The HCV conundrum… to designate HCV or not to designate
As part of the FSC protocol, HCVs are designated by the forest manager. This must be done with expert, stakeholder and aboriginal advice, and must be explained in the HCV report.
An argument has been made that HCVs should be assessed on the merits of the value alone. Rareness, Social value, Historical value – managers should follow the strict definition of the FSC standard and the framework. The ability of the manager in question to affect control over the value, regardless of risk, is not relevant. This presents a conundrum.
Based on a cursory review, lots of values may meet the threshold under some circumstances. In northern Saskatchewan, The Whooping Crane should be a straight forward designation as an HCV, but it crosses North America from north to south and back, touching many locations. All of those locations are, by definition, Whooping Crane habitat. Is this entire habitat HCV? The imprecise use of language and imprecise habitat information cause confusion. Whooping Crane critical habitat is an HCV, but most people loosely say things like "Whooping Cranes are HCVs". And of course because we often do not know precise locations for critical habitat, it is reasonable to refer to a species in lieu of habitat. The HCV (Framework (NBS Appendix 5) in element 1, identifies “SAR or potential habitat of SAR”. Again this leads to a focus on the species as the HCV.
One framework for assessing HCVs ( see the Abridged version available on this site, that I prepared; or Appendix 5 of the National Boreal Standard, available from FSC Canada) sets the value as a definitive HCV (a mandatory HCV) if the species is “representative of habitat types naturally occurring” in the forest. But later the framework guidance section also asks if the species have “sensitivity to forest operations”. This is a mixed message -- what exactly are the criteria for designation? The framework is being pragmatic, as all of these factors should be considered by the manager. But for practical purposes what works?
Practical approach: In my view it is prudent to take the approach of identifying the HCVs broadly; consistent with the intent of the standard, even though in some cases there is minimal (or no) management requirement. Risk to the value should not enter the discussion of assessing whether it is an HCV. This is the “prudent” approach because, especially on public lands where values have many friends, and monitoring is a requirement, it is simpler to designate an HCV. For most values this is just the way it is. Of course the manager needs to precisely define the value, as always, even if the public uses the terminology loosely. This means identifying the Real Risk.
So in the Westwind example (see page Assessing High Conservation Value Forest -- Example Reports) we have a large number of HCVs which are described as requiring no prescription. For example, Atlantic Coastal Plain communities occur in the forest, but are all in Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs). It is not allowed to conduct forestry ops in PSWs; no prescription is required.
Ironically some managers believe that it is better to not identify the value as an HCV. This may provide them with lower profile, so it is less likely to attract attention. This makes for some very distorted logic. Managers taking that approach may find themselves arguing that "This Park is NOT an HCV!" or "Caribou are NOT HCVs!" Yikes. That is not the kind of quotation that looks good in the media. But managers taking the approach that the value is NOT an HCV because it is looked after by some sort of prescription, will find themselves defending awkward statements.
Real risk is an expectation that there is more than a small chance that a value will be compromised given a certain management alternative. Real risk is important to the value, and it is the reason for the precautionary principle in the FSC standard. Managers must be held responsible if they introduce real risk to the values. As such, the HCV precautionary approach is applied directly by the managers where they introduce real risk. To mitigate real risk they must assess a broad range of HCVs and adopt precautionary management for those in the scope of their management.
This is important. Managers should not be held accountable (Subjected to Corrective Actions in an audit for example) for HCVs which they do not introduce real risk, and which is not within the scope of their control. (There is more to this discussion under Manager’s Sphere of Influence). We note that indirect risk can still be introduced, for example by increasing access. This is a real risk and, even though it is indirect, it requires a precautionary approach.
Other resource users may introduce risk. Other users may use the same list of HCVs and have a different set of values to which they must apply the precautionary principle. Consistent with the HCV approach world wide, I focus on identifying HCVs broadly and using prescriptions for any real risk introduced and under the control of the managers.
In short, although managers must assess a broad range of values and may come up with a long list of designated HCVs, they must determine which HCVs they have some responsibility for and develop a precautionary management approach for each. Some designated values will have minimal or no management intervention. The precautionary approach, as defined in the FSC standard (1), means that:
· the value will be the primary objective for management in the HCV area
· management avoids action that may lead to irreversible changes to ecosystem function and resilience
· alternative strategies are developed, possibly including no management, that are least likely to impair viability of species or ecosystem
· prescriptions must be shown to be effective through monitoring and prior evidence
The meaning of this in practical terms, is the subject of the accompanying reports, and some of the following examples. I recommend the Bancroft example as the most recent of the reports.
You may find the slide show on page High Conservation Values -- A Practical Approach helpful. This is a pdf version of the HCV Practical Approach discussed here.
1 Note: This definition of " precautionary approach" is stronger than that in the Rio Declaration (1992, Principle 15, Agenda 21) which only refers to lack of scientific certainty: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. “
HCV types
During assessment, values are designated as one of the following :
HCV – follow guidance of P9 in which management is guided by the precautionary principle and monitoring demonstrates that specific prescriptions are effective.
Not HCV – follows guidance of P1 to P8 for management and monitoring
HCV no special prescription required – means that the value is significant at least at the regional level, but there is no interaction with forestry and consequently no special prescription is required, nor is monitoring. In other words, Normal good forestry practices avoid impact on the value.
Possible HCV – occurrence is not confirmed, needs further information about distribution and abundance, and or consultation required; follows P9 and precautionary principle.