Provincial
Monitoring Framework For
Strategic Land Use Plans
Working Draft
July 1999
RE: PROVINCIAL MONITORING FRAMEWORK FOR STRATEGIC LAND USE PLANS
The working draft of the “Provincial Monitoring Framework for Strategic Land Use Plans” has now been released. This report will be a valuable resource in support of the next phase of the strategic land use planning process — implementation and monitoring. It is intended as a guide to assist Inter-agency Management Committees and individual agencies in developing monitoring procedures for approved strategic land use plans (SLUPS).
Copies are available here.
The framework includes two key components: an implementation monitoring system and an effectiveness monitoring system. The implementation monitoring system describes a process for defining SLUP projects and tracking progress on project implementation. The effectiveness monitoring system outlines steps for assessing whether the goals and objectives in an SLUP have been met as a result of project implementation.
A key challenge in the development of a monitoring framework is to provide a meaningful assessment of implementation progress and effectiveness, while at the same time maintaining a relative degree of efficiency and simplicity. Though it may be appealing to develop a comprehensive (long, exhaustive) set of indicators (and related data) that provide performance measures for all of the objectives in a strategic land use plan, the time and cost to do this is likely to be prohibitive. It makes more sense to select indicators based on existing, available data that will provide a broad (i.e., big picture) indication of implementation performance. The monitoring framework supports this approach and provides an example of desired outcomes and related indicators that can be used to measure the effectiveness of plan implementation.
Another example of where efficiency may be achieved is in the sorting of SLUP strategies into “base” and “incremental” activities. Base activities are strategies that are implemented under existing agency programs and mandates (e.g., forest development plans). There is no need to monitor these activities within the framework since they are already monitored through other mechanisms such as the Forest Practices Board, Environmental Appeal Board, Auditor General, etc.
On the other hand, strategies that are defined as “incremental activities” are unlikely to be carried out under existing agency programs and therefore need to be implemented and monitored based on the procedures described in the monitoring framework. The participation of public interest groups is an important part of the monitoring process and may be accommodated through the establishment of “public monitoring committees”. The role and structure of these committees should be clearly defined from the outset. For example, initially a public monitoring committee may be called upon to provide advice on the design of the monitoring process (e.g., implementation activities, desired outcomes, indicators, etc.) Thereafter its role should be to provide feedback and recommendations on the results of implementation and effectiveness monitoring assessments.
The provincial monitoring framework has been prepared as a working draft. Its purpose is to assist regions in developing a consistent approach to implementation and effectiveness monitoring procedures for approved strategic land use plans. Where regions are proceeding with a monitoring program, they are encouraged to work with this draft over the next year and provide advice and recommendations for improving the framework based on their experience with implementation and effectiveness monitoring. However, please be aware that while it is expected that regions will undertake implementation monitoring for approved plans, there is no requirement to undertake effectiveness monitoring at this time. Suggestions for improving the procedures in the monitoring framework should be forwarded to Gary Reay (Process Coordinator, Kamloops LRMP) or Elizabeth Zweck (Program Manager, Prince Rupert Inter-agency Management Committee). The framework will be reviewed based on the advice received and then finalized and adopted as provincial policy after a period of 12 - 18 months.
The project team is currently developing a guide to accompany the framework. The guide will contain step-by-step examples of how to develop and set up monitoring tables, implementation strategies, desired outcomes, indicators and reporting procedures. This guide will be circulated as soon as it is available.
Thank you to all those who have contributed to the development of this framework. We look forward to working together to develop implementation and monitoring procedures that meet the needs of strategic land use plans throughout the province.
Yours sincerely,
Derek Thompson,
Assistant Deputy Minister
Resource Management
(250) 387-1526
Foreword
The procedures outlined in this policy document establish a provincial framework for the implementation and monitoring of strategic land use plans. It is intended for use by Inter-agency Management Committees, inter-agency implementation teams and individual agencies with responsibility for implementing strategic land use plans. The objective is to ensure effective and consistent implementation of strategic land use plans throughout the province.
