Proposed revisions to Ontario’s Independent Forest Audit Regulation under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act

The proposal was posted on the Environmental Registry for a period of 60 days from December 20, 2019 to February 18, 2020.  Additional comments from First Nations (FN) and Métis communities were accepted until March 13, 2020.  Indigenous sessions were held across Ontario in January 2020 to solicit input on Ontario’s draft Forest Sector Strategy.  The following is a summary of substantive comments and how they were taken into consideration:

1. Reducing costs and streamlining program delivery

Comments included support for cost savings through proposed changes, including a longer audit period, a balanced schedule and efficiencies through a risk-based approach to the implementation of audits / consideration of forest certification. Changes will not reduce the effectiveness of the Independent Forest Audit (IFA) program and its pivotal role in Ontario’s sustainable forest management framework.

Response

A longer audit period and greater flexibility to update the audit schedule to adjust for a range of circumstances will result in improved audit timing and effectiveness, while a balanced audit schedule will enable improved allocation of limited resources.  In implementation, we will explore efficiencies with forest certification standards, possibly in relation to:  a) auditor risk assessment, b) optional criteria and procedures and/or c) areas of scope overlap; and in modifications to the sampling approach for a longer audit period.

2. First Nations participation in forest audits

There was a concern that changes benefit only government and forest industry and do nothing to benefit or increase participation/role of First Nations and Métis communities in IFAs.

Response

Audit process requirements for First Nations and Métis communities will not change. Indigenous communities will continue to be able to participate in audits.  Changes are intended to promote greater productivity and resource efficiency for the implementation of the IFA​ program.  Indigenous people may seek engagement as auditors.

3. Establishing a ten-year audit period

     a. Comments included concerns that the changes would that reduced government oversight in forest operations would and negatively impact sustainable forest management and the environment in general.

Response

We will continue to maintain oversight and protection of the environment through Ontario’s forest policy framework. The forest management planning manual and forest management guides provide planning and operational direction based on the best available science. The provincial forest compliance program ensures that forest operations conform to the standards and rules under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. Many companies are certified to internationally-recognized forest certification standards, providing an additional level of public assurance that forests are well managed.

     b. There was concern that non-compliant operations may go undetected and uncorrected, resulting in increased potential for environmental damage.

Response

Forest operations compliance inspections identify operational issues and address them through corrective actions. Many companies are also certified to internationally-recognized forest certification standards, providing additional opportunity to identify and address non-compliance. 

     c. There were concerns around audit timing and the availability of audit results for consideration in forest management planning. 

Response

Increasing the audit period to match the term of forest management plans while still allowing audit extensions will help to improve audit timing.  Effective timing will enable audit results to be used in forest management planning without placing additional demands on planning teams during plan production. Changes will not affect auditor independence or the process for conducting an audit once it is decided an audit shall take place.  

     d. There were concerns that increasing the length of the audit period would impact continuity from one audit to the next.  Changes in leadership and staff between audits would make it difficult to follow up on assigned actions and ensure they have been completed.

Response

We are improving continuity between audits by replacing the one-time action plan status report  and its replacement with a forest management planning manual requirement to report on action completion in management unit annual reports.

     e. There was concern that reducing the frequency of audits might be detrimental where circumstances might suggest that the frequency of audits should be increased, not reduced.

Response

Although the minimum audit frequency has been increased to ten years, there are a range of factors which may be considered in determining the timing of forest audits, including the results of previous forest audits, whether concerns from the previous audit have been addressed and whether scheduling an audit is in the public interest.  If circumstances warrant, the IFA regulation enables audits to be held more frequently.

4. Public Release of Audit Reports

There was concern that replacing the requirement to table audit reports in the legislature with a requirement to make available online will not result in the same awareness of audit results.

Response

Removing the requirement to table audit reports in the legislature will not diminish their importance.  The timely online posting of audit reports and action plans without having to wait for the reports to be tabled in the legislature will increase transparency and maintain their value and utility to the public.