Adaptive Forest Management in Ontario

A Literature Review and Strategic Analysis

Ministry of Natural Resources

Forest Research Information Paper No. 139

Forest Research Information Paper No. 139

Adaptive Forest Management in Ontario: A Literature Review

and Strategic Analysis

by

G. Blake MacDonald1

Rob Arnup2

R. Keith Jones3

1997

1Ontario Forest Research Institute (OFRI)Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

2Ecological Services for Planning Ltd.30 Balsam Street South

Timmins, Ontario P4N 2C6

3R. Keith Jones & Associates2554 Bowker AvenueVictoria, BC V8R 2G1

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data

MacDonald, G. Blake Adaptive forest management in Ontario.

(Forest research information paper, ISSN 1319-9118 ; no. 139)Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 0-7778-6734-6

1. Forest management—Ontario. 2. Forest policy—Ontario I. Arnup, R. W. II. Jones, R. Keith, 1950- III. Ontario Forest Research Institute. IV. Title.V. Series. SD146.O5M32 1997 634.9'2'09713 C97-964041-5

© 1997, Queen's Printer for OntarioPrinted in Ontario, Canada

Single copies of this publicationare available from the address noted below.

Ministry of Natural ResourcesOntario Forest Research Institute1235 Queen Street EastSault Ste. Marie, OntarioCanada P6A 2E5

Telephone: (705) 946-2981Fax: (705) 946-2030E-mail: ofriin@gov.on.ca

Cette publication scientifique n'estdisponible qu'en anglais.

This paper contains recycled materials.

AbstractThe growing complexity and controversy surrounding resource management issues in

Ontario emphasize the need for a new approach to policy development. This approach must be designed to continually refine policies and practices through collaboration among forest policy makers, resource managers, researchers, and other stakeholders. As adaptive management meets this requirement, it is being advocated as an effective resource management framework by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. This report outlines the basic concepts of adaptive management, provides examples of successful adaptive management initiatives in other jurisdictions, and evaluates the potential of adaptive management for improving forest policies and practices in Ontario.

Keywords:Case studies, collaboration, consensus, continual improvement, designed learning,

feedback, landscape, management experiment, monitoring.

i

ii

Acknowledgements

We thank Lisa Buse for reviewing this paper and Carmen Misasi for assistance with the graphics. Funding was provided through the Forest Management Business Plan of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

iii

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................1Methods ......................................................................................................................................................................1Concepts and Principles of Adaptive Management ..................................................................................2Limitations and Obstacles to Adaptive Management ..............................................................................6The Role of Research in Adaptive Management .........................................................................................9Strategies for Implementing Adaptive Management ............................................................................ 11Case Study Reviews ............................................................................................................................................. 11Applying Adaptive Management in Ontario ............................................................................................. 17Obstacles to Applying Adaptive Management in Ontario ................................................................... 22Conditions for Success in Ontario ................................................................................................................. 25Examples of Collaborative Forest Management Projects in Ontario .............................................. 27Demonstrating Adaptive Management Principles Through Pilot Projects .................................... 28Summary and Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 30References ............................................................................................................................................................... 33Appendix 1. List of interviewees. ................................................................................................................... 36

List of TablesTable 1. Potential new roles of researchers and resource managers under adaptive

management. .........................................................................................................................................9Table 2. Ontario examples of resource management collaboration. ............................................... 28

List of FiguresFigure 1. The adaptive management cycle: feedback and

adjustment in forest management.............................................................................................2Figure 2. The three types of adaptive management. ................................................................................4Figure 3. Research roles in adaptive management. ................................................................................ 10

Table of Contents

No. 139

1

IntroductionThe Crown Forest Sustainability Act

requires the implementation of sustainable forest management (SFM) practices on Ontario crown lands, and global markets are driving forest companies towards formal processes of certifying the use of SFM on their limits. The emphasis on containing the public fiscal deficit has reduced the research and management capabilities of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and transferred many forest management responsibilities to the industrial sector. Forest companies are also attempting to reduce their costs in an increasingly competitive marketplace. A lack of information impedes the progress of all stakeholders towards sustainable ecosystem management.

New approaches to forest policy, management, and research are needed because of the increasing complexity of resource management issues, the growing number of public challenges to management policies, and the difficulty in applying reductionist research at the scale of management (Bormann et al. 1996). The OMNR supports the use of adaptive management to address these complex issues. The objective of this paper is to outline the basic concepts of adaptive management, provide examples of successful adaptive management initiatives in other jurisdictions, and evaluate the potential of adaptive management for improving forest policies and practices in Ontario.

MethodsAdaptive management information was

collected from on-line literature searches using the databases: AGRICOLA (from the USDA National Agriculture Library), CAB ABSTRACTS (from Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau), BOREAL (Northern Database from CISTI), ACADEMIC INDEX (Academic Publications from DIALOG), ELIAS (Environment Canada Library Catalogue), and AGRIS INTERNATIONAL (International Forestry from USDA). The BC Ministry of Forests in Victoria provided another useful information source.

Expert opinion on adaptive management and its application to Ontario forest resource issues was obtained by interviewing planners, policy-makers, operations staff, and scientists in government, universities, Model Forests and several sectors of the forest industry (Appendix 1). The interviews were designed to solicit opinions about key information needs, the role of OMNR science programs in support of resource management activities, and mechanisms for alternative solutions, including adaptive management. The synthesis presented in this paper reflects a general consensus rather than the opinions of individual interviewees.

The on-line searches, literature reviews, and interviews identified relevant examples of the application of adaptive management. Case studies are presented from the perspective of broad program issues rather than describing specific project details. They address common North American forest sector issues and illustrate public, industrial and hybrid approaches to adaptive management. These case studies provide relevant

No. 139

2

experience and success factors that will be instructive for implementing similar programs in Ontario.

The feasibility of applying adaptive management approaches in Ontario was evaluated in light of the need for new forest management processes in Ontario. The assessment was guided by experiences from other jurisdictions, especially regarding potential benefits and obstacles to implementation.

Concepts and Principles

of Adaptive Management

Genesis Scientists at the University of British Columbia developed the adaptive management approach in the 1970’s to help environmental decision makers and resource managers increase knowledge acquisition rates (McLain and Lee 1996). Although several natural resource management projects have since used the adaptive management approach, it has seldom been applied rigorously to forestry issues. Presently, both the USDA Forest Service (Bormann et al. 1996) and the BC Forest Service (Taylor 1996) are developing initiatives to establish adaptive management as a standard approach, particularly when policies or practices are uncertain.

The origin of adaptive management can be traced to parallel concepts in business (total quality management), experimental science (hypothesis testing), and systems theory (feedback control). Common among these concepts are two key processes: feedback (learning) and adjustment (adapting) (Figure 1). Feedback requires the transfer of information about the effects of an action to decision makers. Adjustment requires the use of this information to redirect subsequent action. The feedback loops accelerate the rate at which environmental decision makers learn from experience.

The adaptive management process differs from traditional science in that political and institutional cooperation is essential for the scientific experimentation to succeed. Individuals and agencies must look beyond their respective jobs or mandates and accept a broader goal (Halbert and Lee 1991). Adaptive management requires managers and decision makers who

Figure 1. The adaptive management cycle: feedback and adjustment in forest management.

No. 139

3

are willing to learn by doing, and who acknowledge that making mistakes is part of learning.

Definition Adaptive management is a formal process for continually improving management policies and practices by learning from their outcomes (Taylor et al. 1996). However, the approach should not be interpreted as another means of describing the haphazard way that most people learn from their mistakes and successes. True adaptive management requires more planning, collaboration, careful measurement and analysis, and commitment to progressive change. Management activities are not just modified as a result of new information, they are deliberately designed to increase understanding about the system being managed (Bormann et al. 1996).

