An integrated assessment of the cumulative impacts of climate change and industrial development on salmon in Western BC Selecting Values for Cumulative Effects Assessment 04 April, 2013 DRAFT VERSION 3.0 Prepared by: Don Morgan, BC Ministry of Environment Dave Daust, Consultant Barry Watson, BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations [email protected] • Box 4274 Smithers, BC V0J 2N0 Canada
An i ntegrated a ssessment o f t he c umulative i mpacts o f c limate c hange a nd i ndustrial d evelopment o n s almon i n W estern BC Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... 3 Audience Error! Bookmark not defined. 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 4 2. Conceptual basis for Selecting Values for Assessment ....................................................................... 4 3. Types of Values ................................................................................................................................... 6 3. Identifying values in an assessment area ........................................................................................... 8 3.1. Sources of information for sub-­‐regional value overview ........................................................... 9 4. Selecting Values for Assessment ...................................................................................................... 10 4.1. Core Provincial Values .............................................................................................................. 10 4.2. Criteria for Selecting Assessment Values ................................................................................. 11 4.3. Who Selects Values for Assessment? ....................................................................................... 12 Selecting Values for Cumulative Effects Assessment An i ntegrated a ssessment o f t he c umulative i mpacts o f c limate c hange a nd i ndustrial d evelopment o n s almon i n W estern BC Executive Summary Under the Province’s cumulative effects framework, values are defined as the things that the people and government of British Columbia care about and see as important for assuring the integrity and well being of the province’s people and communities, economies, and ecological systems. A Sub-­‐regional Values Overview provides 1) a synopsis of all valued ecosystem services to be considered in CEA for a specific area and 2) related management objectives. The overview helps to set the scope of assessment. A value overview identifies value stewards: government departments that would be accountable for developing and maintaining information about values, including societal objectives and knowledge needed for management. A statutory decision maker would also be associated with each value and provide the decision-­‐making capacity in all decision processes where the value is considered. Values can be separated into two categories: Broad Values that are typically identified by social, economic and ecological vision statements or goals in land use plans and are often managed by multiple governments and organizations; and Supporting Values that have specific management objectives and requirements, depend directly on ecosystem services, and help support the broad values. A regional inter-­‐agency management committee, in conjunction with value steward specialists and First Nations, would make the final determination of what values should be considered for assessment. The decision to select which values to assess should be based on specific criteria, including: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Values that already face risk; Values that are likely to be affected (i.e., risk or benefit), by emerging issues such as pipelines or mountain pine beetle, based on preliminary assessments; Values that influence several other values (e.g., fish habitat influences grizzly bears); Values that serve as coarse filter indicators of ecosystem function (e.g., biodiversity) and hence influence other values (e.g., timber supply); Values that have low recovery potential if affected; Values identified in Strategic Agreements with First Nations, or otherwise identified as key to supporting an aboriginal or treaty right (e.g. hunting, fishing or trapping); and Values for which there are existing objectives (legal or policy). Page | 2 Selecting Values for Cumulative Effects Assessment An i ntegrated a ssessment o f t he c umulative i mpacts o f c limate c hange a nd i ndustrial d evelopment o n s almon i n W estern BC Acknowledgements The research work for this discussion paper was financed by the Ministries of Environment and Forest Lands and Natural Resource Operations and through a grant from the Moore Foundation administered by the Bulkley Valley Research Centre and. This discussion paper would not have been possible without the insightful discussions with Karen Price, Blair Ells, Eric Valdal, Doug Lewis, Cathy Scot May, Barry Watson, Ben Heemskerk, Kai Elmauer, Karen Diemert, Jane Lloyd-­‐Smith and Leah Malkinson. Note: The intent of this document is for discussion purposes only and in no way does it constitute formal commitment on the part of BC Government to implement a cumulative effects framework. Further, the document is not intended to reflect any endorsement by BC Government for any particular approach for assessing cumulative effects. Page | 3 Selecting Values for Cumulative Effects Assessment An i ntegrated a ssessment o f t he c umulative i mpacts o f c limate c hange a nd i ndustrial d evelopment o n s almon i n W estern BC 1. Introduction The Province has initiated a multi-­‐year, multi-­‐agency project to explore and test a framework to support the assessment of cumulative effects in natural resource decision-­‐making1. The framework consists of four main activity areas: •
•
•
•
