Forest Renewal BC is opening six regional offices in Williams
Lake, Kamloops, Prince George, Cranbrook, Smithers and Campbell
River to work with local residents in developing regional investment
plans. Each office will be staffed by teams of up to six which
will work with local people to develop the most appropriate strategies
for Forest Renewal investments in the areas.
Recent Forest Renewal investments include approving $25 million for the resources inventory program for implementation during 1995/96. The FRBC inventory program is designed to complement existing inventory programs, not to replace them. Key components include new operational field inventories for terrain stability, air and water quality, water quantity, fisheries, vegetation and range, wildlife and wildlife habitat, rare and endangered species, recreation, archeology, and traditional use. An FRBC Resources Inventory Program Business Plan has been prepared to provide further information about this program.
Forest Renewal BC is a partnership of government, forest companies, workers, environmental groups, communities and First Nations that was created in June of 1994 to make long-term investments in BC's forests, in jobs, and in communities. The Crown corporation receives its revenue from increased stumpage and royalty revenues and invests it back in the land. Up to $400 million each year will be reinvested in the forests to:
- Ann Hillyer
West Coast Environmental Law Association
Director, Forest Renewal BC
Minister of Environment Elizabeth Cull has renewed the government's
commitment to action on strict vehicle emission standards. In
response to an erroneous story in the media that BC had abandoned
the idea of adopting California standards for zero and low emission
vehicles, in a June 28 press release, the Minister stated that
the new standards "will be based on California automobile
emission requirements which are the toughest in the world."
New clean car regulations have been promised for the fall. The benefits of improving air quality are considerable - studies have shown that unless steps are taken to improve air in the Lower Fraser Valley, there will be 2,800 premature deaths, 33,000 more hospital admissions and crop damage of $75 million over the next 25 years. West Coast supports this initiative, and urges the government to proceed with these crucial regulations as soon as possible.
Recognizing that waste reduction is an essential part of striving for greater sustainability raises critical questions about how this can be achieved. How do we minimize the impacts of products on the environment? Who should be responsible logistically and financially?
Increasingly the emphasis in waste management has shifted towards pollution prevention, rather than end of the pipe "solutions."
In May, at the 1995 Recycling Council of British Columbia Waste Reduction Conference, an agreement was reached on certain basic principles - or "ground rules" - to guide stewardship programs in BC. Representatives of industry and local government commented on the resolutions before they were put to a vote. WCELA summer student Jessica Clogg represented environmental interests on the panel.
Agreement on these resolutions affirms that the commonsense approach to reducing the environmental impacts of products and packaging is the 3R hierarchy, which holds that waste avoidance (Reduce) is the best approach, followed by use of durable products and packaging systems (Re-use), followed in turn by Recycling of left-over materials into new products. Not only is this pollution prevention approach consistent with the current legal and policy framework, it is essentially asking the government to do what it has already agreed to, and has the authority to do.
The BC Waste Management Act, s.35 provides the authority for the regulation of a wide range of activities and products, so it could support the implementation of the RCBC ground rules.
We already have a handful of models in BC, including the beverage container refund-deposit system, the Return of Used Lubricating Oil Regulation and the Post-Consumer Paint Stewardship Regulation. These have the potential to support effective product stewardship, but government has the authority to go much further. Agreement on the RCBC resolutions sends the message that many British Columbians want government action to ensure that industries do minimize the environmental impact of their products.
The ground rules reflect the "polluter pays principle" - the idea that those who benefit from producing and using a product should be directly accountable for the costs of the product. Full industry responsibility for product waste management systems, such as with the beverage container deposit-refund system, means producers must internalize the costs of doing business. Wherever the public sector must dispose of industry by-products, such as non-durable packaging, in essence a government subsidy to manufacturers is created. It is clear that only by ensuring that costs are internalized by industry will effective incentives to reduce waste production at the source be created.
The ground rules agreed to at the RCBC conference will be forwarded to the Ministry of the Environment.
-- Jessica Clogg
BC Spaces, World Wildlife Fund's BC Endangered Spaces program, has launched a large World Wide Web site on the Internet. From the home page, the user reads that the group used to be called "Tatshenshini Wild." Clicking on the name Tatshenshini Wild brings up a history of the group, with reference to its work against the proposed "Windy Craggy" open-pit copper mine. Clicking on "Windy Craggy" brings up a multi-chapter report on the environmental issue and the BC government's decision to block the proposal in order to preserve Tatshenshini.
Back at the home page, the group's participation in the Endangered Spaces Campaign is noted and there is a link to more information about the campaign, including the current status of BC's endangered spaces.
Back at the home page again, there is a list of programs in which the group is involved, each with links providing further information: theEnvironmental Mining Council of British Columbia, Jobs and Environment, a BC Spaces research paper, and Forest Renewal BC.
BC Spaces' address is: http://www.sunshine.net/www/0/sn0004/.
The Pacific and Yukon region of Environment Canada recently launched a major World Wide Web site. Its address is: http://www.pwc.bc.doe.ca/.
- Bill Andrews
Since 1989 a coalition of environmental groups, social investors, and public interest groups have tackled one of the most difficult issues in addressing local and global environmental degradation.
Corporate activity, driven by the profit-motive, is often pinpointed as a major source of our environmental problems. Yet how do environmentalists get corporations to sign on to protecting the environment? Joan Bavaria from the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES) addressed this issue at a recent information session organised by the VanCity Savings Credit Union.