This report was prepared by a project team which included Gary Reay (Process Coordinator, Kamloops Land and Resource Management Plan), Elizabeth Zweck (Program Manager, Prince Rupert Inter-agency Management Committee) and Stuart Gale (Principal, Stuart Gale & Associates Ltd.). Advice was provided by Betty Schweizer (Program Manager, Omineca-Peace Inter-agency Management Committee), Jennifer Davis (Process Coordinator, Vanderhoof Land and Resource Management Plan), Margaret Marsland (Process Coordinator, Seven Sisters Land Use Plan), Mary Viszlai-Beale (Process Coordinator, Fort Nelson Land and Resource Management Plan), Lisa Moore (Process Coordinator, Lakes Land and Resource Management Plan), Margaret Bakelaar (Program Manager, Kootenay Inter-agency Management Committee), and Phil Whitfield (Program Manager, Thompson-Okanagan Inter-agency Management Committee). Warren Mitchell (Director, Resource Management) also provided advice and direction on the development of the monitoring framework.
The document is intended as a “working draft”, which will be revised based on advice received from Inter-agency Management Committees and inter-agency implementation teams. Suggestions for improving the procedures in the monitoring framework should be forwarded to Gary Reay or Elizabeth Zweck at the following locations.
| Gary Reay |
Elizabeth Zweck |
Table of Contents
2. Implementation Monitoring System
3. Effectiveness Monitoring System
Executive Summary
This report provides a provincial framework for monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of strategic land use plans. It is not intended as a set of hard and fast rules, but rather as a set of guidelines to assist Inter-agency Management Committees in developing appropriate implementation and monitoring procedures for strategic land use plans in their regions.
The framework includes an implementation monitoring system (i.e., procedures for tracking progress on the completion of projects identified in a strategic land use plan) and an effectiveness monitoring system (i.e., procedures for monitoring whether a strategic land use plan has met its goals and objectives). A diagram showing the components of the implementation and monitoring framework is shown in Figure 1 on page 7.
A key first step in the process is to define the management direction and intent of a strategic land use plan (SLUP). Strategies and/or resource management guidelines(1) define a strategic land use plan’s “management direction” and goals and objectives define its “intent”.
The implementation monitoring system identifies all strategies that need to be implemented to achieve the management direction in a SLUP. It defines project work plans for completing strategies and procedures for assessing and reporting on implementation progress. Strategies may be undertaken as “base activities” where implementation responsibility is defined under existing agency programs or as “incremental activities” that will need to be implemented as specific SLUP projects.
This report outlines procedures for monitoring SLUP strategies that are defined as incremental activities, but not for those defined as base activities. Base activities are generally monitored through other processes such as ministry budget estimates, Auditor General reports, the Forest Practices Board, and the Environmental Appeal Board.
The effectiveness monitoring system determines whether a SLUP is meeting the intent reflected in its goals and objectives. Goals and objectives are summarized as “desired outcomes” and effectiveness is measured against one or more performance indicators for each desired outcome.
Indicators are intended to show whether the implementation of SLUP strategies has had a positive, negative or neutral effect on environmental, economic and social values in the plan area. To provide meaningful results, indicators must be measured consistently over time. Baseline data will need to be defined for each indicator as a starting point to measure relative changes in performance.
At a minimum SLUPs should include procedures for monitoring the implementation of strategies. Additional procedures for monitoring effectiveness will help to determine whether the strategies are actually contributing to the achievement of SLUP goals and objectives.
Although considerable time and effort may be required to design and develop an effectiveness monitoring system, the benefits it provides will more than offset the investment. An effectiveness monitoring system will enable agencies to adjust implementation priorities, integrate priorities with other program responsibilities, track progress to determine whether SLUP direction and intent is being met and communicate implementation results to the public. Furthermore, once the system has been developed, the resources required to conduct an effectiveness assessment should not be that significant.
Provincial agencies are responsible for designing and developing the SLUP monitoring process and for conducting periodic reviews. Public monitoring committees and other forms of public consultation may be used to provide advice and recommendations on implementation and effectiveness monitoring results.
This monitoring framework is a “working draft”. It is designed to support effective and consistent monitoring of strategic land use plans throughout the province. The framework is intended to be flexible in terms of its application and accordingly can be adapted to address the unique requirements of a particular region or SLUP. For example, a region could decide not to monitor SLUP effectiveness (i.e., whether intent is met) and focus exclusively on implementation monitoring (i.e., achieving management direction). In this case the components in the “implementation monitoring system” of the framework would provide guidance for setting up appropriate implementation monitoring procedures.
Inter-agency Management Committees, inter-agency implementation teams and individual agencies will be encouraged to use the framework to assist them in the design and development of monitoring procedures for approved SLUPs. A review and revision of the working draft will be undertaken based on the advice and recommendations provided by the various users throughout the province. The provincial monitoring framework will then be finalized and recommended for adoption as provincial policy to guide the monitoring of strategic land use plans.
