Criteria & Indicators Project
Assessment Report – Post Implementation December 2003
FINAL REPORT
Prepared by:
Brenda Hopkin, RPF PO BOX 415 Invermere, BC Canada
Executive Summary 3 Introduction 4
Issues to the Success of PCI&S Implementation 5
Risk area: Implementation Planning and Management 5 Risk area: Regulatory Approach &/or Enforcement 6 Risk area: Multi-Agency Involvement 7
Risk area: Roles & Responsibilities 8 Risk area: Monitoring and Auditing 9 Risk area: Reporting 10
Risk area: Review & Improvement 11 Risk area: Information Management 11 Management System Framework 13
Recommendations 14 Reference Reports 15 Appendix 1 16 Appendix 2 17 Appendix 3 19
Executive Summary
Department of Water Affairs & Forestry (DWAF) have been developing Criteria, Indicators and Standards (CI&S) based on Principles of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) for a number of years. Development of CI&S has utilized knowledge of DWAF staff, though it has primarily been completed by external groups of experts. Now it is the time for DWAF to
implement the CI&S. Implementation will allow DWAF to build capacity and take ownership of this project now and in the future.
At this point, DWAF is undergoing a number of substantial changes. The implementation of CI&S can be smoothly integrated with many of these changes. As a matter of fact, it is probably an opportune time for the implementation of CI&S: it will all be part of the way DWAF “does business”. These changes include, but are not limited to: a new DWAF Vision; changes to the organizational structure of DWAF, modification to the Strategic Plan, including changes to Key Focus Areas and/or objectives;
changes to forest management via SFM concepts; and potential changes to DWAF’s enforcement of laws.
During the month of November 2003, support for a number of CI&S Implementation Tasks was completed. The tasks included: pilot testing of the measures for CI&S; review of potential training options; attendance of a Technical & Information Services meeting; discussions on implications of CI&S on the new Lease Agreements; discussions and field visits with the forest sector (plantation) and with DWAF Indigenous Forest Managers; attendance of Enforcement Workshop; and discussions with the Change Management Consultant on implications of/to CI&S. A variety of examples of current implementation was gathered during this time. As well, a number of gaps or problems were identified which this report
addresses. This report attempts to identify the issues, provide a rationale as to why it is an issue, as well as describe the risk if the issue is not resolved, finally providing a potential solutions or listing of options to address the issue.
To summarize, there are a number of risk areas. These include: implementation project management; regulatory approach;
enforcement; multi-agency involvement; roles and responsibilities; monitoring and auditing; reporting; information management and continual improvement. The key issue that limits the successful implementation of CI&S is the development, refinement and the adherence to a CI&S Implementation Project Plan. A well thought out plan has the ability to be flexible to unforeseen situations, as well, it has the resources assigned that are accountable to the success of tasks that are key to the implementation.
DWAF Vision
“Forests are managed for people and we need to create an enabling environment
for economic and social development
through sustainable forestry, especially at the local level.”
Introduction
The purpose of the Criteria, Indicators and Standards (CI&S) is to promote the sustainable management of the nation’s forests. Principles of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) are outlined in the National Forests Act (NFA). The development of CI&S is a statutory requirement of the NFA. CI&S are based on the legal Principles.
Though the development of draft PCI&S have been completed, there is a daunting task of implementing these into the day to day lives of those who manage the forest resources.
During the month of November 2003, a number of CI&S Implementation Tasks ended. Support to these tasks included local and international consultants, DFID, forest sector and DWAF staff. The support was to allow reflection and recommendations as to how these activities can be continued efficiently to complete a thorough piloting of the CI&S and ensure the roll out of CI
&S within DWAF and the forestry sector.
One pilot tested the ability to report on the defined measures for CI&S and to use the tool currently developed (check sheets).
The visit included discussions and field visits with a sampling of the forest sector (small/medium/large growers) and with DWAF Indigenous Forest Managers. Participants were questioned as to the ability to satisfy the data/reporting requirements of the measures. This pilot, and others, will assist with designing data collection systems, as well as assessing data availability.
A second testing of the measures included a meeting with Scientific Services staff. Although the measures, their applicability and reportability were discussed, the main focus was to define the current and future role of these staff within the PCI&S framework.
Other initiatives occurring in DWAF were also viewed as to their relationship with CI&S. These included: review of potential training options (CI&S, forest management); discussions on implications of CI&S on the new Lease Agreements; attendance of Enforcement Workshop; and discussions with the Change Management Consultant on implications to CI&S.
