1
REFERENCES Brandt JP et al. 2013. An introduction to Canada’s boreal zone: ecosystem processes, health, sustainability, and environmental issues. Environmental Reviews 21:207-226. Cormier R et al. 2013. Marine and coastal ecosystem-based risk management handbook. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 317. 60 pp. Global Forest Watch Canada. 2010. Anthropogenic chances to Canada’s forest frontier : 1990-2001. globalforestwatch.ca Haines-Young R, Potschin M. 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In Raffaelli DG, Frid CIJ (eds). Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis, 110-139. IEC/ISO. 2009. Risk Assessment Techniques. International Organization for Standardization. IEC/ISO 31010:2009. 192 pp. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION ACTIVITIES Irena F. Creed 1 , James Brandt 2 , Richard Winder 3 , Dave Kreutzweiser 4 , Roland Cormier 5 1 Department of Biology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada; 2 Natural Resources Canada, Science Program Branch, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; 3 Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada; 4 Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada; 5 Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada. Application of a Risk Management Framework to the Boreal Forest MANAGING WHAT IS FALLING THROUGH LEGAL CRACKS METHODOLOGY ISO 31000:2009 RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK Canada’s Boreal Forest supports many ecosystem services. A recent series in Environmental Reviews (see Brandt et al. 2013) concluded that the productivity and biodiversity of the Boreal Forest are at risk due to human activities, including natural resource extraction, landscape fragmentation, land use/land cover change, increased pollutants and contaminants, increased invasive alien species, and poor management practices (Figure 1). These human activities, which are both intensifying and expanding, are resulting in loss of productivity and biodiversity that will have global consequences. Climate change is escalating the impacts and the uncertainties associated with these impacts. Understanding how humans directly affect terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in Canada’s boreal zone and how these effects and actions interact with natural disturbance agents is a prerequisite for informed and adaptive decisions about management of natural resources, while maintaining the economy and environment upon which humans depend. The loss of productivity and biodiversity will have ecosystem-scale consequences. There is no single conceptual approach to assess the cumulative effects of natural resource extraction activities is widely accepted by both scientists and managers. We present a framework based on the following premise: “If undesirable changes are a result of the combined residual effects of human activities operating within the bounds of regulatory frameworks, then our regulatory frameworks need to be improved.” This framework integrates science and management to explore the risk of further deterioration of ecosystem services. FIGURE 1: Canada’s anthropogenic footprint on the boreal forest ecosystem (Global Forest Watch Canada 2010). RISK vs. RISK ASSESSMENT vs. RISK MANAGEMENT Risk: Effect of uncertainty on policy objectives. Risk Assessment: Determination of the likelihood, magnitude and severity of ecosystem impacts based on our understanding of the ecological system . Risk Management: Determination of the effectiveness of management measures at achieving policy objectives based on our understanding of the management system . WHY ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT POLICIES FAIL Policy failures are rooted in the gap that exists between science and management (Figure 2). Science is not effectively mobilized for consultation purposes in policy formation and can be difficult for decision makers to understand. Management neglects to ask the appropriate questions of science in order to effectively improve legislation. Sitting at the nexus of these two bodies is an innovative opportunity to “reconcile” science and management with the intention of producing science that matches policy needs. FIGURE 2: The “missing link” between science and policy that contributes to failure of policies. FIGURE 3: ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management Framework with percentage of resources dedicated to each stage (Cormier et al. 2013). ISO 31010:2009 BOWTIE TOOL A structured approach is used to analyze causes and consequences of ecosystem change: 1. Drivers – the social, cultural, economic and political influences that drive human activities. 2. Causes – the physical, chemical, or biological agents that are introduced or discharged into the ecosystem as the result of human activities. 3. Consequences – the potential harmful impacts that may occur as a result of the risk event. 4. Prevention Controls – the controls that reduce the likelihood of the causes of a risk event. 5. Mitigation Controls – the controls that reduce the magnitude and severity of the consequences after a risk event occurs. 