1. Framework Overview
Strategic land use planning encompasses both regional and subregional planning. Regional plans include the four land use processes undertaken by the Commission on Resources and Environment: Vancouver Island, Cariboo-Chilcoltin, West Kootenay-Boundary and East Kootenay. Subregional land use plans – which are usually smaller in area than regional plans – include the Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) undertaken by the provincial government under the general management of the Resource Management.
Strategic land use plans (SLUPs) provide a comprehensive management framework to guide resource development and more detailed planning. They provide direction for land use through the establishment of broad land use goals, resource management zones, objectives and strategies. Most strategic land use plans also include direction for implementation and monitoring.
This report provides a provincial framework for monitoring strategic land use plans. The key components of the framework are presented in Figure 1.
Implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring are complementary activities. An implementation monitoring system defines the projects and expected outcomes that need to be accomplished to achieve the strategies in a SLUP. An effectiveness monitoring system determines whether the implementation of the SLUP strategies has led to the achievement of its goals and objectives. Effectiveness is measured by assessing performance indicators for a set of defined desired outcomes that reflect the intent of the SLUP goals and objectives.
Principles
Implementation and effectiveness monitoring should be guided by the following principles.
| Monitoring Principles for Strategic Land Use Plans Provincial direction to ensure that implementation and effectiveness monitoring reflects provincial interests, is relatively consistent across all regions and is achievable within provincial budgets. Flexibility to account for the unique land and resource features and management requirements in each individual plan. Inter-agency coordination in developing an implementation and effectiveness monitoring process, preparing annual work plans, monitoring progress and making adjustments to the implementation process and amendments to the SLUP. Public involvement in monitoring implementation progress and effectiveness. Timely reporting to ensure that implementation progress and effectiveness are assessed and publicly reported on a regular basis. |
 |
| Strategic Land Use Plan Monitoring Framework |
Management Direction and Intent
The management direction and intent of a strategic land use plan is defined through its land use goals, resource management zones and objectives, strategies and/or resource management guidelines.(2) The intent of a SLUP is typically met through the achievement of its goals and objectives and management direction is carried out through the designation of resource management zones and the implementation of strategies and/or resource management guidelines.
| Management Direction
and Intent
Goals are an expression of a desired future condition, state, or outcome. They usually reflect broad social ideals, aspirations or benefits associated with the use or management of specific natural resources or the achievement of economic and/or social priorities. Resource management zones are geographic designations that specify the type of activities and management direction that will be applied to a specific area. Objectives specify a desired future state or outcome with respect to a particular resource or resource use. They normally specify measurable results and a time frame for completion. Objectives may apply broadly across the entire plan area or they may identify primary uses or values and describe the intent for land use and resource management in a particular resource management zone. Strategies identify the actions that need to be undertaken, or the conditions that need to be put in place to achieve an objective. Strategies can include descriptions of acceptable types of resource use activities, standards of use or management, and times and locations where a land use can occur, or conditions that must be met before an activity is approved. Strategies are typically written to correspond to a specific objective Resource management guidelines are similar to strategies and are used in some SLUPs to describe the type and level of resource management practices/standards necessary to conserve the integrity of a particular resource value. |
Implementation Monitoring System
The implementation monitoring system includes steps for developing a database of SLUP strategies, defining key implementation projects, preparing project work plans, and assessing and reporting on implementation progress.
The strategy database identifies all of the strategies in a SLUP and the agency(s) with lead responsibility for implementation. The database also sorts strategies as either “base activities” or “incremental activities”. Strategies that are identified as base activities are implemented through existing agency programs (e.g., water management, forest development plans, mine development review process, etc.). Strategies that are identified as incremental activities are not covered under existing agency program responsibilities and thus need to be implemented as specific SLUP projects.
The implementation monitoring system does not address strategies that are identified as base activities since these activities are already accounted for through other processes such as the Forest Practices Board and the Environmental Appeal Board.
Once incremental activities have been identified, they should then be defined as implementation responsibilities in SLUP projects. Work plans should be developed for each project. These work plans should identify expected outcomes, lead agency, participants (government and public), subtasks and activities that need to be undertaken to complete the project, and target completion dates.
