You are on page 1of 9


cJ- \tL ~ + \~ I U»,..,


Report of the Forestry Working Group Measures to Harmonize Process Final Version - March 2000




Table of Contents


Introduction The Current Measures to Harmonize Process

3 3 3
3 4 4 by the Special Representative. 5

2.1 2.2 2.3

Five Year General Harvest Plans Annual Harvest Plans P.A.I.F. Modifications o' the Cu ..... nt Proeeu
ProCHB for Approval

3.0 4.0

ShortcomingRecommended 4.1

P","-requisltes for the Measures 10 Harmonize Process 4.1.1. Annual Budget Approval 4.1.2. Information Sharing SAS Map and Family Territory Information Integrated into the Planning Company Data

5 5 6 6 6 6


The Measures to Harmonize Process 4.3.1 Pre-c:onsultation Phase 4.3.2 Alternative Dispute Resolution Process Non-c:ompllance with proposed Measures To Harmonize

A~ ,


" ~



7 8 8 8 8


other Considerations 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4 Code of Forest Practice Lines of Authority Communications Separating MTH from the IRMP Process



Summary of Recommendations 5.1 ~5.10 9 Phase Process


Annex 1 • Pre·Consultatlon







The Measures to Harmonize Forestry Working GrOlJP (FWG) was established in September 199B as a special worlting group under the Trilateral Agreement. As directed by the Special Representatives the tasks of the Working Group include the following:


To conduct an evaluation of the current meesures to harmonize process and recommend to the Special Representatives means to promote the efficiency and effectiveness, in.cluding the evaluation of any proposed alternatives and the rationale for the recommendations in a report to the Special Representatives.
Discuss and develop a draft protocol agreement with the forestry companies Which will Include:


a) Steps to improve the process,
b) Dispute resolution and non-compliance
c) Code of forest practice.

procedures, and

This report presents the findings and recommendations of the forestry working group with respect to the measures to harmonize (MTH) process and provides recommendations for the implementation of an Improved MTH process on the Trilateral Agreement Temtory. 2.0 The Current Measures to Hannonlxa Process

A brief overvIeW of the current planning process Is provided in the follOWing section to provide context to the identified shortcomings of the current measures to harmonize process and the recommended procedural changes proposed by the FWG.


Five Year General Harvest Plan.

Upon receipt otthe five year harvest plan caned 'plan qulnquennal forestiet' (P.QAF.), from the companies, the MRN implements a publ.ic consultation process in Which the general public and

media of InformaHon meetings or the location and hOUI$ during which the plan may be viewed and reviewed.
The MRN informs ABL by courier that anyone from the ABL oommunlty Is welcome to consult on the P.Q.A.F. at tne local MRN office (Maniwaki) during a 45 day period. A copy of.P.Q.A.F. Is courteree

municipalities are given 45 days to comment on the plan. The public

la notified through local

to the ~EF for commenl


Annual Plans

The designated eMF holder prepares an annual cutting plan, called '8 "plan annuel intervention forestier" (PAI:E ), conforming to the areas designated within the P.QAF. during the fall season. Annual plans are received by the MRN during the period between December 1sl and February 111 and reviewed by the MRN and MEF for compliance with Government of Quebec norms and legislation.