Adaptive management provides a process for adjusting management in response to results provided by the research and monitoring framework. Information from monitoring is used to continually evaluate and adjust management relative to predicted responses, management objectives, and predetermined thresholds of acceptable change. Adaptive management also involves refining the data and analyses on which predictions were based, and testing assumptions underlying the management experiment (Kessler et al. 1992). Considerable effort must be invested in experimental design, monitoring, and information management.

Learning is most rapid when management activities are designed as controlled, replicated experiments that test alternative hypotheses about the response

of the system to management activities. When such experiments are impractical, information can still be gained by analyzing existing data to select the best alternative, and then monitoring the outcomes of implementing it (Taylor et al. 1996). For learning to occur, outcomes must be compared to the initial predictions. Unexpected outcomes then become opportunities to learn and improve, rather than management failures.

Adaptive management proponents acknowledge that we do not fully understand the systems that we are managing. However, adaptive management allows resource managers to proceed in the face of uncertainty because it deliberately uses each step of a management program to gather information for improving the next step. Adaptive management is best viewed as a continuous learning process because it treats planning and operations as experiments from which reliable information can be generated to improve the quality of future actions.

In summary, the key principles of adaptive management are 1) explicit recognition of uncertainty about the outcome of management activities, 2) deliberate design of management policies or plans to increase understanding of the system, 3) careful implementation of the policy or plan, 4) monitoring key response indicators, 5) comparing the outcomes to the objectives and predictions, and 6) incorporating the results into future decisions.

No. 139

4

Types of Adaptive Management

Hilborn (1992) describes three major types of adaptive management: reactive, passive, and active (Figure 2). In the reactive approach, change is driven by factors external to the management system, including politics, lawsuits, public reactions, and research findings. This is a type of adaptive management because feedback occurs and adjustments are made. However, problems occur when the driving factors conflict with each other and the rate of change outstrips the rate of learning.

Passive adaptive management is characterized by the implementation of a single policy on the assumption that the most likely hypothesis is true.

Learning is advanced when the questions and anticipated outcomes are clearly defined and monitoring plans are written before management takes place. When the commitment to monitoring wanes, the strategy reverts to a reactive one. This approach requires patience to allow sufficient time for learning. Although scientists and citizens continue to criticize from outside, they may also help to frame questions, anticipate outcomes, and design and implement a monitoring plan.

Active adaptive management is characterized by accelerated learning through suites of policies and practices that can be compared in management experiments. It is superior to reactive or passive adaptive management for achieving ecosystem management goals (Bormann et al. 1996). Active adaptive management relies on sustained

Figure 2. The three types of adaptive management.

No. 139

5

collaboration between scientists, resource managers, and public stakeholders. Management experiments are conducted at the scale of forest operations, and supplementary research may apply traditional experiments and retrospective studies to learn from past events.

Bormann (1995) identifies two active adaptive management approaches. The first approach, termed comparative adaptive management, involves random assignment of management strategies to adjacent, large areas with similar initial conditions, generally with no replication. The quality of the results depends on the quality of the initial baseline information. Inferences cannot usually be made beyond the immediate area being managed. The second approach, termed experimental adaptive management, is a more rigorous approach, involving replications of the management strategies and the use of controls. When applied at a small scale1, it is known as a prescription experiment. When applied at a large scale, it is termed a policy experiment. It is most appropriate in situations where knowledge from small-scale studies cannot easily be extrapolated to larger scales.

Lautenschlager (1996) advocates a form of active adaptive management known as predictive adaptive management. This approach emphasizes pre-treatment modeling of outcomes and subsequent monitoring of locally important components of interest on a defined landscape. Feedback from the monitoring is used to improve future predictions.

Benefits of Adaptive Management

Adaptive management allows forest managers to learn rapidly from the results of policies and practices as they are being implemented, thus keeping pace with the rapidly changing demands of clients and stakeholders. Also, comparisons of different management options at operational scales are more likely to influence policy than arguments over existing scientific knowledge and best practices (Bormann et al. 1996). Well-designed adaptive management experiments quickly reveal which activities are ineffective at achieving management objectives, which are detrimental, and which are unnecessary. Inadequate and detrimental activities are expensive in both ecological and economic terms. Unnecessary activities are also expensive (Taylor et al. 1996). The adaptive management approach is particularly appropriate where the dynamic processes of a system are not well known or where it is important to avoid irreversible error (Baskerville 1985).

Adaptive management efficiently increases understanding of ecosystem function (McAllister and Peterman 1992b, Romesburg 1981). The approach discriminates among alternative ecological mechanisms underlying a response, suggesting different management options. Adaptively managed landscapes will be excellent locations for retrospective studies to answer future questions.

1In this paper the terms small-scale and large-scale are used in the ecological hierarchy sense rather than in the cartographic resolution sense. While small-scale studies are usually limited to a few stands, large-scale studies address entire watersheds or eco-districts.

No. 139

6

Adaptive management allows resource managers to proceed systematically and responsibly in the face of uncertainty, gaps in understanding, and disagreement among stakeholders. Uncertainty and disagreement over the best course of action cannot be resolved if there are gaps in understanding about system function. Comparing the alternatives in management experiments directly assesses their effectiveness and avoids arguments that cannot be resolved with existing information (Halbert 1993). Adaptive management is not, however, an argument for proceeding with “business as usual” that involves potentially damaging practices.

Small-scale experiments are often uninformative about relationships and impacts affecting landscapes (Likens 1985, Kessler et al. 1992). In contrast, adaptive management is well-suited for increasing knowledge at the landscape level. It also encourages more efficient and effective monitoring by focusing resources on indicators that can be applied at management scales. Informative comparisons arising from large-scale adaptive management experiments create an incentive to continue monitoring to avoid reverting to a reactive mode.

Adaptive management is a valuable approach to define the boundaries between sustainable and unsustainable activities (Lee 1993). Identifying thresholds in ecosystem response can help managers avoid widespread implementation of activities that may lead to abrupt and undesirable shifts in system function or composition.

Limitations and Obstacles

to Adaptive Management

The scarcity of successful cases of adaptive management implementation can be attributed to the substantial technical, economic, ecological, institutional and sociological barriers. These obstacles should not be viewed as arguments against adaptive management, but rather as important considerations to be addressed during implementation.

Technical ChallengesThe ecological complexity of

contemporary forest management increases the value of adaptive management because outcomes are difficult to predict. This complexity also increases the difficulties in implementing adaptive management. The major technical challenge concerns the design of powerful experiments and effective monitoring strategies for large-scale phenomena characterized by high variability and long response times. Classical statistical methods cannot be applied if replication is inadequate in space or time.

Active adaptive management requires careful design and implementation of experiments. Thus, training in scientific methods may be required for resource managers who conduct field monitoring for adaptive management projects.

Adequate information to assess baseline

No. 139

7

conditions and to predict responses may not be available. This limits the development of management scenarios to be tested in adaptive management experiments. Thus, a large investment in data collection may be required prior to the application of any treatments.

A reliable system to forecast future conditions in response to disturbances must be available. This implies access to high quality computer-based models linked to a Geographical Information System (GIS). It is difficult to obtain compatible data for GIS applications because data are often collected from multiple sources for a variety of purposes (Bonar 1995).

Economic ChallengesAdaptive management requires more

careful planning and implementation than is required for routine operations. Maintaining continuity of staff and resources is one of the biggest challenges facing long-term adaptive management studies (Halbert and Lee 1991). The human and financial resources required for effective field layout, monitoring programs, and data management and analysis are scarce in most resource management agencies. However, the value of the knowledge derived often outweighs the costs (McAllister and Peterman 1992).

