. Suff icient knowledge is required for planning and implement ing management act ions that are the best ecological ly, economical ly and socially for the present and fu ture . The complex i ty of the forest sys tem, diff icult ies in characterizing it, and a context that impedes acquisi t ion of knowledge means tha t uncer ta in ty pervades forest ry . Planning should be a constant learning process. When plans fai l , improvements can be made if these fai lures are detected. SAFEPLAN enables spatial evaluat ion of planning outcomes, calculation of indicators of uncer ta inty , and al lows invest igat ion of the association of uncertainty wi th at t r ibutes of the landscape. From the appl icat ion of SAFEPLAN in Lemon Landscape Unit in southeastern BC it was possible to make numerous recommendat ions to improve planning. These include measures tha t the Licensee should take, such as selecting new tools for model ing natural d isturbances, improving economic forecast ing, and implement ing new public part ic ipat ion schemes. The recommendat ions also include measures that should be taken to improve the context in which planning occurs in BC. These include placing greater emphasis on def ining target condit ions, to give more cer ta inty for approved harvest ing, and moving more of the contents of FDP's to h igher level plans. The results obtained for the southeastern BC case study were consistent wi th results obtained in the provincial survey of planning per formance. Provincial ly, f requent amendmen ts to forest development plans demonst ra te that the current planning approach is not eff icacious. Planning is based on too narrow a view of forests as 1 1 8 systems, and unaddressed sources of uncer ta inty af fect ing planning include natural d is turbances, shifts in social concerns, marke t cycles, and changes in policy. Planning costs are higher than they could be, and the pr ivate and public budgets would be bet ter spent under a reformed planning sys tem. Forest planning in BC is in a t ime of t ransi t ion. Major ini t iat ives to test improvements in cur rent management and planning processes are under way. New forest legislation that provides a more f lexible f ramework for planning is expected by 2003. I t is hoped tha t this new f ramework addresses the complete forest sys tem. The value of the SAFEPLAN method in a new planning context remains the same, to moni tor outcomes, to at t r ibute these outcomes to sources of uncer ta inty , and to provide feedback for subsequent plans. 119 V I I I . REFERENCES Aber, J . , N. Chr is tensen, I . Fernandez, J. Frankl in, L. Hidinger, M. Hunter, J. MacMahon, D. Mladenoff, J. Pastor, D. Perry, R. Slangen and H. Van Miegroet. 2000 . Applying ecological principles to managemen t of the U.S. National Forests. Ecological Society of Amer ica. Issues in Ecology 6. 22 p. Anbalagan, R. and B. Singh. 1996. Landslide hazard and risk assessment mapping of mounta in te r ra in . A case study for Kumaun Himalaya, Ind ia . Engineering Geology 4 3 : 2 3 7 - 2 4 6 . Anderson, J. 1994. Public Policy Making: An In t roduc t ion . 2 n d Edit ion. Houghton Miff l in, Toron to . Arrow IFPA. 1999. Ar row Innovat ive Forestry Practices Agreement Forestry Plan. Slocan, BC. I l l p. Arrow IFPA. 2000. Annual Work ing Plan for 2000 . Slocan, BC. 72 p. Ascher, W. 1 9 8 1 . The forecast ing potential of complex models. Policy Sciences 13: 2 4 7 - 2 6 7 . At t iwi l l , P. M. 1994. The disturbance of forest ecosystems: the ecological basis for conservat ive management . Forest Ecology and Management 6 3 : 247-300 . Axel rod, R. and M. D. Cohen. 2000 . Harnessing Complex i ty : Organizat ional Impl icat ions of a Scientif ic Frontier. Free Press, New York. 256 p. Baker, W. L. and D. J. Mladenoff. 1999. Progress and fu tu re direct ions in spatial model ing of forest landscapes. In Spatial Modeling of Forest Landscape Change: Approaches and Applications (Mladenoff , D. J. and W. L. Baker Eds.). Cambr idge Universi ty Press, UK. Pp: 3 3 3 - 3 4 9 . 1 2 0 Barbier, E.B. 1996. Impac t of the Uruguay Round on Internat ional Trade in Forest Products. Forest Products Divis ion, Forestry Depar tment , FAO. 47 p. Barker, J.A. 1993. Paradigms: The Business of Discovering the Future. HarperBusiness, New York. 240 p. Bass, S., K. Thorber , M. Markopoulos, S. Roberts and M. Greig-Gran. 2 0 0 1 . Cert i f icat ion's Impacts on Forests, Stakeholders and Supply Chains. Ins t ruments for Sustainable Private Sector Forestry Series, In ternat ional Inst i tu te For Envi ronment and Development , London, UK. 134 p. BCFPB. 1998a. Audi t o f T imber Harvest ing and Road Construct ion, Maintenance and Deact ivat ion. Slocan Group - Slocan Division. Forest License A20192 . FPB/ARC/10. Vic tor ia , BC. 22 p. BCFPB. 1998b. Adequacy o f the Public Review and C o m m e n t Period for Forest Deve lopment Plans in the Slocan Valley. Complaints 950067 and 9 5 0 0 6 9 . FPB/IRC/07. Victor ia, BC. 20 p. BCFPB. 1998c. News Release: Slocan Division Gets Clean Audi t f rom the Forest Practices Board. Online in http://www.fpb.gov.bc.ca/news/98-l l_ l lb .h tm BCFPB. 1999. Forest Development Planning in the Queen Charlotte Islands Forest Distr ict Between June 15, 1995 and February 15, 1996. Special Invest igat ion 950062 , Compla int Invest igat ion 950037 . Victor ia, BC. 49 p. BCFPB. 2000. A Review of the Forest Development Planning Process in Brit ish Columbia. Special Report FPB/SR/04. Vic tor ia , BC. 86 p. BCFPB. 2001a . Slocan Valley Watershed Assessments. Complaint Invest igat ion 9 5 0 0 8 3 . FPB/IRC/46S. Victor ia, BC. 30 p. 121 BCFPB. 2001b. Number of Cutblocks in a Forest Deve lopment Plan on the North Coast of BC. Complaint Invest igat ion 990207. FPB/IRC/45. Victor ia, BC. 10 p. BCFPB. 2002 . Compliance and Enforcement Audits of Forest Planning and Practices in Brit ish Columbia, 1 9 9 6 - 2 0 0 1 . Special Report FPB/SR/10. Vic tor ia , BC. 11 p. BCLUCO. 1999. Guide to Spatial Land and Resources In fo rmat ion in LRMP. BC Ministry of Sustainable Resources management , Land Use Coordinat ion Office. Victor ia, BC. 188 p. BCMOF. 1988. Annual Report of the Ministry of Forests and Lands for the Fiscal Year Ended March 3 1 , 1988. Victor ia, BC. 90 p. BCMOF. 1993. Annual Report of the Ministry of Forests for the Fiscal Year Ended March 3 1 , 1992. Victor ia, BC. 117 p. BCMOF. 1994. Forest, Range and Recreation Resource Analysis. Public Affairs Branch, Victor ia, BC. 308 p. BCMOF. 1995. Forest Practices Code of Brit ish Columbia. Queens Printer For Brit ish Columbia, Victor ia, BC. BCMOF. 1997. Innovat ive Forestry Practices Regulat ion. British Columbia Forest Act, Reg. 197 /97 . Victor ia, BC. BCMOF. 1998a. Glossary of Forestry Terms. Public Affairs Branch. 52 p. BCMOF. 1998b. Forest Practices Code of Brit ish Columbia Operat ional Planning Regulat ion. Victor ia, BC. BCMOF. 1999a. Managing Risk Within a Sta tu tory Framework: The Forest Practices Code. Compliance and Enforcement Branch. Victor ia, BC. 56 p. 122 BCMOF. 1999b. In tegra ted Spatial and At t r ibute Corporate Database (INCOSADA) Project. Background for March 14, 1997 Status Report. Online in nttp://www.for.g ov.bc.ca/isb/incosada/project_info/background.htm BCMOF. 