The ABL receive a copy of the plan(s) via courier from the implicated forestry eompl!llr1Y YA1iCh also sends a copy to MRN to initiate the measures to harmonize field work process, At this time, the MEF is also provided with a copy of the plans by the MRN for consultation and comment (10 d,ay review period), Upon the review and acceptance of the annual plan by the MRN a permit is issued not later than April 1"1 or within 3 months after receipt of the P.A,I.F. This permit does not take into account the MTH to be proposed by the ABL Upon receipt of the annual cut plans by the ABL, a budget Is prepared for eubmiss10n to the 8M and the Federal Govemment which provides the cost estimate to conduct the field work and prepare all necessary reporting associated with the MTH process. Upon acceptance of the budget by the Trilateral Agreement signatories, the field work process is initiated. Typically. discussions are held with the implicated eMF agreement holder to prioritize stands for fi.eld work in order to facilitate the early commencement of harvesting operations in sectors where MTH are required. Four Algonquin monitors undertake the field work and conduct consultations within the Algonquin Community as to MTH for the cutting sector. The Sensitive Are~ Study ('SAS") Maps prepared during the Trilateral Agreement are also consulted during this period, Following the field work and community consultation. a report Is drafted for the sector ouUining the proposed MTH for each cutting sector. Copies of the report are forwarded to tne Special RePresentatives. the MRN. snd the affected eAAF holder for review and comment TyplcallV, fOllow-up meetings occur between the CMF holde( and the Algonquins during which MTH are clarified or alternative strategies negotiated. If required, addltional reporting to record the agreed upon measures arising from the negotiations is undertaken. The CAAF holder is responsible for notifying the MRN in instances where permits require modification. Harvesting permits are revised accordingly by the MRN upon receipt of the revised cut plan negotiated between ABL and the eMF Agreement holder.
Upon re-issuance of the cutting permit companies commence logging or silvicultural operations subject to weekly monitoring by the Algonquins to ensure compliance wtth the agreed upon




Modifications to the P.A. I.F. frequently occur throughout the year. Modified plans are submitted to the MRN, the ABL and copies are forwarded 10 the MEF (10 working day consultation period), Budgets are prepared for the MTH fieldwoi1( associated wtth the plan modification and submitted to Quebec and Canada for apPl"Oval. Upon confirmation of the fieldwork budget the measures to harmonize process, as described above, is implemented.


Shortcomlnga of the Current Proce ..

The time frame associated with the current MTH process was found to be the most problematic aspect of the MTH process by all parties represented on the forestry working group. The lack of a process for pre-i::9nSult!'ilti.on on cut plans has resulted in d upncatlon of planning efforts, constdereble paper wOrk. delays, and increased costs for all parties. Other significant impediments to the smooth functioning of the current process were Identified FWG including the lack of a dispute resolution process, unclear lines of authority with respect measures, the lack of communication facilities at Lac Rapid,and the lack of stable budgets to the process, Table 1 presents the shortcomings of the current process and potential solutions by the to field support identified





Table 1: 'robl.m. Problems (Ph ...

& Potential Solutions with the Me.sures to Harmonize Proc.1S 1) Potential Solutions - Consult ABL In fall season prior to submission Areas could be coded as to initial acceptability Red - no go, Yellow - Caution - MTH field work - Produce maps with family terrltortes as basis Update SAS maps. - Field work prior to submission of plan - Code of practice • Sharing of information amongst parties (SAS, cruise data, etc.) - Update of SAS maps • Stable annual budgets essential for continuity of work - Reporting through a.Byford I H. Jerome only telephone service at Lac Rapid - Field radio for ABL - Arbex to function as oommunlcatians centre for ABL - E-mail weekly listing afcut areas
- Additional

Time frame and delays

of plans to MRN. (i.e. Green - go, necessary). for pl;:mning.

Changing Silvicultural

Prescriptions Information Budgets Une of Authority Communications

Opposition from Individuals Dispute Resolution

- Chief and Council have jurisdiction, legal process exists • Code of Practice - Special Representatives must implement process


Recommended Process for Approval by theSpeclaJ Representatives

The MTtt process recommended by the FWG for im~ediate implementation Is presented below. It is recognized that the MTH process will be an adapllve process in which all parties win encourage continuous improvements, . _., 4.1 Pre~r.quisites for the Measures to Harmonize Process


Ann ual Budget Approval

A stable and sustained budget must be available for ABL to meaningfully participate in the MTH. It is recommended that budgets be confirmed and monies transferred prior to the implementation of the pre-consultation phase,