A variety of examples of the current implementation was gathered during this time. As well, a number of gaps or problems were identified which this report will reference as issues. This report attempts to identify the issues, provide a rationale as to why it is an issue, as well as describe the risk if the issue is not resolved, finally providing a potential solutions or listing of options to address the issue.
Following are desired outputs of CI&S, it is important that implementation addresses these:
? Reporting nationally and internationally on the state of the forests in South Africa;
? Providing the regulatory framework for monitoring & enforcing SFM on State land;
? Providing best practice guidelines & techniques to improve forest management towards sustainability;
? Providing the framework for creating policy development partnerships for SFM in the public and private sectors; and
? Creating a tool for standardising communication & quality control in respect of SFM.
Issues to the Success of PCI&S Implementation
Following the exposure to many aspects of current and future initiatives of DWAF, a number of risk areas became apparent.
Each risk area has a number of underlying issues, of which may occur under more than one risk area. Please note that there is no order to the listing of the risk areas or with the list of issues.
The following section: lists the risk areas and issues; provides the rationale or reasoning for being classified as an issue;
provides the risk or implications of issue not being resolved; as well as a recommendation(s) to provide potential resolution of issue. The potential solutions may have a number of options that can be implemented individually or in combination. It is important for those that undertake the task have the ability and authority to develop and implement the solution.
Risk area: Implementation Planning and Management Including the following specific issues:
? Lack of effective strategic & operational direction & leadership for CI&S implementation
? Lack of effective project management (&/or lack of ownership)
? Lack of adherence to assigned roles, responsibilities & accountability (or lack of assignment)
? Lack of “buy-in” from Clusters/Regions
? Lack of understanding of the magnitude and intricacy of this project
? Lack of integration with other directorates and agencies
? Lack of adaptive management process (strategic & operational level) Rationale
To date DWAF has been involved with the development of a set of draft PCI&S. This set of CI&S is a good start towards progress to achieving Sustainable Forest Management (SFM). As well, the group involved with CI&S have completed a number of implementation tasks. Some of these tasks, however, may not have been initiated at a suitable time with regards to the overall delivery of this project. Further to this, some tasks have not been started or completed (particularly those at the strategic level or at the preparatory stage in a series of tasks).
In May 2003 a draft Project Implementation Plan was submitted to DWAF. It outlined a number of tasks, and timelines that would assist in the beginning of an implementation plan. It is not clear as to why this plan was not better utilized. It can only be speculated that the reasons are a combination of the specific issues listed above. Some sections of the original plan are outstanding by 7 months. However, this is not to say that the project as a whole is necessarily behind by 7 months.
The limited number of DWAF staff charged with this task was ineffectual on the overall progress of this project in the short horizon of 18 months. External resources may have been utilized, but the progress towards the goal can only be put into practice by DWAF. Not only limited number of staff but as well, undefined roles and responsibility have slowed the implementation process. This may be further exacerbated by the fact that the role of DWAF staff in the Clusters/Regions is limited or unavailable under the current system.
A project of this size, importance and complexity can be difficult to manage. Not only are there a lot of tasks to be done, these tasks are integrated within the CI&S as well as with other DWAF initiatives (i.e. PFM) or other government agencies
legislation/initiatives (i.e. NEMA). The project plan needs to consider and accommodate the necessity for this integration.
Working relationships with other directorates and agencies must be further enhanced.
An important and integral part of project or program implementation is adaptive management. This includes an assessment of tasks to ensure they have been completed effectively and then making a management decision about the future of the task, project or program based on the results of that assessment. This concept is understood but there does not seem to be a process available at either the strategic or operational level. What is needed is effective, objective-based performance management and effective use of the existing business planning system.
Risk
DWAF will not effectively and efficiently deliver the CI&S if this risk area is not properly and immediately addressed.
Potential Solutions
A well thought out and detailed plan will provide the strategic thinking behind a project that will be implementable at the operational level. This plan needs to detail the roles, responsibility, accountability and leadership. As well, this plan needs to provide the linkages to other tasks and other groups.
