3.8 Responses
Responses are all the actions that decision-makers take to maintain, encourage, or restore value health, as defined by value goals. The Plan provides broad guidance on appropriate responses to value health ranges (target, cautionary, critical). Once the Parties identify indicators and set thresholds for Plan values, they will need to identify more specific responses that apply when indicator levels reach each threshold. In the meantime, the Plan provides objectives for management actions based on development footprint indicator levels, and recommends specific responses. The Parties will begin expanding consideration of cumulative effects in ongoing management and decision-making, including giving weight to cumulative effects assessments completed at the project level.
Responses are actions that slow or stop the pace or reduce the scale of activities that harm a value, and/or initiate or enhance activities that benefit a value. They vary in scope, scale, and complexity, from daily on-the-ground stewardship to emergency legislative interventions. As concerns about value health increase, the prescribed actions should be additive to those carried out when values are healthy, except where those actions would interfere with more stringent management. As with human health, actions taken while values are still relatively healthy are more effective at protecting the value. They usually require fewer resources.
An effective cumulative effects management regime includes suites of responses for each health range for a given value (as defined by indicators and thresholds) – for example, Table 5. When establishing these, the Parties should consider the following:
- A lack of, or uncertainty around, data is not an excuse for inaction if values are threatened (precautionary principle).
- While improved monitoring may be a required response, it is not adequate on its own to return a value to health.
- Actions that benefit more than one value should be prioritized over those that benefit one at the expense of another.
- Coordination among decision-makers, assessment bodies, inspectors/guardians, and people on the land is especially important at the response stage because of the potential interactions between responses.
- The time it takes to implement management actions, and the time it takes for values to respond, should both be considered.
By agreeing on suites of responses to be implemented when thresholds are crossed, the Parties support swift and efficient action across departments, governments, and other agencies. Which actions are most appropriate for each threshold will depend on the nature of the value and indicator(s) and the ecological, social-cultural, and socio-economic context of the value. For clarity, one indicator reaching a threshold is sufficient for triggering a response to protect a value, regardless of how many are being monitored.
| VALUE HEALTH | APPROPRIATE RESPONSES | EXAMPLE | |
|---|---|---|---|
| TARGET RANGE | Stable and healthy | Follow best practices, monitor value health, and improve understanding of cumulative effects on the value. | A caribou herd has a relatively stable population within the target range as defined by the goal. Parties engage in routine monitoring and actively participate in co-management plans related to the herd and activities within its range. Best practices are followed, promoted, and enforced by the Parties. |
| ADVISORY THRESHOLD | |||
| Moderately stable and healthy but threatened | Increase monitoring and understanding of stresses to the value. Identify and prepare for proactive management actions. | Herd population is in the target range, but calf survival rates have been low for a few years. Parties increase frequency of non-invasive monitoring and community interviews to improve understanding of herd health, research the status of habitat within the herd range, and assess anticipated development projects within key habitat areas. | |
| CAUTIONARY THRESHOLD | |||
| CAUTIONARY RANGE | Unstable, declining, and/or threatened | Proactive management actions to slow or stop the pace and scale of impacts to the value. Increase monitoring. | Herd population is in the cautionary range, and demographics point to likely continued decline. Parties limit access to key habitat areas during key times of year, and increase rigour of assessment of activities and development within the herd range. |
| CRITICAL THRESHOLD | |||
| CRITICAL RANGE | Very unstable, in steep decline, or otherwise in critical danger | Management actions that stop and, ideally, reverse the pace and scale of impacts. | The herd has declined into the critical range, and demographics predict further decline. Parties prohibit hunting, withdraw key habitat from tenure disposition, and place strict timing windows on activities within existing tenure. |
Common Types of Responses
Informing Project-level Decisions
Aligning project decisions with conformity determinations, which are informed by assessing cumulative effects, is a straightforward way to integrate cumulative effects management into existing processes.
Knowledge Gathering
Increasing understanding of value health and the relationships between values, indicators, and responses can lead to better decisions and better outcomes for values. Different types of knowledge gathering (in scale, type, and intensity) are appropriate at different ranges of value health, though knowledge gathering is not a substitute for a management action or intervention. Even while enacting urgent responses, gathering information is important to inform future action. “Monitoring” is one type of knowledge gathering. The Knowledge Gaps identified for each value should guide knowledge gathering and research in the Region.
Implementation of Existing Tools
These responses include:
- Changing the frequency or intensity of compliance inspections and enforcement related to activities that are harming, or are suspected of harming, a value.
- Enacting emergency measures where the provision exists in legislation.
- Engaging in an existing process like the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board regulation change process.
- Increasing stewardship through public engagement and education.
- Physical actions to accompany management decisions, such as decommissioning or repairing a road.
- Implementing provisions of existing legislation and policy for specific circumstances, like Special Operating Areas for Placer Mining (Placer Mining Act; SY 2003, c.13).
Governance Actions
Sometimes the action required to protect a value is not found in existing policies, plans, or legislation. In these cases, while the Plan cannot require either Party to enact or amend legislation (THFA s. 11.7.3 and 11.7.4), the Parties should explore new tools (or amendments to existing ones) in response to changing conditions or new information. This is an important part of adaptive implementation. When the Parties undertake review of legislation, strategies, and plans that affect Plan values, they should consider the health and trends of those values, and highlight them during public engagement.
Responses to Development Footprint Level
The development footprint thresholds bracket indicator ranges that require responses in a progressive approach, like those for value health. More stringent actions are required as indicator levels rise, and they should be carried out alongside those required at lower levels. The Plan provides objectives for each indicator range, along with recommended responses to meet these objectives (Table 6). They should be applied along with value-specific direction (Section 5) for an LMU’s priority values.
Table 6: Management objectives and recommended responses by development footprint range.
| TARGET RANGE |
Objective: Maintain and monitor value health, and maintain acceptable level of disturbance. Recommended responses:
|
| ADVISORY THRESHOLD | |
| Objective: Improve understanding of value responses to disturbance, slow pace of development and increase monitoring of development footprint. | |
| CAUTIONARY THRESHOLD | |
| CAUTIONARY RANGE |
Objective: Slow or stop the pace of development, and monitor value health and development footprint. Recommended responses:
|
| CRITICAL THRESHOLD | |
| CRITICAL RANGE |
Objective: Stop and, ideally, reverse the pace and scale of development. Recommended responses:
|
Implementation Actions
- In the decision phase of project assessment, make decisions that are consistent with Plan conformity as determined by the Commission, as per THFA and YESAA.
- When development footprint metrics are updated for an LMU, identify appropriate responses using the objectives and recommendations in Section 3.8.