1999c. Regulation changes are s t reaml in ing and increasing cer ta inty in operat ional planning. Planning Newslet ter 10 :2 . BCMOF. 1999d. Legislation allows for test ing of per formance-based forest practices code. News Release # 1 9 9 9 : 0 7 2 . Victor ia, BC. BCMOF. 2000. Innovat ive Forest Practices Agreement Handbook. Victor ia, BC. 52 p. BCMOF. 2001a. West-centra l BC Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan 2 0 0 1 . Victor ia, BC. 16 p. BCMOF. 2001b. Forest Practices Code of Brit ish Columbia Forest Development Plan Guidebook. 2 n d Edit ion. Victor ia, BC. 113 p. BCMOF. 2001c. Arrow T imber Supply Area. Rationale for Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) Determinat ion. 66 p. BCMOF. 2002a. New Forest Code Will Focus on Results. News Release 2 0 0 2 : 0 0 8 . Online in http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/pscripts/pab/newsrel/mofnewstitles.asp BCMOF. 2002b. BC Forest Management Cert i f icat ion Status Report (Updated April 2002 ) . Online in http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/het/certification/CertificationStatusReport.pdf BCMOF. 2002c. Result Based Discussion Paper. Consul tat ion on a New Framework for B.C. Forest Practices. Online in www.resultsbasedcode.ca BCMSRM. 2002 . Sustainable Resource management Planning: A Landscape-level St rategy for Resource Development . Resource Planning Branch. Victor ia, BC. 25 p. 123 Beishon, J. and G. Peters. 1972. Systems Behavior. The Open Universi ty Press by Harper & Row Publishers. London, UK. 320 p. Bel lman, R.E. and L.A. Zadeh. 1970. Decis ion-making in a Fuzzy Envi ronment . Management Science Appl icat ion Series 17 : B 1 4 1 -B164. Binkley, C. 1997. A Crossroad in the Forest: The Path to a Sustainable Forest Sector in BC. BC Studies 113: 39 -67 . Botkin, D. B. 1990. Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-F i rs t Century . Amer ican Philological Associat ion, Philadelphia, PA. 2 4 1 p. Botk in, D. B. 2 0 0 1 . The Role of Theory in Forest Science and Forest Management . In Proceedings of conference Forest Modeling for Ecosystem Management , Forest Cert i f icat ion, and Sustainable Management , held in Vancouver, BC in August 12 -17 , 2001 (LeMay, V. and P. Marshall Eds.). Pp: 25 -44 . Brazee, R J . and D.H. Newman. 1999. Observat ions on Recent Forest Economics Research on Risk and Uncerta inty. Journal of Forest Economics 3: 2 -3 . Buongiorno, J. and J.K. Gilles. 1987. Forest Management and Economics: A Primer in Quant i tat ive Methods. Collier McMillan, London. 285 p. But tenf ie ld, B.P. 2 0 0 1 . Mapping Ecological Uncerta inty. In Spatial Uncerta inty in Ecology: Impl icat ions for Remote Sensing and GIS Appl icat ions. Spr inger - Ver lag, New York. Pp: 115-132 . Cantor, G. 1883. Fondaments D'une Theorie Generale Des Ensembles. Acta Mathemat ica 2 : 381 -408 . 124 Carpenter, S.R. 2000 . Al ternate States Of Ecosystems: Evidence and Some Impl icat ions. In Ecology: Ach ievement and Challenge (Press, M.C, N. Huntly And S. Levin Eds.). Blackwell Science, Oxford. Pp: 3 5 7 - 3 8 3 . Cashore, B., G. Hoberg, M. Howlet t , J. Rayner and J. Wilson. 2 0 0 1 . In Search Of Sustainabi l i ty. British Columbia Forest Policy In The 1990s. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. 340 P. Caswell, H. and M.C. Trevisan. 1994. Sensivity Analysis Of Periodic Matrix Models. Ecology 75 : 1299-1303 . Chambers, L.D. and M.A.P. Taylor. 1999. Strategic Planning: Processes, Tools and Outcomes. Ashgate Publishers, Aldershot, England. 208 p. Charles, A. 2 0 0 1 . Sustainable Fisheries Systems. Blackwell Science, Oxford. 384 p. Christensen, N.L. 1997. Managing Heterogenei ty and Complexi ty on Dynamic Landscapes. In Ecological Basis for Conservat ion (Pickett, S.T.A., R.S. Ostfeld, M. Schachak and G.E. Likens Eds.). Chapman and Hall, New York. Pp: 136-145 . Clayoquot Sound Scientif ic Panel. 1995. Sustainable Ecosystem Management in Clayoquot Sound: Planning and Practices -Report 5. Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel, Victor ia, BC. 297 p. Clayton, A.M.H. and N. J. Radcliffe. 1996. Sustainabi l i ty : A Systems approach. Earthscan, London. 258 p. CLMA/NFPA Mountain Pine Beetle Emergency Task Force. 2000 . State of Emergency Declared in the Working Forests in West Central BC: Indus t ry Plan To Battle The Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic. Fall 2000 Update. Prince George, BC. 27 p. 125 Cobb, R. W., J. K. Ross and M. H. Ross. 1976. Agenda building as a comparat ive polit ical process. American Political Science Review 7 0 : 126-138 . COFI. 1999. A Blueprint for Compet i t iveness: Five Ideas for Improv ing Public Policy Affect ing the BC Forest Indus t ry and the People, Businesses and Communi t ies tha t Depend on it. Vancouver, BC. 20 p. Commission on Sustainable Development . 1992. Agenda 2 1 . United Nations Publications, New York. 82 p. Commission on Sustainable Development . 1996. Imp lementa t ion of Forest-Related Decisions of the United Nations Conference on Env i ronment and Development at the National and Internat ional Levels, Inc luding an Examinat ion of Sectoral and Cross-Sectoral Linkages. Report of the Secretary General to the Second Session Ad Hoc In te rgovernmenta l Panel on Forests. E /CN.17/ IPF/1996/4 . New York, U.S. 33 p. Cool, T. 1999. Proper Definit ion for Risk and Uncerta inty. Economics Depar tment of Washington Universi ty. Economics Working Papers in Risk and Insurance 9902002 . Wash ing ton, DC. 14 p. Cornwal l , A. 1996. Towards Participatory Practice: Part icipatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and the Part icipatory Process. In Part icipatory Research in Heal th: Issues and Experience (Koning and Martin Eds.) Zed Books, London. Pp: 9 4 - 1 0 7 . Coulson Group of Companies. 2001a. Log N Talk Monthly Report Vo l .01-67 . Po r tA lbe rn i , BC. 21 p. Coulson Group of Companies. 2001b. Log N Talk Monthly Report Vo l .01-68. Po r tA lbe rn i , BC. 24 p. 1 2 6 Courtney, H., J. Kirkland and P. Viguerie. .1999. St rategy Under Uncerta inty. In Harvard Bussiness Review on Managing Uncerta inty. The Harvard Bussiness Review Paperback Series. Boston, MA. Pp 1-32. Cubbage, F.W., J. 0 . O'Laughlin and C. S. Bullock. 1993. Forest Resource Policy. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 562 p. Daniels, S. and G. Walker. 1997. Rethinking Public Participation In Natural Resource Management : Concepts From Pluralisms And Five Emerging Approaches. In Pluralisms and Sustainable Forestry and Rural Development . FAO, Rome. Pp: 29 -47 . De Geus, A.P. 1997. The Living Company: Habits For Survival in a Turbulent Business Environment. Harvard Business School Publishing. Boston, MA. 240 p. DeAngelis, D.L. and J. C. Waterhouse. 1987. Equi l ibr ium and Nonequi l ibr ium Concepts in Ecological Models. Ecological Monographs 5 7 : 1 -21 . DeAngelis, D.L. and P.S. Whi te. 1994. Ecosystems as Products of Spatially and Temporal ly Varying Driving Forces, Ecological Processes, and Landscapes - A Theoret ical Perspective. In Everglades: The Ecosystem and I ts Restorat ion (Davis, S.M. and J.C. Ogden Eds.). St. Lucia Press, Florida. Pp: 9 -28 . Denny, M.W. and S. Gaines. 2000. Chance in Biology. Princeton Universi ty Press, New Jersey. 424 p. Dorner, B. 2 0 0 1 . Natural Landscape Pattern and Range of Natural Variabi l i ty of the Arrow TSA. Final Project Report to the Arrow IFPA. Contract # 7 1 8 9 3 4 . Slocan. BC. 94 p. 127 Dovers, S.H and J.H. Handmer. 1993. Contradict ions in Sustainabi l i ty. Envi ronmental Conservat ion 20 : 217 -222 . Drengson, A.R. and D. Taylor. 1998. Ecoforestry: The Ar t and Science of Sustainable Forest Use (Drengson, A.R. and D. Taylor Eds.). New Society, Gabriola Is land, BC. 312 p. Dubois, O. 1998. Capacity to Manage Role Changes in Forestry: In t roduc ing the "4Rs" Framework. I IED, London. 22 p. Duerr , W.A. 1982a. Forestry as a Sys tem. In Forest Resource Management : Decis ion-making Principles and Cases (Duer, W.A Ed.). O.S.U. Bookstore, Corvall is. Pp: 3-8. Duerr, W.A. 1982b. Choices and thei r Predict ion. In Forest Resource Management : Decis ion-making Principles and Cases (Duer, W.A Ed.) . O.S.U. Bookstore, Corvall is. Pp: 3 5 - 4 4 . Duerr, W.A. 1982c. Decision Process in S u m m a r y . In Forest Resource Management : Decis ion-making Principles and Cases (Duer, W.A Ed.). O.S.U. Bookstore, Corvall is. Pp: 23 -34 . Duerr, W.A. and H.J. Vaux. 1953. Research in the Economics of Forestry. Charles L. Pack Foundat ion, Washington, DC. 475 p. Duinker, P.N. and M.R.S. Hay. 1994. Envi ronmental Assessment, Forests, and Contextual Change: In Search of Bigger Pictures. In Keeping Ahead : The Inclusion of Long-Term "G loba l " Futures in Cumulat ive Environmental Assessments (Munn, R.E. Ed.). Ins t i tu te for Environmental Studies, Universi ty of Toronto. Envi ronmental Monograph 1 1 . Toronto , ON. Pp: 129-140 . Dunster, J. and K. Dunster. 1996. Dict ionary of Natural Resource Management . UBC Press, Vancouver. 363 p. 1 2 8 Dunster, J.A. and R.B. Gibson. 1989. Forestry and Assessment: Development of the Class Environmental Assessment for T imber Management in Ontar io. Canadian Ins t i tu te for Environmental Law and Policy, Toronto . 177 p. Dunton, J. T. 1998. Risk Management and Sta tu tory Decision-Making Under Brit ish Columbia's Forestry Legislat ion. Thesis submi t ted in part ial fu l f i l lment of the requi rements for the degree of Master of Public Admin is t ra t ion . School of Public Admin is t ra t ion. Universi ty of Victor ia. Victor ia, BC. 62 p. Edwards, G. and M.S. Fort in. 2 0 0 1 . Cognit ive View of Spatial Uncerta inty. In Spatial Uncertainty in Ecology: Impl icat ions for Remote Sensing and GIS Applicat ions. Spr inger - Ver lag, New York. Pp: 133-156 . Erdle, T. and M. Sul l ivan. 1998. Forest Management Design for Contemporary Forestry. The Forestry Chronicle 7 4 : 83 -90 . ESRI. 1998. Get t ing to Know ArcView® GIS. ESRI Press. Redlands, Cali fornia. 654 p. Fahey, L. and R.M. Radall. 1998. In tegra t ing St ra tegy and Scenarios. In Learning f rom the Future: Compet i t ive Foresight Scenarios (Fahey, L. and R.M. Radall Eds). John Wiley & Sons, New York. Pp: 22 -38 . FAO (Food and Agr icul ture Organizat ion of the United Nat ions). 1998. Guidelines for the Management of Tropical Forests. Part 1 : The Production of Wood. FAO Forestry Paper 135, Rome. 307 p. Fedkiw, J. 1998. Managing Multiple Uses on National Forests, 1905-1995: a 90 -year Experience and it isn't Finished Yet. Pub. FS-628 , USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. 284 p. 129 Fernow, B.E. 1902. Economics of Forestry: a Reference Book for Students of Political Economy and Professional and Lay Students of Forestry. T.Y. Crowell & Co, New York. 520 p. Ford, E.D. 2000 . Scientif ic Method for Ecological Research. Cambridge Universi ty Press, Cambr idge, UK. 564 p. Forman, R.T. 1995. Land Mosaics: the Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambr idge University Press, Cambr idge, UK. Foteau, K.R., S. Essam, P. Mieugen, P. Nzokov, J.B. Tandjeu and U. Zang-Zang . 1998. Les Droits, Relations, Responsabil it ies et Revenus de Dif ferents In tervenants dans L'uti l isation des Ressources Forestieres a Oman, Cameroun. Etude preparee pour 1'IIED. I IED, London. Frankl in, J.F. 1990. Thoughts or Applications of Si lvicultural Systems Under New Forestry. Forest Watch 10: 8 - 1 1 . Frankl in, J. F., and R. T. T. Forman. 1987. Creat ing Landscape Pattern by Forest Cut t ing : Ecological Consequences and Principles. Landscape Ecology 1 :5-18. FSC. 1999. FSC Principles and Cri ter ia. Pamphlet, Oaxaca, Mexico. 9 p. Garl ing, T. and G. Evans (Eds.) . 1 9 9 1 . Env i ronment , Cogni t ion, and Act ion: An In tegra ted Approach. Oxford Universi ty Press. 368 pp. Ghebremichael , A., J. Wil l iams and J.M. Vasievich. 1996. A Manager's Guide to Forestry Inves tment Analysis. Nor thern Ontar io Deve lopment Agreement 's Northern Forestry p rogram and USDA Forest Service. 68 p. 130 Georgantzas, N.C. and W. Acar. 1995. Scenar io-Dr iven Planning: Learning to Manage Strategic Uncerta inty. Quorum Books, Westpor t , Connect icut . 396 p. Gi l lman, M. And R. Hails. 1997. Ecological Model ing: Putt ing Theory into Practice. Blackwell Science, Oxford. 224 p. Golledge, R.G. 1 9 9 1 . Cognit ion of Physical and Built Envi ronments. In Envi ronment , Cogni t ion, and Act ion: An In tegra ted Approach (Gar l ing, T.R. and W. Evans Eds.). Oxford Universi ty Press, New York. Pp: 35 -62 . Grant, W.E. 1998. Ecology and Natural Resource Management : Reflections From a Systems Perspective. Ecological Modeling 108: 67 -76 . Green, D.G. 1997. Complexi ty in Ecological Systems. In Frontiers in Ecology: Building the Links (K lomp, N and I. Lunt eds. ) . Elsevier Science, New York. Pp: 2 2 1 - 2 3 1 . Gregersen, H., S. Draper and D. Elz (Eds.) . 1989. People and Trees. The Role of Social Forestry in Sustainable Development . EDI Seminar Series, The World Bank, Washington D.C. Gunter, E. and H. L. Haney. 1984. Essentials of Forestry Inves tment Analysis. Oregon State Bookstore. Corvall is, OR. 337 p. Haag, D. and M. Kaupenjohann. 2 0 0 1 . Parameters, Predict ions, Post-normal Science and the Precautionary Principle - A Road Map for Modell ing for Decision-Making. Ecological Modeling 144: 45 -60 . Haddock, M. and L. Brewster. 1998. Guide to Forest Land Use Planning. Weast Coast Environmental Law Research Foundat ion, Victor ia, BC. 107 p. 131 H a m m o n d , H. 1 9 9 1 . Seeing the Forest Among the Trees: The Case for Wholist ic Forest Use. Polestar Press, WinLaw, BC. 309 p. Hawor th , L , C. Brunk, D. Jennex and S. Ara i . 1998. A Dual-perspective Model of Agrosystem Heal th: System Functions and System Goals. Journal of Agricultural and Envi ronmenta l Ethics 10 : 127 -152 . Hayter, R. 2000 . Flexible Crossroads: Restructur ing of Brit ish Columbia's Forest Economy. UBC Press, Vancouver , BC. 448 p. Hel ls t rom, E. 1997. Environmental Forestry Confl icts, Forest Policies and the Use of Forest Resources - Recent Developments in USA, Germany, France, Sweden, Finland and Norway. European Forest Ins t i tu te , Work ing paper 7. Joensuu, Finland. 72 p. Henriksson, K. 1999. The Collective Dynamics of Organizat ional Learn ing: on Plurality and Mult i-Social S t ruc tur ing . Lund Universi ty Press, Lund, Sweden. 252 p. Higman, S, S. Bass, N. Judd, J. Mayeus and R. Nussbaum. 1999. The Sustainable Forestry Handbook. Earthscan, London. 