Mr. Chuck Mason, Policy Advisor, Forest Industry
Forest Policy Section, Ministry of Natural Resources
70 Foster Drive Suite 400
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, P6A 6V5

Dear Mr. Mason:
 

Re. Northwatch Comments on the EBR Posting Inviting Public Comment on
"Towards Enhanced Forest Productivity - A Discussion Paper by the Provincial Forest Policy Committee", dated February 26, 2002

The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) posted an information notice to on the Environmental Bill of Rights electronic registry, inviting public comment on the content a discussion paper prepared by a combined subcommittee of the Ontario Forest Accord Advisory Board and the Provincial Forest Policy Committee on intensive forest management. The notice provided a brief political background to the paper's development, generally described the contents of the paper as including recommendations and discussion related to "examining ways to employ intensive forest management practices that will enhance forest productivity that may address wood supply shortfalls for the forest industry", and included web links to related information, including the discussion paper. The notice was posted on December 9^th, 2002 and invited comments to be submitted by January 23, 2003, after which the "comments received from the public on this discussion paper will be used by the EFP subcommittee in further exploration of the concepts, and by the MNR when eventually considering provincial policy direction". The notice indicates that any policies that are developed as a result of the recommendations made to the Minister will be posted on the EBR Registry for further public review and comment before they are adopted, but does not indicate how the public will be involved in any interim discussions.

Northwatch is pleased to provide brief comments on the discussion paper at this time. For the most part, we intend to restrict our comments to brief remarks with respect to the recommendations that have been put forward. However, we would like to preface those remarks with the following comments which are of a more general nature:

• the paper begins, in both the executive summary and the main body of the report, with a statement that "the Ontario Forest Accord ... commits the forest industry, the provincial government and the environmental community to working together to implement the blueprint"; as we have clarified on a number of occasions in a number of different venues since the Accord's release in March 1999, the environmental community per se was not party to either the negotiating of the Forest Accord or the Living Legacy, and it is erroneous and unhelpful for any of those parties who were signators to persist in that description; in fact, many environmental organizations were very critical of the Accord, not only for the private manner in which it was developed but because of the potential social and environmental consequences of some of the commitments included in the Accord;
• in many respects the discussion paper is not sufficiently clear in its use of terms or its intent to allow proper and informed comment; and
• the discussion paper includes a number of recommendations which have serious implications for forest management in Ontario, and for forest management planning, and should be subject to more extensive public consultation; for example, the comment should be sought from forest management planning participants, including Local Citizens Committees and organizations and forest users who participate on a regular basis.
• some statement appear to be made without basis; for example, on page 8, the discussion paper describes "extensive forest management" as that "in which management efforts are directed at returning a given harvested stand to its original, pre-harvest level of productivity", and indicates that the land base is either a protected area, and extensively managed area, or an intensively managed area; however, we question how the authors could support a statement claiming that all current management other than intensive management is "directed at returning a given harvested stand to its original, pre-harvest level of productivity", given the greatly reduced level of productivity, particularly for commercial species, that is observable in many sites which have been subject to this "extensive" management

 

• this recommendation is generic enough to be almost meaningless, and yet reads as somewhat menacing, given the intent to "entrench the spirit and intent of the Ontario Forest Accord into the regulatory framework"; we remind the Committee and others that the Forest Accord was the outcome of a set of private negotiations and as such may provide a basis for the development of a public policy, but certainly is not policy in itself; the more reasonable process than that set out in this recommendation would be to subject the Accord itself to a meaningful public consultation process, and then determine policy based on an informed public dialogue over those items which were deemed suitable for further investigation and possible implementation

 

• this recommendation cannot be properly evaluated in the absence of clearer definitions of intensive forest management, intended and possible practices, and the legal obligations that would be assumed by the Crown under an Enhanced Wood Supply Agreement
• the discussion paper refers to "negotiated partnerships" and a "binding contract between the government and a proponent"; these descriptors would also apply to a Sustainable Forest License, and the paper is not clear on a) how the "binding contract" referred to would be different from the SFL agreement, b) why the "binding contract" referred to could not be incorporated into the SFL agreement, and c) how the public and First Nations would be involved in any process to develop an ESWA or amend an SFL to incorporate an SFL; the Sustainable Forest Licenses were largely (possibly entirely) negotiated without any involvement of affected First Nations or the public, even when such involvement was requested; this exclusive approach to negotiating an agreement about the management of a public resource should not be repeated
• the recommendation states that ESWAs would encompass up to 12% of a given land base, but the text indicates that the ESWAs would "move in time and space", creating the opportunity for a much larger portion - perhaps an unlimited portion - of the land base to be subject to (as yet undefined) intensive forest management practices
• the discussion paper creates an impression, in stating that "more wood supply would be available in the short term to the proponents of the EWSA" (page 10) that this supply increase will be made available on a speculative basis, ie a proponent could cut more now, on the assumption that the IFM practices to be utilized would create more supply later; this is not an acceptable approach

Recommendation 3: Forest Resource Licence holders and beneficiaries of Ministerial Directives must have the right to be members of Forest Management Planning Teams for the development of forest management plans across the province. Forest Resource Licence holders and beneficiaries of Ministerial directives must, in collaboration with the Sustainable Forest Licence holder, have the opportunity to develop and implement EWSAs on those forest management units on which they depend for their wood supply.

