Two directors of Silva Forest Foundation, Herb and Susan Hammond, have observed the land use conflicts and been involved in the forest land use assessment in Clayoquot Sound since 1988. In light of the BC Ministry of Forests' acceptance (July, 1995) of the recommendations by The Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound, the following condensed analysis of the Panel's reports by Silva is presented here.

Major Points from an Initial Analysis of the Reports of the Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound

Herb Hammond and Alix Flavelle

The purpose of this review is to summarize and analyze the reports of the Scientific Panel for Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound. The intent is to look at implications for the ecosystems of Clayoquot Sound of adopting the to prepare an ecosystem-based plan for part or all of Clayoquot Sound, based upon the Panel's findings. From the standpoint of protection of forest ecosystem functioning, and development of diverse, stable community-based economies, this "test plan" needs to be developed by people with an ecosystem- based ethic, and practical experience in ecoforestry and applied ecological economics. To a large extent the ethics and practical knowledge of those applying the Panel's recommendations will determine how well the forests of Clayoquot Sound, and the communities sustained by these forests, are protected.

A general conclusion is that the Scientific Panel's recommendations for forest planning present a true ecosystem-based approach acknowledging the paramount importance of maintaining ecosystem structure, composition, and function; and the importance of planning over long time periods (though, they say 100 years and we prefer to look at 250-500). The recommended planning approach includes incorporation of Nuu-Chah-Nulth wisdom and perspectives and provision for shared decision-making, as well as an open public planning process. The Panel also recommends planning for all resource values, and acknowledges that some activities, notably logging, negatively impact other resource values.

Major conclusions

1. In order to achieve "world-class forest practices standards" and the maintenance of fully- functioning ecosystems, the Scientific Panel's recommendations must be adopted as a whole package, interpreted through the guiding principles.
2. First Nations roles in decision-making, specifically in overriding land use decisions that prejudice Indigenous Culture, are unclear.
3. The recommendations (due to constraints of the Panel's Terms of Reference), provide no long-term opportunity to protect whole, intact watersheds other than those protected by the Clayoquot Sound Land Use Decision.
4. Allowing four hectare clearcuts is not consistent with objectives for maintaining fully-functioning ecosystems.
5. Implemented according to the principles and intent of the Scientific Panel, in particular ensuring the establishment of ecologically viable protected landscape networks, a variable-retention silviculture system can be expected to meet the objectives of maintaining ecosystem functioning and watershed integrity.
6. The Panel's recommendations do not include sufficiently detailed interim guidelines for applying their proposed variable-retention silviculture system before subregional and watershed-level plans are completed.
7. There is a high priority need for forest restoration in Clayoquot Sound landscapes that have been logged. However, the Panel's discussion of restoration is weak and their recommendations related to restoration are vague and discretionary.
8. Too many site-level planning decisions are deferred to the judgment of professionals and specialists who may not understand ecosystem-based approaches, or who may not yet have sufficient experience in the new approach.
9. Non-timber resources and values are considered in a more comprehensive way than in previous planning processes, but the weight of non-timber resource objectives in the planning process is not clear.
10. It is unclear how the Scientific Panel's recommendations, if adopted by government, will relate to prior land use decisions and existing forest practice standards in Clayoquot Sound.

Context of the Scientific Panel's Reports

Report 1: Report of the Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound (January 1994); Report 2: Progress Report 2: Review of Current Forest Practice Standards in Clayoquot Standards (May 1994); Report 3: First Nations' Perspectives: Relating to Forest Practices Standards in Clayoquot Sound (March 1995); Report 4: A Vision and Its Context: Global Context for Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound (March 1995); and Report 5: Sustainable Ecosystem Management in Clayoquot Sound: Planning and Practices (April 1995).