304 p. Hoberg, G. 2 0 0 1 . Policy Cycles and Policy Regimes: A Framework for Studying Policy Change. In Search of Sustainabi l i ty : British Columbia Forest Policy in the 1990s (Cashore, B., G. Hoberg, M. Howlet t , J. Rayner and J. Wilson Eds.). UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. Pp: 1-29. Hodgetts, R. M. 1982. Management : Theory , Process, and Practice. Dryden Press, Chicago. 542 p. Holl ing, C.S., A. Bazykin, P. Bunnel l , W.C. Clark, G.C. Gal lopin: R. Hi lborn, D.D. Jones, R. M. Peterman, J.E. Rabinovich, J.H. Steele and C.J. Wal ters . 1987. Adapt ive Envi ronmenta l Assessment and 132 Management (Hol l ing, C S . Ed.) John Wiley & Sons, New York. 377 pp. Hol loway, C A . 1979. Decis ion-making Under Uncer ta in ty : Models and Choices. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 522 p. Holzheu, F. and P. Wiedemann. 1993. In t roduc t ion : Perspectives on Risk Perception. I n : Risk is a Construct (Ruckvers icherung, B Ed.) Knesebeck-Ver lag, Munich. Pp: 9 -19 . Howlet t , M. P. and M. Ramesh. 1995. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Oxford Universi ty Press, New York. 239 p. I .Lumber. 1999a. IKEA Greener. News Archives: 11 /1999 . Online in http://www.ilumber.com/ vtLbin/JavalinIIS.dll/PagePO.po/portal/news/nov99. xhtml I .Lumber. 1999b. Home Base Phases Out Endangered Wood. News archives: 11 /99 . Online in http://www.ilumber.com/_vtLbin/JavalinIIS.dll/PagePO.po/portal/news/nov99.xhtml Isukapal l i , S.S. 1999. Uncertainty Analysis Of Transpor t -Transpor tat ion Models. Dissertat ion Submi t ted In Partial Fulf i l lment Of The Requirements For The Degree Of Doctor Of Philosophy. Graduate Program in Chemical and Biochemical Engineering. The State University of New Jersey. 198 p. Iverson, D. 1998. My Two Cents Wor th . Eco-Watch Dialogues. USDA Forest Service. Online in http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ewmytwocents.html Jensen, M.E., N. Christensen and P.S. Bourgemon. 2 0 0 1 . An Overview of Ecological Assessment Principles and Appl icat ions. In A Guidebook for In tegra l Ecological Assessments (Jensen, M.E. and P.S. Bourgemon eds. ) . Springer, New York. Pp: 13-28 . Johnston, D.R, A.J. Grayson, R.T. Bradley. 1967. Forest Planning. Faber, London. 5 4 1 p. 133 Jorgensen, S.E. and F. Muller. 2000. Handbook of Ecosystem Theories and Management . Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida. 584 p. Kay, J. 1997. The Ecosystem Approach: Ecosystems as Complex Systems. In Proceedings of the First In ternat ional workshop of the CIAT-Guelph Project " In tegra ted Conceptual Framework for Tropical Agroecosystem Research Based on Complex Systems Theories (Murray , T. and G. Gallopinn Eds.) held 26-28 May, 1997 in Centro Internacional de Agr icul tura Tropical , Cali, Colombia. Pp: 6 9 - 9 8 . Kengen, S. 1997. Forest Valuat ion for Decis ion-Making. Lessons of Experience and Proposals for I m p r o v e m e n t . FAO. Rome. 133 p. Kiang, W. 1998. Farming Systems as an Approach to Agro-Ecological Engineering. Ecological Engineering 1 1 : 27 -35 . K immins, J.P. 1997. Balancing Act: Environmental Issues in Forestry. 2 n d Ed. Vancouver : UBC Press, Vancouver. 245 p. Kimmins, J.P., K.A. Scoullar, B. Seely, D.W Andison, R. Bradley, D. Mailly, and K.M. Tsze. 1999. FORCEEing and FORECASTing the HORIZON: Hybrid Simulat ion Modeling of Forest Ecosystem Sustainabi l i ty. In Empirical and Process Based Models for Forest Tree and Stand Growth Simulat ion (Amaro , A. and M. Tome Eds.). Edicoes Sa lamandra, Lisboa. Pp. 4 3 1 - 4 4 1 . Kleine, M. 1997. The Theory and Application of a Systems Approach to Si lvicultural Decis ion-making. Forest Research Center, Sabah. The Borneo Company, Cincinnat i , OH. 157 p. Klemperer, W. D. 1996. Forest Resource Economics and Finance. McGraw Hill, New York. 551 p. 134 Klir, G.J. 1994. The Many Faces of Uncerta inty. In Uncertainty Modeling and Analysis: Theory and Applicat ions (Ayyub, B.M and M.M. Gupta Eds.). Elsevier Science. Pp: 3-19. Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as The Source of Learning and Development . Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. 288 P-Kropff, M.J, J. Bouma and J.W. Jones. 2 0 0 1 . Systems approaches for the design of sustainable agro-ecosystems. Agr icul tural Systems 7 0 : 369-393 . Kuhn, T. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolut ions. 2 n d Edit ion. Universi ty of Chicago Press, Chicago. 215 p. La place, P.S. 1820. Oeuvres, Tome V I I : Theor ie Analyt ique de Probabil i tes. 3 r d Edition repr int 1995. Editions Jacques Gabay, Paris. 384 p. Landsberg, J. 2 0 0 1 . Modeling Forest Ecosystems: State of the Ar t , Challenges and Future Directions. In Proceedings of Conference Forest Modeling for Ecosystem Management , Forest Cert i f icat ion, and Sustainable Management , held in Vancouver, BC in August 12-17 , 2 0 0 1 (LeMay, V. and P. Marshall Eds.). Vancouver, BC. Pp: 3 - 2 1 . Lang, L. 1998. Managing Natural Resources With GIS. ESRI Press, Redlands, Cal i fornia. 132 p. Leiss, W. and C. Chociolko. 1994. Risk and Responsibi l i ty. McGill-Q u e e n ' s Universi ty Press. Kingston, ON. 405 p. LeMay, V. and P. Marshall (Eds.) . 2 0 0 1 . Proceedings of Conference Forest Modeling for Ecosystem Management , Forest Cert i f icat ion, 135 and Sustainable Management , held in Vancouver , BC in August 12-17 , 2 0 0 1 . Vancouver, BC. Levin, S. 1998. Ecosystems and the Biosphere as Complex Adaptive Systems. Ecosystems 1 : 4 3 1 - 4 3 6 . Marsh, B. 1998. Using Scenarios to Ident i fy , Analyze, and Manage Uncerta inty. In Learning From the Future: Compet i t ive Foresight Scenarios (Fahey, L. and R.M. Radall Eds). John Wiley & Sons, New York. Pp: 3 9 - 5 3 . Marshall, P. 1984. Formulat ion and Selection of T imber Management Strategies: Descript ion of the Problem Context and Development of a Methodology. Thesis Submi t ted in Partial Fulf i l lment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Faculty of Graduate Studies (Forestry) . The Universi ty of Brit ish Columbia. Vancouver, BC. 245 p. Maturana, H.R and F.J Varela. 1980. Autopoiesis and Cogni t ion: the Realization of the Living. D. Reidel Pub. Co, Boston. 141 p. Mauersberger, P. 1995. Entropy Control of Complex Ecological Processes. In Pat tern, B.C and S.E. Jorgensen (Eds.) Complex Ecology: The Part-Whole Relation in Ecosystems. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Pp: 130-165. McClain, K. 2002 . SFM Report ing and Direction for Action - Practical Considerat ions Within the Context of the "McGregor Approach to SFM". Prince George, BC. 42 p. McCoy, J. and K. Johnston. 2 0 0 1 . Using ArcGIS Spatial Analysit . ESRI Press. Redlands, Cal i fornia. 240 p. 136 McDonald, P. 1999. Prized forests. A look at Slocan's Award-winn ing Forest Management Sys tem. Logging and Sawmil l ing Journal August 1999. McGregor Model Forest Associat ion. 2 0 0 1 . The McGregor Story -Pioneering Approaches to Sustainable Forest Management (Scott , A. Ed.) . Prince George, BC. 162 p. McVay, K.R. 1998. Raster to Vector Conversion Script. ESRI scripts WEB site downloads. Online in http://arcscripts.esri.com/scripts.asp?eQuery=asPointFtab&eLang = &eProd=&eRecs=10&eDesc=o n Meitner, M.S., S. Sheppard and H. Harshaw. 