? Do assessment of other jurisdictions to see how they developed or have been implementing SFM. Build on that what is learned from these groups by making it applicable to local timelines, conditions and values
? Utilize the DRAFT MS Project Plan to adapt to local timelines, conditions and values
? Ensure that tasks or projects link to strategic plans (i.e. Key Focus Area)
? Assign roles and responsibilities to DWAF and external resources – ensure there is a process for ensuring accountability
? Ensure that a person or group of people are accountable to the upkeep of the plan
? Link to other agencies’ initiatives (government, community & sector (i.e. FSA))
? Link to other tasks within the implementation plan
? Ensure an adaptive management process is built in to the strategic and operational level of implementation
Risk area: Regulatory Approach &/or Enforcement Including the following specific issues:
? Uncertainty as to the implications of whether all, part or none of the CI&S are regulated
? Uncertainty as to how to handle enforcement of CI&S, as well as all other legislative requirements
? Uncertainty of the role and scope of Enforcement
? Uncertainty to the number of skilled workers available for enforcement
? Multi agency involvement with a number of Acts
? Confusion between enforcement vs. auditing vs. monitoring
? Role of Standards: utilize established standards &/or develop new standards Rationale
The role of enforcement for DWAF is currently being reviewed. This review is of existing regulatory requirements, but does not seem to directly include PCI&S. Until such time as the role and scope of enforcement is determined, it is difficult to comment on this section of the report.
Risk
The risk with enforcement runs the full spectrum. Regulating nothing, runs the risk of not achieving the goals of SFM.
However, regulating everything ties up valuable staff, increases costs, reduces flexibility in management and still does not assure that SFM goals will be met. At this point, the important CI&S or measures have already been legislated (i.e. labour laws, water, etc) – for the time being, do not increase work load. At a minimum, ensure the reporting information be required (but provide format and timeframe).
Potential Solutions
Enforcement of a forest practices system is determined by the regulatory approach. Some combination of self-regulatory and governmental control is in all regulatory systems.
? Review enforcement of CI&S in other jurisdictions prior to determining a regulatory approach
? Consider developing an independent monitoring board
? Consider developing a self-regulating and self correcting system
? Consider only requiring that CI&S be reported, followed by an audit of groups based on an audit sample process
? Review, participate and incorporate outcomes of Enforcement Workshop (i.e. work in consultation with the group leading this initiative)
? Consider training options for people to develop or enhance skills in enforcement
Risk area: Multi-Agency Involvement Including the following specific issues:
? Multi agency involvement in environmental management, each with their own Acts, causes for some overlapping with the CI&S requirements, yet no direct roles with integration of duties, implementation, coordination
? Uncertainty as to how to handle enforcement of CI&S, as well as all other legislative requirements (from other Agencies)
Rationale
Duplication, both legislatively and administratively leads to inefficient use of resources (i.e. people, money & time). There appears to be a possible overlap of tasks or responsibilities with other legislation (i.e. labour laws, water laws). In a section of NEMA it requires inter-governmental coordination on aspects of the Act. Apart from the development of the PCI&S, it is unclear as to how DWAF has ensured this. A single agency approach is more efficient and more cost effective. However, a
good working relationship between agencies can be adequate.
Risk
The risk of not working with other agencies results in inefficiency, but as well as results in increased costs and confusion with requirements for DWAF staff, other agency staff and the forest sector.
Potential Solutions
? Develop working agreements with other agencies – include roles in policy development, enforcement, monitoring, and reporting
? Link to other agencies’ initiatives
Risk area: Roles & Responsibilities Including the following specific issues:
? Lack of defined roles & responsibilities (R&R)
? Lack of defined relationships with stakeholders
? Lack of training specific to CI&S integrated into other training initiatives
? Potential lack of people in appropriate positions
? Lack of cohesive integration with other directorates (i.e. PFM)
? Uncertainty of role of DWAF with forest sector (small/medium/large growers, as well as managers/works in indigenous forests)
? Lack of “buy-in” from clusters/regions
? Timing of DWAF transfers to lease agreements and the impact on roles & responsibilities pre, during and post transfer with regards to CI&S implementation
? Complexity of management agents (government-forest sector, state lands-private lands, indigenous forests-plantations, conservancies-communities, etc)
? Uncertainty of DWAF’s role in certification Rationale
DWAF staff who have been involved in the CI&S have been keen and skilled individuals. However, the number of people involved is too few to implement a project of this magnitude and limited timelines. At present, majority of the effort for CI&S has come from the Pretoria Office.
Further to this, the roles, responsibilities and accountability has not been well defined. This is made apparent by the lack of knowledge of CI&S, as well the lack of attendance by staff for CI&S related sessions. For this reason, there have been a number of “slippages” in timelines, that can only be speculated as to have occurred because of this lack of definition.
