Results-Based Forest Practices Code

November 5 , 2002

What Results for the New Forest Code?

It would be a good thing if the new Forest Practices Codes does what the government claims it will do. According to the news release "B.C.'s new results-based forest practices code will help create jobs and economic growth by promoting industry innovation without compromising the high environmental standards that protect British Columbia's forests." How can the public determine whether the government is achieving these goals?

Before the Minister of Forests rose to introduce the Bill, he introduced various guests who were present to witness the event. The public might wonder why representatives of industries that donated millions of dollars to the Campbell Liberals were present to applaud the new legislation while representatives of First Nations and environmental advocacy groups were noticeably absent.

Like many government news releases that say one thing while meaning another, today's release quoted the Minister of Forests as saying that "Government makes about 47,000 inspections of industry practices each year and has found a compliance rate of more than 97 per cent." A little math quickly gives non-compliance of almost 3% which when applied to 47,000 inspections means over 1,000 violations.

Under the new Code who's going to know about violations and when will they know? Those are the questions that have to be answered when considering the future consequences of Campbell's Forest Practices Code (now called the Forest and Range Practices Act). For example, who is going to know that a landslide occurred because of bad practices if that slide happens 10 years after the slope is logged? Who is going to go into the bush and evaluate the practices and the results? If a bad result is detected, what will the burden of proof be when a company challenges the fine and goes to court?

The NDP conducted some pilot projects with results based clauses for a Forest Practices Code. Everyone wants a code that minimizes bureaucracy and maximizes protection for the environment while helping our industry meet eco-certification standards that are increasingly demanded by export markets. The difference with the Campbell government is that they have proceeded in one step to sweep aside procedures for assuring adherence to proper standards. In their place there is the promise that "Government will set clear standards for a wide variety of forest values, ranging from water quality to wildlife, and from old-growth stands to soils. The forest stewardship plan will identify measurable and enforceable results that forest companies must achieve to meet these standards, or face penalties." Note the use of the future tense in that promise.

Nowhere in Bill 74 can anyone see the "clear standards" or what will be measured and enforced. It is ironic that on the same day that the new Forest Practices Code was introduced, government also re-introduced another piece of "results based" legislation. The Community Care Licensing Act is being replaced by Bill 73, the Community Care and Assisted Living Act (which in turn replaces Bill 16). One of the consultation documents produced by the Ministry of Health Services suggested that standards in results based regulations are those things that government can do nothing about by way of legal enforcement. We will have to wait months after the Forest Practices Code passes the legislature to see what the new regulations require by way of standards and measurable outcomes and whether the regulations are legally enforceable. We may have to wait years, perhaps until it is too late, to see the impact of the results based regulations on the environment.

July 29, 2002

Off Schedule on Changes to the Forest Practices Code

It his New Era Document, Premier Campbell promised to "Streamline the Forest Practices Code to establish a workable, results-based Code, with tough penalties for non-compliance." It turns out that "workable" and "results-based" may be inconsistent. Similarly, "results-based" may not be capable of enforcement, hence "tough penalties" could never be applied.

Dr. George Hoberg was appointed to head the public consultation on a draft results-based Forest Practices Code. Respected professor and head of UBC's Department of Forest Management, Dr. Hoberg has delivered a report that says "… given the depth and breadth of the concerns expressed throughout the consultation process, the version of the results-based code proposed in the May 1 discussion paper does not adequately meet the objectives established by the government. Further policy development and consultations are necessary before legislation should be introduced."

At the time Dr. Hoberg was appointed government said it would "… introduce the new legislation in the fall of 2002, with implementation of the new results-based code beginning in April 2003. Government cannot reconcile Dr. Hoberg's recommendations with legislation by this fall. To proceed despite his recommendations will invite significant controversy. Dr. Hoberg reported that the Council of Forest Industries, environmental groups and first nations agree on one thing - government did not provide adequate time for consultation.

Government's approach in its "core reviews" has been to identify entire areas of work that simply will no longer be done. The elimination of 35% of the staff in the Ministry of Forests is predicated on eliminating work with a new Forest Practices Code. It would have made a lot more sense to develop the new Code and then determine whether it could be managed with fewer staff. Now we have layoffs scheduled but no new efficient Code in sight.

Dr. Hoberg wrote "The philosophy of a results-based regulatory framework is that the government should clearly set the objectives or results that should be achieved, and that industry should be given freedom in how to meet those results." Described that way, most people agree with the philosophy of a results-based regulatory framework. As always, however, the devil is in the details. Hoberg reported "While virtually all respondents expressed support for the principle of a results-based code, there was widespread criticism of the specific version proposed by the government. There was general agreement that many of the results statements were vague, unmeasurable, and unenforceable." That is similar to a discussion of legal difficulties with "outcome based" regulations found on the Ministry of Health website.

A committee of government backbenchers conducted a parallel consultation process with a series of public meetings. Rod Viser, MLA for North Island, chaired that process. His Committee reported that: