There are few, if any, land areas in the world that compare to the size and diversity (ecological, social, and economic) of the forest and range lands of British Columbia.
The central objective of this report is to review the Forest Practices Code of B.C. and numerous other forest practices codes, rules, regulations, etc. which exist in National and State (or Provincial) jurisdictions throughout the world. The report's purpose is to provide information to those responsible for administering and implementing the Code so that they can identify possible omissions or weaknesses in the B.C. Code and begin the on-going process of change and improvement in order for the B.C. Code to reflect current scientific and technical knowledge. This report is not a critical analysis of forest practices regulations in any jurisdiction, nor does it contain recommendations for modifying or improving these regulations. Impartiality on these issues is considered essential to the study's objective of providing a comprehensive, technically rigorous and completely objective review. It is for others to determine, at least from their own perspective, which Code or elements of a Code are better than another.
Perhaps in the same way that peoples and landscapes differ around the world, different jurisdictions have different problems and hence different solutions to forest land management issues. For example, some jurisdictions may not have an actual Forest Practices Code, but the way they handle forest practices can be specified in other legislation and be equally effective for their purposes. For others, the size and importance of the forest industry in terms of providing revenue and jobs is critically balanced with environmental protection and sustainable land use practices. The review of forest land use regulations is further distorted by the historical context of a jurisdictions' Code of forest practices.
The numerous and varied contacts with other jurisdictions posed difficulties in terms of geographic, time and language barriers. The central concern of the project team staff was ensuring the completeness of both the data gathering and reporting phases. To this end, all of the review material summarized for the various jurisdictions was sent back to the individuals responsible for providing the information on forest management for that jurisdiction for corroboration and approval. Throughout this study, there was unequivocal participation and assistance by all jurisdictions contacted. It would seem that there is a high degree of interest in every jurisdiction regarding forest land management issues. All of the jurisdictions contacted were just as keen to know how British Columbia was handling a certain forest land management issue as we were in finding out their procedures.
This review of forest practice rules and regulations has limitations. There are gaps in data and there could be sufficient differences in interpretations among jurisdictions such that the reader should not consider the report infallible. However, we have attempted to provide a factual, balanced review of complex resource management topics.