Implementation responsibility for each project should be assigned to an identified lead agency. Implementation assessments should be conducted each year to determine the level of progress on each project. Based on the assessment, an annual Monitoring Report should be prepared which documents the completion status of all projects and indicates whether the overall intent of the SLUP is being met. The report will include recommendations for revisions to individual projects or to the overall implementation process.
Effectiveness Monitoring System
The effectiveness monitoring system is a tool for evaluating the extent to which a SLUP is meeting the intent reflected in its goals and objectives. It includes procedures for identifying desired outcomes, selecting indicators and monitoring and reporting on the effectiveness of SLUP implementation.
SLUPs often contain a wide range of goals and objectives specified at different levels of detail. To provide a coherent and consistent framework for assessing effectiveness, goals and objectives should be grouped according to “resource categories” that reflect the key environmental values and human resource use activities that are addressed in SLUP. “Desired outcomes” that reflect the intent of the goals and objectives in a SLUP should then be defined for each of the resource categories. An example of resource categories and desired outcomes is shown in Table 1 on page 17.
Once resource categories and desired outcomes have been defined, the next step is to select indicators to measure the achievement of desired outcomes. An indicator is a tool for measuring performance relative to a defined target or goal (i.e., desired outcome). In the effectiveness monitoring system, indicators are used to determine whether implementation has resulted in a positive, negative or neutral effect on environmental, economic and social values.
When reviewing indicators, it is important to determine whether performance is attributable to SLUP implementation or to other external factors. For example, forest sector employment may be an indicator of economic performance related to forest management. If forest sector employment were to suddenly drop, this could be attributable to SLUP-related factors such as declining wood supply or to external factors such as a decline in world lumber prices or export trade barriers.
Once the effectiveness monitoring system has been developed, an effectiveness assessment should be conducted every three to five years. The assessment should include an evaluation of the implementation progress for each of the SLUP projects and an analysis of the indicator results for each of the desired outcomes. Based on the assessment, a Monitoring Report should be prepared that summarizes the level of progress on each of the SLUP projects and the results for each desired outcome. The reports should include recommendations for improvement where appropriate including revisions to the SLUP (e.g., addition or deletion of strategies and/or projects) or to the implementation and effectiveness monitoring procedures (e.g., revisions to projects or identification of new desired outcomes or indicators).
Roles and Responsibilities
Both the provincial government and public interest groups affected by Crown land and resource management (e.g., local government, First Nations, industry and public stakeholders) should have a role in monitoring strategic land use plans. The provincial government has responsibility for implementing SLUPs and for monitoring progress to ensure that the intent and management direction of the plan is being met. The public has a role in reviewing the results of the implementation and effectiveness monitoring process.
Provincial Government Role
The provincial government’s role in implementation and monitoring occurs at both an individual agency level and at an inter-agency level. Inter-agency coordination is essential to ensure successful implementation and monitoring of strategic land use plans. This coordination is provided by the Inter-agency Management Committee (IAMC) and may be supplemented at the working level through the establishment of Inter-agency Implementation Teams.
The Interagency Management Committee consists of regional managers/directors of resource management agencies. The IAMC meets monthly to review information on regional land use issues and to make corporate decisions on land use planning processes and issues. Its role is to:
- provide interpretation of plan objectives and strategies
- assist with plan implementation and resolve issues where necessary
- review recommendations for amendments from public monitoring committees
- develop a system for long term monitoring of SLUP implementation
- monitor implementation progress and compliance by agencies and resource users.
Public Role
Public involvement in SLUP monitoring may take many forms ranging from informal consultation to the establishment of standing monitoring committees. The level and form of public involvement will depend largely on the monitoring process developed for a particular SLUP.
Public involvement typically includes a cross-section of interests similar to those who participated in the development of the SLUP, for example:
- public interest sectors
- First Nations
- local government
- provincial government agencies.
The types of advice that could be provided by the public in the monitoring process include:
- interpretation of SLUP objectives and strategies
- suggestions on the design of a implementation and effectiveness monitoring process
- recommendations on the results of implementation and effectiveness assessments.
2. Implementation Monitoring System
Strategic land use plans provide the provincial government and other resource users with direction on resource management through land use goals, resource management zones, objectives and strategies. Goals and objectives express the intent or desired future that will be created through the implementation of a SLUP and resource management zones and strategies provide the on-the-ground direction that will guide the implementation process. To ensure that the management direction in a SLUP is carried through in the implementation projects and related agency programs, it is essential to develop clear procedures for implementation.