identifying the values that inform decision-­‐making; expanding existing monitoring programs to improve their ability to evaluate the state of the environment and of social and economic systems, and to evaluate the effectiveness of historic management strategies; developing assessment methods suitable for different types of decisions; developing decision-­‐support techniques that convey needed information to decision-­‐makers. In conjunction with cumulative effects research and policy analysis, the provincial initiative has established three regional pilot projects to demonstrate the application of its CEA framework. The Northwest Pilot is one of the projects exploring CEA methodology. The pilot area consists of the Cassiar Iskut-­‐Stikine Land and Resource Management Planning Area and the Nass Timber Supply Area. This report presents conceptual background about values, distinguishes two classes of values and discusses approaches for identifying and then selecting values for cumulative effects assessment. 2. Conceptual basis for Selecting Values for Assessment Human social systems exist within the context of natural systems (Figure 1) and benefit from services provided by the natural ecosystem (Box 1). Society assigns worth to some of these benefits (i.e., “valued ecosystem services” or more briefly “valued services”); however, some important ecosystem services are not widely recognized as valuable (e.g., flood control) and hence are not specified in existing plans and policy. Development activities can positively and/or negatively affect the delivery of valued services (e.g., harvesting provides timber, but reduces old forest habitat). 1
For more detail see Cumulative Effects Framework Discussion Paper Page | 4 Selecting Values for Cumulative Effects Assessment An i ntegrated a ssessment o f t he c umulative i mpacts o f c limate c hange a nd i ndustrial d evelopment o n s almon i n W estern BC Figure 1. Diagram showing interaction of the human system with natural ecosystems—a coupled social-­‐ecological system. Social-­‐ecological systems are complex, integrated systems in which humans are part of nature. Society assigns value to some 2
ecosystem services and manages development activity in order to obtain or retain those services . Box 1. Ecosystem Services: Ecosystem services are the benefits that people obtain from ecosystems. They include the provisioning services (e.g., game, fibre, fresh water), cultural services (e.g., spiritual, aesthetic and recreation value of wilderness) and regulating services (e.g., limiting floods and fires) that directly benefit society as well as the supporting services (e.g., pollination, nutrient cycling) required to maintain these benefits3. Valued Ecosystem Services: Ecosystem services that are recognized as valuable by society. Synonymous with valued components used in federal CEA, but apply equally to processes and components. Managers use knowledge about natural resource system function to try to obtain benefits, associated with certain services, while limiting negative impacts to other services. For example, BC has identified a set of 11 values (e.g., timber, biodiversity) that are considered central to manage and has developed 2
The Natural Resource System is a combination of 1) the ecological system that provides ecosystem services, including natural resources, and 2) the socio-­‐economic system that governs the extraction, delivery, and processing of natural resources. 3
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-­‐ being: current state and trends. R. Hassan, R. Scholes, and N. Ash (editors). Island Press, Washington, D.C. Page | 5 Selecting Values for Cumulative Effects Assessment An i ntegrated a ssessment o f t he c umulative i mpacts o f c limate c hange a nd i ndustrial d evelopment o n s almon i n W estern BC forest and range policy to maintain those values under the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA). To highlight the link between ecosystem services and resource management policy, the 11 FRPA values have been mapped, in table 1, into their relevant ecosystem service category. Table 1. FRPA values mapped into ecosystem services categories. Supporting and Regulating Provisioning Cultural Soils Fish/Riparian Cultural Heritage Biodiversity Forage Recreation Resource Features Timber Visual Quality Wildlife Water 3. Types of Values Under the Province’s CEA framework values are defined as the things that the people and government of British Columbia care about and see as important for assuring the integrity and well being of the province’s people and communities, economies, and ecological systems. The public judge these as central for assuring the integrity and well being of the province’s communities, economy and environment. Values are identified through laws, regulation, policy, First Nation Land Use plans, provincial Land Use Plans (e.g., LRMP’s), consultation and new enabling government agreements. Values can be characterized as being social, economic, environmental, or as a combination of each. Society, the economy and the environment are all dependent upon the functioning of the underlying natural resource system and do not exist in isolation. The natural resource system is a coupled interdependent human-­‐environmental system (Figure 2). Page | 6 Selecting Values for Cumulative Effects Assessment An i ntegrated a ssessment o f t he c umulative i mpacts o f c limate c hange a nd i ndustrial d evelopment o n s almon i n W estern BC Environmental Values Social Values Economic Values Economic Wellbeing Community Wellbeing Ecosystem Services Figure 2. Nested values in cumulative effects assessment. Environmental values support the delivery of social and economic values. A balanced cumulative effects assessment respects the importance of each value set and accounts for interactions among values. Prompted by the scientific literature4 the Province’s CEA framework has adopted1 a valued-­‐centred approach, such that the valued ecosystem services and their supporting processes are understood and the level human activity that can be supported by the natural resource system is used as a guide to management. Environmental values are typically linked directly to ecosystem services. For example, biodiversity provides a regulatory service, similarly wildlife provides provisioning services. Social and economic values are dependent on environmental values, such as forests providing timber for houses, or salmon providing cultural experience. The Northwest pilot uses the community well-­‐being value as its primary social value, which includes summaries of population, education, employment, and family 4