2 0 0 1 . Arrow Forest Distr ict Public Values Survey: Putt ing Your Finger on The Pulse of the Distr ict. Project Final Report. Arrow IFPA, Slocan, BC. Mercier, J. 1997. Downst ream And Upstream Ecologists: The People, Organizat ions And Ideas Behind The Movement . Praeger Publishers, Westpor t , Connecticut. 227 p. Meridian Ins t i tu te . 2 0 0 1 . Comparat ive Analysis of the Forest Stewardship Council and Sustainable Forestry In i t iat ive Cert i f icat ion Programs. Washington, DC. 15 p. Meridi th, F. 1993. Approaches to Ecologically Based Forest In te rvent ions . U.S.D.A. Forest Service. NR-607. 15 p. Meyer, J.L. 1997. Conserving Ecosystem Functions. In Ecological Basis for Conservat ion (Pickett, S T . A . , R.S. Ost fe ld, M. Schachak and G.E. Likens Eds.). Chapman and Hall, New York. Pp: 136-145. Mintzberg, H. 2000 . The Rise And Fall Of Strategic Planning. Financial Times Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 478 p. 137 Mintzberg, H., B. Ahlst rand and J. Campel . 2 0 0 1 . St ra tegy Safary: The Complete Guide Through The Wilds Of Strategic Management . Financial T imes Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 416 p. Mitchell, S.J., T. Hai lemarian and Y. Kulis. 2 0 0 1 . Empirical Modeling of Cutblock Edge Windthrow Risk on Vancouver Is land, Canada Using Stand Level In fo rmat ion . Forest Ecology and Management 154: 117 -130 . Mumpower , J. L. and T. R. Stewart . 1996. Expert Judgment And Expert Disagreement . Thinking and Reasoning 2: 1 9 1 - 2 1 1 . Naveh, Z. and A. L ieberman. 1994. Landscape Ecology: Theory And Appl icat ion. 2 n d Edit ion. Spr inger-Ver lag, New York. 359 p. Nelson, J. 2 0 0 1 . Forest And Landscape Models: Powerful Tools Or Dangerous Weapons? In Proceedings Of Conference Forest Modeling for Ecosystem Management , Forest Cert i f icat ion, and Sustainable Management , held in Vancouver , BC in August 12-17, 2 0 0 1 (Le May, V. and P. Marshall Eds.). Vancouver , BC. Pp: 4 5 - 5 5 . Newman, D.H. 1988. A Discussion Of The Concept Of The Opt imal Forest Rotat ion And A Review Of The Recent L i terature. USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Exper imental Stat ion. General Technical Report SE-48. Research Tr iangle Park, NC. 38 P-Nyberg, B. 1999. An In t roduc to ry Guide To Adapt ive Management For Project Leaders And Participants. B.C. Forest Service, Forest Practices Branch, Victor ia, BC. 24 p. O'Connor, R. 1983. Tracking the Strategic Plan. Research Project N° 830. The Conference Board, New York. 16 p. 138 O'Looney, J. 2000 . Beyond maps: GIS and Decision-Making in Local Government . ESRI Press, Redlands, Cal i fornia. 240 p. O'Neill, R.V, D.L. De Laurent is, J.B. Waide and T.F.H Al len. 1986. A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems. Princeton Universi ty Press, Princeton, NJ. 254 p. Odum, H.T. 1994. Ecological And General Sys tems: An In t roduct ion To Systems Ecology. 2 n d Edit ion. Universi ty Press of Colorado, Niwot, Colorado. 644 p. Oliver, C D , J.P K immins , H. Harshaw and S.J Shepard. 2 0 0 1 . Definit ions of Sustainable Forestry: Sustainabi l i ty Indicators. In Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainabi l i ty, and Aesthetics (Sheppard, S.J and H. Harshaw eds) . IUFRO Research Series. CABI : Wal l ingford, UK. 304 p. Ormsby, T. J. Alv i . 1999. Extending ArcView® GIS. ESRI Press. Redlands, Cal i fornia. 527 p. Pahl-Wostl , C. 1995. The Dynamic Nature of Ecosystems: Chaos and Order Entwined. John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, England. 267 P-Parminter, J. 1998. Natural Disturbance Ecology. In Conservat ion Biology Principles for Forested Landscapes (Voller, Ed.). UBC Press, Vancouver. Pp: 3 - 4 1 . Parminter, J. and P. Daigle. 1997. Landscape Ecology and Natural Disturbances Relatioships to Biodiversi ty. Brit ish Columbia Ministry of Forests. Research Program. Extension Note # 1 0 . Victor ia, BC. 9 p. Pawlak, Z. and A. Skowron . 1999. Rough Set Rudiments. Bulletin of In ternat ional Rough Set Society 3: 6 7 - 7 2 . 139 Pearse, P. H. 1990. In t roduct ion to Forestry Economics. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. 226 p. Pearse, P.H. 2000 . Economic Ins t ruments For Promot ing Sustainable Forestry: Opportuni t ies and Constraints. In The Wealth of Forests. Markets, Regulat ion, and Sustainable Forestry (Tol lefson, C. Ed.). UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. Pp: 19-40 . Perry, D.A. 1994. Forest Ecosystems. Johns Hopkins Universi ty Press, Bal t imore. 649 p. Perry, D.A., J.G. Borchers, M.P. Amaranthus. 1990. Species Migration and Ecosystem Stabil i ty During Cl imate Change: The Belowground Connect ion. Conservat ion Biology 4 : 2 6 6 - 2 7 4 . Pickett, S T . A . , J. Kolasa and C.G. Jones. 1994. Ecological Understanding: the Nature of Theory and the Theory of Nature. Academic Press, San Diego. 206 p. Pielke, R.A. 1999. Who Decides? Forecasts and Responsibil i t ies in the 1997 Red River f lood. American Behavioral Science Review 72 : 8 3 - 1 0 1 . Pielke, R.A, D. Sarewitz and R. Byerly. 2000 . Decision-Making and The Future of Nature: Understanding and Using Predictions. In Predict ion: Science, Decision-Making, and The Future of Nature (Sarewi tz , D., R.A. Pielke and R. Byerly Eds.) Island Press, Washington, DC. Pp: 361 -387 . Pinchot, G. 1903. A Primer in Forestry. Part I : the Forest. USDA Division of Forestry Bulletin 24. Government Printing Office, Washington. 89 p. Poore, D., J. Blaster, E. Bruenig, P. Burgess, B. Cabarle, D. Cassells, J. Douglas, D. Gi lmour , P. Hardcastle, G. Har tshorn , D. Kaimowitz, 140 N. Kishor, A. Leslie, J. Palmer, F. Putz, M.N. Sal leh, N. Sizer, T. Synot t , F. Wadswor th and T. Whi tmore . 1998. No Forest Wi thout Management : Sustaining Forest Ecosystems Under Condit ions of Uncerta inty. ITTO Newsletter. Online in http://www.itto.or.jp/newsletter/v8n4/10.html Prabhu, R., H.J Ruitenbeek, T.J.B Boyle and C.J.P Colfer. 2 0 0 1 . Between Voodoo Science and Adapt ive Management : The Role and Research Needs For Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management . In Criteria And Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management (Raison, R.J and A. Browm Eds). IUFRO Series N7. CABI Publishing, Wal l ingford, UK. 462 p. President's Council on Sustainable Development . 1996. Sustainable Amer ica : A New Consensus for the Prosperi ty, Oppor tun i ty and a Healthy Env i ronment for the Future. Washington, DC. 122 p. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP. 2000. The Greening of Globalization. Risky Business Winter 2000 : 2-5. Propper de Cal le jon, D., T. Lent, M. Skelly and C. A. Webster. 1998. Sustainable Forestry Within an Indus t ry Context . In The Business of Sustainable Forestry: Case Studies. A Project of The Sustainable Forestry Working Group. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundat ion. Chicago, I l l inois. Pp: 2 .1 -2 .39 . Rattray, G. 1999. Are We Moving Forward? A Status Report on Professional Accountabi l i ty . Association of BC Registered Professional Foresters. FORUM 6 (4 ) . Rayner, S. 2000 . Prediction And Other Approaches to Cl imate Change Policy. In Predict ion: Science, Decis ion-Making, and The Future of Nature (Sarewi tz , D., R.A. Pielke and R. Byerly Eds.) Island Press, Wash ing ton, DC. Pp: 269-298 . 