Frep strategy Session Chateau Victoria Hotel Victoria, bc wed, November 15, 2006 Meeting Minutes

1. 
   Identification of the key items to be considered in setting FREP’s strategic direction for the next five years.
   
2. 
   Identification and prioritization of the action items/next steps to ensure we achieve our strategic priorities
   

Introductions

Frank started with a history of FREP, then continued with the Leadership (staff & executive), partnership (MOFR, MOE, FP Board, Academia/Colleges, other Agencies) and commitment and active participation in the program. He described the priority questions, website, communication and upcoming brochure. Resource values implemented in 2006 were stand level biodiversity, riparian and recreation. Scheduled for implementation in 2007 are visual, soils, karst, water quality, forage and fish passage. 10 projects have intensive evaluations. Quality Assurance – field visits, NQI Level 1 Certification achieved, data quality checks, implementation of FREP IMS and measures. FREP IMS Phase 1 – QAT and UAT are being done now. Data entry of field checklists begins on Nov 20^th, client UAT begins Nov 27^th and the system should be ready by end of December 2006. Phase II will add water quality, soils and range.

Peter explained that this survey was taken to the stakeholders – field staff, universities, industry, FPB and senior management, as well as the demographics of the data obtained.

Peter explained the question/section (the various questions/statements that were asked) and the responses that were received from staff and senior management. The responses were either in percentage format or a scale format where 1 was best and 5 was worst. The number displayed in brackets beside the scale number was what they thought the ranking would be. See attached.

• 
  Leadership commitment
  
• 
  Field presence
  
• 
  Partnership with Ministry of Environment
  
• 
  Resources
  

• 
  Does MOE understand the program?
  
• 
  Does MOE have capacity to contribute?
  
• 
  DM/Operations Manager and MOE communication was lacking
  
• 
  More MOE involvement needed
  

• 
  Roles and responsibilities
  
• 
  Report on outcomes
  
• 
  Continuous Improvement
  

• 
  Closing the “Loop” – when and how
  
• 
  Resources need to be in service plan
  
• 
  Maintain focus
  
• 
  Maintain independence
  
• 
  Report the unvarnished truth
  
• 
  Ensure the right questions are asked
  

1. 
   Expand implementation Program should be included in EPDP’s
   
2. 
   Continue to update and annual reporting
   
3. 
   Reporting data – number of assessments and number of participants
   
4. 
   Annual reporting of the Program
   
5. 
   Further engage MOE; especially at management level
   
   1. 
      stewardship section
      
   2. 
      ecosystem groups in regions
      
   3. 
      regional managers
      
6. 
   
   

• 
  government supported (mgmt & program)
  
• 
  resources are being provided
  
• 
  ownership & pride from field staff
  
• 
  will affect forest practices
  
• 
  training of staff
  
• 
  continuous improvement
  
• 
  provincial database
  

• 
  training – need more
  
• 
  internal communications – need more,
  
• 
  For districts (what does it mean?) -- resources
  
• 
  not enough resources – understaffed, clarify process by which change will be made
  
• 
  use concrete examples of data and results (both positive & negative)
  
• 
  goals of district vs. FREP – ensure compatible
  
• 
  buying in of district management
  
• 
  values – all of them, more ecosystem insight
  
• 
  stakeholders – more to be involved by FN, licensees & research
  
• 
  other similar programs like to take advantage of
  
• 
  performance measures – needs to be part of CPMs
  
• 
  Communications – professionals talking to professionals
  
• 
  long term commitment for senior management and funding unclear
  

Resources:

• 
  at district & FREP levels
  
• 
  assess needs – all values & levels
  
• 
  prioritize
  
• 
  address all values, all levels
  
• 
  long term commitment
  
• 
  look at time/resources for 2 ‘values’ that have been done & Peter’s table
  

• 
  more involvement in ODMT, IAMC, RMT (DMs & REDS), SRMP tables, (OF). Field staff generally good.
  
• 
  Performance Measures of Provincial Service Plans
  
• 
  Partnership & take advantage of other programs’ system knowledge
  

• 
  How will change be done? – closing the loop
  
• 
  Practices, policy, etc
  
• 
  Provide concrete examples of impacts of FREP
  
• 
  Increase other value /ecosystem level monitoring (eg.NTFPs)
  

• 
  RVTL: delivery of all regular re-evaluations/all values, prioritization, use of information, involvement of SH’s – partnerships.
  
• 
  Senior Mgmt: Link to PR.
  