• this recommendation does not appear to have any relationship to the discussion in the preceding text, or to the principle of balanced participation in planning processes
• it is unclear what the limits or assumptions are with respect to this recommendation; it suggest that each operator within a management unit, on the basis of being part of licensing arrangement or the beneficiary of a Ministerial directive could develop an ESWA (of what size? 12%?) and also be on the planning team (how many? unlimited?)
• overall, this recommendation reads as one that is more rhetorical than realistic; it asserts "rights" based on undefined arrangements to allow undefined activities with unknown benefits or consequences; the lack of limits or any recognition of the need for balance in the planning team and the importance of safeguarding the public interest robs the recommendation of any credibility

• it is unclear what is meant by "proponents", but the context suggests that it intended to refer only to the forest industry; clearly, the ESWAs and the planning process must respond to much more than just the forest industry's interests

 

• this recommendation appears to be in direct conflict with the previously stated intent to have government "cost-share" with industry; the discussion paper indicates that the purpose of the "incentives" is "not to subsidize the forest industry", and so would not be in conflict with the North America Free Trade Agreement, but the commitment to cost-sharing with government and the declaration of no subsidies are non sequiters; government cost-sharing of forest industry costs is a subsidy

Recommendation 6: The quality of growth and yield data needs to be improved to more
accurately evaluate the effects of silvicultural treatments.

i. The Ministry of Natural Resources and the forest industry should use EWSAs as tools to validate the accuracy and reliability of growth estimates for IFM on the larger management unit.
ii. The Ministry of Natural Resources and the forest industry should expand current
efforts to establish a rigorous system of growth and yield monitoring.

• we are not clear on the extent to which the discussion paper - and its authoring committee - assumes that IFM will be practices on the "larger management unit", ie outside of the EWSAs; this assumption should be clarified, and clearly stated in later iterations of this discussion paper
• we support efforts and initiatives to improve information and understanding about the forest resource, including information with respect to grown and yield and the accuracy and reliability of growth and yield estimates

• the statements to the effect that activities will be consistent with regulations has little meaning, given the intent outlined in Recommendation # 1 to amend "legislated regulatory processes"
• the relationship between the "special voluntary agreements" contemplated in in the 3^rd bullet under Recommendation #7 and the "negotiated partnership" and "binding contracts" referred to in the earlier discussion, at the top of page 10, is unclear; this should be clarified, and the public role in the development of these "special voluntary agreements" should be described
• we support thorough and effective monitoring; we also support the "intensive use of knowledge"; we are less clear on what the "intensive use of ... silvicultural activities" or "intensive silvicultural techniques" might mean, what these activities/techniques might include, or what the effect of this "use" might be on the forest estate, forest health, and the array of forest values
• it should be clearly stated that the intent to "diversify the forest" included in the 5^th bullet does not include or would not allow the intentional introduction of alien species
• the 7^th bullet indicates that the appropriateness of an area for IFM will be subject to public consultations within the forest management planning process; does that mean that no EWAs will be designated while a forest management plan is being implemented, ie. they could only be proposed as part of the next plan's development?; this point should be clarified
• it is very unclear what is intended by the statements in the 8^th bullet with respect to beneficiaries sharing costs of IFM; who would the beneficiaries of the non-timber values be, how would they be identified, and how would they share the costs?
• we agree that the practices must be legal, ie. be practices that have received regulatory approval; however, it must be acknowledged that not all practices that have received regulatory approval are appropriate to all sites and conditions

 

• we are not reassured by the assertion that "regulatory approval does not necessarily imply public acceptance"; while not inaccurate, we are concerned by what might be motivating the inclusion of such an assertion in this discussion paper
• we support the commitment to a thorough environmental and public review of any new practices to be contemplated for use on ESWA areas or on the broader landscape

• we support, at a conceptual level, the notion of pilot projects as a means of investigating new approaches
• we expect that the selection of the areas of the pilot project will involve public consultation; the paper is silent on this point, and future iterations should clearly state the process for notifying and involving the public in the selection process, and in the oversight and evaluation of the pilot project
• the oversight of the pilot projects should be supported by a peer review group with scientific expertise; the peer review group should be independant, and should report independently to the pilot project steering committee and to the local public and Local Citizens Committee

• we do not support EWSAs being a basis for further subsidies of the forest industry
• it is not clear what would constituted "enhanced protection ... against fire"; the meaning should be clearly stated, ie is this an additional subsidy, anticipated compensation, or some other unspecified measure
• the compensation requirements are unclear, perhaps because it is unclear who the array of generically described "proponents"will be

 

Yours,

Brennain Lloyd
Northwatch

cc. Mr. Gord Miller, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario