Assignment #2: Data Sourcing and Assessment – Annotated Bibliography

KEY RESEARCH THEME: How has / is ecosystem based management been / being used in the Great Bear Rainforest (GBR) to protect and manage biodiversity and old growth forests?

4 PEER REVIEWED REFERENCES:

Bourgeois, W.W. (2008). Ecosystem-based management: Its application to forest management in British Columbia. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 9(1), 1–11. Retrieved from http://www.forrex.org/sites/default/files/publications/jem_archive/ISS47/vol9_no1_art1.pdf

Peer reviewed article appearing in the BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management. Main research question is the examination of the relationship between sustainable forest management and EBM in the province and how it may be applied in the future to attain further sustainability. Particular focus on the implementation of EBM with respect to the forest industry, which is important to our research regarding management of old growth forests. Also of relevance to us is the way Aboriginal forestry has been identified, as First Nations represents one of our major stakeholders. No methods have been specified in this paper. As with the preceding references, this paper lays out the basic components of EBM with respect to BC. It does not lend many new insights to the subject when the other two papers are considered. Much of the paper describes the planning process, as well as definitions around sustainable forest management. It would be considered a reliable source, as the information is accurate (albeit somewhat out-dated now). There is sufficient credibility, though not many claims are made.

McGee, G., Cullen, A., & Gunton, T. (2010). A new model for sustainable development: A case study of the Great Bear Rainforest regional plan. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 12(5), 745-762. doi:10.1007/s10668-009-9222-3

This work bears many similarities to Ecosystem-based management in the Great Bear Rainforest (Price and MacKinnon, 2009). A peer reviewed article that describes the case study of the GBR as a successful example of collaboration in planning around natural resource management, with particular respect to the planning process (as opposed to the implementation process) as a model for sustainable development. Provides insight into how this process is effective given the regional factors and requirements. No methods have been specified in this paper. This paper appears to be largely once sided, arguing only the positive elements of the planning process and suggesting that it is a solution to the problems presented by management of resources in the GBR. While it does a good job of supporting the positive elements, it lacks any criticism of the process (as is included in other papers). News reports of the shortcomings of the plan with regard to vague wording suggest that there is room for criticism.

Price, K., Roburn, A., & MacKinnon, A. (2009). Ecosystem-based management in the great bear rainforest. Forest Ecology and Management, 258(4), 495-503. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.10.010

Peer reviewed article that broadly examines the definition and implementation of EBM in the GBR. Provides a base understanding for our research of how EBM is being employed in the management of old growth forests and biodiversity in the area of study, and which elements are unique to the GBR. Noteworthy article due to extensive citation (by 49). Elements that are particularly unique to the area as outlined by this paper are power shifts and coalitions between various stakeholders, which ultimately contributed to the establishment of the LRMP.No methods have been specified in this paper. Contact information is provided for authors; article peer reviewed; extensive references provided. The aforementioned factors contribute to the credibility and support of this paper. A strength of this paper in relation to our research is the description of the individual elements of EBM and how they have been addressed through the current management plan.

Slocombe, D. S. (1998). Defining goals and criteria for ecosystem-based management. Environmental Management, 22(4), 483-493. doi:10.1007/s002679900121

Peer reviewed article that establishes goals and criteria for ecosystem-based management. This work has been extensively cited (cited by 189) and has been used in the implementation and evaluation of various EBM projects. Article provides a framework by which we can analyze the effectiveness of EBM in the GRB, and isolate areas where improvements could be made in order to address the wicked problem of resource management and conservation in this area. Goals and objectives outlined by Slocombe (1998) combine elements from other literature (literature review). They approach the biophysical environment, community and society, and whole ecosystem, separating goals into substantive and procedural goals. This reference is reliable, given the extent to which it has been cited and its presentation in the Journal of Environmental Management. By combining these criteria with the evaluations of other references of EBM in the GBR, we can formulate a good understanding of the effectiveness of policy.

2 GREY LITERATURE REFERENCES:

Group, K. R., & desLibris – Documents. (2014). Status report on ecosystem-based management (EBM): Policy barriers and opportunities for EBM in Canada. Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. Retrieved from http://cbfa-efbc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/EBM_in_Canada_CBFA_July_2014.pdf

This is a status report prepared for the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement group by KBM Resources group. The main research question of this report is to determine whether the forestry practices of various provinces are aligned with the EBM criteria. Included in this is a summary of the policy gaps, barriers to implementing EBM in Canada, and opportunities for advancing EBM in Canada. “Report findings are based on literature reviews, interviews and review by practitioners in the jurisdiction of interest” (Group & desLibris, 2014). The project was undertaken by the KBM resources group, with collaboration from biologists, ecologists, academics, and forestry professionals. Literature review is an effective way of assimilating an extensive range of data, and incorporation of ideas from practitioners in the area of study further contributes to the appropriateness of the methods. While this study reflects the findings and evaluation of only one group, it provides good insight as to how effectively BC aligns with EBM criteria. Individual criteria are evaluated, and issues that arise within each criterion are raised. This is useful in understanding how EBM can / has been used within BC and the GBR, as well as how it can be used more effectively in the future given that we have already established that there are still issues with this style of resource management. Given that a privately contracted firm produced the report, there may be issues of credibility, however the incorporation of consultation from various professionals lends credibility to this source.