A Key Focus Areas of DWAF from the strategic report is supervision/management/control by government. However, in order to achieve this goal, appropriate staff need to be adequately trained. Training/Awareness/Competency of DWAF staff seems to require more than just CI&S training. Staff in many of the regions are requiring basic forest management systems to be set in place – which in turn could require training. Integrated into this training should be the integration of CI&S.
A well-trained and motivated workforce is essential for the implementation of CI&S. It requires that responsibilities be clearly recognised and appropriate expertise and skills be available to deliver an acceptable program.
Good working relationships or partnerships with key stakeholders is fundamental to the implementation of CI&S.
Relationships do not appear to be defined. DWAF has been working with the Forestry South Africa, however it appears to be a loose affiliation. It should be considered that there may be untapped expertise or resources available to assist.
Many social criteria should be covered under the PFM directorate. It would seem that this directorate would have similar limitations to project implementation as does the TIS directorate. A strategic partnership between the two directorates would enable a more effective development and delivery of respective programs.
Risk
The risk of CI&S not being properly implemented if the roles, responsibilities and accountability is not defined is very high.
Potential Solutions
? Strategic Level – Continue work on Change Management Process – further defining the R&R of DWAF staff, specifically regarding PCI&S. Allowing the Clusters/Regions to be involved/determine the development of the R&R.
? Tactical Level – Consider engaging a Task Team approach where the Task Team is made up of individuals from each Clusters/Regions that have some authority to make decision in the group on behalf of the Clusters/Regions (i.e. Scientific Services staff or equivalent). Ensuring that it follows the guidance provided by the Strategic Level.
? Operational Level – Assigned person at the Clusters/Regions designated to coordinate the R&R at the operational level. Ensuring that it follows the guidance provided but the Tactical Level.
? Form CI&S Implementation Team – this could follow a similar structure as the Guidelines Task Team
? Develop training needs assessment for all DWAF positions
? Risk rate the training needs and develop/deliver appropriate training Risk area: Monitoring and Auditing
Including the following specific issues:
? Uncertainty as to what to monitor (implementation of activities or efficacy of activities) and how to monitor
? Uncertainty as to what to audit (compliance vs. conformance) and how to audit
? Confusion between enforcement vs. auditing vs. monitoring
? Confusion between CI&S and Certification
? No apparent reporting structure to provide for change to CI&S (i.e. adaptive management) Rationale
Monitoring is a tool to support management and allow improvements to be made to environmental performance. Monitoring is a component that is required by NFA. It is uncertain if managers realize the requirements of the National Forest Acts for reporting.
Currently some believe that the recording and tracking of measures will suffice. Albeit this is a form of monitoring, it is not sufficient for progress towards SFM. , The development of a monitoring program has not yet been initiated. However, prior to developing a system, DWAF needs to know what it is going to monitor and why.
Auditing is another component of the CI&S. An audit protocol needs to be developed. Further to this, it needs to be determined if DWAF is auditing for compliance (with legislation) or conformance (similar to voluntary processes, like certification). This question is key and needs to be answered prior to the development an effective auditing system.
For both monitoring and auditing programs, there is a need for properly trained people. This should be considered in the Roles and Responsibilities section of this report.
Risk
The risk of not implementing a monitoring program would mean being incompliant with NFA. The risk of not implementing an audit program would mean not being assured of compliance/conformance with the CI&S.
Potential Solutions
? Develop risk rated monitoring programs
? Review Knysna monitoring program and consider as a framework
? Review the Local Unit Criteria and Indicators Development (LUCID) Test for Monitoring by the USDA Forest Service to assist with the development of monitoring at the Forest Management Unit level
? Review auditing protocols for various jurisdictions and develop an applicable protocol
? Consider training options for people to develop or enhance skills in monitoring and/or auditing Risk area: Reporting
Including the following specific issues:
? Over-emphasize on the reporting aspects of CI&S
? No apparent reporting structure to provide for change to CI&S (i.e. adaptive management)
? Required by NFA for CI&S as well as State of Forests Report Rationale
Reporting is a tool to support management by providing needed information to managers. From this information, managers make decisions to initiate improvements to be made to environmental performance. Reporting is component that is required by NFA. It is uncertain if managers realize the requirements of the National Forest Acts for reporting.
