Following-up in strategic environmental assessment: a case study of 20-year forest management planning in Saskatchewan, Canada

Transcription

1 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: Following-up in strategic environmental assessment: a case study of 20-year forest management planning in Saskatchewan, Canada Maia Gachechiladze, Bram F. Noble & Brent W. Bitter To cite this article: Maia Gachechiladze, Bram F. Noble & Brent W. Bitter (2009) Followingup in strategic environmental assessment: a case study of 20-year forest management planning in Saskatchewan, Canada, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27:1, 45-56, DOI: / X To link to this article: Published online: 20 Feb Submit your article to this journal Article views: 302 View related articles Citing articles: 5 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at Download by: [ ] Date: 29 June 2016, At: 09:28

2 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(1), March 2009, pages DOI: / X430362; Following-up in strategic environmental assessment: a case study of 20-year forest management planning in Saskatchewan, Canada Maia Gachechiladze, Bram F Noble and Brent W Bitter Downloaded by [ ] at 09:28 29 June 2016 The concept of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) has received considerable attention in recent years; however, the focus has been on the pre-decision stages of policies, plans and programs with much less attention to post-decision follow-up and monitoring. In those instances where SEA followup has been addressed, it has been done so much more from a conceptual than a practical perspective. As a result, the principles and concept of SEA follow-up are moving forward but we know little of the practice itself. This paper explores the practice and utility of SEA follow-up for twenty-year forest management planning and assessment in Saskatchewan, Canada. To do this, we develop and implement an analytical framework consisting of the necessary strategic, design and procedural, and institutional principles to enable good SEA follow-up. The overall objective is to identify opportunities to learn from experience and to help advance SEA follow-up from concept to practice. Keywords: strategic environmental assessment follow-up, Saskatchewan, Pasquia-Porcupine Forest Management Plan, strategy implementation, monitoring S TRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS- MENT (SEA) has gained considerable momentum in recent years, and is now widely supported as a valuable process to improve policies, plans and programs (PPPs) in support of sustainable development. The growing support for SEA is illustrated by the volume of dedicated international literature, special workshops and conferences, and by the increasing numbers of national SEA systems and regulatory frameworks. However, most research Maia Gachechiladzeis at the Central European University, Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Nador u. 9, Budapest H-1051, Hungary; ephgam01@phd.ceu.hu. Bram F Noble is at the Department of Geography and School of Environment and Sustainability, 117 Science Place, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, S7N 5C8; b.noble@usask.ca; Tel: Brent W Bitter is at the Environmental Assessment Branch, Ministry of Environment, Government of Saskatchewan, Regina, SK, Canada, S4S 5W6; brent.bitter@gov.sk.ca. and practice to date has focused almost exclusively on the pre-decision stages of SEA, in particular the development and application of SEA systems and methodological frameworks, with only limited attention to the post-decision follow-up stage (see Aschemann, 2005; Partidario and Arts, 2005; Persson and Nilsson, 2007). In many respects, this is not surprising as project-based environmental assessment (EA) has been in place since the early 1970s and it too continues to suffer from a lack of post-decision follow-up activity (Arts et al, 2001; Morrison-Saunders and Arts, 2004; Noble and Storey, 2005). There are many interpretations of follow-up and its scope; however, simply put, follow-up refers to the variety of activities that take place after the approval of a PPP or a project, including post-decision effects monitoring, performance evaluation of the PPP or project in question, and feedback, management and communication. The concept of follow-up itself is not new, coined around 30 years ago, emerging largely because of the uncertainty associated Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March /09/ US$12.00 IAIA

3 with project-based EA and the resulting need-tolearn from experience and actual project outcomes (Arts and Morrison-Saunders, 2004). The need for and importance of strategic followup stems from several considerations. Perhaps most significant is that the need-to-learn at the strategic tier is arguably more substantial in comparison to project-level decisions, in that PPPs are often formulated under greater uncertainties, are potentially larger in the scope of their impacts, and more sensitive to changes in broader social and economic conditions (Persson and Nilsson, 2007; Cherp et al, 2008). That is to say, strategic initiatives are frequently implemented differently from what was planned at the outset, or sometimes turn into pure rhetoric without actions. The gap between the predicted and actual impacts or intended outcomes of strategic initiatives may thus be potentially large due to the often vagueness of causal links, time differences between strategic decisions and concrete actions, and the complexity of multi-tiered and futuresoriented decisions and frameworks (Nooteboom, 2000; Perdicoulis et al, 2007). The theoretical promise of follow-up to facilitate a continuing integration of environmental considerations into PPP implementation is well argued (see Partidário and Arts, 2005); however, there has been limited empirical research on the subject (Aschemann, 2005; Cherp, 2005). What follow-up looks like once PPPs are actually implemented and the lessons emerging from practical experience has received limited attention in the international literature (Partidário and Arts, 2005; Persson and Nilsson, 2007; Hanush and Glasson, 2008). As a result, little is known about the nature of SEA follow-up in practice, the real benefits for PPP improvement, and the challenges that emerge. The purpose of this paper is thus to contribute to the current state of knowledge on SEA follow-up practice. More specifically, based on a case study of the Pasquia-Porcupine Forest Management Plan (FMP) in Saskatchewan, Canada, this