McAfee, B., & Malouin, C. (2008). Implementing ecosystem-based management approaches in canada’s forests: A science-policy dialogue. Canadian Forest Service (Natural Resources Canada). Retrieved from http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/28282.pdf

Report on the “discussions at a science-policy dialogue where participants from governments, industry, and non-governmental organizations shared their experiences with implementation of integrated solutions for managing natural resource and environmental issues” (McAfee & Malouin, 2008). Includes a case study of EBM in the Central and North Coast areas of BC (page 53 to 56). Focus of this report is on the use of scientific research in enacting frameworks for natural resource management. This reference has been cited by 6 papers, and highlights how EBM can be used to address protection of species at risk and take a systems approach to resource management. This report is a collaboration between various contributors, each of whom has produced a different article approaching a different element of EBM. Methods vary between articles; most employ literature review methodology. Articles contain references, and contact information for all contributors has been provided. Contributors are considered experts in their fields, and information regarding their positions and titles is given along with their contact information. The linkages between science and policy are the feature of this article that are most relevant to our research, given the issues that arise when scientific information is divided that may result in a wicked problem. One weakness is the divergence in the report from practices specific to BC. That said, by examining the way in which other provinces have employed EBM we may be able to refine and improve the way that it is approached in this province.

2 RAW DATA REFERENCES:

British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. (2005) North Coast Land and Resource Management Plan: Final Recommendations. Retrieved from https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/ncoast/docs/NCLRMP_Final_Recommendations_feb_2_2005.pdf

This is a land and resource management plan, created by the North Coast LRMP planning table. Focus for this annotated bibliography is on tables 4 – 7 (pgs 54 to 58). These tables outline the recommended land use designations (protection areas, biodiversity areas, special forest management areas, and EBM operating areas) for the plan area. These tables quantify the scope of the protected areas, and make distinctions between the different designations. Understanding the different land use designations and the scale of each designation is central to interpreting the effectiveness and appropriateness of EBM in the GBR, and for understanding how this management approach is being employed in the GBR. The land use designations in tables 4 – 7 were created by the NCLRMP planning table, which included representatives of nine public sectors, eight First Nations, local governments and the provincial government (BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, 2005). Information and technical resource analysis was done in collaboration between the Government Technical Team (GTT) and the Coast Information Team (CIT). This inclusive method of data collection is very appropriate, as all stakeholders were included in the planning process. The collaborative nature of this project, the objective nature of the land use designations and boundaries, and the publishing body (BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management) suggest that these tables are credible and reasonable. There is a possibility that these designations do not represent current designations, as it was published in 2005 and a number of amendments have been made to the plan in subsequent years. In the introduction it is written that the land use designations are ‘recommended’, and therefore may not reflect the actual adopted boundaries.

Sierra Club British Columbia. (2009b). State of British Columbia’s coastal rainforest. [map]. 1:1,000,000. Retrieved from http://sierraclub.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/State-of-British-Columbias-Coastal-Rainforest-1.pdf

This reference is a raw data reference (geographic information file). It depicts the forest ecosystems in British Columbia’s coastal rainforests that are at risk of species loss, and the degree of loss to which they are susceptible. This map is particularly useful in providing a visual representation of the spatial distribution of old growth and biodiversity within the GBR (North and Central Coast) as of 2009. Maps represent “how much old growth remains in groups of ecosystems defined by using a combination of site productivity and climatic units” (Sierra Club BC, 2009a). This map is an Albers projection. It was included in a larger report by the Sierra Club of BC entitled ‘State of British Columbia’s Coastal Rainforest: mapping the gaps for ecological health and climate protection.’ This map is published by the Sierra Club of BC, a widely respected and credible non-profit organization. They have been involved and continue to be involved in the creation and evolution of the NC and CC LRMP and the protection of the GBR. It appears to be accurate in that it is up to date (published in 2009). The contrast shown between the loss of biodiversity on Vancouver Island and the South Coast provides evidence for the necessity of protection of the remaining old growth forest. A possible limitation is the scale of the map, which includes all of the BC coastal forests. It may be more beneficial to have a smaller scale map of just the target area of the North and Central Coast.

REFERENCES:

McGee, G., Cullen, A., & Gunton, T. (2010). A new model for sustainable development: A case study of the great bear rainforest regional plan. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 12(5), 745-762. doi:10.1007/s10668-009-9222-3

Price, K., Roburn, A., & MacKinnon, A. (2009). Ecosystem-based management in the great bear rainforest. Forest Ecology and Management, 258(4), 495-503. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.10.010

Sierra Club British Columbia. (2009a). State of British Columbia’s coastal rainforest: mapping the gaps for ecological health and climate protection. Retrieved from http://sierraclub.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CoastForestReport2009_email_corrected.pdf

Slocombe, D. S. (1998). Defining goals and criteria for ecosystem-based management. Environmental Management, 22(4), 483-493. doi:10.1007/s002679900121

Adam Mertens Porfolio

Just another UBC Blogs site

Assignment #2: Data Sourcing and Assessment – Annotated Bibliography

Leave a Reply Cancel reply