January 19, 2020 Proposed…

January 19, 2020
Proposed changes to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994
ERO number 019-1020

RE: Comments on CFSA and other related policy changes

For the record, there are no element occurrences of Cerulean Warbler in forest operations in Ontario. It provides support for the point of this commentary that the implementation of forest management conservation initiatives in Ontario falls far short of planning aspirations. It was an unfortunate choice for an example. Perhaps some field experience would be useful among policy analysts.

First we provide a summary of the development of the protection mechanism for species at risk (SAR) in Ontario. This is based on our collective experience as forest auditors in Ontario over three decades. As well, this includes Tom Clark’s experience as one of the Minister’s advisors on the original Endangered Species Act (RSO 2007), and as a member of the Provincial Forest Policy Panel who provided the policy framework underpinning the CFSA (RSO 1994). This summary is important because it demonstrates the inappropriate direction the changes are proposing.

In 2007 the government, based on wide consultation and with all party support in the Legislature, passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA was specifically designed to allow the CFSA to act as an instrument of the ESA (section 18).

The intent was to allow the administration of the important measure of overall benefit and provided for “direction in forest management guides for species at risk will continue to be based on the latest relevant science, consideration of evidence and expert advice, and not cause undue hardship on businesses and affected communities”. Note this quote is from your submission, but it describes the original intent of the ESA, exactly.

Twelve years later, through three administrations, MNRF has never applied the provision for using the CFSA as an “instrument”.

Now suddenly, the government now sees the usefulness of this original concept. In 2019 the government removed the performance standard for SAR, also known as Overall Benefit, through the changes to the Endangered Species Act (10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: Discussion Paper ERO 013-4143). The use of the CFSA without a performance measure will not work. How will the government test compliance?

It is absurd the government has gone from a workable approach they would not use, to an unworkable approach they are excited about. Is there no common sense middle ground?

Here are our specific comments.

Comment 1 - Lack of performance measures for SAR
Through ERO 013-4143 the government removed the Overall Benefit criterion, and did not provide a replacement measure. The absence of any replacement performance measure means that each FMP will have to provide a compliance measure for each target.
Is MNRF aware of the door that has been opened for planning teams, biologists, members of the public to demand their own arbitrary measure of SAR recovery? It also allows local determination of the benchmark - recovery? Slower decline? Faster decline? There is no central control of how to address SAR.

Caribou is only one example. At one extreme Forest Plans may ask for nothing more than lip service for Caribou Conservation - EG. don’t run them over. Compliance would require doing nothing but instructing operators to not run over Caribou.

At the other extreme FMPs could demand full annual survey of recovery, consistent with Environment Canada standards. As a certainty, for forests that aspire to or are Forest Stewardship Council certified, there will be a much higher bar for compliance. The changes ensure that companies will be able to set local performance measures. This can be both good and bad, but it will certainly be fodder for the media.

Sustainable Forest Initiative certificates may find themselves in a whole new world of non compliance. That would be a possible benefit for SAR.

Is local discretion the intent of the revisions? Has MNRF prepared local staff for the onslaught of input likely to arrive on both sides of this issue?

Comment 2 five year review vs adaptive management
In your slender submission you state “...species at risk direction is incorporated into existing forest management guides as appropriate through the normal review process…”. Currently the normal review process occurs through revision of the guides, which is mandated every five years in the current guides (note this comment applies to the Proposed revisions to the Forest Manuals regulated under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act ERO 019-0715).

This does not meet the current MNRF commitment (the policy framework mentioned in the submission) which commits you to adaptive management. Adaptive management occurs as science develops rather than on a five year review basis.

Unfortunately, your brief submission on CFSA changes does not provide any description of how this will work.

Comment 3 - Implementation failure
Finally, your submissions states”... Forest Management Planning Manual continues to enable changes to forest management plans to incorporate new species at risk-related science or information…”

We will use the Caribou example again, although Connecticut Warbler would be an interesting, and alarming, example.

Independent Audits have pointed to the failure of MNRF to implement the FMP related to Caribou management on two forests. Note, it applies to all forests in the Caribou zone, but we wish to keep this commentary short. These audits are from 2014 and 2015 and have still not been responded to by MNRF Corporate (see * below). These recommendations relate primarily to roads and road recovery. If you cannot now implement the FMPs, removing the connection to the ESA is not going to improve anything.

You are setting up MNRF for a court challenge to the CFSA which may cause considerable problems. If MNRF is able to respond to the recommendations listed below, they should do so before implementing this sweeping change to the way business is done.

Conclusion
The submission entitled “Proposed changes to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994” ERO 019-1020 is so brief and yet so sweeping that it is impossible to predict the outcome of these changes. This should not be approved until the government provides a full analysis of the implication of downloading all of the as yet undeveloped SAR policy to regional and local planning teams.

We the undersigned request that the acceptance of these proposed changes, and the forest strategy (Ontario’s Forest Sector Strategy (Draft) ERO number 019-0880), be postponed until more comprehensive consultation can be undertaken. This needs to include open public meetings around the province to explain, among other things, the government approach to the changes (which are confusing even to experienced people) and also to provide detail as to what they are proposing and what the implications are.

Sincerely

Tom Clark
Jeremy Williams
Chris Wedeles

*Examples of current unresolved IFA recommendations:

2014 Caribou Forest LINK Corporate or Regional recs:
7. Regional MNRF staff shall provide guidance to District MNRF staff on the appropriate FMPM mechanism for a timely review and approval of harvest block road rehabilitation efforts by the Company.
8. Regional MNRF staff shall provide clear criteria and expected outcomes for decommissioning and reclaiming of roads to remove linear features and increase productive forest.
9. Regional MNRF staff shall provide Sioux Lookout MNRF District staff with interim direction on criteria for accepting that an “A” Caribou block has been closed. The District Manager should assign a District MNRF staff person to oversee timely and appropriate negotiation of access to wood supply in Caribou blocks.
10. Corporate MNRF shall provide a glossary of commonly used words and phrases related to decommissioning or reclamation of roads including operational terms.

2015 English River Forest District
Recommendation 7: Resolute Forest Products shall provide a GIS product that demonstrates ongoing progress in achieving management intent of the road use management strategies.

Corp or Regional
Recommendation 4: Regional MNRF staff shall provide guidance to District MNRF staff on the appropriate FMPM mechanism for a timely review and approval of harvest block road rehabilitation efforts by Resolute Forest Products.
Recommendation 5 : Regional MNRF staff shall provide clear criteria and expected outcomes for decommissioning and reclaiming of roads to remove linear features and maintain productive forest.
Recommendation 6: Regional MNRF shall provide MNRF District with interim direction on criteria for closure of an “A” Caribou block.
Recommendation 8 : Corporate MNRF should provide a glossary of commonly used words and phrases, including operational terms, related to decommissioning or reclamation of roads.