6. Escalation Factors – undermine the effectiveness of prevention or mitigation controls; they focus attention to intrinsic design weaknesses as well as to outside influences (e.g., climate change). MANAGEMENT MEASURE DESCRIPTION Act to Reduce the Magnitude of Impacts Prevention Actions Input controls are management measures that influence the amount of a human activity that is permitted Mitigation Actions Output controls are management measures that influence the degree of perturbation of an ecosystem component that is permitted Avoidance Actions Spatial and temporal controls are management measures that influence where and when the activity is allowed to occur Mitigation Actions Mitigation and remediation controls that guide human activities to restore damaged components of marine ecosystems Enable to Allocate Authority Authority allocation Measures to ensure that management is coordinated Facilitate to Make the Action Easier to Implement Economic incentives Measures which make it in the economic interest of those using the ecosystem to act in ways which help to achieve the policy objective Education Communication, stakeholder involvement and raising public awareness Track Performance of the Action Implemented Traceability measures Measures to improve the traceability of ecosystem impacts Environmental targets Predetermined measures that indicate desired environmental conditions. Do changes to policy meet, exceed or fall short of these targets? Indicates a gap not addressed in the new management plan Compliance and effectiveness monitoring programs Tracks the compliance of Policy Implementers and the effective results that are generated from the change in policy. No compliance – No change. Compliance – Measure the change The Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) is a statistical technique with a structured approach that combines quantitative and qualitative information (including expert opinions) to model the pathways from causes to multiple consequences. Of particular importance to the cumulative effects assessment, is that the Bayesian Belief Network can evaluate the effectiveness of preventative and mitigation controls within the Bowtie (Figure 5). BBN modelling is used to estimate: (1) the likelihood of a risk event given the ongoing causes and the existing prevention controls; and (2) the magnitude and severity of consequences of a risk event based on the existing mitigation controls. FIGURE 4: ISO 31010:2009 Risk Analysis Tool. FIGURE 5: Bayesian Belief Network conceptual framework linking processes and structure in the environment to services and human benefits (Haines-Young and Potschin 2010). We recognize the need to work within existing governance structures using International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards. Within Canada, an evaluation of program activity shows that over 75% of resources are spent establishing the ecosystem management context and identifying risk. Only 12% are spent on risk analysis, evaluation and treatment, with another 12% on communication/ consultation and review/monitoring. If this resource allocation continues, we will not be able to improve management of the Boreal Forest ecosystem. The ISO Risk Management Framework identifies 25+ approaches that can be used to analyze risk. Only one, the Bowtie Tool, adopts a structured and systems approach to risk analysis, evaluation, and treatment. The Bowtie Tool takes a structured and systems approach to the analysis of management measures within the context of existing governance structures (Figure 4). As far as we know, this is the only approach that uses a “systems approach,” which allows both the scientific understanding and management of ecosystems (Figure 4). A systems approach is used to analyze strengths and weaknesses in ecosystem management: FROM PROPOSAL TO PROGRAM … IDEA TO ACTION The Environmental Reviews special issue compiled an impressive amount of literature and data on different stressors of the Boreal Forest. As part of the Canadian Network of Aquatic Ecosystem Services, we will be working with federal government agencies to leverage these efforts by conducting a risk management analysis that investigates the interactions among the causes and consequences on the Boreal Forest. It is essential that we assess interactive effects of the full range of causes leading to unintended consequences on the Boreal Forest and determine any differences in how ecosystem services are provided among areas. If we understand more about how people directly affect Boreal Canada and the links between these effects and natural disturbances, then that information can help policy makers and resource managers make better informed decisions about Boreal Canada. We will be starting in Spring 2015 and are interested in sharing experiences with other countries pursuing similar initiatives in both forested and other ecosystems. Establishing the Ecosystem Management Context Review and Monitoring Management Plan Implementation and Environmental Effects Communication and Consultation with Governance, Stakeholders and Community of Interest Risk Assessment Review and Monitoring Management Plan Implementation and Environmental Effects Communication and Consultation with Governance, Stakeholders and Community of Interest Risk Evaluation Environmental Management Options Risk Treatment Environmental Management Plan Development & Implementation Risk Identification Environmental and Ecosystem Services Risk Analysis Ecosystem Impacts and Ecosystem Services Consequences 44% 6% 6% 0% 6% 6% 31% MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES OBJECTIVE: DESIRED STATE GOAL: LONG-TERM ASPIRATIONS LEGISLATION HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE PROGRAM POLICY PUBLIC POLICY Function (e.g. slow passage of water; biomass) Service (e.g. flood, protection; harvestable products) Biophysical Structure and Process (e.g. woodland habitat; net primary productivity) Benefit (e.g. contribution to aspects of well-being such as health and safety) Value (e.g. willingness to pay for woodland protection, more woodland, or harvestable products) Biophysical Assessment Valuation Social Assessment Cumulative Pressures Limit pressures via policy action? Consequences of the Risk Event Human Activities Producing Pressures CAUSE CAUSE CAUSE Risk Event Prior to Event Event Occurs After Event CAUSE CONSEQUENCE CONSEQUENCE CONSEQUENCE Prevention/Mitigation Controls Escalation Factors CAUSE For more information and to get involved please contact: Irena Creed Western University [email protected]