Sh.rtng Integrated Into the SAS Map and Family Territory Information

Information on the scope, magnitude and nature of Algonquin forest uses is fundamental for proper forestry planning. The interface between the Algonquins and the environment is in constant flux due to ecological (fire, natural succession. etc.) and socio-cultural factors suoh as shifting land use patterns and practices, changing population demographics, sedentization. etc. It is also recognized the initial SAS project of the Trilateral Agreement did not map or identify all sites of significance to the ABl. Community sensitivity with regard to the dissemination of cultural information and traditional ecological knowledge necessitates that resource planners maintain an on..going consultation with the Community in order that heritage, cultural and other fore·st values of the Algonquin people are not compromised by forestry activities or resource development. As such. it is recommended that the BAS mapping be updated on a territory wide basis in oonjunction with Trilateral Agreement management planning activities and that a confidentiality protocol be drafted for signature by the forest companies prior to the release of any sensitive data or information. Company Data The companies, as part of the information exchange process, should provide to the ABL data and Informatlon as required to facilitate the effective and effICient eperanon of the MTH process. Data provided may include cruise data for specific cut blocks, digital or hard copy maps of past and planned harvest areas, etc. A confidentiality protocol drafted for signature by the ABL will be required prior to the release of private or confidential forest industry data to the Algonquins. 4.3 The M...

to Harmonize Proce .. Phase


In this phase. cut ptans are submitted by industry to ABL for preliminary analysis .(between September 15 - December 15). A thirty to forty-five calendar day consultation period for internal community discussions and analysis of the plan follows receipt of the cut plan maps and summary sheets (area, type of cut, ete.) The output of the community consultation process will be a colour-coded map with the following designations: red- no harvesting permitted, yellow - areas requiring further investIgation for the development of modi·fied harvest prescriptions, green - areas with no harvest restrictions to p!anned harvest. Upon receipt of the COlour coded map, companies may submit the ptan 10 the MRN: or In instances of disagreement with the ABL designation, enter into an alternative dispute resolution process (ADR).

Areas identified in yellow en the maps require field site inspections by the Algonquin Monitors and are to be subject to possible harvest modifications through the MTH process. Prior to the commencement of field worK, the ABl will provide to the companies a field war!<;schedule indicating the block number 10 be field inspected and the time line for the completion of the field worK phase and the written report detailing requested initial modifications. AI this time, consultations within the community as to the findings of the field work and proposed alternative forest management strategies also occur. No later than fifteen (15 working) days following the completion of the field work in deSignated cut blocks, the companies will receive a written report indicating proposals for harvest modifications. Should the companies taKe issue with the ABL recommended prescriptions a ten (10 working) day discussion period will be implemented, to attempt to resolve the outstanding issues. If no agreement can be reached the AOR process will be initialed. DUring the MTH process and the subsequent harvesting activities of the companies, the following activities are to occur on a continuous basis during the annual cycle of the process: • Harvesting maps to be updated weekly by companies and faxed to Arbex offices for circulation to ABL; • SAS maps will be updated on a continuing basis as new information becomes available (it is recommended that the first territorial re.... ision of the SAS mapping occur in conjunction with the development of the Trilateral Agreement IRMP); and • On~oing dialogue between all partiel. 4.3.2 Alternative Disput.e ResDlutlon Process

At present. an ADR process does not exist should the eMF holders and the A8L disagree as to the MTH. The FWG recommends that the Special Representatives of Quebec and the ABL be given the mandate to seek resolution of disputes or disagreements arising from the MTH process. The use of the Special Representatives was seen as the most cost effective approach out of several models which were discussed by the working 9rol4>. The proposed dispu1e resolution process proposed Is as foil om: 1"· eMF holder andlor ABL give notlce to' the O~of resolution process. their intent to initiate the dispute

2nd. Special Representatives are notified and provided wtth verbal or documentary support for position pf each party within 5 working days of the request for ADR. 3'" - Within 10 working days of the ~uest for ADR. the Special. Representatives shall attempt to mediate the dispute and must conduct an obligatory meeting or conference call with the parties. If mediation fails, the Special Representatives, follOWing the review Of the positions of the parties, may make a recommendation to the parties. 4!1>·In instances where the Special Representatives cannot concur. the matter will be referred 10 a mutuallv agreed upon third party, with a mandate to make recommendations to the parties.