Since resource management zones are dealt with in the approval process for SLUPs, they do not need to be included as part of the implementation process. Accordingly, the implementation monitoring system described below focuses exclusively on SLUP strategies. Strategies may be implemented as base activities under agency program responsibilities or as incremental activities.
Base activities are SLUP strategies that will be implemented under provincial legislation and agency mandates and programs. Base activities are often carried out through more detailed (operational) levels of planning (e.g., forest development plans, water management plans, etc.).
Given that base activities are already defined as obligations under legislation and agency mandates, they do not need to be included as implementation requirements in the SLUP implementation monitoring system. Monitoring of these activities is conducted through other processes (e.g., Forest Practices Board, Environmental Appeal Board, etc.).
Incremental activities are specific projects or tasks that need to be undertaken to meet the management direction and intent in a SLUP. These activities frequently require the input of additional resources (time, money, research activities, public consultation, etc.) to achieve the expected outcomes or results that are specified in a SLUP.
A diagram showing the components of the implementation monitoring system is shown in Figure 2. The system includes the following steps:
- develop a database of LRMP strategies
- prepare project work plans
- implement projects
- assess progress
- prepare a progress report
- recommendations.
 |
| Strategic Land Use Plan Implementation Monitoring System |
Database of LRMP Strategies
The first step in the implementation monitoring system is to prepare a database that includes all of the strategies contained in a SLUP. Once the strategies have been listed they need to be sorted as either base or incremental activities. Base strategies are those that will be implemented through the normal course of government program delivery. Incremental strategies are those that will not be addressed through existing agency programs and will therefore need to be defined as specific SLUP implementation projects.
In addition to listing strategies and sorting them as base or incremental activities the database may also identify other related fields of information for each of the strategies including:
- lead agency
- support agency(s)
- participating groups
- start/completion date
- resource inputs (expenditure, staff time, etc.)
- expected outcomes.
It is also possible to build a strategy database that links strategies to resource categories and desired outcomes.(3) Resource categories are the key resource values (environmental values and human activities) that are addressed in a SLUP and desired outcomes are the desired future results that are reflected in a SLUPs goals and objectives. (Resource categories and desired outcomes are described in more detail in the next section — “Effectiveness Monitoring System”.) If resource categories and desired outcomes are incorporated into the strategy database, then each strategy should be matched to a single resource category and one or more desired outcomes.
Project Work Plan
Once SLUP strategies have been listed, the next step is to group related strategies together into “projects”. A project is typically defined as a set of tasks or activities that are carried out within a certain period of time to achieve a predetermined result.
Once projects have been identified, a work plan needs to be developed for each project, which should then be incorporated into an SLUP Project Work Plan. Individual project work plans should include a description of the project, lead agency and supporting agencies (if any), level of public participation, projected start and completion dates, key resource inputs, expected outcomes and a summary of tasks and activities required to achieve expected outcomes.
Project Implementation
Once the Project Work Plan has been developed the lead agency assigned to each project will be responsible for its implementation. Every year agencies should prepare a status report that identifies the work completed on each of their projects during the year along with planned commitments for the forthcoming year. The project status reports prepared by each agency should be consolidated and used as a basis for conducting an annual implementation assessment.
Implementation Assessment
An implementation assessment should be conducted each year to track progress on projects identified in the SLUP Project Work Plan. Each project should be assessed in terms of:
- work completed relative to the previous year’s commitments
- cumulative progress (i.e., achievement of major project milestones)
- achievement of expected outcomes for completed projects
- implementation issues and/or constraints.
Agency status reports should be used to determine the amount of work completed on each project relative to the previous year’s commitments.
Cumulative progress should be assessed based on the proportion of the total work completed for each project. The assessments should determine the level of completion of tasks and activities for each project as well as whether its expected outcomes have been achieved. For example, if the expected result from a fisheries management project is to provide adequate stocks of key freshwater species and at the end of the project when all tasks and activities are completed, adequate stocks have not been provided, then the project will not have been satisfactorily completed.
Monitoring Report
A Monitoring Report that summarizes the results of the implementation assessment should be prepared each year. The report should include a summary of the annual progress, completion status and achievement of expected outcomes for all projects in the Project Work Plan. For projects where implementation is behind schedule, or expected results appear not to have been achieved, an explanation of the underlying cause should be provided.
For SLUPs where effectiveness monitoring will not be undertaken, the Monitoring Report should include an assessment of how well the overall intent (i.e., goals and objectives) of the plan has been met.