Duinker, P.N., Greig, L.A., 2005. The Impotence of Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada: Ailments and Ideas for Redeployment. Environmental Management 37, 153–161. Page | 7 Selecting Values for Cumulative Effects Assessment An i ntegrated a ssessment o f t he c umulative i mpacts o f c limate c hange a nd i ndustrial d evelopment o n s almon i n W estern BC income. Economics is the social science that analyzes the production, distribution and consumption of ecological provisioning services. The Northwest pilot’s economic well-­‐being value considers the supply and demand for labour, economic diversity, provincial revenue, financial capital, and infrastructure capital. Value descriptions are particularly sensitive to interpretation within the context of language and culture. In general, environmental values have specific land use objectives, such as targets for a minimum amount of old forest, whereas social and economic values more commonly have objectives defined relative to existing conditions, such as more education or jobs. It is less common to have absolute objectives for social and economic values, like number of jobs or schools. Values vary in scope and scale and can usually be arranged hierarchically. Broad values set the overall vision (e.g., human well-­‐being). Supporting values are more specific (e.g., clean water, jobs) and contribute to broader values. Although broad values may not be assessed formally, the sum of supporting values should achieve the broader value, if supporting values are properly identified. In summary, values can be split into two categories: 1. Broad Values that relate to broad social, economic and environmental goals and which are often managed by multiple governments, agencies and organizations (e.g., social and economic well-­‐
being, ecological integrity). 2. Supporting Values that depend directly on ecosystem services and usually have specific objectives and management requirements (e.g., terrestrial, riparian and aquatic ecosystems, water, fish and wildlife, air quality, traditional culture and use). 3. Identifying values in an assessment area A sub-­‐regional value overview5 (Box 1) provides a synopsis of values and related management direction to be considered in CEA for a specific area. The value overview serves two main functions: §
lists all values that could be considered in an assessment; §
provides direction (via management objectives and sometimes targets) that influences the types of risks to consider and the levels of risk deemed acceptable. The sub-­‐regional value overview is based on existing, documented values. It is a starting point. CEA may require additional consultation with the public, First Nations, government agencies and scientific advisors to clarify values and direction. 5
Please see NW CE Pilot Area Strategic Value Objectives Catalogue: Translating Land use Objectives for an example Page | 8 Selecting Values for Cumulative Effects Assessment An i ntegrated a ssessment o f t he c umulative i mpacts o f c limate c hange a nd i ndustrial d evelopment o n s almon i n W estern BC Box 1. Sub-­‐regional value overview content §
identifies publically-­‐defined values for a region §
describes dependencies among values (e.g., via a hierarchical diagram) §
summarizes legal and non-­‐legal management objectives for each value §
identifies all sources for easy reference and transparency 3.1.
Sources of information for sub-­‐regional value overview Legal and non-­‐legal objectives and values come from a variety of documents. Even though some of the plans and legislation were not specifically developed for the type of development under consideration, they still provide the best available information about public values for a region. The bulk of documented information about public values comes from the following sources: • Strategic land use plans include regional land use plans created by the Commission on Resources and Environment and Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs)6. Many of these plans were based on a consensus model. They provide high level direction (broad objectives) for the allocation and management of public lands and resources. • Strategic land use agreements with First Nations, reflecting government to government negotiations, often include similar information as LRMPs (also considered to be strategic land use plans)6. • Other management plans, such as watershed management plans and air-­‐shed management plans also record public values but are not usually consensus-­‐based. • Certification schemes for forest products and related sustainable forest management plans also reflect public values. In some cases, broad public values are defined by the scheme; in other cases, regional values are identified as part of the certification process7. • Legal Objectives set by Government under the various legislation that supports legal orders (e.g., Land Act, Government Actions Regulation). • The Forest and Range Practices Act and related regulations set provincial scale objectives as well as practice requirements. Legislated practice standards often fall below standards for best practices and may be seen as minimum requirements; both legislation and best practices should be considered. 6
7
Forest Practices Board. 2008. Provincial land use planning: which way from here? FPB/SR/34 FSC, CSA SAF, etc. Page | 9 Selecting Values for Cumulative Effects Assessment An i ntegrated a ssessment o f t he c umulative i mpacts o f c limate c hange a nd i ndustrial d evelopment o n s almon i n W estern BC Public values can be clarified by involving First Nations and the affected pubic. Plan implementation monitoring committees (for LRMPs), where they exist, can help to interpret plan values. Scientists can help to identify subordinate ecosystem services needed to support broader values. 4. Selecting Values for Assessment It is not operationally possible to conduct assessment and monitoring of all values across an assessment area. As a result, a subset of values must be selected for initial investigation and inclusion into decision-­‐
making. 4.1.