The prescriptions being tested may reduce short-term revenues, and some of the benefits, such as improved forecasting of forest values, may be delayed. Moreover, the costs and benefits of management experiments may not be borne evenly. Additional costs may result

if some of the alternatives that are tested have negative outcomes. There may be pressure to implement experiments that are less expensive, even if they are also less reliable in the long term. Forest managers must commit to following through on the selected treatments for many years, although some clients may demand that resources be diverted to address their special short-term interests.

Ecological ChallengesAdaptive management requires the

occasional application of sub-optimal treatments to accelerate learning (Hilborn et al. 1979). Applying these treatments may risk causing irreversible damage to the ecosystem. Thus, adaptive management approaches may not be feasible in scarce or endangered ecosystems where resource managers or the public are unwilling to accept the associated risks.

Institutional and Sociological Challenges

Institutional and sociological issues are often the biggest barriers to the acceptance and effective implementation of adaptive management (Lee 1993, Halbert 1993). Any agency adopting an adaptive management philosophy must acknowledge publicly that it is uncertain about the results of some of its actions. An unwillingness to make this admission has inhibited the use of the hypothesis testing approach in both British Columbia and the Columbia River Basin (McLain and Lee 1996).

No. 139

8

Resource management agencies must allow for results that subsequently may be viewed as mistakes because these outcomes are essential to advance learning. The agencies must develop staff performance evaluation measures that recognize the positive aspects of risk-taking and accommodate variation in program outputs (Nyberg and Taylor 1995).

Large-scale experiments designed according to ecological boundaries often cross administrative boundaries. Thus, all organizations with management responsibilities on the study area must agree on the objectives and commit to long-term collaboration. Innovative partnerships and funding arrangements are required (Bonar 1995).

The resource management problems must be defined in the early stages of planning. The extent to which all stakeholders can be brought to the table simultaneously will determine whether the problem is defined in sufficient detail. When a problem needing collaboration moves into the public arena, stakeholders tend to become frozen in polarized positions, the process becomes adversarial, and constructive negotiation becomes difficult (Westley 1995). However, collaboration and consensus are critical because no organization can solve the problems of ecosystem management unilaterally.

Formal planning processes are linear, in contrast to the cyclical design of adaptive management. Thus, new information from adaptive management experiments is most useful when packaged in a format that is easily entered into pre-formulated steps and systematic processes (Westley 1995). It must be clearly expressed and compatible with existing models of reality. New theories of natural systems as open and evolving entities challenge the assumptions underlying formal planning processes, and thus are not easily incorporated (Westley 1995).

The rules, procedures, and routines in many resource management organizations act as barriers to learning. Much innovation contradicts the officially sanctioned operating procedures and decision rules. Organizations must increase their responsiveness and adaptability by harnessing the instinctive learning of the front lines. They need to recognize that strategic innovation often emerges from the lower levels of the organization. Middle managers should be encouraged to act as integrators between the strategic apex and the operating core.

No. 139

9

The Role of Research in Adaptive

ManagementIntegrating Science and Resource Management

Policy makers perceive adaptive management as a tool for modelling the broad effects of policies (Halbert 1993), while scientists view it as experimentation to improve the quality of policies and operations (McLain and Lee 1996). However, scientists and policy makers agree that adaptive management assists in making wise choices about the treatment of large-scale ecological systems, ranging from landscapes to river basins (McLain and Lee 1996).

Scientific research and active adaptive management share common elements such as hypothesis testing, experimental design, data collection and analysis. However, adaptive management initiatives are implemented on larger scales, are often less tightly controlled and replicated, and

monitoring is less intense. The focus is often on understanding the response of the system as whole, rather than on detailed understanding of parts of the system (Taylor et al. 1996).

Research focuses on developing general theory or understanding specific causes and effects, usually by limiting the scale or the number of factors being manipulated (Bormann et al. 1996). Adaptive management focuses on the interaction of multiple factors on the land base being managed, making the connections between specific causes and effects more difficult to understand.

The uncertainty created by complex interactions in large systems has required the development of new methods of managing information and a re-evaluation of the analyses associated with normal hypothesis testing. New ways of integrating traditional, small-scale, reductionist research results into larger systems are needed (Figure 3). Potential new roles for researchers and managers under adaptive management initiatives are summarized in Table 1.

RESEARCHERS RESOURCE MANAGERS

Traditional Focus Focus Under Adaptive Management Traditional Focus

General understanding Testing general understanding at a Specific application specific time and place

Ecosystem processes Enhancing multiple resource values Timber management

Independence and Independent analysis used by team to Coordinated scientific credibility adjust policies and practices management team

Isolated factors at Small-scale studies coordinated to Complex mix small scales address landscape-level responses of practices

Extreme treatments to Parallel learning through multiple Traditional best speed learning treatments that build upon past strategies practices

Scientific community Partners and stakeholders in the Industrial operators adaptive management initiative

No. 139

10

Developing Appropriate Statistical Methods

Adaptive management integrates research with the production of goods, values, or services. Thus, adaptive management requires a combination of scientific methods and system control methods. The value of adaptive management arises from its use of quantitative investigative techniques to obtain knowledge from operational-scale treatments.

Active adaptive management projects should incorporate valid scientific research

Figure 3. Research roles in adaptive management.

principles such as replication, unbiased treatment allocation, and the inclusion of experimental controls. However, constraints on the design of adaptive management studies often compromise their statistical rigor. For example, it may be difficult to locate sufficient uniform replicates that are large enough to accommodate operational treatments. The BC Ministry of Forests has prepared a manual of statistical methods for adaptive management studies (Sit and Taylor 1997) that describes appropriate approaches for analyzing large ecosystems.

No. 139

11

Strategies for Implementing

Adaptive Management

Strategies developed by the USDA Forest Service (Bormann et al. 1996) for evaluating the effectiveness of adaptive management programs are summarized below under three different objectives.

Strategies for short-term learning1. Exchange concerns, knowledge, and

constructive ideas among stakeholders, including resource managers, researchers, and the public.

2. Construct common and accessible inventories, non-spatial databases, spatial databases (GIS), and decision-support systems.

3. Synthesize and translate existing knowledge for decision-makers.

4. Record modelling predictions of the effects of proposed management strategies.

5. Define specific learning goals and objectives in forest management plans.

Strategies for long-term learning1. Treat information as a primary

resource and assign it a value in forest management plans and policies.

2. Link research to management, incorporating scientific methods into operations wherever possible.

3. Apply both active and passive adaptive management principles (sequential and parallel management).

4. Use exploratory research to anticipate future problems.

Strategies for adaptation1. Compare predicted outcomes to actual

outcomes.2. Increase institutional memory by

documenting decision-making processes and maintaining long-term records, libraries, and computerized knowledge bases.

3. Develop mechanisms for sharing and transferring information.

4. Select for leaders who can overcome barriers to innovative solutions, and reward people who help to learn and adapt.

5. Recognize the need for informed and careful judgement when making inherently complex decisions.

Case Study Reviews

Several existing adaptive management initiatives were investigated by searching the literature and interviewing experts. Many resource management agencies are starting to recognize the importance of adaptive management when formulating policies or developing guidelines, and there are isolated examples of the successful application of active adaptive management, notably in the Pacific Northwest. Key messages from these examples that may be instructive for Ontario adaptive management initiatives are summarized below.

British Columbia The Merritt Forest District study of public use of recreation sites was the first British Columbia project to rigorously apply adaptive management (BC Ministry of Forests 1996). Management

No. 139

12

approaches are being modified based on user surveys on a variety of sites subject to different treatment combinations. Stronger information with better inference capacity would have resulted from extending the project beyond one year and including more sites to cover a greater range of behavioural conditions. The study results will be used to choose the most promising management alternatives for continued monitoring in the province.