141 Rescher, N. 1983. Risk: A Philosophical In t roduct ion to the Theory of Risk Evaluat ion and Management . Universi ty Press of Amer ica, Washington, DC. 208 p. Ricott i , M. and E. Zio. 1999. A Neural Network Approach to Sensit iv i ty and Uncerta inty Analysis. Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety 6 4 : 5 9 - 7 1 . Ringland, G. 1998. Scenario Planning: Managing for the Future. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 422 p. Ritchie, B. and D. Marshall . 1993. Business Risk Management . Chapman & Hall , London. 365 p. Riverside Forest Products Ltd. 2000. 2000 Annual Review: In Touch With a Changing Wor ld . Kelowna, BC. 24 p. Robinson. A.R, J. M. Mc Carthy and B.J. Rothschi ld. 1999. Interdisc ip l inary Ocean Science is Evolving and a Systems Approach is Essential. Journal of Marine Systems 22 : 231-239 . Rollins, K. 2 0 0 1 . Measuring Ecosystems Values. In A Guidebook For In tegra ted Ecological Assessments (Jensen, M.E. and P.S. Bourgemon eds . ) . Spr inger, New York. Pp: 2 2 1 - 2 4 4 . Romm, F. 1998, The Pursuit Of Innovat ion . In The Business of Sustainable Forestry : Case Studies. A Project of The Sustainable Forestry Work ing Group. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundat ion. Chicago, I l l inois. Pp: 1.1-1.9. Rowe, C. 1992. The Management Matr ix: The Psychology of In te rac t ion . Al f red Waller Publisher, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire. 128 p. Sarewitz, D. and R. Byerly. 1999. Prediction In Policy: A Process, Not A Product. Natural Hazards Observer 23 : 2-3. 142 Sarewitz, D., R.A. Pielke, and R. Byerly Eds. 2000. Science, Decision-Making, and the Future of Nature. Is land Press, Washington, DC. 400 p. Schanz, H. 1994. Forstliche Nachhalt igkei t ' Aus Der Sicht Von Forst leuten. Der Bundesrepubl ik Deutschland. Ins t i tu t fur Forstokonomie Paper 19-94. Universi tat Freiburg. 131 p. Schanz, H. 1998. Sustainable Forest Management : On the Meanings and Functions of a Central Term in Forestry. Voluntary Paper for the XI World Forest Congress, held in Anta lya , Turkey in October 1997. Online in http://www.ulb.ac.be/assoc/iff/sectionl/otherlinks/sfm.PDF) Schwartz, P. 1996. The Ar t Of The Long View: Planning For The Future in an Uncertain Wor ld . Doubleday, New York. 262 p. Seastedt, T. 1996. Ecosystem Management : The New Tool of Land Managers? Online in http://culter.Colorado,edu:1030/~tims/ecomanage.html Sedjo, R.A., A. Goetzl and S.O. Moffat. 1998. Sustainabi l i ty of Tempera te Forests. Resources For the Future, Washington, DC. 102 p. Scheffer, M., S., J. A. Carpenter , C. Foley, and B. Walker. 2 0 0 1 . Catastrophic Shifts in Ecosystems. Nature 4 1 3 : 5 9 1 - 5 9 6 . Shenk, T.M. and A.B. Frankl in. 2 0 0 1 . Models In Natural Resources Management : An In t roduct ion . In Modeling in Natural Resource Management : Development , In terpre ta t ion and Application (Shenk, T.M. and A.B. Franklin Eds.). Is land Press, Washington, DC. Pp: 1-15. Sheppard, S. 2 0 0 1 . Would You Know A Socially Sustainable Forest I f You Saw One?: Why A Results-Based Approach May Not Be 143 Enough. Second lecture In 5 0 t h Anniversary of the UBC Faculty of Forestry Jubilee Lecture Series. Vancouver, BC. 26 p. Shindler, B.A. and L.A Cramer. 1999. Shif t ing Public Values In Forest Management : Making Sense Of Wicked Problems. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 14 :11 -17 . Shore, T.L. and L. Safranyik. 1992. Susceptibi l i ty And Risk Rating Systems For The Mountain Pine Beetle In The Lodgepole Pine Stands. Pacific Forestry Centre, Victor ia. BC. 12 p. Sierra Systems. 2 0 0 1 . Report to Geographic Data BC. Digital Image Management Current Assessment - Future Direct ion. Victor ia, BC. 59 p. Sinnott , J.D. 1998. The Development Of Logic In Adu l thood: Post-formal Though t And its Applicat ions. Plenum Press, New York. 372 p. Site Product iv i ty Work ing Group. 1997. Site Index (Product iv i ty) Est imation Program. Progress Report and Five-Years Plan 1998-99 to 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 . BCMOF Research Branch, Vic tor ia , BC. 22 p. Slocan Forest Products Ltd. 1999. Forest Deve lopment Plan 1999-2003. Slocan, BC. Slocan Forest Products Ltd. 2 0 0 1 . Management 's Discussion and Analysis Of Financial Results. In 2001 Report to Stakeholders, Employees, and Communi t ies . Pp: 4 3 - 5 2 . Smi th , D. M., B.C. Larson, M. J Kelty and P. M. S. Ashton. 1997. The Practice of Si lv icul ture: Applied Forest Ecology. 9 t h Edit ion. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 537 p. Smi thson, M. 1989. Ignorance and Uncerta inty: Emerging Paradigms. Spr inger-Ver lag, New York. 392 p. 144 Society of Amer ican Foresters. 1993. Task Force On Sustaining Long Term Forest Health and Productivi ty. Publication 93 -02 . Bethesda, Mary land. 83 p. Solberg, B. and S. Miina. 1996. Conflict Management and Public Participation In Land Management (Solberg, B. and S. Miina Eds.). Proceedings of The In ternat ional Conference Conflict Management and Public Participation In Land Management Held In Joensuu, Finland 17-19 June 1996. European Forest Ins t i tu te , Joensuu, Finland. 339 p. Stanbury, W.T. 2000 . Environmental Groups and The In ternat ional Conflict Over The Forests Of British Columbia, 1990 to 2000. SFU-UBC Centre for the Study of Government and Business. Vancouver, BC. 412 p. Stanbury, W.T. and L B . Verst insky. 2000. Governing Ins t ruments For Forest Policy In Brit ish Columbia: A Positive and Normat ive Analysis. In The Wealth Of Forests: Markets, Regulat ion, and Sustainable Forestry (Tol lefson, C. Ed.). UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. Pp: 4 2 - 7 6 . Starr, C. 1980. In t roduc to ry Remarks. In Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? (Schwing, R.C. and A. Albers Eds.). Plenum Press, New York. Stewar t , T.R. 2000 . Uncerta inty, Judgment , and Error In Prediction. In Predict ion: Science, Decision-Making, and The Future Of Nature (Sarewitz, D., R.A. Pielke and R. Byerly Eds.) Island Press, Washington, DC. Pp: 41 -57 . St ine, P.A. and C. Hunsaker. 2001 Generic Issues Regarding Uncertainty In Spatial Data Used In Ecological Appl icat ions. In 1 4 5 Perspectives on Uncertainty in Spatial Data for Ecological Analyses. Spr inger Ver lag. Suzuki , D. and A. McConnell. 1997. Sacred Balance: Rediscovering Our Place in Nature. David Suzuki Foundat ion. Greystone Books, Vancouver. 259 p. Taylor, B, L. Kremsat ter and R. Ellis. 1997. Adapt ive Management of Forests in Brit ish Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Victoria BC. 103 p. The Home Depot. 1999. The Home Depot Launches Environmental Wood Purchasing Policy. Press Release. Online in h t tp : / / w w w . h o m e d e p o t . c o m / p r e l 8 0 / H D U S / E N _ U S / d i y _ m a i n / p g _ d i y Jsp?BV_Sess ion ID = 3 2 6 6 8 4 4 0 6 . 0 9 5 4 7 9 0 9 9 5 @ @ @ @ & B V _ E n g i n e I D = c a l h g j g l k g m b e m f c f k m c f i c g h j . O The Montreal Process. 1995. Criteria and Indicators for the Conservat ion and Sustainable Management of Tempera te and Boreal Forests. 48 p. The Santiago Declarat ion. 1995. Sustaining the World 's Forests: Criteria and Indicators for the Conservat ion and Sustainable Management of Tempera te and Boreal Forests. 