The Scientific Panel was to provide specific forest practice standards in its second report. However, the Panel found that current forest practices do not meet the Panel's general and guiding principles (as presented in Report 1). In order to meet their terms of reference "to make forest practices in Clayoquot not only the best in the province, but the best in the world" (Report 1, p. 4), the Panel decided that they would need to make far more than just recommendations to upgrade the current practices. The Panel's task changed to one of "creating standards for a different approach to forest planning and management." Thus, Report 2: Review of Current Forest Practice Standards in Clayoquot Sound presents findings of the Scientific Panel on current forest practices in Clayoquot Sound and formulates recommendations for dealing with key subjects and issues. These recommendations are non- specific and discretionary, in the form of principles rather than standards. In addition, the Panel established a set of principles to guide the development of new, specific standards.

The operating and guiding principles of the Scientific Panel presented in Reports 1 and 2 are based on sound ecological science, a wholistic philosophy long needed in forest planning in British Columbia and across Canada, and respectful acknowledgment of the Nuu-Chah-Nulth's rightful role in decision-making regarding forest use, as well as involvement of local communities. As a package, and interpreted from the most conservative (conservationist) perspective, the Panel's recommendations will effect positive changes in timber management in Clayoquot Sound.

However, due to constraints by the Panel's Terms of Reference the translation of their recommendations into true ecosystem-based recommendations leaves some gaps. This is primarily due to the Scientific Panel being constrained by a narrow terms of reference that discouraged them from making such recommendations as the protection of undeveloped watersheds other than those protected in the Clayoquot Sound Land Use Decision.

In our view, the inability of the Panel to recommend protection of remaining intact watersheds in Clayoquot Sound contradicts their terms of reference and guiding principles. Specifically, their goal was "to review existing management practices for Clayoquot Sound and, as necessary, recommend changes to these standards appropriate to the ecological conditions of Clayoquot Sound based on the best available scientific information." This information will necessarily include the science of landscape ecology which would directly point to the necessity of looking at whole intact watersheds and their ecological significance in the larger landscape. When viewed within the larger landscape of Vancouver Island, the intact watersheds of Clayoquot Sound become critical to protect in order to maintain landscape-level and site-level or stand-level ecosystem functioning. The level of fragmentation from clearcutting and the conversion of old growth temperate rainforests to tree plantations across Vancouver Island provides clear ecological reasons to protect the remaining intact watersheds in Clayoquot Sound.

"To meet its goal effectively the Panel found it necessary to refine its terms of reference ... to consider planning processes explicitly." (Report 1, p. 4) There is no scientific rationale for why the Panel did not consider the protection of whole intact watersheds at the subregional level of their recommended planning hierarchy. Apparently, the Clayoquot Land Use Decision, a purely political decision, blocked the Scientific Panel from following their terms of reference and guiding principles while considering the fate of intact watersheds.

A reality of the "ecological conditions" of Clayoquot Sound is that a significant portion of the landscape has been degraded from past clearcutting and road construction. However, although obviously within their Terms of Reference, the Scientific Panel only briefly addresses the issue of restoration. An active, comprehensive restoration program is necessary in Clayoquot Sound to assist Nature in reestablishing forest functioning at all scales. This must include restoration of composition and structure of upland forests degraded by logging, as well as restoration of hydroriparian areas. Without an aggressive forest restoration program, Clayoquot Sound forest practices cannot be classified as "the best in the world."

Report 5 presents the findings of the Scientific Panel regarding existing forest practices; a rationale and framework for a new wholistic ecosystem-based planning process; and specific recommendations for implementing the planning process. Recommendations fall under six subheadings:

• silviculture systems
• harvesting systems
• transportation systems
• scenic, recreation, and tourism
• planning for sustainable ecosystem management
• monitoring.

• Use ecosystem-defined planning units rather than administrative units. · Abandon the annual allowable cut (AAC) as an input to planning timber production, and replace it with a watershed area-based rate-of-cut.
• First reserve, i.e., protect, areas that are essential for maintaining fully functioning ecosystems, and second, designate timber extraction areas. This means planning landscapes before developing logging prescriptions. Hopefully, this will mean the establishment of permanent forest ecosystem networks (FEN). (Silva refers to these FENs as protected landscape networks.) However, the Panel is silent on whether the networks will be permanent.
• Consider long ecosystem-based time-frames, rather than simply timber rotations.
• Use a revamped inventory and analysis system for both timber and non-timber values and resources.
• Inform the planning process with scientific and traditional knowledge, and local experience.
• Engage the First Nation (Nuu-Chah-Nulth) as well as other local people, in all phases of planning.

