The State of BC’s Forests The Indicators Law — PDF print version

Indicator 21 – Law

click graphic to enlarge

Why is this important?

B.C.’s legal framework encompasses all forest related activities and enables sustainable forest management.

Overview

• All forest activities, from timber harvesting to recreation, are governed in varying degrees by law, exercised on the basis of tradition, contractual requirements, administrative policies and legislation.
• British Columbia has a comprehensive framework of forest law.
• B.C.’s forest law enables and supports sustainable forest management.

STATE

good

TREND

improving

INFORMATION

partial

Questions about law

21-1	How are the elements of sustainable forest management governed?
21-2	Is government assessing compliance with the law?
21-3	What corrective measures are taken?
21-4	Is the law effective in achieving sustainable forest management?
	Ministry of Forests and Range’s assessment

Related indicators

• Stakeholder interests in forests (see Ownership and management, Timber harvest, First Nations involvement, Public involvement) are formalized as specific rights and obligations in law.
• Excessive complexity of laws governing sustainable forest management can lead to high costs for government, the forest industry and other stakeholders (see Jobs and communities).
• The province can reduce costs of governance by delegating some management obligations to tenure holders (see Ownership and management). Historical perceptions of inadequacies in the law of various states led to the emergence of non-state governance (see Certification).

Indicator 21-1

How are the elements of sustainable forest management governed?

larger versions – HTML | PDF | Word

Why is this important?

Forest law continues to evolve and develop different approaches to protect and balance changing environmental, economic and social values.

State and Trend

• B.C.’s forest law establishes organizations and professions to support forestry, and functions to allocate economic opportunities, conserve forests, and set requirements for forest planning and forest practices.
• Law authorizes some activities and constrains others, to reduce harm and the risk of harm.
• Administration of timber extraction has been enhanced over time with increasingly comprehensive requirements to ensure a sustainable yield of timber. Early lack of consideration for non-timber values has been replaced by legal requirements for planning, First Nations consultation, public involvement and explicit objectives to conserve environmental, social and cultural values.
• Initial reliance on contract law and administrative policy was replaced over time by prescriptive regulatory requirements and, in recent years, by regulatory requirements that enable innovation with a focus on achieving defined objectives of sustainable forest management. Serious offences continue to be addressed through criminal and quasi-criminal law.
• The legal recognition and roles of the profession of forestry have also evolved reflecting the increasing breadth and complexity of forestry.
• Maps: (none)

Information

• Various inquiries document the reasons for major changes in the law.
• References: MFR’s Forest legislation; ABCFP’s Forest Legislation and Policy Reference Guide
• Related international and national indicators: MP 7.1.a to 7.1.e; CCFM 6.5.4

Indicator 21-2

Is government assessing compliance with the law?

larger versions – HTML | PDF | Excel

Why is this important?

Assessing compliance with the law is required to ensure that forest practices are being conducted in a manner that supports sustainability.

State and Trend

• The Ministry of Forests and Range is the main agency responsible to assess compliance with forest law, using site inspections and patrols.
• Before 1979, government’s compliance checks focused on timber harvesting contracts and unauthorized timber harvests (illegal logging).
• Inspection of forest practices and non-timber values was added in 1979, but assessments were not systematic. Compliance assessments became more systematic to enforce the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act of 1995, and their rigour was improved in 2001. The Forest and Range Practices Act, introduced in 2004, has resulted in further improvements to compliance assessments.
• Inspections have increasingly focused on areas at greatest risk for non-compliance (based on operators’ past performance) or environmental impact. Operators with forest certification are usually a lower risk.
• The independent Forest Practices Board, set up in 1995, audits forest practices and the appropriateness of government enforcement. It also investigates complaints and participates in administrative appeals. The board has found that compliance rates are generally high and increasing.
• The MFR cooperates with MoE to protect habitats for fish and wildlife, and with the federal DFO to protect fish and fish habitat. The MoE also monitors pollution emissions from pulp mills and sawmills.
• Maps: (none)

Information

• Statistics are published for MFR inspections and Forest Practices Board audits, but not for MoE and DFO inspections.
• References: MFR’s C&E; Forest Practices Board
• Related international and national indicators: MP 7.2.e; CCFM 3.1, 3.2, 6.4.2

Indicator 21-3

What corrective measures are taken?

larger versions – HTML | PDF | Excel

Why is this important?

Corrective measures detect non-compliance, promote compliance with the law and prevent non-compliance.

State and Trend

• Compliance actions by the Ministry of Forests and Range, averaging 1959 per year, mitigate minor problems and avoid major problems by re-directing the activities of tenure holders.
• Enforcement actions, averaging 461 per year, result in formal sanctions. They include monetary penalties, violation tickets and court-enforced measures such as fines and jail sentences. Their purposes are to remedy harm, compensate for loss, prevent profit from a contravention and deter careless or intentional misconduct.
• Monetary penalties and violation tickets averaged 275 per year with an average total value of $0.5 million annually. Most are for relatively minor infractions, and over 80% of the monetary penalties are therefore for amounts of $5,000 or less. The largest penalty, for unauthorized timber harvesting, was $235,000 in 1999/00. It included the value of the timber.
• Courts have ordered about two jail sentences per year.
• Enforcement actions by the Ministry of Environment averaged 25 fines per year for pollution from mills, especially pulp mills. These have decreased in number. The largest single fine was $250,000 in 1990.
• Administrative reviews and appeals are available.
• Maps: (none)

Information

• The Ministry of Forests and Range publishes details of its compliance and enforcement activities. The Ministry of Environment does not.
• References: MFR’s C&E; Forest Practices Board; Forest Appeals Commission
• Related international and national indicators: MP 7.2.e; CCFM 3.1, 3.2, 6.4.2

Indicator 21-4

Is the law effective in achieving sustainable forest management?

larger versions – HTML | PDF | Excel

Why is this important?

Ensuring that the law is effective requires systematic evaluation and continual improvement.

State and Trend

• The Forest and Range Evaluation Program (FREP) has begun conducting effectiveness evaluations, to assess whether resource values under the Forest and Range Practices Act are managed sustainably.
• Resource stewardship monitoring (RSM) by district staff identifies resource value status, trends, implementation issues and areas that may require more intensive evaluations by regional and headquarters staff.
• Both RSM and intensive evaluations may lead to recommendations to improve training, forest and range practices, policies and legislation.
• These processes are in relatively early stages of development and have not yet provided conclusive evaluations about the effectiveness of the law and firm recommendations for changes.
• Other reviews by government also evaluate policies and law.
• The Forest Practices Board cooperated with MFR and MoE in developing and testing evaluation indicators, and used them to assess effectiveness of forest practices and comment on relevant legislation.
• Royal commissions and other inquiries³⁴ periodically assess the law’s effectiveness in protecting and balancing economic and social values.
• Maps: (none)

Information

• FREP monitoring protocols and results are publicly available. The protocols are rigorously peer-reviewed and field-tested to ensure scientific validity.
• References: MFR’s FREP; Forest Practices Board
• Related international and national indicators: MP 7.1.b, 7.1.d; CCFM 6.5.4

 

Indicator 21 – Law Ministry of Forests and Range’s assessment State good British Columbia’s legal framework encourages economic development while maintaining high environmental standards, through forest practices regulations that are among the most stringent in the world, and facilitating public involvement to ensure consideration of social values. The government systematically checks compliance and enforces the law. Practices in the forest, and the compliance and enforcement system itself, are also independently audited. The rate of compliance is high, so the number of corrective measures required and the total amount collected in monetary penalties and fines are relatively low. Trend improving During the 1990s, the increasing complexity of forest law resulted in high costs of operation and administration for both the forest industry and government. Recent adjustments to the legal framework have aimed to reduce these costs, increase the potential for innovation in forest and range practices, and re-direct efforts from a focus on compliance with prescriptive regulations to a focus on achievement of desired objectives. Over the past ten years, the minor nature of most contraventions and the increasing number of decisions by government to take no further enforcement action reflect an increasing understanding of, and compliance with, the law. Information partial The development of forest law in B.C. is well documented. Data on Ministry of Forests and Range compliance assessments and corrective measures are publicly available, as are the well-documented, independent audits of the Forest Practices Board. New processes are rigorously assessing the ultimate effectiveness of the law in achieving specific objectives of sustainable forest management, but have not yet provided conclusive evaluations and recommendations for changes.