paper explores the current practice and utility of SEA follow-up. Our objective is to learn from experience to help advance follow-up from good idea to good practice. To accomplish this, we deploy an analytical framework encompassing three broad categories for the purpose of empirical analysis: strategic principles, design and process principles, and institutional principles. Under this umbrella framework a number of principles deemed to be important to follow-up at the strategic level are presented and serve to focus the case-study discussion. In the sections that follow we first present a brief overview of SEA follow-up and introduce the main components of the analytical framework developed for the case study. We then introduce the Pasquia- Porcupine FMP case study and research methods, followed by presentation and discussion of the framework application and lessons learnt for advancing the current state-of-the-art. Following-up in strategic environmental assessment SEA is typically operationalized as an ex ante evaluation of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of PPP initiatives, and their alternatives, in support of sustainable development (Partidário, 2000; Stinchcombe and Gibson, 2001; Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2005). Arguably, however, it is the post-decision follow-up activities of monitoring, evaluation and management that are most important to ensuring that SEA, and the resulting PPP, is delivering its anticipated or desired outcomes. Most current thinking on SEA follow-up has borrowed heavily from that of project-based EA (Persson and Nilsson, 2007). As such, the rationales for follow-up at the strategic tier are generally the same as of those at the project level: derived from the notions of uncertainty and risk associated with decision-making based on ex ante evaluation and the subsequent need for feedback and learning (Harrop and Nixon, 1999; ODPM, 2005). As basic and as important as feedback is, however, it is only recently that any real attention has been given to the practice of SEA follow-up, its role in PPP improvement, and learning from practical experience (Partidário and Fischer, 2004; Partidário and Arts, 2005). This is not to say that SEA itself has developed in absence of any consideration for follow-up activity. Much of the early work around SEA methodology identified follow-up and post-implementation activities as important to the process (e.g. Therivel et al, 1992; Noble and Storey, 2001), and follow-up and monitoring activities are included, for example, in both the Canadian Cabinet Directive on the environmental assessment of PPP proposals (see Canada, 2004, sec ) and the European Commission SEA Directive (see EC, 2001: Art. 10). Rather, the complexities and uncertainties in determining postimplementation environmental implications are exacerbated at the strategic level in that: PPPs are often formulated in abstract terms, resulting in vague directions for acting; Whereas significant deviations from the original plan are abnormal at the project level, these are typical of strategic level processes; The decisions on how to implement PPPs are often difficult to link back to the strategic focus of why, whether, what or where; There are fewer direct linkages between decisions at the strategic level and actual PPP impacts; and There remains debate as to even the link between SEA follow-up and strategic policy-making or planning cycles (Cherp et al, 2008). In short, SEA follow-up has a potential to ensure environmentally sustainable implementation of strategies via, among other things, tracking environmental impacts; enhancing public acceptance, 46 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March 2009

4 cooperation and communication; improving scientific and technical knowledge through feedback; maintaining the flexibility of decisions to cope with uncertainty; and increasing the adaptability of management in changing contexts (Arts and Morrison- Saunders, 2004; Morrison-Saunders and Arts, 2004; Partidário and Fischer, 2004). These theoretical assumptions about the favourable capacities of SEA follow-up, however, have yet to be explored in practice. The rationales for SEA follow-up are well argued; but the importance of process and procedure, in particular tools and methodological frameworks, has only recently received attention Downloaded by [ ] at 09:28 29 June 2016 Enabling value-added follow-up in strategic environmental assessment The potential relevance of different perspectives on SEA follow-up in the virtual absence of research on how follow-up actually shapes post-decision-making makes the task of setting the boundaries for followup challenging. Framing our examination of SEA follow-up is the delineation of three broad sets of principles that we believe are necessary to enable follow-up to contribute to attaining the goals and intentions of a strategy while bearing in mind its strategic nature and the peculiarities of the context in which a PPP evolves; effectively formulate and operationalize monitoring, evaluation, management, and feedback; and enhance cooperation and communication among stakeholders. Strategic principles There has been an incessant debate over the strategic in SEA. We share the view that strategic in SEA cannot be simply explained in terms of its application to initiatives above the project level (Partidário, 2000), but rather by the relationship between SEA and the broader planning process (Bina, 2007), including also the types of questions being asked (Noble, 2000). Strategic principles need to reflect this relationship in a wider context and encompass the spatial and temporal dimensions of SEA follow-up and its wider role in vertically and horizontally tiered PPPs and subsequent assessments. In this light, the strategic in SEA follow-up is concerned with the deliverables of strategic initiatives, with long-term tiering and integration becoming central issues to its implementation. This implies a certain dichotomy and in a way resonates the idea of a virtuous circle (Bina, 2003), in that the process of negotiating and implementing SEA influences the context in which SEA itself is applied. SEA follow-up evolves in a certain context of strategic planning, being based on existing capacities and planning practices. On the one hand, the expectations linked to SEA follow-up relate to making long-term desirable changes to this context. On the other hand, the context predetermines the rationales, purposes and ways to implement follow-up and might