22 p. Thompson, J.D. 1967. Organizat ions in Act ion: Social Science Bases of Admin is t ra t ive Theory . McGraw-Hil l , New York. 192 p. Thompson, W.A., I . Ver t insky, H. Schreier and B.A. Blackwell . 2000. Using Forest Fire Hazard Modeling in Multiple Use Forest Management Planning. Forest Ecology and Management 134: 163-176 . Thrower & Associates. 1999. In te r im Report: Moni tor ing Early Stand Development . Project MFI -40-050. Prepared for the BCMOF Resources Inven to ry Branch. Victor ia, BC. 15 p. 146 T immermans , H. 1 9 9 1 . Decision-Making Processes, Choice Behaviors, and Envi ronmenta l Design: Conceptual Issues and Problems of Appl icat ion. In Envi ronment , Cogni t ion, and Action (Gar l ing, T. and G. W. Evans Eds.). Oxford Universi ty Press, New York. Pp: 63 -76 . Tol lefson, C. 2000 . The Wealth of Forests. Markets, Regulat ion, and Sustainable Forestry (ed. Tol lefson, C). UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. 396 p. Treweek, J. 1999. Ecological Impac t Assessment. Blackwell Science, Oxford. 372 p. Turner , S J . and A.R. Johnson. 2 0 0 1 . A Theoret ical Framework For Ecological Assessment. In A Guidebook For In tegra ted Ecological Assessments (Jensen, M.E. and P.S. Bourgemon eds. ) . Springer, New York. Pp: 29 -38 . UNEP (United Nations Envi ronment Program). 1996. UNEP Environmental Impac t Assessment Training Resource Manual. Economics, Trade and Envi ronment Unit. Wash ington, DC. 220 p. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA. 1997. Forests and Biological Diversi ty. Working document prepared for the th i rd meet ing of the liaison group on forest biological diversi ty. Montreal , Canada. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/3/ Inf . 22 p. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA. 1997. Biological Diversity in Forests. Subsidiary Body on Scientif ic, Technical and Technological Advice. Second Meeting Montreal , 2 to 6 September 1996. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/2/11. 100 p. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA. 1999. Ecosystem Approach: Further Conceptual Elaborat ion. Subsidiary Body on Scienti f ic, Technical and Technological Advice. 22 p. 147 U.S. EPA (Envi ronmenta l Protection Agency) . 1999. Office of Air Quali ty Planning and Standards Economic Analysis Resource Document . Innovat ive Strategies and Economics Group. Washington, DC. 223 p. U.S. EPA-California. 1998. Wow! A Whole New Way of Looking a t Your Data. ArcView® - Session 1. Preparatory in format ion to CAL Computer Users Conference Materials 1998, held October 2 1 , 1998 in Reddl ing, Cali fornia. EPA Management and Licensing Branch. 6 p. U.S National Science and Technology Council . 1996. Building a Scientif ic Basis to Ensure the Vital i ty and Product iv i ty of U.S. Ecosystems. Commi t tee on Envi ronment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Work ing Group. Online in http://www.cop.noaa.gov/pubs/ewgfn2.txt Van dyne, G.M. 1966. Ecosystems, Systems Ecology, and Systems Ecologists. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN Reprinted 1995 in Pattern, B.C and S.E. Jorgensen (Eds.) Complex Ecology: The Part-Whole Relation in Ecosystems. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Pp: 1-27. Van Kooten, C. and E. Kremar. 2000. Fuzzy Logic and Non Market Valuat ion: A Compar ison of Methods. In Conference IIFET 2000 : Microbehavior and Macroresults held July 10 -14 , 2000 in Corvall is, Oregon. In ternat ional Ins t i tu te of Fisheries Economics and Trade, Corval l is, Oregon. Vercell i , A. 1998. Sustainable Development , Rational i ty and Time. In Sustainable Deve lopment : Concepts, Rationalit ies and Strategies (Faucheux, S, M. O'Connor and J. Van der Straaten Eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pp: 259-276 . 148 Viegas, J.M. 1982. Uncerta inty, Complexi ty and Decision-Making Processes. Center of Urban and Regional Systems (CESUR), Depar tamento de Engenharia Civil , Ins t i tu to Super ior Tecnico, Lisboa, Portugal . Publication N° 243. 20 p. Walters, C. 1986. Adapt ive Management of Renewable Resources. McMillan Publishing, New York. 374 p. War ing, R. and W. H. Schlesinger. 1985. Forest Ecosystems Concepts and Management . Academic Press, Inc. , Or lando. 340 p. Wee tman , G.F. 2000 . Worry ing Issues About Forest Landscape Management Plans in Brit ish Columbia. I n Ecosystem Management of Forested Landscapes: Directions and Imp lementa t ion (D'Eon, J. F. Jackson and E.A. Ferguson Eds.). UBC Press, Vancouver. Pp: 319-324 . West Coast Envi ronmenta l Law. 2 0 0 1 . BCEN Forest Caucus - Further Comments on Result Based Pilot pro jects. Online in http://www.for.gov.bcca/hfp/rbpilot/stillwater%20pilot/ag8restillwater.doc Weyerhaeuser. 2001a . St i l lwater T imber lands Pilot Project Detailed proposal . Powell River, BC. 75 p. Weyerhaeuser. 2001b. St i l lwater Pilot Project. Weyerhaeuser 's response to Review by BCEN. Powell River, BC. 16 p. Whi te, P.S. 1979. Pat tern, Process, and Natural Disturbance in Vegetat ion. Botanical Review 45 : 229 -299 . White, P.S and S T . A . Pickett. 1985. Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics: An In t roduct ion . In The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics (Pickett , S T . A . and P.S. White Eds.). Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Pp: 3-13. 149 Wilds, S.P. and P.S. Whi te. 2 0 0 1 . Dynamic Terrestr ia l Ecosystem Patterns and Processes. In A Guidebook for In tegra l Ecological Assessments (Jensen, M.E. and P.S. Bourgemon Eds.). Spr inger, New York. Pp: 3 3 8 - 3 5 1 . Wi lk in, L. and A. Sut ton (Eds.) . 1982. The Management Of Uncer ta inty : Approaches, Methods and Appl icat ions. Mart inus Ni jhoff Publisher, Dodrecht. 285 p. Wilson, I . 1998. Mental Maps of The Future: An In tu i t i ve Logics Approach To Scenarios. In Learning From The Future: Compet i t ive Foresight Scenarios (Fahey, L. and R.M. Radall Eds). John Wiley & Sons, New York. Pp: 8 1 - 1 0 8 . Wilson, J. 1998. Talk and Log: Wilderness Politics in Brit ish Columbia, 1965-1996 . UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. 429 p. Wodley, S., G. A lward , L. Iglesias, T.W. Hoekstra, B. Holt, L. Liv inston, J. Loo, A. Skib ik i , A. Wil l iams and P. Wr ight . 2000 . North Amer ican Test of Cri ter ia and Indicators of Sustainable Forestry. Center for In ternat ional Forestry Research (CIFOR) - USDA Forest Service. USDA Forest Service Inven to ry and Monitor ing Ins t i tu te Report. Washington, DC. 175 p. Wol lenberg, E., D. Edmunds and L. B. Buck. 2000 . Using Scenarios to Make Decisions About The Future: Ant ic ipatory Learning For The Adapt ive Co-Management of Communi ty Forests. Landscape and Urban Planning 4 7 : 65 -77 . World Bank. 1996. The World Bank Participation Sourcebook. Env i ronmenta l Management Series, Washington, DC. 259 p. World Trade Organizat ion. 2 0 0 1 . Market Access: Unfinished Business -Post Uruguay Round Inventory (Special s tudy No. 6 ) . Economic Research and Analysis Division. Geneva, Swi tzer land. 139 p. 150 Zucchet to , J. and A. M. Janson. 1985. Resources and Society: a Systems Ecology Study of the Is land o f Got land, Sweden. Spr inger-Ver lag, New York. 246 p. DICTIONARIES AND ENCYCLOPEDIAS Academic Press Dict ionary of Science and Technology. 