West Coast Environmental Law
Research Foundation
NewsletterWest Coast Environmental Law
Research Foundation
NewsletterThe government caused an uproar with its April 13, 1993, announcement that logging would be allowed in major parts of Clayoquot Sound. A majority of British Columbians support increased protection for this area, according to a poll in the Vancouver Sun. The Sound is an internationally renowned ecological jewel, of greatest value to the Province if allowed to remain in its natural state. Protection of the Clayoquot Sound ecosystem will not be achieved by the government's designation of a patchwork of scenic corridors, special management areas, integrated resource management areas and protected areas.
A prominent response to the decision came from Stephen Owen, CORE's Commissioner, who issued a report on April 22, 1993, calling for the government to clarify its decision. One issue he raised was the appearance of a conflict of interest because of the B.C. government's ownership of a block of MacMillan Bloedel shares. MB is one of the logging companies working in the Clayoquot Sound. As a result, the government has appointed Mr. Justice Peter Seaton to investigate and report on the conflict of interest issue. No response to the rest of the issues raised in Stephen Owen's report have yet been released.
Owen's report correctly identified that the public is very suspicious of assurances that this time logging will be done properly. Too many times in the past these promises have been broken. The public is aware of too many examples of poorly constructed logging roads, inappropriate harvesting and excessive logging waste. Assurances of environmentally sensitive management cannot be taken at face value. Forest companies are already obligated to meet harvesting and environmental standards, yet these standards routinely are ignored and woefully enforced. The recent Tripp Report documents numerous violations of the coastal fish-forestry guidelines, and the lack of resulting prosecutions leads the public to conclude that government lacks the political will to punish the logging companies for violations.
WCELA opposes the Clayoquot Sound land use decision. We have written to the Premier expressing our dismay. The following is an excerpt from the letter we sent, which was written by two of our Board members, lawyer John Rich and environmental planner Sarah Groves.
"Consultative, multi-stakeholder processes have been and will continue to be integral to WCELA's initiatives. In this context the Clayoquot Sound land use decision and the apparent disregard for process that led to that decision are profoundly disturbing.
The exclusion of Clayoquot Sound from the mandate of the Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE) was inappropriate and contrary to your government's stated intention of facilitating better decision-making by working to build consensus through inclusive public consultation. The withdrawal of several parties from the CORE process subsequent to the announcement of the Clayoquot Sound decision leaves CORE in serious jeopardy and gives rise to other concerns. Commissioner Owen's report of April 22, 1993, on issues arising from the Clayoquot Sound land use decision identifies these concerns and makes specific recommendations for allaying them. Immediate government action on all of these recommendations is urgently required.
The Clayoquot Sound land use decision fails to achieve a "balance" between the environment and the economy and neglects the issue of sustainability. Environmentally, the decision respects neither the ecological integrity of the temperate rainforest, a globally threatened ecosystem, nor Canada's commitment to the preservation of biodiversity under the UNCED Biodiversity Treaty (1992). Economically, no provisions for increasing the value-added component of the timber harvest through local economic development initiatives have been made and a process for shifting the resource-based economies of communities in the Clayoquot Sound region towards sustainability has yet to be defined. The Clayoquot Sound decision is distressingly similar to hundreds of previous timber harvesting programs in British Columbia which were made with little regard for their ecological implications, inadequate recognition of economic opportunities for increasing the base of value-added industry within the province, and no sensitivity to issues related to sustainability.
WCELA considers the Clayoquot Sound land use decision a grave setback to all British Columbians who have sought progressive environmental change through open consultation based on full disclosure of information and informed discussion among concerned parties. The decision has created a climate of distrust that threatens the CORE process and seriously undermines your government's credibility as an honest broker in all aspects of resource management and land use allocation in British Columbia. We await your government's response to the Owen Report and to concerns raised in this letter."
Grizzly: the very name conjures up images of power and magnificence, but in some areas of British Columbia the words "vulnerable" and "threatened" may be more appropriate. British Columbia is blessed with having most of the last remnants of a species which once ranged over most of Eurasia and North America as far south as central Mexico, but even here regulations (1993 Limited Entry Hunting Regulations) allow killing of grizzlies at rates which far exceed levels some wildlife biologists believe are acceptable if the local grizzly population is to survive.