Core Provincial Values The Province has suggested an initial set of core values for regional review (table 2). This initial set of values would be prioritized for monitoring and assessment, including enhancing inventories, assessing risk, identifying related land use objectives and management targets, and applying provincial tools intended to communicate the condition and trend of values. Table 2 also identifies tentative “value stewards”: government departments that would be accountable for developing and maintaining information about values, including objectives and knowledge. A statutory decision maker would also be associated with each value and provide the decision-­‐making capacity in all decision processes where the value is considered. Research staff provide core support, by describing system processes and components affecting value state and by evaluating management effectiveness at achieving objectives. For example, do riparian buffers maintain riparian function and water quality? The values are separated into two categories; Broad Values that are typically identified by social, economic and ecological vision statements or goals in land use plans and are often managed by multiple governments and organizations; and Supporting Values that have specific management objectives and requirements, depend directly on ecosystem services, and help support the broad values8. Table 2. Tentative core values to be considered in risk assessment, provincially; related system components and processes; and agencies responsible for managing information about each value (Stewards). Values are split into those that provide a broad social, economic and ecological vision and those more specific values with identified objectives that support the broad vision. Stewards are the agencies that are responsible for the development and maintenance of information and knowledge related to each value. Research staff provides core support by conducting effectiveness monitoring and supporting assessment in their areas of expertise. 8
Similar to definitions of goals and objectives in Province of BC. 2004. Writing resource objectives and strategies: a guide to preparing effective resource management plans (second edition). Page | 10 Selecting Values for Cumulative Effects Assessment An i ntegrated a ssessment o f t he c umulative i mpacts o f c limate c hange a nd i ndustrial d evelopment o n s almon i n W estern BC Values Components Broad ValuesA Stewards Economic Wellbeing Crown revenues, Investment capital Labour supply/demand, Economic diversity Jobs Tourism and Innovation Social Wellbeing Employment, Population, Income, Education, Community participation Jobs Tourism and Innovation Ecological Integrity Climate change, global biodiversity MoE – Science, Policy & Economics Supporting ValuesB Terrestrial Ecosystem Old & mature forest representation, structure, pattern FLNRO-­‐RMD ecosystems Riparian Ecosystem Riparian condition FLNRO-­‐RMD ecosystems Aquatic Ecosystem Fish habitat FLNRO-­‐RMD fish & wildlife Water Quantity Peak and low flow MoE -­‐ EP Water Quality Coarse and fine sediment, chemistry MoE -­‐ EP Air Quality Air shed quality MoE -­‐ EP Fish & Wildlife Species Habitat, Population FLNRO-­‐RMD fish & wildlife Traditional Culture & Use Specific sites and ecosystem components FLNRO-­‐ FN Resource Capability Capability for each sector (e.g. Timber) FLNRO-­‐Major Projects A
B
Typically described via a vision statement or goals in land use plans. Typically described via objectives in land use plans 4.2.
Criteria for Selecting Assessment Values Implementing the CEA framework requires effort to collate information relevant to each of the proposed core values. Some values may be nested within more inclusive core values. Further, these values can be assessed with varying levels of rigour. Determining the level of rigour to assess each value and to select specific sub-­‐values (e.g. Fish & Wildlife Species -­‐ Bull Trout and Moose) requires a structured approach. Tentatively, the following types of values should be preferred: Page | 11 Selecting Values for Cumulative Effects Assessment An i ntegrated a ssessment o f t he c umulative i mpacts o f c limate c hange a nd i ndustrial d evelopment o n s almon i n W estern BC •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Values that already face risk, Values that are likely to be affected (i.e., risk or benefit), by emerging issues such as pipelines or mountain pine beetle, based on preliminary assessments, Values that influence several other values (e.g., fish habitat influences grizzly bears), Values that serve as coarse filter indicators of ecosystem function (e.g., biodiversity) and hence influence other values (e.g., timber supply), Values that have low recovery potential if affected, Values identified in Strategic Agreements with First Nations, or otherwise identified as key to supporting an aboriginal or treaty right (e.g. hunting, fishing or trapping), and Values for which there are existing objectives (legal or policy). 4.3.
Who Selects Values for Assessment? A regional inter-­‐agency management committee should make the final determination of what values should be considered for an assessment area. The decision to select which values to assess should be based on the criteria presented above and in discussion with value steward specialists (staff).First Nations should be involved in assigning priority to values within their traditional territory. The management committee’s decision would also be supported by the appropriate government departments, including Ministry of Environment’s Environmental Protection, Ministry of Mines and Energy, Forest Lands and Natural Resource Operation’s Resource Management Division, Major Projects, Front Counter and First Nations, and the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Resulting lists of values and related objectives should be available for public review and comment. In the future, government departments could publish information about values they consider being most at risk, in the context of a range of natural and human events, based on historic assessment and monitoring. This information would be invaluable to proponents who seek information on which values to prioritize as they prepare applications to government. Page | 12 Selecting Values for Cumulative Effects Assessment