Adaptive management was also proposed to accelerate understanding of logging impacts on watersheds in BC (Keeley and Walters 1994). An extensive planning exercise addressed issues such as the experimental design, the definition of indicators to monitor, and the incorporation of technical innovation and community stewardship into the program. This exercise illustrated the benefits of using decision-support models and participatory workshops for developing reliable adaptive management experimental designs.

Missouri An experimental adaptive management approach was used to test the effects of different silvicultural systems on forest ecosystem function in the Missouri Ozarks (Kurzejeski et al. 1993). It was difficult to locate adequate spatial replicates because previous harvesting had reduced the uniformity of the forest. The experimental units were 300 to 450 ha in area to allow assessment of large-scale effects, but the costs of monitoring at this scale prevented replication over time. The benefits of this study included enhanced public understanding and collaborative innovation between researchers and resource managers.

Idaho Some participants in an adaptive management study of elk in Idaho were reluctant to allow complete randomization of treatments (Gratson et al. 1993). Deliberate probing of the system yielded a better understanding of population dynamics and better model parameterization than a passive adaptive management approach could have provided. The study has resulted in an improved system for setting harvest levels.

Florida Water management options in the Florida Everglades were tested using adaptive management (Walters et al. 1992). This study illustrated the importance of simultaneously testing several alternatives and adopting an entire-system perspective. It also revealed the potential of adaptive management to reduce management costs by focusing efforts on key issues and reducing interagency conflict. However, some of the experimental policies had unacceptable effects on ecological and social values.

Arkansas The Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas adopted an adaptive management approach to organize learning about the sustainability of managed ecosystems. The first phase of this initiative involved the establishment of demonstration sites and public tours. This was followed by a replicated, multi-disciplinary study to test a wide range of innovative harvesting methods. Watershed and landscape-level responses to the alternative management strategies were evaluated in the final phase. This initiative resulted in a positive change in the relationships among stakeholder groups such as the National Forest, the scientific community, and the public.

Australia Adaptive management of an Australian multi-species fishery used

No. 139

13

Bayesian statistical methods to compare the value of various experimental designs and to set the optimum length of the experimental phase (Sainsbury 1987). Explicit hypothesis testing improved the quality of models and increased understanding of the dynamics and economics of the fishery. However, changes in operational fishing methods during the experiment compromised the long-term sampling plan.

USDA Adaptive Management Areas The Adaptive Management Area (AMA) program of the USDA Forest Service resulted from the timber crisis in the Pacific Northwest in the early 1990s. The Northwest Forest Plan adopted adaptive management to protect a range of wildlife species, while producing some timber and other commodities (Bormann 1995). Ten AMAs ranging from 18,000 to 140,000 ha were established across Washington, Oregon and California to facilitate collaboration among researchers, resource managers and the public in land use planning. The success of this program may require a decade or more to evaluate because stakeholder involvement has been slow to develop in some of the AMAs. The case study approach avoids the risks associated with testing new policies and practices across the entire landbase.

Applegate Adaptive Management Area Social qualities and values have been well studied for the area and have helped in defining ways to foster better agency cooperation in the context of local community needs. From this have stemmed many interagency projects and a strong focus on watershed and landscape-level investigations. A major undertaking has been merging and reconciling the GIS

databases from the main land management agencies. A USDA Forest Service scientist is assigned part time to help guide the experimental design to ensure appropriate hypothesis testing. They have also established an Applegate technical research and monitoring team representing a full range of discipline areas. They have an impressive collection of research programs and partners assembling a foundation of knowledge about the forest and forest landscape processes. While fire and insects are a prevalent component of uncertainty in this forest, in addition to natural ecosystem and landscape complexities, the coordinators say that it is the people side of the equation that offers the largest challenge.

Oregon Coast Adaptive Management Pilot Project This project is designed to explore some broad policy categories, such as hands-off and hands-on management. Together with prescription experiments, these studies will guide policy change as set out in the Northwest Forest Plan. Policy experiments are planned for 21 large watersheds, each with three treatments. By distributing the treatments, policy comparisons can be made in a designed experiment. An array of prescription experiments applied to a subset of watersheds will seek creative ways to achieve the broader policy goals. The prescription experiments, unlike practice experiments, will examine the combination and sequence of treatments (e.g., harvesting and regeneration systems). Finally, associated research projects may be required to accelerate learning by applying treatments at the extreme ends of operational feasibility. This research may include reductionist experiments to investigate causal relationships or

No. 139

14

retrospective studies to look at longer term, historical events that have influenced landscapes. Specific adaptive management funds for the Forest Service research staff have been approximately US$250,000 per year (Bormann 1997, pers. comm.). Other adaptive management funding comes from standard base budgets in the Forest Service operations for activities like database and GIS assembly, public sessions, field implementation and monitoring. This form of funding support is consistent in many ways with the principles of adaptive management, since much of the implementation should be the responsibility of the management and operations programs.

Success Factors The success of the AMAs can be attributed largely to the explicit inclusion of learning objectives in the policies of resource management agencies. This has helped to promote and institutionalize adaptive management and elevate learning to the status of other values such as fish and wildlife habitat, timber and jobs. Adaptive management champions prepared to challenge existing management paradigms are required.

McGregor Model Forest The McGregor Model Forest (MMF), located north of Prince George, BC, comprises 180,000 ha of montane and subalpine forest adjacent to the limits of the Northwood Pulp and Timber Company. It is one of ten Model Forests in Canada that were established in 1990 to demonstrate how new management techniques and social processes can enhance sustainable forest management.

Many of the initial activities at the MMF were devoted to getting people and organizations involved, educating

participants about the technical issues and processes, and assembling baseline data from the target forest areas. Although the consensus building slowed technical progress, a well-regarded strategic program emerged. Areas of emphasis included decision-support systems, patterns and processes in ecosystems and landscapes, influences of forest practices on resource values, social and economic trends, indicators of resource values suitable for monitoring, and inventory of important social, economic and ecological conditions.

The structure and mandate of the Model Forests greatly reduce the jurisdictional conflicts, agency legacies and bureaucratic rules that are typical in many resource management agencies. Thus, it can pursue new management approaches in a more holistic manner.

Several years of establishing an extensive, high-quality information base and spatially explicit forecasting models attracted the attention of the provincial government and industry for adaptive management case studies. These scenario planning tools are an essential component in designing active adaptive management studies. The proposed studies are aimed at improving the methods of developing sustainable forest management plans. A report will address the effects of the BC Forest Practices Code on resource values, management flexibility and operational feasibility. The scenario planning activities will continue to develop decision support system tools that include a data management system for forest representation, forest modelling, resource value assessment and social and economic analyses.

No. 139

15

The scenario development process planned for the MMF consists of these steps:

1. define scope vision, scale, products/values;

2. identify stakeholders;3. identify basic trends;4. identify uncertainties;5. construct Scenario 1;6. check consistency, plausibility, discuss

and document interaction of issues, constraints, assumptions, trends, information, knowledge, etc.;

7. develop learning scenarios using an iterative process aimed to increase knowledge with each successive scenario;

8. identify research needs using discussions and documentation to identify significant information and knowledge gaps;

9. develop quantitative models;10. evolve to decision scenario;11. implement scenario (by mandated

partners); and12. monitor, evaluate, adapt.

Ecological, economic, and social values will be considered in each step.

Alberta Pacific Forest Industries Alberta Pacific Forest Industries Inc. (AlPac) has one of the largest Forest Management Agreement areas in Canada, comprising 61,000 km2 in Alberta’s central and eastern boreal forest. AlPac’s management plan emphasizes a commitment to sustainable forest management practices, integrating social, environmental and economic interests. Public involvement is vital in developing the management program and harvesting practices.