foster or hinder implementation and integration of feedback. Design and process principles The rationales for SEA follow-up are well argued; but the importance of process and procedure, in particular tools and methodological frameworks, has only recently received attention. In our study we apply a set of design and process principles to the planned and actually delivered contents and methods of SEA follow-up. Being tailored to a strategic initiative and its objectives, SEA follow-up has a certain course of action that reflects the underlying aims, scope, duration, and moments of integration of the procedural steps of the PPP or strategy in which it is being applied. The design and contents of a SEA follow-up program can thus be viewed as a platform for and pre-requisite to successful PPPs. The formulation of goals and directions of a SEA follow-up program, for example, might presumably be established through screening for the need for and scoping of the content of the follow-up program, which should start early in the pre-decision stage of preparing the strategic initiative and SEA (Partidário and Arts, 2005). The design and process of SEA follow-up may encompass various elements, the implementation of which are challenged by the non-linear causalities and unclear relationships between and within strategic-level initiatives, including: Monitoring change in physical, social, economic, and institutional conditions; Evaluating achievement of stated objectives through monitoring various indicators of success; Evaluating the performance of the strategic initiative by focusing on implementation activities and related decisions and actions; Checking conformance of subsequent actions with the strategic initiative and SEA; and Monitoring and evaluating the actual impacts of the strategic initiative on the environment and sustainability (see Partidário and Fischer, 2004; Partidário and Arts, 2005). Institutional principles Proper positioning in strategic planning, formal requirements, and adequate procedure are not always enough to ensure follow-up success. A social commitment, as well as a degree of political and Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March

5 institutional maturity, is needed. As follow-up shifts in focus from projects to broader strategic initiatives, the traditional scientific paradigm and technical orientation of follow-up is said to become less relevant, giving way to more participatory approaches and a focus on changing goals, attitudes and expectations (Sheate et al, 2003). Various forms of negotiations, discussions, and consultations have become one of the main constituents of an effective SEA process, thus enabling a certain degree of cooperation, mutual understanding and a set of common expectations. This also must characterize the post-decision stage of PPP implementation and follow-up. That being said, the lack of commitment and limited capacity for strategic thinking and futures-oriented approaches have long been indicated as major challenges to SEA (Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2005). This is exacerbated within the post-decision stages, as follow-up itself is a long-term process that requires continuous commitment and a willingness and capacity to learn from previous successes and failures. We agree with Marsden and De Mulder (2005) that SEA will be most effective where there is a mandate, capacity and willingness to follow up on the key results of agreed-upon SEA and resulting PPP actions. These strategic, design and process, and institutional principles that we believe to underlie good SEA follow-up are further developed and operationalized in the following sections, based on a case study of 20-year forest management planning and assessment in Saskatchewan s forestry sector. Case study: strategic environmental assessment in Saskatchewan s forestry sector Forested land accounts for about 30 million hectares, or 46% of the total area of the province of Saskatchewan (Archibold, 2007), and timber is the province s most economically significant, nonagricultural renewable resource (Reed and Mills, 2007). Approximately every 10 years in Saskatchewan, following completion of a report on the state of provincial forests as per the Forest Resources Management Act (FRMA), a forest accord is completed that sets out the province s basic principles, policies, and goals for forest management. The forest accord is operationalized at the regional scale through integrated land-use plans (ILUPs), created with input from stakeholders in the local forest management area to determine the most appropriate mix of land uses for the region. The most important mechanism for managing forestry land uses is the forest management agreement (FMA) a formal agreement between the minister responsible for administering the FRMA and a harvesting company concerning licensing, permitting, harvesting, and responsibilities for management and regeneration. Forest companies wishing to harvest, over the long term, must enter into a FMA and prepare a 20-year forest management plan (FMP). These FMPs must be renewed every 10 years, and are subject to the monitoring and feedback results of local level annual operating plan(s), which includes also a five-year rolling plan. The Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) in Saskatchewan was originally passed into law in 1980, predating the common use of the term SEA. The scope of the EA Act, however, does apply to plans that are considered development. Forest management activities conducted pursuant to 20- year FMPs are a development under the EA Act, and the overall plan is subject to an EA. 1 The assessment of 20-year FMPs in Saskatchewan is SEA in all but name, and illustrative of the value of integrating SEA within broader industry planning and decision-making processes (see Noble, 2004). Four FMPs (Mistik, Meadow Lake; Prince Albert; L&M Wood products, Glaslyn; Pasquia-Porcupine, Hudson Bay), as well as one long-term supply license, have been prepared in the province and subjected to formal EA, which includes both a technical and a public review component. One of these FMPs, Mistik, is currently undergoing a 10-year renewal. The Pasquia-Porcupine FMP is about to embark on this renewal process, and is thus a timely case to consider the lessons emerging from current and past follow-up practices. The Pasquia-Porcupine forest management plan In 1995, a forest harvesting and management partnership was formed between MacMillan Bloedel Limited and a subsidiary of the Saskatchewan