Risk
The risk of not reporting would mean being incompliant with NFA, as well as not having a main component in the process for continual improvement
Potential Solutions
? Further to State of Forest Report, develop reporting requirements that will assist in the adaptive management process
Risk area: Review & Improvement Including the following specific issues:
? Lack of a comprehensive adaptive management process within the implementation of CI&S, as well as within the CI&S process
Rationale
Forest management decisions should be made based on a combination of research findings, operational experience and expert judgement. Continuing review and improvement is necessary to maintain the scientific credibility and practicality of CI&S.
Continued improvement is often equated with adaptive management. There is no apparent adaptive management process built into the implementation of CI&S.
Risk
Continual improvement is an essential component of SFM. Without it, management would remain the same or move backwards.
Potential Solutions
? Develop an adaptive management process
? Utilize established documentation on CI&S (i.e. Section 5 – Profiles and Supporting Information) when making changes to current CI&S (this is to ensure that the rationale for the CI&S are still being considered)
Risk area: Information Management Including the following specific issues:
? Lack of process for information management Rationale
CI&S require information in the planning, implementation and assessment of forest management operations. As well, the reporting requirement of CI&S will result in a massive amount of data/information. Management of this data/information is key
to the success of SFM. In addition to the storage needs of the data/information, analysis and modelling will need to be assessed and stored.
Risk
Information management is key to the success of SFM over the medium to long term. Therefore, the lack of an information management process would survive in the short term, but it would likely result in failure.
Potential Solutions
? Need to consider processes already in place (i.e. other government departments, other directorates) and build on them or extract from them
? Develop/implement an Information Management Strategy
Management System Framework
The next section of the report provides a simple management system framework. The structure of the ISO 14001
environmental management system follows the Plan-Do-Check-Act loop. The figure below reflects this loop. It is considered by many to be the Adaptive Management Loop.
The portions of the figure above the solid black line are all included in the “Plan” phase. This phase continues into the first box below the line (Develop Forest Management Plan). The next series of boxes that include the word “implement” are part of the
“Do” phase. It is obvious that one must plan before one implements, however the success is dependant on the level of appropriate planning. Once implementation is underway, the “Check” phase begins and continues. This phase would include the information collection and collation, as well as the report writing. It is this information that is provided to the decision makers to review and to “Act” on changes to management planning and management practices.
PCI&S
Commercial Forestry
Input
Experts Input
Current International C&I Information
All Laws
Monitoring
& Research Results Public
Input
Develop Forest Management Plan
Implement Plan
Implement Operational
Plans
Implement Monitoring Plans
Implement Research National
Forest Act
Recommendations
1. Review or do an analysis of other jurisdictions to determine how they implemented CI&S. This process was done for the development of PCI&S, but not for the implementation (this includes all the components of CI&S)
2. Develop a comprehensive CI&S Implementation Plan
3. Determine Roles & Responsibilities of DWAF, stakeholder, other agencies, public. (consider Change Management results)
4. Task Team Approach for CI&S Implementation– this group decides the fate of the CI&S implementation as it would work best for each Cluster. They would set tasks, timelines, resources, etc.
To summarize, a successful system lies in one that is largely self-managing and self-correcting. To be effective and credible, such systems must deliver efficient processes and outcomes through:
? a regulatory approach that minimises bureaucracy, fosters cooperation between stakeholders and optimises the use of available skills and resources
? high quality planning, including opportunities for public involvement
? an emphasis on incentives to encourage high standards, with penalties as a last resort
? clear objectives and standards
? monitoring and public reporting of results (including independent audit)
? a commitment to continuous improvement through training, education and research.
Ultimately, the worth of a forest practices system will be measured in terms of society’s acceptance of the outcomes in the forest.
Reference Reports
Forestry Tasmania. Sustainable Forest Management Brochure.
Institute of Natural Resources, Fakisandla Consulting; Forestwood; Fractal Forests; HR Adie; Stephen Berrisford Planning, Law and Policy Consultant; Ukwaziswa Consulting, and the University of Natal. Draft Principles, Criteria, Indicators And Standards For Sustainable Forest Management Of Natural Forests And Plantations In South Africa. September 2002.
Johnston, John. Forestry Tasmania sustainable forest management report. 2001/2002. Hobart, Tasmania.
SFM Framework Document. Slocan Forest Products. Vancouver, BC 2003.
Tasmania Forest Practices Board Annual Report, 2001/2002.