• 
  PAC: CI good, look at the forest – not just values/sites
  
• 
  Forest Industry: FBM, Forest Health, economics
  
• 
  Forest Practices Board: solid & cultural, link of various monitor/evaluation programs
  

• 
  RVTL: lack of connect with BA and Service Plans, resources, training/staff turnover, executive support & government support
  
• 
  Senior Mgmt: competing priorities - resourcing
  
• 
  PAC: scope too limited on values (not big enough picture)
  
• 
  Forest Industry: stay independent from Board
  
• 
  Forest Practices Board: fuzzy link to decision making
  

1. 
   Expand implementation schedule & include intensive–resourcing
   
2. 
   Link to BA plans, CPM/IPM
   
3. 
   Communicate more!
   
4. 
   Partnerships -- more
   
5. 
   Demonstrate use of data – closing the loop
   
6. 
   Find someone to audit/evaluate social values/ FRPA goals, etc
   
7. 
   Integration/linkages with other types of monitoring (i.e. FFT FMPB)
   

• 
  Science-based/ approach
  
• 
  Stats
  
• 
  Randomness/unbiased
  
• 
  On-the-ground, field-based data
  
• 
  1^st hand knowledge
  
• 
  Assistance/support to district staff
  
• 
  Field work/data collection
  
• 
  Mentoring & Q&A’s
  
• 
  Use of data
  
• 
  Team building –use of seasoned professionals
  

• 
  Inconsistency of field data
  
• 
  Training
  
• 
  Province, subject across
  
• 
  Closing-the-loop, people didn’t see the loop closed yet.
  
• 
  Need more intensive evaluations
  
• 
  Regional staff to be engaged more (MOFR, MOR + Senior Mgmt)
  
• 
  Need for baseline data sets
  
• 
  Data – concerns about database being resourced
  
• 
  Resourcing - $ and staff, database
  

• 
  Quality – NQI certification
  
• 
  Quality control & data validity
  
• 
  Training
  
• 
  Core business vs. expanding program existing checklists (more checklists)
  
• 
  Do what we do best already
  
• 
  Build up more data and confidence
  

• 
  High standards, quality of data
  
• 
  Data misinterpreted
  
• 
  Focus on quality and reduce number of indicators – too ambitious
  
• 
  Criticism from academia
  
• 
  Timeliness of conducting data collection and analysis, reporting & effecting change
  

1. 
   Continue and improve
   
   1. 
      Training/mentoring- pool req.
      
   2. 
      Field data collection
      
   3. 
      QA – Reg. staff
      
2. 
   Publications – methods, indicators and levels – ops- science
   
3. 
   Demonstrate closure of the “Loop” – CI
   
4. 
   Culverts
   
5. 
   Roads-sediment
   
6. 
   Change on the ground
   

• 
  Website
  
• 
  Conference calls – communication within (districts with specialists)
  
• 
  Inclusive (listening to feedback)
  
• 
  Expert support
  
• 
  Incorporating feedback
  
• 
  Performance targets:
  
  • 
    Service Plan
    
  • 
    Internal performance measures – 15 SLBD, 15 Riparian (per district)
    

• 
  Industry – not enough involvement
  
• 
  First Nations – not enough involvement
  
• 
  ENGO’s – not enough involvement
  
• 
  Ministry Executive awareness and other Govt Agencies
  
• 
  Not enough Results/Reports
  
• 
  Marketing approach
  

• 
  Reporting out
  
• 
  Better external communication
  
• 
  Demonstrating policy impacts
  

• 
  Confusion of roles with Forest Practices Board
  
• 
  Buy-in of Executive dependent of success of long term
  
• 
  Despite good communication industry not buy-in
  

• 
  Pro-active expert training
  
• 
  Knowledgeable trainers
  
• 
  Range of training levels
  
• 
  Co-operation between agencies
  

• 
  Resources – more trainers and mentors
  
• 
  Lack of training in some values
  

• 
  Expand mentoring training
  
• 
  Demonstrate policy impacts
  
• 
  Train the trainers
  
• 
  Include in EPDP
  

• 
  Not enough trainers available
  
• 
  Licensee buy-in
  
• 
  Field staff overwhelmed
  

1. 
   address the priorities
   
2. 
   MOU with F.P.B. and C&E re: roles & responsibilities
   
3. 
   complete brochure
   
4. 
   external communication plan
   
5. 
   forestry trade shows – conferences
   
6. 
   link with other training initiatives
   
7. 
   improve links with business areas
   
8. 
   manage expectations (immediate reports), demonstrate policy impacts and ability to “Close the Loop”.
   

1. 
   What has changed because of FREP?
   
2. 
   What has FREP accomplished?
   
3. 
   Describe FREP’s most important successes to date.
   

• 
  link back to the original objectives of FRPA:
  

• 
  Increased credibility with the ENGO’s and the public that the FREP program is supporting the results based regime demonstrate where innovation and creativity is taking place with respect to achieving the objectives and that they understand their roles and responsibilities – hopefully confirm through surveys completed by the FREP
  
• 
  The resource professionals and more advanced in terms of their professional responsibilities and what the best practices are to achieve the desired result
  
• 
  FREP has assisted with third party certification and is recognized as a world leader on this front (tied into the market place).
  