Recommendations
The Inter-agency Management Committee and the public should review the Monitoring Report to ensure that projects are being implemented in accordance with the management direction and intent of the SLUP. Where projects are not being implemented in a timely and effective manner recommendations should be made for improving the implementation process. Recommendations could include adjustments in project prioritization, revisions to existing projects to change expected outcomes or tasks or activities, or the addition of new strategies and/or projects to improve the overall effectiveness of the implementation process. If a project has become redundant or is no longer considered relevant to the achievement of the direction and intent of the SLUP, a recommendation could be made to delete it from the Project Work Plan.
3. Effectiveness Monitoring System
In addition to assessing progress on the implementation of projects, it is also important to determine whether the goals and objectives in a SLUP have been met. Goals describe the desired future state of the LRMP area in broad social, economic and environmental terms. Objectives are targets or definable outcomes that will lead to the achievement of the goals. Strategies are the more specific actions that will contribute to the achievement of the objectives. Accordingly, the implementation of strategies based on the procedures in the implementation monitoring system should result in the achievement of a SLUP’s goals and objectives.
An effectiveness assessment will help to determine whether the implementation of SLUP strategies is contributing to the achievement of the plan’s goals and objectives. The components of the effectiveness monitoring system are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 |
| Strategic Land Use Plan Effectiveness Monitoring System |
The effectiveness monitoring system includes the following steps:
- identify desired outcomes
- select indicators
- conduct effectiveness assessment
- prepare Monitoring Report
- recommendations.
Setting up an effectiveness monitoring system can be a complex and demanding task. Once a system has been developed however, its ongoing management and operation should be relatively straightforward. The time and effort required to develop an effectiveness monitoring system should provide positive returns — in terms of increased efficiency and effectiveness — by determining whether the desired outcomes of a SLUP have been met and providing response mechanisms to improve the implementation process.
Desired OutcomesGoals and objectives express the intent or desired future for an area based on the implementation of a SLUP. Desired outcomes translate goals and objectives into measurable targets that can be assessed on an ongoing basis to determine whether the intent of a SLUP is being met. To provide a coherent and consistent framework for assessing effectiveness, desired outcomes should be grouped into resource categories that reflect the key environmental values and human resource use activities addressed in a SLUP. Table 1 provides examples of resource categories and corresponding desired outcomes for a selection of environmental values and human activities.
Examples of Resource Categories and Desired Outcomes
Environmental Values
| CATEGORY |
DESIRED OUTCOMES |
Ecosystems |
|
Forests |
|
Grasslands |
|
Water |
|
Wildlife |
|
Human Activities
| CATEGORY |
DESIRED OUTCOMES |
Agriculture |
|
Minerals |
|
Timber |
|
Tourism |
|
Recreation |
|
In some SLUPs, where specific goals have been developed for each of the key resource categories, the goals themselves may be equivalent to desired outcomes. In other SLUPs broad objectives may have defined for each of the key resource categories which may also be equivalent to desired outcomes.
IndicatorsOnce resource categories and desired outcomes have been defined, the next step is to select indicators for each of the desired outcomes. An indicator is a tool for monitoring change relative to a stated performance measure in a desired outcome. Indicators can be quantitative or qualitative. To be effective, they must be:
- informative
- measurable on a consistent and comparable basis over time
- relevant
- accurate
- supported by readily available and affordable data
Examples of potential indicators for three desired outcomes are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Examples of Desired Outcomes and Indicators
|
Category |
Desired Outcome |
Indicator |
| Timber |
A prosperous forest industry with a sustainable supply of timber |
|
| Ecosystems |
Healthy ecosystems with a diversity and abundance of native species and habitats |
|
| Tourism |
A prosperous tourism industry offering high quality, natural tourism experiences and a diverse range of tourism opportunities and uses across the landscape. |
|
To provide meaningful results, indicators must be measured consistently through time, which is why they must be supported by readily available and affordable data. Most of the indicator data will come from government agencies. Examples of data sources include:
- population, labour force, employment and income data (BC Stats)
- water quality, quantity and timing of flow (BC Environment)
- salmon escapement (Fisheries and Oceans Canada)
- timber harvesting land base and harvest volumes (BC Forest Service)
- tourism revenues and visitor volumes (Tourism BC and BC Stats)
- mineral claims and investment activity (Ministry of Energy and Mines)
- agricultural land grazing leases (Ministry of Agriculture and Food)
- provincial park use (BC Parks).