Wilkinson, G.R., Codes of forest practice as regulatory tools for sustainable forest management. Paper presented to the 18th Biennial Conference of the Institute of Foresters of Australia, Hobart, Tasmania, 3-8 October, 1999
Wilkinson, G.R. (2001). Building Partnerships – Tasmania’s approach to sustainable forest management. In: International Conference on the Application of Reduced Impact Logging to Advance Sustainable Forest Management: Constraints, Challenges and Opportunities, 26th February to 1st March 2001, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia. Compendium of Conference papers: 219-226.
Wilkinson, GR. And Drielsma, J.H (2001). Rampaging plantations – cause or consequence of changing land use in rural Tasmania? In: Forests in a Changing Landscape, 16th Commonwealth Forestry Conference jointly with the 19th Biennial Conference of the Institute of Foresters of Australia, Fremenatle Western Australia 18 – 25 April 2001. Conference Proceedings: 87-97.
Wright, P.A., G. Alward, J.L. Colby, T.W. Hoekstra, B. Tegler, and M. Turner. 2002. Monitoring for forest management unit scale sustainability: The local unit criteria and indicators development (LUCID) test (management edition). Fort Collins, CO:
USDA Forest Service Inventory and Monitoring Report No. 5. 41p.
Appendix 1
CURRENT LEGISLATION THAT MAY HAVE COST IMPLICATIONS Labour Relations Act (Act 66 of 1995)
Basic Conditions of Employment Act (Act 75 of 1997)
Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (Act 19 of 1998) Skills Development Act (Act 97 of 1998)
Employment Equity Act (Act 55 of 1998 National Forests Act (Act 84 of 1998)
Extension of Security of Tenure Act (Act 62 of 1997) National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998)
Skills Development Levies Act (Act 9 of 1999) Unemployment Insurance Fund Act (Act 36 of 2001) Unemployment Contributions Act (Act 4 of 2002) OTHER LEGISLATION THAT IMPACTS FORESTRY
Advertising on roads and ribbon development act (Act 21 of 1940)
Fertilizers, farm feeds, agricultural remedies and stock remedies act (Act 36 of 1947) Animal protection act (71 of 1962)
Atmospheric pollution prevention act (45 of 1965)
Medicines and related substances control act (101 of 1965) Physical planning act (88 of 1967)
Mountain catchment areas act (63 of 1970) Hazardous substances act (15 of 1973)
International health regulations act (28 of 1974) Lake areas development act (39 of 1975) Plant improvement act (53 of 1976) National parks act (57 of 1976) Health act (63 of 1977)
National building regulations and building standards act (103 of 1977) Agricultural pests act (36 of 1983)
Conservation of agricultural resources act (43 of 1983) Forest act (122 of 1984)
Electricity act (41 of 1987)
Environmental conservation act (73 of 1989) Minerals act (50 of 1991)
Game theft act (105 of 1991) Physical planning act (125 of 1991)
Management of state forests act (128 of 1992) Occupational health and safety act (85 of 1993)
Compensation for occupational injuries and diseases act (130 of 1993) Labour relations act (6 of 1995)
Development facilitation act (67 of 1995) National road traffic act (93 of 1996)
Environmental conservation act, extension act (100 of 1996) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa act (108 of 1996) Basic conditions of employment act (75 of 1997)
Water services act (108 of 1997)
Mpumalanga nature conservation act (10 of 1998) National water act (36 of 1998)
National forests act (84 of 1998)
National veld and forest fire act (101 of 1998)
National environmental management act (107 of 1998) National heritage council act (11 of 1999)
National heritage resources act (25 of 1999)
Appendix 2
Miscellaneous Content Requests by FTIS Staff
Mafu Nkosi's request for content to Position Paper (via email from Jane) - C&I's to be included in everybody's work plan
- If there is a delegation from South Africa travelling internationally they should include someone with C&I's
background
- There needs to be political commitment to C&I's
- The need for harmonised data collection
- The need for C&I's to promote good practice on the ground - enhance and motivate staff performance, compliance with C&I's, iterative improvement to C&I's
- Noting that C&I's should be dynamic and changeable - as they reflect societal values for SFM
- The need for capacity building and training for C&I's
- The role of C&I's in monitoring
- The importance of people seeing C&I's as a way of expressing what they already do
- The importance of C&I's in business management
- That C&I's are not just about getting information for the State of the Forest report
- That C&I's are strategic, but have operational implications
- Position paper to be endorsed by management - DG level.
