Ontario's comfortingly…

Ontario's comfortingly titled “Independent Forest Audit” (IFA) sounds like there is someone keeping an eye on the 50 million ha of our forests where logging happens. In truth, these “audits” have become greenwashing (defined as promoting an image of sustainability without substantive backing). Ontario should get rid of IFAs and replace with true independent audits as the law requires.

According to the Ministry of Natural Resources, the legally required IFAs “provide an independent assessment of whether public forests are being managed sustainably.” To those who have observed IFA standards and implementation since inception in the 1980s, there has been a long decline from a credible world leading standard to greenwashing. The current IFA system does not meet the current international ISO 19000 standard for a credible audit.

Not even close.

IFAs are not "independent". The Government writes the standard with no credible public review. It chooses the audit teams. It receives the report. It decides what action will be taken or not taken. It chooses the Forest Futures Committee who “oversee” the audits. It chooses the auditors. It does not allow followup monitoring by auditors. The public is unaware these audits even exist. At best, the current IFA is an internal program review to address administrative updates.

Sustainability, Indigenous participation, systemic management problems, species at risk and other substantial issues are out of scope for an IFA or so peripheral as to be inconsequential.

In 1994 the Harris government made it law requiring sustainability audits. These real audits were conducted every five years on each of Ontario’s 39 (now) large forest licences (about a million ha each). Originally a four or five person audit team would spend a week on the ground in each SFL to investigate sustainability and the claims made by the forest managers. IFAs were then a strong example for audit systems being created internationally at the time.

Recent changes to IFA requirements removed assessment of sustainability. Issues of community involvement and acceptance are now barely acknowledged. Scrutiny of Indigenous participation has been reduced to almost nothing. The government allows ten to twelve years between audits. This, along with no allowance for followup, makes it impossible to assess long term sustainability properly. Short scope audits obscure systemic failures in management. There is no provision for the auditors to identify antiquated and inappropriate regulatory requirements.

The government should eliminate the IFAs. Instead they can use globally accepted independent audit systems such as the Forest Stewardship Council which meets ISO internationally accepted standards. This would meet legal requirements (Crown Forest Sustainability Act section 69 (1) 39). All forest companies in Ontario conduct and pay for their own forest audits now. Getting rid of IFAs will reduce redundancy and clarify actual issues rather than administrative minutiae more suitable for program reviews.

Because international systems require followup and compliance, it will ensure government managers are actually audited and working “efficiently and effectively” (MNR wording). Money currently spent on IFAs (as much as $100,000 each) would build a robust truly independent sustainability audit.

The government may not like the auditor's opinions, and may disagree, but the law and good management require independent audits.