Almost all wildlife biologists recognize that estimating the populations of grizzlies is an uncertain art in which "science gives way to educated guesswork". B.C. Ministry of Environment estimates the total number of bears in the province ranges anywhere from 6,600 to 13,000. Similarly uncertain are the numbers of grizzlies killed by poaching and natural causes, the number dying after being crippled by hunters and the number of cubs left to die after their mothers are shot.
This level of uncertainty underlines the need for taking a precautionary approach in determining how much, if any, hunting should be allowed in any area. While the B.C. Ministry of Environment says they have taken such an approach, a 1992 report to the Parks Branch concluded differently:
"It is very likely that failure of the B.C. Wildlife Branch to control the hunter kill within apparently conservative standards has put the grizzly population of (the management units in and around Kokanee Glacier Provincial Park) into a decline. It should be noted that, although such over-kill has been repeatedly identified as a serious problem by Wildlife Branch commissioned studies over the past 13 years, the problem still persists."
The study goes on to estimate that between one third and one half of adult females in the two management units around Kokanee Park may have been killed in the 1989, 1990 and 1991 hunting seasons. While the study recognizes that these estimates are uncertain it recommends a conservative approach based on the difficulty of re-establishing threatened populations:
"Due to the seriousness of the overkill and the already vulnerable status of these grizzlies, we recommend the grizzly bear hunting season be closed indefinitely in these management units to allow population recovery."
Despite these recommendations the 1993 Limited Entry Hunting Regulations allow continued trophy hunting of grizzlies in the areas identified, and even fail to follow recommendations that hunting as a minimum be restricted in certain watersheds where they were most vulnerable. Because grizzly hunting is governed by regulation rather than permit, and because the Wildlife Act fails to entrench the preventative approach, these rates can not be readily challenged or appealed.
Anyone wanting further information on this issue can contact Candace Batycki, head of the Grizzly Project, at (604) 359-7973 in Nelson.
The goal of the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) is to create an information base of harmful industrial emissions released into the environment. Fulfilling one of the federal government's commitments under the Green Plan, the NPRI has now been approved by Environment Minister Jean Charest. Details of the NPRI were published in the Canada Gazette Part II on March 27, 1993. The NPRI requires specified facilities and processes to report on emissions of 178 substances that have been identified as harmful to the environment.
"Community Right-to-Know" is a focal point of the NPRI. The Inventory will provide important information about industrial activities to citizens concerned about pollution in their communities. Though the Minister accepted the consensus report of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Committee, he has yet to make determinations regarding several unresolved issues. Labour and environmental representatives have urged the Minister to require reporting on tracking reductions of harmful substances, measuring progress towards pollution prevention and reducing reporting thresholds. As well, there is concern that industry will use the confidentiality provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to prevent public access to facility specific data.
We encourage you to write the government about this issue. For more information about the NPRI or to obtain a sample letter, please contact: Murray Mollard, West Coast Environmental Law Association at (604) 684-7378.
For government enquiries, contact: Mr. R. Solman, Department of the Environment at (819) 953-1656.
We are delighted to announce the Annual General Meetings and Banquet of West Coast Environmental Law. The AGMs of the Association, the Research Foundation and the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund will be held on Tuesday, June 22nd, 1993.
The evening will start with live entertainment by the Zaniacs, a local klezmer band. The Zaniacs will be tuning up from 6 pm and you can register for dinner and the business meetings from 6 to 6:45 pm.
At 6:45, the business meetings will start. They involve the presentation of the financial statements, a review by our president, David Avren, of our work for the year, and the election of the new Board of Directors. The business meetings are usually not too long; dinner, starting at about 7:30 pm, will follow the business meeting.
We are looking forward to another delicious wild salmon banquet, provided by Caroline Caterers at the Maritime Labour Centre. For anyone who missed last year's spread, the food is terrific!
After dinner, Stephen Owen of the Commission on Resources and the Environment will speak about the work of CORE this past year, and his vision for CORE in the future. The Zaniacs will serenade us out with a wind-up set.
The evening will be a great opportunity to meet other members of West Coast Environmental Law, to look at some of the publications, to hear about the work we have done this past year, to review our successes and contemplate new work, and to meet new friends and like-minded folks.
The cost for the whole evening will be $25 per person. Refreshments will be served starting at 6 pm with registration. We encourage pre-registration -- please call our office by June 19th at 684-7378 to reserve your place at our celebration. We also encourage you to bring a new friend of West Coast Environmental Law to the evening. We hope to see you on the 22nd!
West Coast Environmental Law Association is involved in two pollution prevention initiatives aimed at reducing and eliminating the use of toxic substances and the creation of hazardous waste. Progress in both the Accelerated Reduction/Elimination of Toxics (ARET) process and the federal Pollution Prevention Legislation Task Force has been unfortunately slow, and whether or not these initiatives can be billed as a success remains to be seen.
Environment Minister Jean Charest established ARET in February 1992 to promote voluntary pollution prevention. ARET has focussed on the elimination or reduction of the worst toxic substances in our environment: those which are not only toxic but also persistent and bioaccumulative. The process involves 27 representatives from industry, environmental organizations, government and labour.
ARET grew out of an environmentalist/industry/labour group called "New Directions" which in a September 1991 report recognized the need for industry to reduce toxic use faster than government regulations could proceed. Whether voluntary action under ARET can meet this challenge is uncertain.
The aims of ARET are to: (1) identify target substances which are bioaccumulative, persistent and toxic; (2) develop an action plan with specific timetables for the elimination/reduction of these substances; and, (3) challenge the sources of these contaminants (industry and others) to eliminate/reduce releases.
As ARET decisions require consensus, progress has been slow with substantial progress only made on the first aim. The most recent impasse is over whether reduction or elimination should be the aim of ARET. Environmentalists have argued that since ARET is focussed on the worst of toxic substances -- those which are toxic, bioaccumulative and persistent -- elimination must be the goal with socioeconomic concerns factoring into the timetable for elimination.
One test for determining whether the voluntary action of ARET is merely a smokescreen for industry inaction will be the success of ARET in dealing with substances which have been targeted for immediate action. ARET is in the process of challenging industries to deal with two groups of toxic substances: polycyclic aromatic compounds and mercury.
Another recurring issue in ARET has been the need for pollution prevention legislation. In recognition of the importance of pollution prevention legislation, Environment Canada established a small task force in March 1993 to advise on the form of a national pollution prevention legislative framework.
Pollution prevention means the reduction of toxic substance use and the reduction and elimination of waste creation. These aims are achieved by using less toxic or more efficient inputs, in-process recycling of waste products, using different production processes, improving management of industrial plants, and redesigning products so that the end product is less toxic and creates less waste both in its production and in its use and disposal. Pollution prevention contrasts with end-of-pipe controls which are designed to treat or control releases of waste already generated.
Pollution prevention has proven to be generally more effective than pollution control and is often much less costly to industry. Unfortunately pollution planning has often not been implemented because of attitudinal, corporate organizational and information barriers.
At the heart of pollution prevention legislation are requirements that industries produce plans for the reduction in their use of toxics and their generation of waste. This is combined with technical assistance and educational outreach programs to aid industry in pollution prevention planning.
Over 30 American states have enacted pollution prevention statutes, mostly in the last three years. Planning requirements generally contain four general components: comprehensive review of industrial processes that use, generate or release toxic materials; the identification of pollution prevention opportunities in all processes; a ranking of each of the opportunities and a schedule for their implementation. Plans are updated periodically.
Progressive American legislation requires industries to submit their plans for approval by environmental agencies. Facilities failing to produce or implement plans are subject to fines, special attention by regulators and may have their operating permits cancelled. Regulators also rely on public scrutiny of pollution prevention plans to ensure the adequacy and implementation of plans.
The Pollution Prevention Legislative Task Force is still attempting to resolve crucial issues such as what activities come within the parameters of "pollution prevention" and whether mandatory planning is necessary.
Environmentalists have argued for mandatory planning and a focussed definition. A focussed definition is necessary to ensure that industry considers those fundamental changes which avoid the manufacture of toxic products rather than band-aid solutions which try to control the use and disposal of those toxic products after their manufacture.
WCELRF Newsletter copyright 1993, is published by the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation. This issue was produced by Bill Andrews, Morgan Ashbridge, Ann Hillyer, Kelly Lamorie, Catherine Ludgate, Murray Mollard, Linda Nowlan, Denice Regnier and Chris Rolfe. WCELRF does research and education and maintains an environmental law library. The West Coast Environmental Law Association provides legal representation and promotes law reform. The mission of WCELRF and WCELA is to provide legal services to protect the environment and to foster public participation in environmental decision-making. We are grateful to the Law Foundation of British Columbia for core funding of the West Coast Environmental Law Association and West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation. Donations to WCELRF are tax creditable.