1992. Academic Press, New York. The Oxford English Dict ionary, 1989. Second Edit ion. Oxford Universi ty Press, New York. The McGraw-Hil l Concise Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, 8 t h Edit ion. 1998. McGraw-Hi l l , New York. The New Encyclopedia Br i tannica, 1 5 t h Edit ion. 1974. Encyclopedia Bri tannica Inc , Chicago. The McGraw-Hil l Dict ionary of Scientif ic and Technical Terms, 5 t h Edit ion. 1994. McGraw-Hi l l , New York. 151 APPENDIX 1. GLOSSARY Chaotic process: process tha t is unpredictable due to non-measurable shifts in initial condit ions (Denny and Gaines, 2 0 0 0 ) . Complex i ty : condi t ion of consist ing of parts or e lements not simply coord inated, but some of t hem involved in var ious degrees of subord inat ion; compl icated, involved, in t r icate; not easily analyzed or disentangled (Oxford English Dict ionary) . Cont ingency: an event the occurrence of which could not have been, or was not, foreseen (Oxford English Dict ionary) . Criteria (Cr i ter ion) : A category of condit ions or processes by which sustainable forest management may be assessed. Criteria are characterized by a set of related indicators which are moni tored periodically to assess change (The Montreal Process, 1995) . Determinist ic process: process in which exact laws are fo l lowed, so that what will happen in the fu ture is necessary consequence of states at any given m o m e n t in the past (McGraw-Hil l Dict ionary of Scientif ic and Technical T e r m s ) . Eco-forestry: approach to mainta in and restore full funct ion ing, natural forest ecosystems in perpetu i ty , while harvest ing forest goods on a sustainable basis. The essence of ecoforestry is to learn to perceive what the forest can supply w i thout al ter ing its basic ecological funct ions and intr insic values (Drengson and Taylor , 1998) . Ecosystem managemen t : approach by wh ich , in aggregate , the full array of forest values and funct ions is mainta ined at the landscape level. Coordinated management at the landscape level , including 152 across ownerships, is an essential component . (Society of American Foresters, 1993) Effectiveness: cont r ibut ion towards a certain ou tcome (Hodget ts , 1982) . Efficiency: inputs required for reaching a certain ou tcome (Hodget ts , 1982) . Efficacy: power or capacity to produce an ef fect (Oxford English Dict ionary) . The Merr iam-Webster Dict ionary relates efficacy wi th capableness, product iveness, adequacy, capaci ty, and suff iciency. Equi l ibr ium: staying in the vicini ty of a given state over a relevant tempora l scale (DeAngelis and Waterhouse, 1987) Extent: size of an area mapped or analyzed (Stine and Hunsaker, 2001) . Feedback: a modi f icat ion, ad jus tment , or control of a process or system by a resul t o r ef fect o f the process (Oxford English Dict ionary) Grain: resolut ion of any given landscape fea tu re , as it is perceived through the source of data used (Stine and Hunsaker, 2 0 0 1 ) . Holistic fo res t ry : approach tha t defines the forest as a diverse, interconnected web which focuses on sustaining the whole (all life fo rms) , not on the product ion of any one par t (e .g . t imber ) ( H a m m o n d , 1991) . Homeostasis: certain stabi l i ty in a system (Beishon and Peters, 1972) Ignorance: lack of knowledge (Oxford English Dic t ionary) . 153 Indicator : a measure of an aspect of cr i ter ia (c r i te r ion) . A quant i ta t ive or qual i tat ive var iable which can be measured or descr ibed and which when observed periodical ly demonst ra tes t rends (The Montreal Process, 1995) . Inst inct : act tha t appear to be rat ional , but is per formed wi thout conscious design (Oxford English Dict ionary) . Knowledge: the sum of what is k n o w n ; fact , s ta te , or condit ion of understanding (Oxford English Dict ionary) . Modif icat ion: change in respect to some quali t ies in a system (Oxford English Dict ionary) . New fores t ry : approach tha t defines forest m a n a g e m e n t wi th t imber product ion as a by-produc t of its p r imary func t ion : sustaining biological d ivers i ty and mainta in ing long- te rm ecosystem health (Frankl in, 1990) . Non-l inear in teract ions: the rules of interact ion change as the system changes and develops (Levin, 1998) . Opt imal operat ing point : s tate of deve lopment t ha t takes full advantage of the avai lable energy and resources (Kay, 1997) . Precautionary pr inciple: in the face of uncer ta in ty , society should take reasonable act ions to aver t risks where the potent ial harm to human health or the env i ronment is thought to be serious or i rreparable (President's Council on Sustainable Development , 1996) . Social fo res t ry : a broad range of t ree and forest related act ivi t ies under taken by rural landowners and commun i t y groups to provide 154 products for the i r own use and for generat ing local income (Gregersen et a l . , 1989) . State: quant i ty stored in , or condit ion of, a system ( O d u m , 1994) . Stochastic process: process governed by probabil ist ic laws (McGraw-Hill Dict ionary of Scientif ic and Technical T e r m s ) . Type one error : re ject ing a null hypothesis when it is t rue (Ritchie and Marshall, 1993) . Type two er ro r : fai l ing to reject a null hypothesis when it is false (Ritchie and Marshal l , 1993) . Uncerta inty: incompleteness of knowledge (Smi thson, 1989) . Understanding: the degree of match between real i ty and theory (Pickett et a l . , 1994) . 155 APPENDIX 2. PROVINCE-WIDE QUANTIFICATION OF HOW UNCERTAINTY IS AFFECTING FOREST PLANNING IN BC 1. Revision of Forest Development Plans in BC BCMOF FOREST REGION FDP REVIEWED/YEAR FDP AMENDMENTS/YEAR CARIBOO 38 523 NELSON 38 200 PRINCE GEORGE 53 281 KAMLOOPS 60 444 PRINCE RUPERT 24 285 VANCOUVER 88 1005 TOTAL PROVINCE 301 2738 2. Estimated Costs of Revision of Forest Development Plans in Staff t ime (Office review, field review, meet ings wi th s takeho lde rs ) 2 4 $ 11,000 / FDP 301 FDP/year $ 3,311,000 Vehicles, accommodat ion in camps, hel icopter t i m e , etc. $ 25,000 / FDP 100 FDP/year $ 2 ,500,000 Appeals, rev iews, and board audits $ 30,000 / FDP 26 FDP/year $ 780,000 TOTAL PROVINCE $ 6,591,000 2 3 Based on answers of 25 ou t of the 40 BCMOF Forest Distr ic ts 2 4 Based on an average of 4 0 ful l m a n - d a y s per FDP at $ 2 7 5 / d a y . These averages were g iven by Distr ict off icials. 156 3. Causes of Major and Minor Amendments to Forest Development Plans in B C 2 5 BCMOF FOREST REGION Main Causes for Minor Amendments to FDPs Main Causes for Major Amendments to FDPs CARIBOO 1) Beetle 2) Block Layout 3) Windthrow 1) Beetle NELSON 1) Block Layout 2) Beetle 3) Windthrow 4) Fire 1) Changes in Policy 2) Beetle 3) Social conflicts PRINCE GEORGE 1) Block layout 2) Beetle 3) Fire 1) Timber market changes 2) Fire 3) Beetle KAMLOOPS 1) Block layout 2) Beetle and defoliators 1) Block layout 2) Timber market changes 3) Changes in policy 4) Beetle and defoliators PRINCE RUPERT 1) Block layout 2) Windthrow 1) Block layout 2) Windthrow VANCOUVER 1) Block Layout 2) Timber market ~ v > v changes 0 1) Timber market changes 2) First Nations consultation 3) Block Layout 2 5 Based on answers of 34 out 40 BCMOF Forest Districts and 4 out of 5 licensees. 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items