The AlPac strategy challenges some existing management practices, claiming they have a negative effect on ecological processes and biodiversity. The company advocates more ecologically-based approaches that embrace an adaptive management philosophy. It uses a process of learning and adjustment requiring analysis of policy, procedures, planning, information needs and operational logistics by all stakeholders. The company advocates an open forum for discussion maintained over several years. Adequate time must be allocated to this process, since sustainable development is poorly defined and there is little understanding of how to develop and implement policies and procedures to achieve it.

AlPac believes that achieving sustainability requires adaptive management because ecosystems and societal values and demands are not static. Two key principles are inherent in the AlPac adaptive management philosophy:

1. Understand and incorporate different points of view and involve more than just the majority perspective in the decision-making process.

2 Use the most recent ecological and sociological information in decision making, combining adaptive management monitoring, research directed at key knowledge gaps in the context of the management experiment, and relevant studies from outside the forest management area.

AlPac supports research aimed at increasing our understanding of ecosystem dynamics and adjusting management activities to better approximate natural processes. The company believes that

No. 139

16

successful ecosystem management can be realized by constantly coordinating local and regional studies within the context of higher order ecological units. However, they acknowledge that this approach requires a major continuing investment in collecting and organizing the data.

AlPac staff have been using a FRAGSTATS model (McGarigal and Marks 1995) with their GIS database to assess landscape fragmentation and change using four different disturbance regimes. This type of model helps to generate and evaluate different planning scenarios in terms of social, economic and ecological trade-offs. Consistent with the adaptive management philosophy, AlPac acknowledges that the information requirements of some models may not be met initially and that the data and models will have shortcomings. Nevertheless, these deficiencies will help in assigning priorities to information needs at all scales.

As an example of their adaptive management approach, AlPac staff are implementing the recommendations of an aspen biodiversity study to maintain structure closely approximating the amount and variability of structure created or retained by fire. The new protocol requires the retention of an average of one forest clump per hectare with a diameter of 16 m, eight single trees per hectare, and an unlimited number of snags. The clump sizes must vary to mimic the kind of variation that would occur with fire.

AlPac recognizes the need for long-term monitoring in adaptive management initiatives, especially with

respect to assessing biodiversity. AlPac is also developing a performance audit process as part of the company’s adaptive management goal to continuously improve performance. The audit will be compatible with the Canadian Standards Association and International Standards Organization certification programs.

The AlPac cooperative research study on forest fragmentation revealed that many design iterations may be required before all stakeholders are satisfied (Schmiegelow and Hannon 1993). Initial difficulties in having the design implemented correctly led to unalterable change in the entire plan. Thus, it is important to involve the operational contractors in the design and implementation of adaptive management projects. This issue is further complicated if there are multiple management licenses on the same land base. This project highlighted the usefulness of adaptive management for refining existing ground rules governing harvesting and silviculture.

This research study tested resource management policies at an operational scale. The investigators hypothesized that the management rules would create excessive forest fragmentation and the management goal of maintaining well-distributed populations of all resident wildlife species would not be achieved. The harvest plans were modified to obtain the required experimental fragmentation treatments. The following features of the study should be considered by subsequent investigators planning active adaptive management projects:

● large treatment area (12,000 ha in this case);

● treatments fit within the planned harvest configurations and schedules;

No. 139

17

● good access;

● up-to-date pre-treatment vegetation inventory;

● conditions outside the treatment area monitored as a basis for modelling anticipated responses (building hypotheses);

● use of 1, 10 and 100 ha experimental units represents 10-fold area increments which are perceived by animals as different habitat types;

● consistent rectangular shape (1.5:1) maintained in experimental units to control response variations due to shape differences; and

● careful consideration of appropriate sizes and number of replicates (by examining other related studies) indicated that 3 replicates of each size class provide sufficient power (beta and alpha less than or equal to 0.05). This statistical analysis helped gain credibility for the research.

The success of the AlPac adaptive management program relied on the early formation of a Forest Management Task Force that included many equally weighted stakeholders. This group reviewed and helped to revise the forest management ground rules to address sensitive issues like old growth and forest fragmentation. An open-minded and open door approach with all stakeholders was essential from the beginning. Also, the ready use of research findings to adjust management practices led to increased trust in the effectiveness of the adaptive management approach. This outcome highlights the importance of a top to bottom organizational commitment to innovative management practices, including the application of incentives and penalties.

Applying Adaptive Management in

OntarioAdaptive management could address

many of the issues surrounding sustainable forest management in Ontario, based on the success of this approach in other jurisdictions. Although adaptive management will not solve all contemporary resource management problems, it offers advantages over traditional approaches used by researchers, resource managers and policy makers. These advantages were summarized in general terms in a previous section. This section relates adaptive management more specifically to the current situation in Ontario.

Resource Management Issues

Forest management in Ontario has evolved dramatically during the past two decades. The goals of policy and planning have expanded from timber production to include a broad array of values based on sustainable ecosystem management. However, the complexity of sustainability issues presents many challenges. Much of the scientific knowledge needed for developing, implementing, and monitoring sustainable practices is either not available or requires testing in an operational context.

The public has become well informed about environmental issues, and interest groups are now highly organized and well funded. These stakeholders effectively express their viewpoints to politicians and

No. 139

18

resource managers, and they influence industrial profitability by helping to shape consumer attitudes. Public input to the Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for Timber Management on Crown Lands in Ontario (Koven and Martel 1994) emphasized that OMNR must improve forest management from both an ecological and socio-economic point of view.

Public interest groups increasingly have questioned Ontario’s natural resource management practices, and some of these challenges have resulted in lawsuits. These situations are costly to OMNR and emphasize the need to develop a less adversarial approach. Adaptive management could reduce confrontation because it accepts uncertainty and involves public interest groups in the learning process.

The Policy Framework for Sustainable Forests (OMNR 1995) endorses the concept of sustainable development of Ontario’s forests, and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA) provides the legislative mechanism for achieving sustainability (Legislature of Ontario 1994). The CFSA requires the provision of manuals on forest management planning, forest information, forest operations and silviculture, and scaling. These four manuals and the associated guidelines are expected to evolve through time as new information becomes available.

A passive adaptive management approach is promoted in the Forest Management Planning Manual (OMNR 1996b). The manual requires the development of objectives and measurable targets for desired benefits, the implementation of strategies to achieve those objectives and targets, and the monitoring and evaluation

of future forest conditions to compare with planned outcomes. The approach is intended to continually refine forest management strategies. The FMP process relies on the validity of the assumptions inherent in prediction models. Well designed monitoring and feedback to adjust the assumptions can be accomplished most effectively by collaboration among policy makers, resource managers and scientists in an adaptive management approach.

OMNR intends to monitor forest sustainability with criteria and related indicators that are harmonized with international standards. Criteria and indicators used in forest management planning were framed in the context of those adopted by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (1995). The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers identified 90 indicators grouped under six criteria. The Forest Management Planning Manual lists fourteen indicators grouped under six criteria. Some degree of monitoring can be achieved for these initial indicators because much of the required information is available and meaningful interpretation is possible. A fuller set of indicators and standards will be developed over time as the underlying science evolves. This area of development highlights an opportunity for an adaptive management initiative that could also address some of the information needs of forest companies seeking environmental certification.

The goal of the revised ecological land use planning (ELUP) process is to develop regional-level strategies for sustainable land and resource use planning. Although the criteria and indicators developed for ELUP may differ from those developed for sustainable forest management, an adaptive

No. 139

19

learning framework would be equally effective.

The Forest Management Business Plan (OMNR 1996a) describes proposed changes to OMNRs approach to managing Crown forests. The plan was prepared in response to public feedback and the need for improved efficiency during a period of fiscal constraint. The Business Plan proposes a number of changes that will have a significant effect on OMNR science programs, including reduced funding levels, revised corporate science priorities, and the need to develop new relationships with industry and other clients. The Business Plan shifts OMNRs emphasis towards the development and monitoring of policy, guidelines and standards. Industry’s responsibilities will include collecting inventory data and conducting research on operational forest practices.

The implementation of the Business Plan has resulted in a major loss of scientific staff and technical support, reducing the capability to deliver science programs. The reduced funding across the OMNR is necessitating greater collaborative partnering and the use of the innovative funding mechanisms that characterize adaptive management initiatives.

The Forest Management Business Plan reinforces the concept of OMNR as a learning agency by advocating a core competency program for tasks such as effectiveness monitoring. Adaptive management offers an effective learning framework to support the development and assessment of competency throughout the management cycle.

Forest Industry CertificationCertification of forestry practices

is intended to ensure that timber management and mill processing activities protect the integrity of the forest, land, water, and air at all scales. It is generally acknowledged that certification standards must be flexible enough to adjust to new scientific information as it becomes available. These features of the early-stage certification initiative illustrate the potential value of using an adaptive management learning framework. The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) has developed a performance assessment framework to evaluate whether management planning and practices on a defined forest area meet the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers criteria for sustainable forest management (Canadian Standards Association 1996a, 1996b). In fact, the Canadian Standards Association process promotes adaptive management for improving sustainable forest management through feedback and adjustment mechanisms.

Factors Required for Advancing Adaptive

Management in OntarioThe interviews sought opinions on the

capacity of the Science Development and Transfer Branch to contribute to the implementation of adaptive management projects. The responses were positive regarding aspects such as professional networks, research facilities, opportunities for leveraging funding, presence of science staff in all regions, and experience transferring results to clients in various formats. Weaknesses included the lack of strategic direction for research, inadequate

No. 139

20

involvement of operational clients in planning projects, few linkages among projects, absence of long-term funding commitments, and lack of incentives for scientists to spend time coordinating partnerships and transferring results to clients. The sections within the branch should cooperate more to foster a better blend of long-term fundamental research and short-term applied research and transfer to address the current high-priority needs of clients. The integration of forestry with other disciplines such as fisheries and aquatics, social sciences, and mill technology also needs strengthening. Finally, an integrated library of available spatial databases is required to help plan adaptive management projects that address large-scale ecological questions.

A full-time coordinator with strong leadership and consensus-building skills would greatly assist the implementation of active adaptive management in Ontario. Evidence for the effectiveness of such a position may be found in British Columbia, where a special Adaptive Management Section was created to focus exclusively on testing and evaluating the suitability of adaptive management. Staff of the BC Ministry of Forests suggest that adaptive management specialist positions in the districts would be an advantage for setting up adaptive management projects, organizing workshops and training sessions, and providing advice on the design and monitoring of large-scale experiments.

The following attitudes will be essential among the partners of any adaptive management project in Ontario:

● willing to accept uncertainty and take risks in order to learn;

● accepting the consensus-building approach and the concept of equality among partners;

● willing to use scientific guidance in design, implementation, monitoring, and interpretation of data;

● making a long-term commitment to provide resources for the initiative and to adjust policies and practices based on the results of monitoring.

The science agencies in Ontario should collaborate with policy and operations partners in adaptive management initiatives to effectively address the complex, large-scale forest management issues in the province. Linkages to operational programs and to other science agencies, forged through adaptive management collaborative efforts, will provide access to multiple funding sources, which will in turn offer efficiencies in the use of these limited financial resources. The multi-disciplinary collaborations will facilitate the integration of science disciplines within and external to OMNR. A closer association between science and operational programs will increase the relevance and use of scientific knowledge and resources, and will stimulate the flow of ideas from the field back to the research community.

Assuming that the key decision makers endorse and pursue a strategy of more active adaptive management, the participants then need to know how to increase their chances of success. This process question may be addressed in part by examining the lessons learned from adaptive management projects in other jurisdictions. The following elements were common to all successful examples

No. 139

21

of adaptive management in other parts of North America:

● desire to reduce conflict and crisis;● extensive consultation with multiple

stakeholders in developing and implementing plans;

● identification of key information needs to guide research program design;

● development of an integrated knowledge and inventory database to facilitate prediction of outcomes;

● multi-agency collaborative research efforts;

● considerable initial investment to get the programs established;

● long time periods to evaluate success: approximately 5 years to coordinate stakeholders, set goals, develop plans, design programs, and implement trials, and an additional 10 years to monitor, interpret, and translate results into changes in policy and planning procedures; and

● acceptance that adaptive management should not be applied in all situations, especially where the risk of failure on large-scale experiments is unacceptable.

Information and Knowledge Needs Suitable for Adaptive

ManagementThe interviews revealed a wide range of

information and knowledge needs that could be addressed through adaptive management projects. Some examples are:

● developing information and monitoring protocols to evaluate the effectiveness of the forest management guidelines associated with OMNR core policies;

● agreeing on methods for developing, monitoring and evaluating criteria and indicators to address CFSA and certification requirements;

● understanding the effects of forestry operations on ecosystem dynamics and forest health trends;

● developing management systems that address the evolving requirements of industry while mitigating the concerns of public interest groups;

● developing, calibrating and applying decision-support tools and models;

● maintaining inventories and maps of soils and non-timber values;

● characterizing stand, forest and landscape structure and diversity through time, as benchmarks for management planning;

● comparing ecosystem effects between forest management treatments and natural disturbance regimes, including an improved understanding of the ecological role of fire;

● improving growth and yield information such as ecosystem-specific, managed-stand models and variable density curves, density management diagrams, and improved regional yield curves for wood supply analyses;

● compiling successional information for wood supply analyses and habitat modeling at the stand and forest level;

● developing knowledge in support of conservation strategies, through studies on fish and wildlife population dynamics, genetic heritage, and compatible multiple uses;

● monitoring fish and wildlife population changes through time in relation to different forest management strategies;

● providing ongoing advice to operations

No. 139

22

for testing alternative silvicultural prescriptions at operational scales;

● developing guidelines for restoring degraded environments;

● developing systems for including societal values and risk management in forest planning; and

● continuing education and training of policy analysts, resource managers, forest workers, and the public as new information becomes available.

According to one person interviewed, there is a tendency to focus on technical application at the expense of science design and rigour of assumptions. This could result in challenges by stakeholder groups on the integrity of OMNRs models and technical support tools. This concern identifies an important role for science staff in an adaptive management context.

Obstacles to Applying Adaptive

Management in Ontario

Limited Funding for New Initiatives

Funding cutbacks have resulted in the loss of key staff in OMNR and potential partnering agencies. Furthermore, the rapidly changing nature of political agendas limits the ability of OMNR science agencies to make the required long-term commitments to adaptive management projects. Lack of funding constrains the ability to initiate large adaptive management programs, which are particularly expensive during the

establishment stage. Also, significant amounts of seed money are usually needed to leverage additional funds from collaborators.

The forest industry in Ontario is conservative and risk averse, supporting only research for which benefits can be realized in a short period. A degree of risk is inherent in active adaptive management. Although experiences with adaptive management elsewhere have generally been favourable, most initiatives are still in the early stages and their benefits are not fully proven. Given these factors, industry will likely be cautious about funding adaptive management initiatives.

Some of the science components of adaptive management projects may be provided through literature searches or analyses of historical databases, thus avoiding the expense of large-scale data collection. However, adaptive management projects should also include some long-term field monitoring of the effects of the policies or practices being tested.

Lack of financial and human resources among potential collaborators may reduce the number of partners, thus focusing the program objectives on the narrower goals of specific interest groups. For this reason, collaborative mechanisms that allow a broad range of interest groups to participate should be adopted.