Izak Van der Merwe (via email to Brenda Hopkin)
Hi Brenda
You may recall that we briefly talked (at Umngazi) about the issue of when our section should become involved in cases in the regions (such as Mngazana), and that you could work that into a report you had to compile. Things went so hectic since we came back from Eastern Cape that I forgot to follow it up. I give you my views on this as follows ( hope its not too late).
The Forestry Technical and Information Services Directorate works at the national level, monitoring, initiating research, developing guidelines, give inputs into national policy etc. on matters such as protected trees, forest management etc. When we get involved in case studies at the local or regional level, it can be:
* to assist us in developing practical national guidelines (or to adapt guidelines) that will address issues on the ground;
* in response to a request from a regional office for assistance. In that case the idea would be to assist the region with a case in a manner that will provide training to regional officials, and to help that region to comply with national policy, C,I&S - but in the end the region must be assisted to develop capacity to deal with the issues on their own in the long run;
* if such a case study may be necessary to enable FTIS to monitor or apply C,I&S or the implementation of guidelines;
* if such a case study forms part of a cooperative effort between directorates or between government bodies within a national framework or strategy for conservation for sustainable use.
The protocol should be that FTIS can act at the regional level if:
* one of the above reasons for involvement apply;
* proper procedures are followed by directing requests through cluster or area managers;
* all the relevant directorates are informed and involved as far as their mandates and capacity allow.
This is my view, which I haven't been able to discuss yet with Mike or Tom - Mike being very busy, and Tom being on leave.
Appendix 3
New ref.: F13/10/P
MINUTES OF THE SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT TASK TEAM MEETING: 16 JULY 2003:
KNYSNA
Present: Mafu Nkosi (Convenor), Tom Vorster, Richard Green, Wessel Vermeulen, Graham Durrheim, Theo Stehle.
NO. SUBJECT DISCUSSION & DECISIONS ACTION 1. Purpose of
meeting
• To lay the groundwork for formulation of new policies, guidelines and best management practices for sustainable forest management
• To prioritise the drafting of guidelines, start with indigenous forests and associated conservation areas, and thereafter extend to other forestry areas
• To assess the relevance / applicability of old Forest Management Instructions, and to adapt them for future use where appropriate
2. Approach • Meeting agreed that approach should be systematic
• Meeting agreed that the PC&I’s should be used as the framework within which need for policies, guidelines and best principles and practices will be determined.
3. General • Ensure that all policies and guidelines are consistent with the NFA and other relevant legislation
• Make use of FESA guidelines and standards
• Obtain Safcol management prescriptions and environmental guidelines
• Tabulate a comparison between FSC C&I’s and SFM C&I’s (importance high)
• The applicability of certain of the measures was discussed and the practical feasibility of certain measures were seriously questioned and it was regarded as of utmost importance to assess/test these practically in field conditions.
• There are links between the various criteria which should be taken into consideration when drafting guideline documents, e.g. Criterion 1: Indicator 1.2 is linked to Criteria 9 &
10; Criterion 2: Indicators 2.3 etc., linked to Criterion 6: Ind. 6.2
Richard Green to obtain from Komatiland Forests Wessel Vermeulen as soon as possible
Mafu Nkosi will test C&I in 6 situations. Knysna will be next.
4. Criterion 1:
Natural forests are protected
• Define / interpret natural forests. Meeting discusses and decides that in accordance with NFA definition s. 2(1)(x) this has to include biomes like fynbos and grassland associated with indigenous forest (i.e. conservation areas)
• Guidelines for forest guard patrols, including beacon & boundary inspections and reports needed
• Guideline for systematic recording of offences, apprehensions and prosecutions (keeping of registers) needed.
No action decided upon as yet.
C/o next meeting
No action decided upon as yet.
C/o next meeting
5. Criterion 2:
Biodiversity of natural forests is conserved
• It was agreed that Indicators 2.1 & 2.2 relate to detailed forest type and management classification which will inform Management Plans, and Regional Management Plans should be based on these
• The need for a policy/guideline on the drafting of management plans was identified.
• It was agreed that Indicators 2.3 & 2.4 relate to monitoring. The “HOW” of monitoring is the field of the regional SS section.
• The need for a policy/guideline on what should be monitored and how to go about the design of projects, was identified.
• Monitoring of water quality under Criterion 6, Indicator 6.2 should be integrated with other monitoring guidelines.