Forestry companies, as represented on the wor1dng group, exprened a willingness to implement the procedure described above on a one year trial basis. Should th.e procedure prove unsatisfactory, altemative means of dispute resolution will be explored as directed by the Special Representatives. Non-compllance with Proposed Meaeurea to Hannonlze The iesue of non-compuance with MTH in harvest operations was also addressed. It is the opinion of the FWG that issues of non-compllance with respect to MTH should be submitted to the Special Representatives as part of the above ADR process. The Special Representatives may make recommendations to the parties as to appropriate sanctions, which may include compensation to the ABl. 4.4 Other Considerations 4.4.1 Code of Forest Practice The adoption of a voluntary Code of Practice detailing forest cuttlng prescriptions to be applied In areas of cultural or environmental significance to the ABL presents a pragmatic and practical approach to Improve the operational planning of forest industry and the MTH process. The FWG is mandated to prepare a Code of Practice by its Terms of Reference.

4.4.2. Linea of Authority
Misunderstanding! and misinfoonatlon with resPect to the implementation of ·PifA have arisen as a result of logging contractors discussing MTH with Algonquin monitors. or with members of individual families In the past. In no circumstances should logging operations proceed in advance of the submission of the report on MTH for a particular sector or upon !he issuance of a verbal instruction. The written MTH report reflects the without prejud ice position of the A1gonqulns of Barriere Lake.

4A.3. Communi~ation.
The lack of aatiSfactory communication facilities at Lac Rapid Is recognized as a hindrance for the smooth functioning of the MTH process and warrants comment but is beyond the scope end mandale of the FWG. In the absence of satisfactory services 10 Lac Rapid ills recommended that Arbex function as the liaison between the forestry companies, the MRN and the ABL. 4.4.4 Separating MTH from the IRMP ProceSs


IRMP. Problems in the MTH process unavoidably affect the IRMP process, and vice versa. In order to ensure the stability of both processes and to ensure the IRMP process is not unduly delayed, the FWG recommends developing a separate capacity for the MTH process with adequate human and financial resources.

bn<J"Trilater.!f·peraoririet 'are alrnno~~ln

bOth MTH and


- ,-.


summarY 'of R;eommendaUo,,8
That a stable annual budget be provided for the MTH precess; That. to tak'e1iceount of on~oinR in be updated on a territ.ory-wide basis in conjunction 5.1



cniiiillls rm~

with the IRMP process;





SA 5.8

That, to facilitate planning, ABL share SAS information with forestry companies to the signing of a confidentiality protocol by forestry companies; That. to facilitate p'aming, forestry companies share forest planningiharvest With the ABl, subject to the signing of aoonfidentiality protocol by ABL;


'that a pre.eonsuitSti6n

phase, described above, be incotflbrated Into the MTH process whereby forestry companies provide the annual cutting plans to A6L for Input prior to their submission to MRN and the issuance of a cutting permit (see Annex 1); "



Ttlatan AOR ~S;8s

described fstablished'consisting of ihe Special of Quebec and ABL to deal with disagreements arising from MTH; with MTH be submitted to the Special Representatives


That Issues of noncompliance part of the ADR process;


That, in order 10 respect lines of authority, forestry companies should act on the written MTH report and not upon communications in the field 'Nith monitors, community members or families; That. to overcome lnadeouate communication facilities at Lac Rapid, Arbex shall function as a liaison between ABL, forestry companies and MRN; That a caPaCity, separate from the IRMP process, be develt)ped with adequate human and financial resources.




MTH process