CERES has developed a ten point environmental code for corporations. The CERES Principles, first introduced as the "Valdez Principles" in 1989, were "devised to encourage the development of positive programs designed to prevent environmental degradation; to assist corporations in setting policy and enable investors to make informed decisions regarding environmental issues" (Guide to the CERES Principles).
Endorsing companies range from small companies which produce green products to General Motors Corporation, the world's largest manufacturer. What they share is a common belief that corporations have a responsibility for the environment, and must not compromise the sustainability of the planet future generations will inhabit. The Principles they have adopted address:
All endorsers undertake to produce an annual environmental report, and this record is available to the public. Some corporations are moving towards a further step, which would be an independent audit of the CERES Report. The core of the endorsers' commitment is to strive for continuous improvement in their impact on the environment and to be open and accountable. Endorsing CERES is not meant to be a stamp of approval. It doesn't mean a company is perfect, but rather that they have made such a commitment.
There is a process by which endorsers can lose their status if they do not show genuine intent to strive toward implementing the Principles, and there is a strong concern among coalition members that endorsing the CERES principles should not become a PR gimmick for companies that don't truly have a strong environmental commitment.
Different factors motivate a company to become a member, but the Guide to the CERES Principles suggests that corporations "have found that environmental proactivity can be accomplished while saving money, as it reduces the use of costly toxic resources, creating new input sources through recycling and reuse of raw materials, lessening the creation and disposal of wastes and improving the overall efficiency of operation." Since 1990, VanCity has been the only solely Canadian endorser of the Principles.
For more information, please contact Priscilla Boucher at the VanCity Environment Office at 877-8291, or Judith Kuszewski at CERES, at 711 Atlantic Ave., Boston, Massachusetts 02111, USA, (617) 451-0927, fax (617) 482-2028.
- Jessica Clogg
In a recent test case, Cloutier & Briscoe v. Ball and others, the BC Supreme Court declined to enforce a restrictive covenant which limited the height of trees in a Surrey subdivision.
The defendants in this case originally sought the assistance of the WCELA Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund. WCELA referred the case to James MacKenzie, a Vancouver lawyer.
The plaintiffs sought to enforce a 1955 restrictive covenant registered against the defendants' land which required that no trees on the parcel of land now owned by the defendants be allowed to grow higher than 20 feet in height. The plaintiffs wanted the defendants to trim four 60 to 70 foot high trees which interfered with the plaintiffs' view. Several hundred other tall trees in the subdivision also interfered with the plaintiffs' view. If they succeeded against these defendants, the plaintiffs intended to pursue the owners of the other properties to have additional trees trimmed.
The defendants argued that the restrictive covenant was "obsolete" because the character of the neighbourhood had changed and there were now many tall trees. They also argued that the restrictive covenant does not run with the land because it is one which requires them to expend money. Further, they said the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief they sought because the plaintiffs had allowed the trees to grow for over 20 years before taking action.
The Court was not persuaded that the restrictive covenant could be obsolete based on the neighbourhood character having changed with respect to some lots but not with respect to others. The Court found that as the elimination of the defendants' four trees would only make a small contribution towards the goal of restoring the plaintiffs' view, the plaintiffs' claim for a mandatory injunction against the defendants should be dismissed.
The Court also held that a restrictive covenant which required the expenditure of money, in this case the costs associated with having to cut the trees, did not run with the land. The Court therefore held that it did not bind owners of the property who were not the original parties agreeing to the covenant. The Court also concluded that the plaintiffs had not taken adequate steps to try to enforce the restrictive covenant over the years when the trees were growing. The Court therefore found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to enforce the restrictive covenant against the defendants.
This case may have broad implications for the other individual and corporate landowners and environmental groups in British Columbia. There are restrictive covenants, particularly covenants protecting views, registered against many properties throughout the province. Environmental groups wishing to prevent the cutting or removal of trees on lots subject to a restrictive covenant or a building scheme should not assume that they have no remedy. It is necessary to carefully examine the history of the subdivision in question and the terms of the covenant. Recently the law has changed to allow environmental groups to hold conservation covenants to protect environmental values on land (for more information about conservation covenants, please call our office).
The lesson of this case is that if you rely upon a restrictive covenant but it is not enforced in the face of noncompliance, any delay could jeopardize the right to enforce the covenant at a later date.
The WCEL organizations are all non-profit and independent. We rely on donations and memberships to support our work. For $20 a year, you can become a member and receive the bi-weekly WCEL NEWS. For a donation of any amount we will send you a tax-creditable receipt. You can also specify that your United Way donation come to West Coast. Please support this important work and invest in environmental protection. Send your membership or donation to:
WCELRF, 1001 207 West Hastings, Vancouver, BC, V6B 1H7, Canada. Phone (604) 6847378; fax (604) 6841312; email wcelrf@unixg.ubc.ca. Printed on 100% recycled paper (not secondarily bleached or de-inked).
WCELRF Newsletter (ISSN #0715-4275), copyright 1995, is
published by the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation.
West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation (WCELRF) does
research and education and maintains an environmental law library.
West Coast Environmental Law Association (WCELA) provides legal
representation and promotes law reform. The West Coast Environmental
Dispute Resolution Fund Society (EDRFS) provides assistance and
funding to citizens to help solve environmental problems in their
communities. The mission of the West Coast Environmental Law groups
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 West Coast Environmental Law Association and West
Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation. Donations to West
Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation are tax creditable.
This issue was produced by Mary Abbott, Bill Andrews, Morgan Ashbridge,
Jessica Clogg, Chris Heald, Ann Hillyer, Patricia Houlihan, Ted
Lewko, Catherine Ludgate, Lisa McBain, Alexandra Melnyk, and Linda
Nowlan.