• 
  Can demonstrate where practices or legislation or regulations have changed and been improved as a result of FREP activities
  
• 
  Demonstrate those areas where FREP activities confirmed we were doing very well
  

• 
  Demonstrated how FREP clarified R&R with respect to resource monitoring and eliminated over laps and duplication
  
• 
  MOF staff is trying to get in and participate in the program. This is a reflection of staff surveys
  
• 
  Demonstrate how FREP has identified key knowledge gaps that we have filled through our Forest Science Program
  
• 
  This has become a foundational element of the MOFR mandate and needs to be carried on well into the future.
  

• 
  Licensees have bought in and are implementing FREP
  
• 
  Detailed evaluations
  
• 
  Figure out how to fix all problems found
  
• 
  Number of public to verify
  
• 
  14+ protocols
  
• 
  Working fel in ENGOs, etc
  
• 
  FREP documents monitoring to confirm licensee monitoring is okay
  
• 
  COFI member of FREP
  
• 
  All DMs have bought in
  
• 
  Linkages with First Nations and licensees
  

• 
  Resources/staffing and training
  
• 
  Complete protocols for all 11 values
  
• 
  Prioritize values and implementation
  
• 
  Prioritize BA – risk analysis; business case; policy need/change
  
• 
  Integration to other programs/initiatives – AM, FFEI, MPB, CC, EBM
  
• 
  Tie in to research– knowledge groups
  
• 
  Tie in to academic – buy-in, credibility
  
• 
  Tie in to decision-making, policy development and changes to practices
  
• 
  Focus on detail rather than strategic – roll up block to landscape trends and status
  
• 
  Communication – communicating what we know – build on our success
  
• 
  Is planning supporting practices/monitor?
  
• 
  Integration between resource values – “Whole Forest” – create synergies, multi-disciplinary evaluations and impacts
  
• 
  Linkages to professional reliance – how we use this information
  

• 
  A better idea of what has worked & not worked and as a result some practices have changed
  
• 
  Monitoring is part of all agency business plans
  
• 
  Changes in some practices save licencees money
  
• 
  Public acceptance of Forest & Range Practices
  
• 
  Less unproductive licencee/ministry discussion
  
• 
  Great database
  
• 
  Forest & Range Practioners anticipate and incorporate FREP results
  
• 
  FREP- the monitoring program in the World
  
• 
  Making decisions based on fact
  
• 
  Successful results based on Forest & Range Management
  
• 
  Action Items:
  

1. 
   Continue to build the program (communication, resources, planning)
   
2. 
   Close loops – (finish what you start)
   
3. 
   Continue upgrades to FREP IMS
   
4. 
   Increase validation research including research into surrogates thresholds and baselines
   
5. 
   Internal funding for information needs
   

• 
  Industry implements 30% of FREP program
  
• 
  FREP results have changed legislation towards greater “results-based” (Loop is closed)
  
• 
  FREP is delivered through multitude of partners (MOE, academic, FN, etc.)
  
• 
  Everybody knows who FREP is (communication plan worked!)
  
• 
  Public confidence in stewardship of forest resources increased
  
• 
  FREP designates widespread in MOFR
  
• 
  Jim Snetsinger is still the CF (a good thing!)
  
• 
  Regular publications in peer-reviewed journals, etc
  
• 
  Extensive library FREP documents
  
• 
  FREP information management system operating effectively
  
• 
  All 11 FRPA values evaluated
  
• 
  3-4 FREP FTE in each district
  
• 
  Action Items:
  

1. 
   Explore certification as a means of motivating industry buy-in
   
2. 
   Provide incentives to industry to buy-in (aware of & support FREP)
   
3. 
   Provide industry with monetary incentive to help implement FREP or can include multitude of partners
   
4. 
   Build partnerships with multiple partners
   
5. 
   Piggy-back on industry audits to inform FREP
   
6. 
   Number of FTE’s dedicated to FREP = internal performance measure
   
7. 
   University training in evaluation
   

11 Values listed in first column.

Second column lists the various checklist that are or will be available in each value.

The next 5 columns consist of yearly timelines – 06/07, 07/08, 08/09, 09/10, 10/11, 11/12 and each section contains a letter(s) representing the following:

I= implementation, P=pilot stage, Green highlight = geographically restricted, yellow highlight = non-MOFR implementation.

Each RSM Team Leader will be contacted to identify the priorities in each listed value. Package coming showing more detail.

Table of Contents Draft containing various sections, descriptions of content and expected text length. Peter would like everyone to review for this draft for content/ description and expected text length. Please contact Peter via email or phone on your comments.

From the group’s morning and lunchtime discussion regarding the changing or re-wording of FREP’s original mission statement, the following suggestions were put forward.

Add – Assessment and Evaluation

Keep - World Leader

Change “we” to FREP

Required – needed

Change - Sustainable forest and range management to forest and range resource value

Avoid legalese

Define “resource values”

Improve practices, not legislation OR eval. Practices in order to evaluate policy?

“We will contribute to the achievement of sustainable forest and range management in British Columbia by providing the high quality, science-based information we need for decision-making and continuous improvement of our forest and range practices, policies and legislation.”