Need for Institutional Change Within OMNR

Interviews with OMNR staff revealed concerns about the context for adaptive management within the corporate framework. Some people indicated that adaptive management initiatives could fail

No. 139

23

because there is no institutional framework for them. However, many staff perceived there was a new willingness at high levels within OMNR to consider more innovative approaches to forest management and research.

Compatibility of Adaptive Management with Existing

Planning ProcessesAt an operational level, it may be difficult

to implement innovative approaches within the constraints of the forest management planning process. Adaptive management projects may be altered unacceptably or delayed if implemented in this context. A more streamlined system of approvals for adaptive management case studies is required to sustain the focus and momentum of the collaborative partnerships.

The planning process endorses the best practices approach, implying that a preferred silvicultural option is already known for every management objective. This philosophy is incompatible with the adaptive management principles of embracing uncertainty and encouraging innovation.

Competition Among Science Agencies

The constrained funding situation has led to competition among science agencies for limited research funds, hindering the formation of partnerships and collaboration. Ironically, this attitude is being reinforced at a time when science agencies in Ontario

must share resources to generate the critical mass needed to sustain new initiatives. This problem could be addressed by promoting interagency cooperation at the highest levels.

Attitudes of Stakeholders and Partners

The traditional attitudes and standards of some partners can also be viewed as obstacles to success in adaptive management. For example, scientists favour rigorous experimental design and long time frames, while operational staff often seek practical results to guide forest management in the short term. Forest industries may feel that government agencies want information that will end up costing them more through restrictive regulations. Similarly, resource managers may not be willing to accept the uncertainty and take the risks associated with adaptive management approaches. Interest groups may be reluctant to participate in lower-profile cooperative efforts because they depend on confrontational tactics to maintain their public profile and financial support. For these reasons, a consensus must be reached regarding the expectations of the collaborating partners before adaptive management projects can be initiated.

Some potential partners in both industry and OMNR were skeptical of the cost/benefit merit of large new initiatives. Concern was expressed that adaptive management may be used as yet another catch phrase to attract funding. There was also concern that scientists may design adaptive management experiments that are not achievable in an operational context.

No. 139

24

Timing for Obtaining Stakeholder Commitment

The timing is not ideal for obtaining commitments of human and financial resources from both the government and the forest industry for exploring new adaptive management initiatives. Forest companies are uncertain about the magnitude of their future investment obligations as management responsibilities are devolved to them under the new business arrangements with the province. Furthermore, a reduced OMNR work force is attempting to address several concurrent high priority initiatives related to land use planning, EA terms and conditions, and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. Consequently, most OMNR and industry staff will find it difficult to devote time to new adaptive management initiatives. This situation will never be resolved fully, but it is expected to ease somewhat over the next two years.

The forest industry and OMNR are currently cast in adversarial roles, as a legacy of the negotiations on the division of management responsibilities and costs. Other factors include disagreement on increased planning requirements and conservation policies that reduce the availability of the land base for timber harvesting. Although this situation is not conducive to cooperative initiatives, both parties recognize that an improved relationship ultimately must be achieved. In this respect, adaptive management may be an effective vehicle for building cooperation.

Science Program Considerations

Implementing experiments in operational settings presents several challenges. For example, considerable time must be allocated to achieving consensus on research approaches and experimental designs. There may be difficulties in matching rigorous research requirements with operational practices and in coordinating the implementation of many interrelated experiments on the ground. The predictable personnel changes over time create problems with consistency in monitoring treatments and interpreting results.

The landscape patterns or previous management histories may also limit the availability of large-scale replicates in space and time. This will reduce the predictive power of the results and must be considered during the selection of study areas and the development of valid research designs.

Inappropriate Reward Systems

Specialized skills in negotiation, consensus building, and education are needed to deal with the diversity of partners typical of adaptive management projects. However, staff training and compensation systems in OMNR and other resource agencies are not typically designed to promote the skill sets required for large collaborative efforts. Ideally, the career advancement systems for scientists and other professionals should reward people who assist and foster the process of learning and adjusting (Bormann et al. 1996).

No. 139

25

Conditions for Success in OntarioInstitutional-Level Needs

For adaptive management to succeed in Ontario, OMNR and other agencies will need to advocate the development of flexible institutions capable of monitoring, evaluating, and taking corrective actions. This will require the efforts of leaders and champions who can be dedicated to the issue over long periods of time.

An appropriate institutional framework is required to initiate and maintain adaptive management projects. This framework must promote adjustments in policies and prescriptions based on the knowledge generated through adaptive management. Elements of such an institutional framework might include:

● a clear statement of institutional philosophy and values;

● availability of human and financial resources required to implement the management at the appropriate scales according to the stated philosophy and values;

● effective partnerships and full consultation with all the stakeholders; and

● definition of the ecological space and time scales within which management is to take place.

A strategic research agenda is required for the province with clearly defined goals and objectives, especially for complex ecological issues. Incentives are needed for scientists and managers to spend time initiating innovative, adaptive, collaborative research approaches.

Linkages with science agencies in Ontario and other jurisdictions should be strengthened. OMNR should develop contacts in the BC Ministry of Forests and the USDA Forest Service to take advantage of their knowledge and practical experiences with adaptive management approaches. Integrating forestry with other disciplines such as fish and wildlife, social sciences and mill technology should also be encouraged.

Program-Level NeedsInterviews with forest managers revealed

a diversity of ideas about the implications of adaptive management. They identified a need to foster a common understanding of the concepts and benefits of adaptive management among stakeholders. This understanding could lead to recognizing shared needs and goals and forming collaborative partnerships. OMNR scientists and technology transfer specialists could facilitate aspects of this educational process by packaging information on the science aspects of adaptive management and by sponsoring forums and workshops on adaptive management principles.

Mechanisms for OMNR to package and distribute information could include newsletters or technical notes illustrating adaptive management concepts and presenting issues and experiences from Ontario and other jurisdictions. An adaptive management library could be developed and maintained, following the lead of the BC Ministry of Forests. Such a library should be accessible to external groups and individuals interested in adaptive management.

Workshops should be conducted

No. 139

26

to assess the feasibility of adaptive management in Ontario, establish mutual goals among partners, explore options, and establish pilot projects. To ensure broad support for adaptive management initiatives, it would be important to have wide representation across the forest sector at these workshops, including both upper management and operational levels of the partnering organizations.

Given the potential obstacles to implementing active adaptive management and the inherent caution of planning and operations staff, adaptive management should be tested in Ontario through pilot studies. These pilot studies would develop local expertise and document specific costs, problems and benefits (i.e., build the case for future applications, if this proves appropriate). OMNR science programs could take a lead role in providing scientific advice for these pilot studies.

Building Partnerships with Other Organizations

Leadership and negotiation skills will be important for developing cooperative programs and facilitating the extensive stakeholder consultations required in adaptive management programs. OMNR could benefit from the consensus-building experiences gained in British Columbia. OMNR will not succeed in serious adaptive management initiatives unless it dedicates qualified staff to the initiatives over the long term.

Although industry involvement will be essential in adaptive management projects, there is no tradition of cooperation between OMNR and industry in research and development ventures in Ontario. Thus, a bridging agency such as the Boreal

Ecosystem Science Cooperative should be used to bring all parties together in an environment designed to facilitate collaborative research. It might be appropriate to approach the cooperative with seed money designed to leverage additional funding from industry and other partners.

There is also a need to explain to forest companies that applied science can produce economic benefits for them. One example is the opportunity to assist industry in designing combined monitoring operations to satisfy the legislated CFSA requirements and the certification protocols. Industry would benefit by acquiring cost-effective, high-quality field data. As adaptive management is based on the concept of continual improvement, it can be presented to industry as a mechanism to keep them certified.