Crown Investments Corporations, known as the Saskfor-MacMillan Partnership (SMLP). Pursuant to the FRMA and the EA Act, a 20-year FMP and an EA application were prepared and submitted to the Saskatchewan government to proceed with development of the Pasquia-Porcupine Forest Management Area. The Pasquia-Porcupine Forest Management Area is located along the Saskatchewan Manitoba provincial border, within the boundaries of the Pasquia-Porcupine ILUP (Figure 1), and encompasses an area of approximately two million hectares, of which more than half is suitable for commercial timber production (SMLP, 1997a). Following endorsement of the Pasquia-Porcupine 20- year FMP and EA in 1999, the FMA was signed. Later that year Weyerhaeuser Saskatchewan Ltd, a daughter company to one of the world s largest timber producers Weyerhaeuser bought out the SMLP and took over responsibility for implementation of the approved FMP and EIA. The majority of follow-up conducted during the implementation of a FMP falls under the purview of the operating license, administered by the Forest Services Branch of the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. Where there are terms and conditions that have been placed through an EA ministerial approval that are not within the permitting purview of 48 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March 2009

6 Figure 1. Location of the Pasquia-Porcupine Forest Management Area, Saskatchewan Downloaded by [ ] at 09:28 29 June 2016 another government agency, the Environmental Assessment Branch conducts follow-up to ensure that the predictions and commitments made are being met. To this end, more recent EA approvals include a commitments schedule that outlines who is responsible for what commitments and follow-up, and any required reporting activities. Such a schedule will accompany any new or renewed FMAs in Saskatchewan and will become part of the auditable materials under the FRMA, which requires an independent audit every five years on the status of FMP implementation. Methods The primary sources of information for the casestudy analysis were semi-structured interviews with various FMP stakeholders, and FMP documents and relevant assessment, baseline, monitoring and audit reports, including those associated with the adjacent Prince Albert FMP operated by the same company. Including the adjacent FMP allowed insight as to the potential horizontal linkages with other plans and follow-up programs in the region. A total of 10 interviews were conducted with FMP stakeholders in late 2007, including various government representatives with a role and responsibility in FMP implementation or follow-up, industry, and an environmental non-government organization. 2 In addition, more informal consultations and discussions occurred with seven academics and government representatives knowledgeable of the Pasquia- Porcupine case. All participants were identified by first contacting a select number of key staff in the provincial government and then using an iterative snowball sampling process (see Bryman, 2001). Interview administration, document analysis, and the overall examination of follow-up in the Pasquia- Porcupine FMP was guided by a set of 13 principles that we argue are necessary to facilitate good SEA follow-up (see Table 1), organized under the broad headings of strategic, design and process and institutional principles as discussed above. The principles are derived from a review of international literature on follow-up theory, practical experience (where it exists), and guidance at both the project and strategic tier (e.g. Arts et al, 2001; Marshall et al, 2005; Morrison-Saunders and Arts, 2004; Noble and Storey, 2005; Partidário and Arts, 2005; IAIA, 2007). It is not suggested here that these principles represent the authoritative normative model of best SEA follow-up, as it is too early to tell from practical experience what works best in all follow-up contexts and applications. Rather, the intent in presenting such principles is to provide a basis for systematic analysis of the Pasquia-Porcupine case study, to extract the lessons learned from this particular follow-up application, and more importantly to provide a working framework against which subsequent SEA follow-up experiences can be examined. The FMP was assessed on the basis of each principle and whether it is: fully evident in practice; evident in practice to a large extent; evident in practice to a lesser extent; does not exist or is not evident in practice. For a principle to be considered fully evident in practice it required clear and substantiated evidence from both multiple interviewees and from the document reviews. A principle considered to be evident to a large extent was supported by documents and mentioned by multiple interviewees, but often differently interpreted, or mentioned by all interviewees but only marginally revealed in FMP and follow-up documentation. Principles validated through only a single source, either interviews or document reviews, or where there was evidence but some uncertainty and/or contradictions among interview participants, were considered evident only to a Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March

7 Table 1. Summary of strategic environmental assessment follow-up principles for Pasquia-Porcupine Forest Management Plan, Saskatchewan Principles that facilitate good SEA follow-up and strategy realization Pasquia-Porcupine FMP characteristics Downloaded by [ ] at 09:28 29 June 2016 Strategic principles Evaluation* Provisions for SEA follow-up Formal provisions and legislated requirement exist under the Forest Resources Management Act and reinforced by terms and conditions of approval under the EA Act SEA follow-up is clearly positioned in the planning cycle and decision process Follow-up is integrated with PPP implementation and monitoring systems Planning system is adaptive and open to feedback from follow-up Hierarchical and horizontal consistency of follow-up standards, targets, and objectives Design and process principles Screening and scoping for SEA follow-up occurs at the earliest stages of SEA and PPP development Explicit statement of SEA follow-up rationales and goals for different decision-making and planning tiers Specification of monitoring, evaluation and reporting methods Consideration for (non)deliberate and /emergent strategies through follow-up Formulation of transparent frameworks for SEA follow-up delivery activities Institutional principles Competence and allocation of adequate resources