|
Watchdog blasts forestry strategy
by GORDON HOEKSTRA Prince George Citizen •
Tuesday May 02, 2006 at 08:59 AM
The first stewardship plans under the new results-based forestry rules lack clear results and make it difficult to hold companies accountable, says a report released Monday by B.C.'s forest practices watchdog agency.
Prince George Citizen Watchdog blasts forestry strategy by GORDON HOEKSTRA Citizen staff The first stewardship plans under the new results-based forestry rules lack clear results and make it difficult to hold companies accountable, says a report released Monday by B.C.'s forest practices watchdog agency. The Forest Practices Board reviewed 15 of the plans, which under the new Forest and Range Practices Act, are the only plans subject to mandatory public review before companies can begin logging on Crown land. The review included plans of big and small companies throughout the province. The B.C. government introduced the act in 2002 to replace the Forest Practices Code. The new rules, which come into effect at the end of this year, are meant to cut red tape and allow companies more discretion in achieving "results" for protecting areas like community watersheds and species at risk. While the forestry watchdog agency said the first 15 forest stewardship plans fully complied with the law, four key concerns were identified. Those included that the plans provide little detail about how, when and where logging will take place on Crown land. The plans also cover huge areas -- an average of 300,000 hectares -- with no details of exactly where logging is proposed. The plans are also written in a complex, legal language that makes it very difficult for the public to understand and comment, said the board. Most of the forest plans also do not make commitments to measurable results or outcomes. And except for default practices required by law, the commitments in the plans tend to be vague and non-measurable, which will be challenging for government staff to enforce, the board found. "The (forests stewardship plans) simply do not reflect the high level of forest practices we find in our regular board audits and investigations," Forest Practices Board chairman Bruce Fraser said. "We would like to see those good practices reflected in (forest stewardship plans), both to provide greater accountability and to maintain B.C.'s global reputation as a leader in sustainable forest management," he said. As a result of its concerns, the board has recommended to Forests Minister Rich Coleman the government should clarify what it considers successful achievement of the new result-based law's objectives. As well, the government should prepare plain-language stewardship statements to explain them. The board has also suggested that forest stewardship plans be approved for a shorter time period to allow for adjustments in response to public concerns. Hundreds of the plans are slated to be approved this year for five-to 10-year periods. Questioned as to why companies would change the "vague" forest plan unless legislation was altered to require the companies to provide measurable outcomes, Fraser said it may be necessary. "I think it's obvious from what we're saying that there are changes in legislation, changes in regulation, changes in content requirement for forest stewardship plans -- all that could be made," said Fraser. Coleman, who wasn't immediately available for comment, has welcomed the board's feedback and sees some constructive information in the report, said government officials. The ministry is committed to sitting down and seeing how the concerns can be addressed, said officials. The concerns around the early forest stewardship plan was first raised a month ago by the NDP, when it obtained a leaked copy of the draft report. NDP forestry critic Bob Simpson said if the practices on the ground are good right now, they still fall under the old Forest Practices Code. That means there's no correlation between current practices and future practices under the results-based code, he noted. Simpson said the concerns shouldn't come as a surprise, as critics raised the issue of mandating clearer, measurable outcomes when the new rules were being put together. Immediately after the release of the report, environmental groups called on the B.C. government to stop the approval of the forest stewardship plans. The groups included the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, ForestEthics, Sierra Club of Canada and the Western Canadian Wilderness Committee. "When you give industry the power to write laws, this is what you get," said Sierra Legal staff lawyer Devon Page. "You get vague and unenforceable laws that jeopardize the public interest."
file:///C:/My%20Download%20Files/ATT00005.htm
| 