Subregional plans would be conducted for a group of contiguous watersheds of 40-60,000 hectares, considering a period of 100 years, at a map scale of 1:50,000-1:250,000. Overall land use objectives are set and monitored at this level. Silva notes that a 1:250,000 map scale is far too small, i.e., shows too little detail, to plan a group of contiguous watersheds of 40-60,000 hectares. Planning scales for areas of this size should not be smaller than 1:100,000.

Watershed plans would be done for a single watershed of 5,000-35,000 hectares, considering a period of 100 years, and at a map scale of 1:10,000-1:20,000. Reserve areas and logging areas are identified at this level and rate-of-cut is set.

Site level plans would be done for specific types of sites or activities, usually of 1-100 hectares, considering a period of 10 years, at a map scale of 1:2,000-1:5,000. Working units at the site level may be defined as "cutting units" for logging and silviculture, or "recreation units" or "wildlife units."

In addition, a visual landscape management plan and a recreation and tourism resources plan are to be integrated into each of the subregional, watershed, and site plans. These plans are to be based on inventories of scenic and recreation values to be conducted at subregional and watershed scales and displayed in a form that is easy for the public to understand.

The Panel recognizes the need to "make the necessary changes to current planning process to support ecosystem management, including providing for shared decision-making, shared authority, and an open public planning process. Respectfully incorporate Nuu-Chah- Nulth wisdom and perspectives, and involve Nuu-Chah- Nulth as partners in planning." (Report 2, p. 55) This is a well-intended recommendation, that (as we interpret it) recognizes that Nuu-Chah-Nulth culture, wisdom and their management of Clayoquot Sound for millennia are integral to ecosystem-based planning today. Wholistic ecosystem-based planning needs to be supported by the wisdom and experience of the Nuu- Chah-Nulth in Clayoquot Sound. However, the terms "partners in planning," involvement, and inclusion in planning, describe an inadequate role for the Nuu-Chah-Nulth in decision-making.

Effective public consultation is also advocated within several recommendations by the Panel, particularly in the sections on scenic, recreation, and tourism resources. However, no guidelines are given for exactly how and when public consultation would occur at various stages of the planning process. Nor does the Panel suggest ways to incorporate the public's responses. No recommendations are made for giving the public even limited roles in decision making.

Conclusions

• incorporation of Indigenous knowledge and information into forest inventories and forest use planning
• establishment of reserve areas or forest ecosystem networks in all watersheds that will be modified by timber management.
• retention of stand level structures following logging in most cutblocks
• protection of hydroriparian areas and other sensitive ecosystems
• incorporation of improved recreation, tourism, and visual quality inventories and constraints into forest planning.

However, the Panel's recommendations have some deficiencies which may block achieving true ecosystem- based plans and forest use in Clayoquot Sound. The primary weaknesses are:

• an ongoing permission for small clearcuts
• a lack of priority and clear direction for restoration
• a lack of protection for intact watersheds
• a lack of competent generalists with ecosystem-based values and knowledge to carry out the recommendations.

Particularly within the context of the existing legal and political power held by timber tenure holders in Clayoquot Sound, the latter weakness could be the undoing of otherwise good recommendations. In order to avoid this problem, people experienced in ecosystem- based approaches need to develop plans to be contrasted with conventional plans prepared by the timber industry.

It remains to be seen how much importance will be attached to the Scientific Panel's recommendations by political decision-makers. If the government chooses to exercise its broad discretionary powers in favor of short- term timber interests, implementation of these reports could mean little more than benevolent industrial timber management.

To obtain a copy of the complete Review of the Reports of the Scientific Panel, contact:

Silva Forest Foundation
PO Box 9
Slocan Park, BC, Canada, V0G 2E0
Tel: (604) 226-7222.