for SEA follow-up Commitment to follow-up and acknowledgement of non-compliance Assurance of open stakeholder cooperation and accountability Follow-up tiered downwards to operating plans and specific site prescriptions and assessments, and upwards to the Sustainable Forest Management Plan. Follow-up activities are integrated with the FMP performance and compliance monitoring, and partially with the provincial monitoring program. Data storage and reporting are not consistent Adaptive management for routine corrections and to incrementally deal with predictive accuracy and uncertainly is adequate. Adaptive management to deal with external factors is deficient The FMP and follow-up are consistent with higher- and lower-order strategies and sensitive to changes in standards and targets of governmental policies. It is weak in horizontal linkages to other FMPs in the region Screening is legally predetermined; scope of follow-up is formally indicated in general terms and specifically agreed on by stakeholders. Scoping for followup occurs as part of EA and FMP development Rationales and goals are clear and formed in both top-down and bottom-up ways. A link between follow-up rationales/goals to sustainability principles is explicitly recognized Monitoring methods are not specified, but indicators are set. Data collected by the company is evaluated internally or by specific experts; methods to analyze data of several-year monitoring studies are not specified. Reporting methods are stated and applied Provisions exist, but industry tends to avoid preparing EAs to address emergent strategies or new action patterns. Follow-up is effectively streamlined/inforced through the public and government pressure but is delayed in time Transparency of follow-up is ensured by: technical solutions (standards, protocols), expert judgments (audits and public reports), participatory processes (reviews, meetings). Minor problems exist with quality assurance of all those methods Financial, time and human resources are allocated as per the planned monitoring programs, but resource needs significantly under-estimated. FMA legally determines penalties, cancellation and detention policies for followup. Threats of non-implementation are not mentioned in the FMP and EA Follow-up builds on the collaboration platform established in the course of the FMP and EIA preparation. Reporting is regular and occurs at all stages. Problems continue around Aboriginal involvement, lands and participation Key: * fully evident in practice; evident in practice to a large extent; evident in practice to a lesser extent; does not exist or is not evident in practice lesser extent. Principles that could not be identified through either the interviews or document reviews were considered absent from FMP follow-up. Results: following-up in the Pasquia-Porcupine forest management plan In the sections that follow we present the results of the case study. In particular, we focus on the various successes of and challenges to SEA follow-up. 3 An overall summary of the FMP follow-up characteristics is presented in Table 1. To ensure some degree of confidentiality to study participants, we do not attach identities (individual or organizational unit) to statements made throughout the paper. Strategic principles Provisions for SEA follow-up The EA for the Pasquia-Porcupine FMP was carried out simultaneously with plan development, the result of which was an integrated FMP and impact statement that included a resource inventory and monitoring and follow-up programs for implementation. The legislative requirement for follow-up of the 20-year FMP is the FRMA; however, terms and conditions for approval of the FMP under the EA Act can include follow-up requirements the EA Act itself does not require SEA follow-up per se. In addition, Project Specific Guidelines issued by the province to guide the EA do require that monitoring and research be 50 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March 2009

8 Downloaded by [ ] at 09:28 29 June 2016 The position of follow-up in a strategic planning context can be viewed in relation to strategic environmental assessment and its strategy formulation and delivery processes, and in the broader context of upper, lower, or horizontal strategies undertaken to ensure that impacts identified are tracked over time and appropriately understood (SERM, 1996). Approvals and the need for respective terms and conditions under the EA Act are further discussed in the minister s Reasons for Decision (SERM, 1999a,b), stipulating why the fulfilment of performance monitoring, assessment of impacts, environmental monitoring, as well as the proponent s participation in the provincial forest inventory and existing monitoring programs are necessary. Position of SEA follow-up in the planning cycle The position of follow-up in a strategic planning context can be viewed from at least two perspectives: first, in relation to SEA and its strategy formulation and delivery processes; second, in the broader context of upper, lower, or horizontal strategies (Gachechiladze, 2008). Regarding the first, the Pasquia-Porcupine EA and FMP were initiated as a new FMA planning cycle, requiring that follow-up programs be determined prior to FMP approval and that implementation of follow-up be reflected in annually produced operating plans and associated rolling five-year plans. The 20-year FMP itself requires updating every 10 years (SMLP, 1997a), and follow-up programs are revised accordingly. In the broader context of tiered and horizontal linkages, follow-up reveals much stronger hierarchical linkages, at least in principle, than it does horizontal linkages. In 2005, a high-level umbrellaplanning tier was implemented, flowing from the FRMA, and follow-up reporting was harmonized based on the VOITs 4 system. This new system reflects the downward integration of follow-up with implementation actions, decisions and monitoring through five-year operating plans and site-based prescriptions and pre-harvest assessments. Upwards, FMP follow-up flows into the province s Sustainable Forest Management Plan and to the Pasquia- Porcupine regional ILUP, which, in turn, provides a framework for land resource management and use in the Pasquia-Porcupine area. This occurs in absence of any formal tiered system of PPP assessment; that is, neither the higher-tiered Sustainable Forest Land Use Plan nor lower tiered site-specific annual operating plans are subject to separate EAs. Horizontally, linkages to forest strategies and other