Funding IssuesFunding for individual agencies may be

inadequate for many research programs in the immediate future, and joint ventures may be the only way to initiate new adaptive management initiatives. Mechanisms are needed to access external funds, retain leveraged funds within the initiating program, and carry funding between fiscal years. Science cooperatives and partnerships with universities and forest companies may help provide such mechanisms.

OMNR should also consider collaborating with interest groups such as the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, and the Sierra Club in adaptive management initiatives. The mandates of these groups permit

No. 139

27

them to obtain funds from sources that are otherwise inaccessible to government.

In the short term, given the lack of appropriate mechanisms for shared funding, OMNR will need to provide direct funding to initiate adaptive management projects. Management in the Science Development and Transfer Branch, Forest Management Branch, and Land Use Planning Branch should cooperate in assigning adequate funding for these initial efforts.

Examples of Collaborative

Forest Management Projects in Ontario The involvement of stakeholders in

the process of learning and adjusting is a cornerstone of adaptive management. Table 2 summarizes recent examples of different approaches to collaboration on resource management issues in Ontario. These examples incorporate many adaptive management principles.

These examples of large collaborative initiatives provide some helpful lessons to guide future adaptive management efforts:

● Strong administrative and financial support is required from the main partners.

● Responses must be evaluated over large spatial and temporal scales.

● An atmosphere of trust between the scientific collaborators is essential.

● Multi-agency partnerships are mandatory for implementing complex large-scale studies, especially in a period of fiscal restraint.

● Watershed-scale projects are 10 to 50 times more expensive to implement than standard small-scale research studies.

● The roles and responsibilities of all partners must be fully understood and accepted at the beginning of the initiative.

● Contingency plans are required to continue the initiative when funding is constrained or some of the partners withdraw. This requires assigning priorities to the objectives.

● Empowerment of local stakeholders results in improved long-term stewardship of the resource.

● A period of several years may be required for local stakeholders to become organized and educated in resource management issues, and to develop a long-term vision. The assignment of roles and responsibilities should be phased in over an appropriate period of time according to demonstrated competence and interest.

● All partners must have equal authority to avoid the perception that a few large partners dominate the agenda of the collaborative initiative.

● Industry tends to solicit applied science with practical application to forest operations, rather than pure research. In this case the role of scientists is one of advising (design, monitoring, and analytical protocols) rather than implementing.

No. 139

28

Demonstrating Adaptive

Management Principles Through

Pilot ProjectsAs indicated by the examples in the

preceding section, the Ontario forestry sector already has experience in developing and implementing large-scale, collaborative initiatives in research and management. The next step should involve the establishment of formal pilot areas to expand expertise in

adaptive management specific to Ontario conditions and to identify situations where adaptive management approaches are most applicable. Factors that must be considered when selecting pilot areas are outlined below.

Scale The size of each pilot area must accommodate the objectives and scope of the initiative. For example, evaluating the long-term sustainability of forest operations would likely require landscape-level analysis and a correspondingly large pilot area. The land base must be sufficiently extensive and uniform to allow

Table 2. Ontario examples of resource management collaboration.

· OMNR science staff · Universities · Federal Department of

Fisheries and Oceans · Ontario Ministry of

Environment and Energy · Forest industry

· Local interest groups · Existing community

leadership

· Forest industry · Lakehead University · Canadian Forest Service· Parks Canada · Parks Ontario · OMNR Fire Centre · Centre for Northern Forest

Ecosystem Research · Northwest Science and

Technology · Ontario Forest Research

Institute · Saskatchewan Ministry of

Forests · Consulting firms

NAME OBjECTIVES PARTNERS BENEFITS

Coldwater Lakes

Community Forests

(Harvey et al. 1995)

Forest Ecosystem Science Cooperative

· EA requirement to develop forest management guidelines

· Test effectiveness of buffers in mitigating timber management effects on cold watersheds

· Promote the sustainable development of forest resources by fully involving communities in managing the forests around them

· Provide scientific and technical knowledge contributing to the implementation of the best boreal ecosystem management practices

· Access to graduate students, grants and leveraged funds · Collaborative infrastructure exists for future opportunities

· Enhanced quality of science products

· Community empowerment adds credibility to decision-making process

· Reduced conflict between jurisdictions

· Forum for bringing together research providers and research clients

· Efficient leveraging and administration of funds

· Facilitates knowledge transfer between partners by conducting workshops

No. 139

29

replication of the management strategies at the desired scale.

Geographic Location Management strategies and operational approaches vary across Ontario because of regional variations in climate, site conditions, and disturbance history. Pilot projects in different locations will help to test the transferability of the management strategies under varying biophysical, socio-economic and regulatory environments.

Management Authority and Land Tenure Adaptive management pilots projects in northern Ontario will require partnerships with the forest companies that have management authority over the land base and operational resources to help establish trials at large scales. Pilot areas under single leaseholders are preferable to areas with multiple licenses.

Stakeholder Involvement Pilot areas should have potential for wide stakeholder involvement, including local groups. Broad participation increases the opportunities for additional resources through collaboration or in-kind contributions and it often leads to more innovative solutions to problems through the inclusion of non-traditional viewpoints. Local leaders and champions may be found within the stakeholder groups to help maintain the momentum of the initiatives.

Status of Existing Information Base The availability of inventory information and historical monitoring data must be considered when selecting pilot study areas. The successful pilot studies in other jurisdictions devoted considerable initial effort to developing spatial and attribute databases and organizing information

on historical management practices for the area. Areas with extensive knowledge databases and partners with advanced data management and modeling capabilities are important assets in developing meaningful predictions of the outcomes of experimental management strategies. Similarly, historical databases facilitate retrospective analyses and assist in selecting experimental replicates with similar disturbance histories.

Industry Sector The various forest product sectors (e.g., pulp and paper, saw timber, veneer, oriented strandboard, high value hardwoods) often have different information requirements for forest inventory and may use different operational practices for harvesting and silviculture. These variations need to be considered when setting objectives for an adaptive management project.

Recommendations for Pilot Studies

OMNR should proceed slowly with adaptive management pilot projects, initially emphasizing education and consensus building among potential partners. This process may require a three- to five-year period. During this time some relevant issues such as industry’s forest management obligations under the CFSA should be resolved.

Experience in other jurisdictions indicates that considerable time and effort is needed to achieve stakeholder consensus on objectives and approaches. All stakeholders must learn and commit to the principles of adaptive management, and forest operations staff, policy makers, and researchers must develop a thorough understanding of each other’s role in the adaptive management

No. 139

30

cycle. A report by the BC Ministry of Forests (Taylor 1996) provides practical guidance on these issues.

Initial efforts in pilot projects should focus on developing alternative practices at small to medium scales. This approach would identify the most operationally feasible techniques, reducing implementation costs and risks in subsequent trials at larger scales.

The Lake Abitibi Model Forest is a good candidate for an initial adaptive management pilot project, because:

● Adaptive management is compatible with the Model Forest’s stated objectives for sustainable forest management.

● The Model Forest has developed a broad network of participating partners and stakeholders.

● The Model Forest’s past involvement with research activities has resulted in a stakeholder group that understands basic principles of the scientific approach.

● Good quality spatial and attribute information bases have been assembled. This provides opportunities to quickly develop adaptive management products that could be used to demonstrate the benefits of adaptive management to stakeholders in other potential pilot areas.

● The Model Forest can access funding sources that are not available to OMNR.

● Model Forest staff are interested in applying adaptive management, but desire a better understanding of the concepts and approaches. This initial receptivity would reduce the time required to obtain commitments from the stakeholders to pursue a pilot project.

One disadvantage of a M