To be addressed by the SS strategic workshop, Knysna 17/7/03
Mafu Nkosi
Tom Vorster, Wessel Vermeulen, Graham Durrheim
6. Criterion 3:
Forest ecosystem structures are conserved and processes maintained
• Indicator 3.1: Forest margins. Need to revise FMI 7/3/3. Combine with other guidelines:
Eddie Schroeder’s, Knysna Management Plan, Forestry handbook, FESA, Safcol.
• Indicators 3.2 &3.3 and their measures were seriously questioned.
• The need for revision of the FMI 7/5/1(Fauna policy) was identified, also the policy on hot pursuit of problem animals.
• The FMI 7/4/1 guidelines on vegetation management needs to be revised.
• Reconstruction/rehabilitation of indigenous forest and other biomes: General guidelines are needed.
• Concern was expressed over the feasibility of Indicator 3.6 and its measures (nutrient cycling).
Tom Vorster
Richard Green
Wessel Vermeulen / Theo Stehle Theo Stehle
NO. SUBJECT DISCUSSION & DECISIONS ACTION 7. Criterion 4:
Forests are protected from fire, pests &
diseases, invader vegetation
• Indicator 4.2 was discussed. Agreed that guidelines for fire protection were governed by the national veld & forest fire strategies for which guidelines and standards are being drafted. These are meant to be generic. Nevertheless the old FMI no. 66 of 1979 (8/2/2) will be translated and where still relevant, applied until such time as new policies &
guidelines are in place.
• A guide for alien invader vegetation is needed. It was decided to adapt FMI 7/4/3, and work in WfW herbicide policy as well as Knysna guidelines for FSC.
Richard Green
8. Criterion 5:
Production potential is maintained or improved
• Indicators 5.2 – 5.5: A national, general guideline for sustainable harvesting of any forest produce, is required.
• Resource assessment of non - wood forest products ( FAO )
Wessel Vermeulen
9. Criterion 6: Soil and water resources are conserved
• It was agreed that water quantity was not really an issue in conservation areas.
• Water quality monitoring guidelines: Sass 5 techniques. See comments under point no. 5.
• Indicator 6.3: soil conservation. Although of a cross-cutting nature, the need for guidelines for roads, harvesting (logging), quarries/gravel pits, was identified under this indicator. Knysna has such policies in place in terms of FSC, which can be adapted.
Remember prescription schedules!
• Indicator 6.4: Riparian zone & wetland management activities: There are existing guidelines available on this that can be adapted for this purpose.
• Indicator 6.5: Pollution. There are 3 guideline documents on chemicals developed for FSC by Knysna, which can be used with minimal adaptation.
Theo Stehle
Richard Green will circulate to members, who can comment.
Theo Stehle
10. Criteria 7 & 8:
Forest economy
• It was agreed that the Task Team would not at this stage become involved with this.
11. Criterion 10:
Control &
enforcement of access and use
• Links in with Indicator 1.2. Refer to point no. 4 above.
• Access for recreation, education, culture and spiritual purposes: already provided for in the approved Access Policy.
12. Criterion 12:
Cultural, ecological, recreational, historical, aesthetic and spiritual sites and services
maintained
• Cultural, recreational, spiritual provided for in approved Access Policy.
• Historical: A need for guidelines was identified. A database has been compiled for Knysna. There is also a database for the Department which was developed more than a decade ago. Reference can be made to De Jong’s study for DEAT (Guidelines).
Izak van der Merwe / Johan Baard
13. Criteria 17,18,19:
Participatory forest management
• Policies and strategies have, or are being, drawn up for PFM. There is no need for the TT to become involved here.
14. Criterion 21:
Legislation and regulation
• Particularly i.r.o. Indicators 21.1 & 21.2, the need for guidelines for the regulation of
protection of forests and trees in terms of NFA s. 7, and 12 –15 was identified. Tom Vorster / Izak van der Merwe
Time frames: Because of work pressures and other priorities, and the extent of the various guideline documents identified, it was agreed that there should be flexibility regarding time frames and targets, and that task team members should try and accommodate this additional work load in their existing programmes as and when possible. It was decided in the meeting that a general target of two years within which these policies should be drafted, would be feasible. Obviously needs will dictate a higher priority for certain individual guideline documents.
Next meeting: To be decided on by the task team.
CONVENOR: (Mafu Nkosi) SECRETARY: (Theo Stehle)