An effectiveness assessment should be conducted every three to five years to determine whether a SLUP is achieving its desired outcomes. The assessment should analyze trends for each indicator, relative to an established baseline(4), to determine whether performance has improved, stayed the same or declined. An assessment of effectiveness should then be made for each desired outcome based on the combined results of the indicators. In cases where desired outcomes have not been met, an interpretation of causal factors should be provided.
In assessing performance, it is important to recognize that some indicators will provide clear, quantifiable results that are easily interpreted and others will provide results that are less clear and require professional judgment or interpretation. For example, a change in the total area of the timber harvesting land base will be relatively easy to measure and interpret, whereas a change in quality and quantity of wildlife habitat will be much more difficult to measure.
Likewise, some indicators will be more directly correlated to the achievement of desired outcomes than others will. For example, declines in wildlife habitat or reductions in water quality are more closely associated with LRMP implementation activities than say bankruptcies or crime rates. While these latter indicators may be influenced by implementation of the LRMP, they may also be affected by other external factors (e.g., global economic performance, social support programs, etc.). In providing an assessment of effectiveness, it will be important to interpret the extent to which external factors influence indicator performance and the achievement of desired outcomes.
Monitoring ReportEvery three to five years – when an effectiveness assessment is conducted – a Monitoring Report that incorporates the results of both the implementation and effectiveness assessments should be prepared.
The implementation assessment should summarize the annual and cumulative progress of all SLUP projects including the achievement of expected outcomes. For projects where commitments and expected outcomes have not been met, an explanation of potential causes should be provided.
The effectiveness assessment should include a summary of the indicator results for each desired outcome. In cases where a desired outcome has not been achieved, an explanation of the causal factors should be provided (including the extent to which causal factors are within or outside of the scope of the SLUP).
RecommendationsA recommendations section should be included as part of the Monitoring Report. This section should summarize the progress and achievement of desired outcomes for each of the SLUP projects and the effectiveness results for each of the desired outcomes. Where performance targets and desired outcomes have not been met, recommendations for improvement should be provided.
Improvements to the implementation monitoring system could include revisions to projects in the Project Work Plan or the deletion of projects that are no longer considered relevant. Improvements to the effectiveness monitoring system could include the addition of new strategies and/or projects to improve the effectiveness of the SLUP, revisions to the desired outcomes or the addition or deletion of indicators.
Proposed recommendations should be included in a draft of the Monitoring Report which is circulated for public review and comment. A summary of public comments and additional recommendations should then be incorporated into a final draft of the Monitoring Report. The final report should then be forwarded to the Inter-agency Management Committee for review. The IAMC should then prepare a public response summarizing any approved changes to the SLUP or to the implementation and monitoring procedures.
4. Conclusion
The provincial monitoring framework described in the preceding pages is designed to ensure effective and consistent monitoring of strategic land use plans throughout the province. Consolidating SLUP strategies into a clearly defined Project Work Plan will assist agencies in identifying their implementation responsibilities and in setting annual work plan and budget priorities. Similarily, the development of desired outcomes and indicators to measure effectiveness will assist individual agencies and Inter-agency Management Committees in determining whether SLUPs are achieving their intended results. In cases where desired outcomes are not being achieved, the effectiveness assessment will offer decision support for adjusting the implementation process or amending the SLUP. The preparation of an annual Monitoring Report will also provide public accountability to help ensure that the direction and intent of the SLUP is being achieved.
The monitoring framework in this report is a “working draft”. Inter-agency Management Committees, inter-agency implementation teams and individual agencies with responsibility for implementing strategic land use plans are encouraged to use it as a guide to assist them in developing monitoring procedures. Based on this experience, users will be asked to provide advice and recommendations for improving the framework. After an appropriate review period, the provincial monitoring framework will be finalized and recommended for adoption as provincial policy.
(1) Strategies and resource management guidelines are considered to be synonymous in this report.
(2) Strategies and resource management guidelines are considered to be synonymous in this report.
(3) If a monitoring system is not going to be developed for a SLUP it is recommended that resource categories and desired outcomes be incorporated as part of the implementation monitoring system.
(4) A baseline is a reference year used to compare subsequent performance. Baselines will generally be established just prior to the commencement of LRMP implementation. In some cases where there is a long period of historic data, baselines will be established as an historic trend and subsequent performance will be assessed to determine if it is consistent with the trend.
