Forestry Operations Compliance System
In April 2003 an environmental group, the Pembina Institute, used the Environmental Bill of Rights to request a wide-ranging review of the compliance system under which the Ontario forestry industry has been operating since 1998. The Ministry of Natural Resources designed this system, using a self-compliance model. The system requires the forest industry to plan and carry out compliance inspections on its own operations, and to report to MNR. The role of MNR staff is to conduct spot-checks, audit industry inspections, and carry out enforcement activities. (A detailed description of this application is found in the Supplement, pages 252-262.)
The applicants questioned MNR’s capacity to oversee the self-inspection regime, citing critical findings from the Provincial Auditor and reviews conducted by the ministry. Using available MNR data on forest operations compliance inspections, the applicants asserted that MNR inspectors identify instances of non-compliance at a much higher rate than inspectors employed by industry. The applicants saw a need for a fundamental review of the forestry compliance system, suggesting that MNR either re-establish itself as the primary agency responsible for carrying out compliance inspections, or that the ministry establish a profession of independent forest operations inspectors. At a minimum, they saw a need to strengthen MNR’s field inspection capacity, require mandatory training and certification for industry-employed inspectors, strengthen reporting practices and clarify rules. The Pembina Institute submitted its 75-page report, “Industry Self-Inspection and Compliance in the Ontario Forest Sector,” as supporting evidence.
The Pembina Institute also requested reviews of a number of policies and instruments, as well as sections of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and its regulations. Moreover, the applicants argued that more forestry instruments should be subject to the EBR, and that regulations, guidelines and policies should be posted as proposals on the Environmental Registry.
The ECO forwarded the application to MNR, but also sent it to the Ministry of the Environment because of the request that forestry instruments should be caught (“classified”) under the EBR. MOE returned the application to the ECO, stating that MNR is responsible for classifying these instruments. However, in a separate process, MOE did address many of the applicants’ other concerns by requiring improvements through the renewal of MNR’s Forestry Class Environmental Assessment. (MOE’s response to the application is reviewed in the Supplement, pages 213-215.)
Although MNR decided not to carry out this EBR review, the ministry acknowledged that many of the applicants’ concerns were justified and agreed to make some significant changes. MNR said it was hiring 11 new inspectors, and would require the certification of industry- employed inspectors, improve its public reporting, and fix its computer systems to improve tracking and reporting. MNR is going to revise most of the guidelines and policies the applicants asked to have reviewed, and some high level “program” reviews may look at more substantive issues. This application under the EBR probably contributed to the decisions by MNR and MOE to carry out some of these improvements.
In denying this review, MNR made the valid point that the program had already been reviewed in 1999 and 2002 and that improvements are under way. Unfortunately, most of MNR’s action items and future reviews of the forestry compliance system are planned to take place behind closed doors.
The ECO was disappointed with MNR’s position that more instruments issued under the CFSA should not be subject to the EBR. It is true that some forestry instruments are excepted from regular notice and comment requirements of the EBR because they are part of an undertaking already approved under the Environmental Assessment Act. But the public should still have the right to submit EBR applications for review and investigation in relation to these instruments. MNR also did not provide persuasive arguments for refusing to post the regulations, policies and guidelines governing their forest compliance program on the Registry for public comment. For example, the Forest Compliance Handbook has never been posted on the Registry as a proposal.
The ECO suggests that MNR take a number of additional steps to improve the transparency of the forestry compliance program. Some of them are relatively easy, although they may require amendments to regulations and guidelines, or the posting of proposal notices on the Environmental Registry. The key steps are:
- posting proposed revisions to the Forest Compliance Handbook, Guideline for Forest Industry Compliance Planning, Forest Operations Inspection Program Policy and Procedure, Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol and other related policies on the Environmental Registry for public comment, perhaps as one consolidated notice of proposed improvements to the Forest Compliance Program.
- requiring Independent Forest Audits to evaluate and report on the self-inspection capacity of forestry operators.
- releasing Independent Forest Audits more quickly and making them easily accessible to the public.
- ensuring that all public analyses of forestry inspections include data on minor infractions, which MNR categorizes as “In Compliance With Comments.”
- moving quickly to develop new standards for soil rutting and site damage; consulting with the Provincial Forest Technical Committee and the public; and finalizing the revised guidance for protection of fish habitat and streams.
- reviewing its instrument classification regulation under s. 20 of the EBR with regard to re-examining all potential instruments under the CFSA.
MNR needs to continue to implement improvements to this important compliance program and must remain vigilant about regularly reviewing key facets of the program such as self-compliance. Ontario’s forest compliance system has to be credible to demonstrate to the public that forest management on Crown land is sustainable.
| This is an article from the 2004/05 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2005. "Forestry Operations Compliance System." Planning our Landscape, ECO Annual Report, 2004-05. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 129-131.