regional FMPs are considerably weak. When the Pasquia-Porcupine FMP was purchased by Weyerhaeuser (the industry proponent), Weyerhaeuser was determined to integrate the FMP with its existing Prince Albert FMP (Tice, 2001). Following years of bio-geophysical monitoring and baseline work for the two FMAs, however, there remained few connections between the two FMPs, only limited sharing of experiences with management practices, no account of transarea effects management, and no joint monitoring. The two FMPs as approved were based on two different forest management models and proposed different follow-up and monitoring approaches. Integration with PPP implementation and monitoring systems Follow-up is an inherent part of FMP delivery, merged with performance monitoring to a large extent and existing provincial forest monitoring systems to a lesser extent. Periodic internal monitoring and auditing are conducted by the proponent to verify compliance with the FMP, the FMA, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) for Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), and other legal requirements. Since 2001, Weyerhaeuser has also established an environmental management system (EMS) (ISO 14001) to support follow-up practices and to facilitate continuous FMP improvement. Initially the company faced problems of repetitiveness and overlapping monitoring and reporting efforts between the EMS and other CSA and SFM requirements; the issue was addressed only recently through a stepwise EMS and CSA integration model. That being said, the efficient integration of monitoring systems continues to be a challenge. For example, the industry participates in the larger Provincial Ecosystem Monitoring Task Force and reports annually on agreed-upon forest indicators; however, industry and government monitoring dataprocessing and storage systems are not consistent, and comprehensive integration and manipulation of forest-monitoring data is often not possible. In 2006 the Saskatchewan Forest Planning Manual was created in part to resolve such incompatibilities and to facilitate data collection and storage in a more integrated and consistent format. Adaptive management and openness to change Forest planning practice has long recognized adaptive management as a guiding principle (SERM, 1996; SE, 2007) and, respectively, the SMLP commits to practice adaptive management to continually improve forest management (SMLP, 1997a). There are two types of adaptive management relevant to FMP follow-up. The first is more deliberate, fitting into the forest company s environmental management routine. It is designed in the FMP and EA and includes planned actions such as management and harvest re-calculations and revisions of specific FMP targets and objectives (see SMLP, 1997a). The second type of adaptive management deals with Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March

9 situations that are outside the direct control of the proponent, but affect FMP implementation. Referred to as emergent or unexpected effects management (Cherp et al, 2008), this type of adaptive management includes ad hoc measures adopted in response to external changes and has proven to be weak in the Pasquia-Porcupine experience. For example, successful FMP delivery must be sensitive to broader economic fluctuations and changes at the global level. However, socio-economic targets in the FMP were not designed to track external changes, inter alia in the global market, partially because those were considered to be a part of the company s larger financial planning strategy. In 2005, due in part to changing global markets, approximately 700 direct and at least an equal number of indirect jobs were terminated in the region. The result was a climate of mistrust, and questioning about the proponent s ability to maintain its forest management practices and commitments to the region as set out in the FMP. Consistency of follow-up standards and targets with those of upper, lower, or horizontal plans and strategies The FMP and its follow-up are implemented in a hierarchical planning system, the tiers of which conform to national and provincial forest standards. In addition, as mentioned previously, the specific targets of the Pasquia-Porcupine FMP mitigation and follow-up activities are consistent with those of the broader regional ILUP (see SMLP, 1997a,b; SERM, 1998b). For example, the Pasquia- Porcupine regional ILUP identifies certain areas with distinct ecosystem features to be protected with minimal or no disturbance allowed, and uses these areas as benchmarks for disturbances. To be consistent with this provision, the FMP also sets monitoring targets to ensure protection of an equivalent proportion of productive forestland within the forest management area. Lower-tier operating plans set and monitor similar targets, consistent with the FMP, ensuring protection of a proportion of each harvest area within individual operating units. Design and process principles Early scoping for SEA follow-up The scope of follow-up was determined during the development of the integrated EA and FMP, and delineated in general terms in the FMP Project Specific Guidelines. The SMLP was directed to prepare monitoring and research programs to assess the actual impacts of harvesting practices on the forest ecosystem, to determine the effectiveness of FMP mitigation, to study the feasibility of alternative practice, and to involve the public (SERM, 1996). The FMA more specifically set the scope of the follow-up program and obliged SMLP to perform certain follow-up actions, which inter alia cover revision of the 20-year FMP within at least a 10-year interval, depending on the nature of disturbance and their consistency with FMP targets and objectives; and require revisions of five-year operational plans based on annual comparison of actual and predicted harvest volumes and stand-level regeneration stocking and performance (SERM and SMLP, 1999). Explicit statement of SEA follow-up rationales and goals for planning tiers The orientation of follow-up towards sustainability is mentioned throughout the FMP and EA documents, and there is general consent among all interviewees that the FMP follow-up advocates sustainability principles. However, ensuring value-added follow-up requires also links among the numerous goals, rationales, and purposes of SEA follow-up of particular and related strategies (Gachechiladze, 2008). Project Specific Guidelines and approvals issued for the FMP and EA stipulated general rationales for follow-up, and the FMP itself sets particular goals for follow-up at both the operations and strategic levels which, in turn, are linked to follow-up rationales and goals of broader provincial and national targets and standards. A two-directional principle of shaping follow-up goals and objectives was exercised when proposing FMP follow-up programs: goals and objectives were dictated from the top of the forest planning pyramid (e.g. national performance monitoring), and then placed in the regional context where contributions from the local communities were absorbed bottom-up (see SMLP, 1997a,b; SERM, 1998b). Specification of monitoring, evaluation and reporting methods The FMP and its various plans and guidelines specify monitoring components, with elaboration of monitoring methods and guidelines intended to take place in lower-tier operating plans and parallel to the identification of specific monitoring indicators, targets and objectives. The rationale behind this is that while some monitoring indicators are based on a sound scientific basis and their measurability and interpretation was straightforward, others require a several-year practice of monitoring and evaluation to adjust indicators and determine the best-suited methods and techniques. In practice, however, the operating plans are vague on monitoring methods and guidelines, particularly concerning socio-economic monitoring, and frequently selective, describing monitoring procedures for some indicators and not for others. Evaluation methods for monitoring data on different indicators are not explained in the FMP; rather, it is implied that they are logically bound to monitoring methods and are designed to translate the monitoring data into information to be used for operation and adaptive management. However, the lack of clear evaluation and methods has been a weak link in the follow-up actions chain hindering timely and costeffective decision-making. Provisions for (non)deliberate and emergent strategies Different from external factors and their implications for strategic initiatives, emergent strategy formulation implies an unintended course of 52 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March 2009

10 implemented interactions (Mintzberg, 1994). Emergent decision-making cannot be fully separated from implementation and may, in principle, lead to change of previously formulated strategies (Cherp et al, 2007). Follow-up in SEA is theoretically perceived as able to ensure environmental soundness of emergent actions. In this regard, the EA Act envisages situations when changes to developments, including FMPs, might occur that do not conform to the initial approval conditions and might have negative impacts on the environment, thus necessitating a supplementary assessment. In the original FMP, for example, SMLP committed to constructing no more than 101 kilometres of all-season forest access road over 10 years of operation. By 2002, however, due to increased timber production and shifting harvest schedules, certain road development limits had been exceeded and by 2005 the total road construction was near the 20-year FMP estimated threshold. An EA for a change in development application pursuant to the EA Act was prepared in 2005 to address changes to the original FMP targets and road management plans, with new targets incorporated upon approval in operating plans and revised monitoring programs. Formulation of transparent frameworks for followup delivery activities The need for transparency in follow-up is well argued in the literature (Arts, 1998). Inalienable to this is providing stakeholders with a voice in and access to strategy-planning and performance evaluation. A variety of mechanisms can be deployed to provide for transparency of SEA follow-up frameworks, ranging from the purely technical (e.g. common databases) to the participatory (e.g. reviews, direct involvement). The Pasquia- Porcupine FMP is illustrative of special consideration to transparency in follow-up from the early planning stages, including transparency-oriented methodologies and a clear apportioning of roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. For example, the follow-up program encompasses: Expert judgements (independent audits with publicly available results; annual audits of Weyerhaeuser s ISO EMS and the CSA Sustainable Forest Management System), Technical measures (participation and use of provincial standardized and approved monitoring procedures; creation of common databases for ecosystem studies and support in GIS forest application development), and Participatory processes (hearings during the FMP drafting and SEA preparation; annual reviews and comments on operating plans by the Forest Management Advisory Committee and quarterly meetings). Institutional principles Competence and resources Competence is particularly important to good management in SEA follow-up (Partidário and Fischer, 2004), and includes the ability to acquire the necessary resources for follow-up, to generate and provide comprehensive feedback on monitoring and follow-up to different stakeholders, and to incorporate subsequent feedback and learning in responsive efforts. Strategies for acquisition and maintenance of monitoring equipment, technical support, training and educating personnel, and tours and workshops for the local communities were entrenched in FMP and its follow-up plan. However, interviews with both the proponent and regulator suggest that the resources as well as technical and material procurement for follow-up are limited. Certain monitoring and evaluation tasks, such as identifying appropriate sampling plots or inviting experts to analyse data, required several-times-higher levels of investment than was initially anticipated by both the government and the industry proponent. Funds diversion and reallocation of financial and expert resources, both within the industry and between the proponent and the government, was necessary to meet these additional demands. Consequently, however, there emerged considerable public concern that government was over-delegating research and monitoring functions to industry, thereby reducing its own capacity to regulate industry and to fully guarantee that industrygenerated monitoring data were reliable. Commitment to follow-up and acknowledgement of non-compliance A long-term SEA follow-up process requires continuous fulfilment of commitments (see Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2005). In the Pasquia- Porcupine case, the integrated FMP and EA contain specific follow-up commitments of the proponent. Additional commitments are delineated in the broader integrated forest land use plan for both the proponent and the provincial government, and a joint action plan stipulates commitments in relation to adaptive management actions required as a result of independent FMP and performance audits. Longterm SEA follow-up commitment also requires explicit recognition of the implications of nonimplementation or non-compliance with specified goals and targets. Neither the FMP nor the EA explicitly note the consequences of nonimplementation or non-compliance; however, certain Long-term strategic environmental assessment follow-up commitment also requires explicit recognition of the implications of non-implementation or non-compliance with specified goals and targets Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March

11 implementation and compliance obligations are stipulated in the broader FMA. Failure to comply can result in a range of penalties from fines to withdrawal of licenses and termination of the FMA itself. Further, declines in environmental performance or operations and the non-implementation of certain monitoring and mitigation commitments are connected to non-compliance with the FMA and other national and provincial forest standards. Such noncompliance may also lead to cancellation of EMS and CSA certificates. At the operational level, minor cases of non-compliance are mostly investigated and resolved through actions taken internal to the industry, with more serious infractions examined and discussed by the stakeholders. Assurance of open stakeholder cooperation and accountability Stakeholder involvement and communication should occur at each stage of the SEA process (e.g. Partidário and Fischer, 2004; Cherp et al, 2008). Stakeholder participation and input to EA has generally improved in Canada in recent years, demonstrating more shared decision-making approaches; however, cases of truly meaningful involvement in follow-up are limited (Lawe et al, 2005). The cooperative approach to follow-up in the Pasquia- Porcupine case, however, builds upon the platform of collaboration established in the course of the FMP and EA preparation. Included among the SMLP objectives for the FMP, for example, is to ensure that all those who may be affected by the implementation of operational Plans have the informed opportunity to provide input and review before each Plan is approved, and during implementation. (SMLP, 1997a,b) Realization strategies were based on several years of cooperative activities. For example, a Human and Community Development Committee was established as part of the preliminary stages of EA and FMP development to engage representatives from communities, government agencies, first nations and tourism groups in two-way communications on aspects related to community needs, employment, training, monitoring, the FMP and EA. One of the outcomes of early consultation was the establishment of a yearly cycle for public involvement in the development, implementation, and postimplementation review of operating plans, including the opportunity for comment on draft operating plans for the next year of forest operations (see SMLP, 1997a). Observations and conclusions Based on the case study of 20-year forest management planning in Saskatchewan, Canada, this paper set out to explore the practice and utility of SEA follow-up a subject that, while recognized as important to SEA and to successful PPP implementation, has received more theoretical than empirical attention. The case study was approached using an analytical framework developed on the basis of a review of the follow-up literature, and which encompassed the basic strategic, design and process, and institutional principles of what we consider to underlie good SEA follow-up. Emerging from the case study is a number of general observations that highlight particular barriers and bridges to the practice of SEA follow-up. While these observations are based on the Pasquia-Porcupine experience, we argue that they offer broader lessons for advancing the practice of SEA follow-up internationally. First, the Pasquia-Porcupine FMP is an example of informal SEA follow-up in that no formal SEA system exists in Saskatchewan. That being said, and in the absence of a legislated SEA framework, both SEA and the practice of SEA follow-up are ongoing for 20- year FMP assessments under EA and forestry legislation dictated also by regulations, permitting and bounded by requirements for regular monitoring and reporting of EIS and FMP implementation and regular plan renewal. The condition to regularly revise a FMP and its follow-up programs is vital to both institutional and procedural learning (see Argyris and Schön, 1996), which provides opportunity to connect the observed effects of actions with intended strategies, objectives, and assumptions. In the Pasquia- Porcupine case, this revision and learning occurs at multiple time scales: annually through operations plans, a five-year rolling plan, and every 10 years with renewal of the 20-year FMP. Second, the mechanisms used in the FMP and follow-up for coping with minor or routine changes are a repercussion of several decades of the practice of adaptive management. However, incremental adaptive management proved to be inefficient to timely react to emergent and external factors that heavily influenced the environment of the FMP and directly affected the political and socio-economic climate of the organization, communities, and stakeholders. While global matters such as climate change and biodiversity are argued to be central to SEA (e.g. Treweek et al, 2005; Slootweg, 2006; Burdge, 2008), and receive modest attention in practice, issues such as shifting global markets and changes in management approach due to corporate turnover have not been emphasized in the SEA literature, but they proved to be a significant shortcoming in the sustainability of the Pasquia-Porcupine FMP. Such emergent and external issues have significant impact on the ability of a proponent to continue to deliver on their commitments and to meet SEA follow-up objectives. These higher-order elements need to be captured in SEA follow-up monitoring programs to avoid a myopic focus that misses the management environment(s), within which plans and strategies themselves must function. Third, the notion of tiering pervades the SEA literature, but has received little critical attention in 54 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal March 2009