Threat of NAFTA Suit Kills MMT Ban

Most of our readers have probably been following recent news coverage of the settlement of Ethyl Corporation's claim against the government of Canada under NAFTA's investment rules. The case has already been the subject of commentary in our newsletter, but because of its far-reaching implications for the future course of Canadian law and policy, we feel it is worthy of further comment. Most of our readers will also recall that NAFTA's investment chapter now serves as the prototype for the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.

Let's briefly recount the salient details. Ethyl Corporation is a US-based manufacturer of a manganese-based fuel additive called MMT. Because of serious concerns about the impact of MMT on human health, and MMT's potential to interfere with automobile emission controls, the federal government banned the importation and interprovincial trade of MMT in 1996. The decision of our government to rely upon its trade and commerce power arose from the reluctance of Health and Welfare Canada to pronounce MMT a hazard to human health — notwithstanding the fact that workplace exposure had demonstrated its neurotoxic effects. But without epidemeological evidence of adverse public health impacts, Health and Welfare would not be moved off the fence. Nor would it be persuaded by the claims of automakers that continued MMT use would make emission reduction targets much harder to achieve. So much for the precautionary principle.

In any event, Ethyl Corporation — hardened by previous years of aggressive campaigning to preserve its markets for lead as a fuel additive — reacted quickly by suing the Canadian government for approximately $350 million under the investor-state suit provisions of Chapter 11 of NAFTA. Ethyl's claim asserted that federal MMT regulations violated several provisions of NAFTA and effectively expropriated Ethyl's business of manufacturing the controversial substance. It was time, therefore, for Canada to pay up.

In initiating its claim, Ethyl relied upon the unprecedented and untested investor-state suit provisions of NAFTA, which represent a truly radical departure from the norms of contract law, treaty law, and even international law. For example, under these rules, investors are entitled to invoke binding international dispute resolution even without having a contractual relationship with, or any other obligation to, the government against which they are claiming.

Nor do they have to exhaust available remedies provided by domestic courts, or enlist the support of any government in a claim. Moreover, the shroud of secrecy surrounding these dispute procedures represents a further assault on the bedrock principles on which our legal system is founded. In fact, we only learned of its claim because Ethyl chose to make it public. But when West Coast and other groups sought to intervene in the case we were rebuffed by the Canadian government, which also refused us access to any of the documents — either Ethyl's or its own — relating to the case.

Thus, during 1997 and early 1998, the case proceeded under the cone of silence imposed by these highly secretive arbitration rules. While federal officials were busy publicly discounting Ethyl's claim, internal memoranda offered a more sober assessment. In fact, the federal government was so concerned about losing the case that it decided to settle on terms that can only be described as a complete capitulation to Ethyl's claims.

On July 20, 1998, under front page headlines "Threat of NAFTA Case Kills Canada's MMT Ban," the Globe & Mail reported that Canada had agreed to rescind the MMT ban, pay Ethyl in excess of $19 million, and take the unprecedented step of issuing a statement that MMT was neither an environmental nor a health risk. Not surprisingly, even prominent members of the Liberal government slammed the deal as a sell-out of the public interest.

Thus the first case to have invoked the powerful enforcement rules of NAFTA has resulted in a stunning victory for a US-based transnational corporation unhappy with Canadian environmental regulation. Moreover, to avoid a whopping damage settlement, the federal government has set a very dangerous international precedent which we can expect to invite similar challenges by other foreign investors.

In fact, it is clear that other corporations have already gotten the message, because Canada was recently served with another NAFTA-based claim for damages by the US-based corporation, SD Myers. This claim arises from a ban (since removed) on international PCB waste trade. Even more chilling is the fact that federal officials have refused to disclose how many other claims may have been made under NAFTA's investment rules, stating that even the fact of the claim is subject to NAFTA's secrecy regime.

As disturbing as these developments are, they are not entirely unwelcome, as the Ethyl and SD Myers cases have finally brought to light just how draconian these investment rules truly are. Even the editorial boards of the Globe & Mail and the Financial Post have gotten into the act by denouncing the investor-state suit provisions of NAFTA and the MAI, and by asking pointed questions about the extraordinary and secretive character of these powerful enforcement regimes. But even as they are chided, the federal government prepares itself for the renewed MAI negotiations that reconvene this October.

Canada is still determined to promote free trade for the Americas, replete with the investor protection provisions of NAFTA. But while the federal government appears undaunted in its pursuit of international treaties for investor-rights, it now seems that the cat may really be out of the bag. The challenge will now be to ensure that the sorry details of the MMT debacle receive ongoing and prominent coverage both in Canada and in other countries as well.

We also hope that, in addition to frustrating progress with the MAI negotiations, the Ethyl case will spark long overdue attention to NAFTA and the need for surgery to excise rules that expose an expansive catalogue of Canadian laws and regulation to the withering fire of investor-state litigation.

News Flash: Skytrain Exempted from Environmental Assessment

On September 17, BC Minister of Finance Joy McPhail announced the exemption of the Skytrain Extension Project from the BC Environmental Assessment Act. The exemption followed three months of discussions between environmental groups and the government in which WCEL repeatedly stressed the need for a thorough assessment under the EA Act.

The government rationalized the exemption from the EA Act on the basis of the urgent need for improved transit in the lower mainland. At the same time, McPhail argued that environmental assessment was unneccessary because there "are no environmental concerns."

While pleased to see the fast tracking of rapid transit, WCEL and other groups had warned the government that an expensive and ill-thought Skytrain extension could do more harm than good.

First, concerns have been raised that Skytrain would bleed the overall transit system dry, leading to a further shortage of buses. Vancouver's current transit problem is in part due to the severe cash shortage created by financing the existing Skytrain, especially the extension beyond Scott Road in Surrey. Although government has justified the Skytrain as being "only slightly more expensive" than the primary alternative, street level light rapid transit (LRT), cost estimates were based on assumptions that street level LRT would require numerous tunnels, even where municipal councils had not requested such tunnels.

Second, with construction slated to start October 31, there appears to have been no consideration given to important design issues. For example, the planned extension will run from New Westminster to Lougheed to Broadway and Commercial and then terminate on Broadway between Glen Drive and Clark Drive. (Any bets on the name of the terminus?) Current plans show that passengers on the new line will have to transfer at Broadway station to go downtown, instead of having a through-train service. Given crowding on trains from New Westminster this could make Skytrain far less effective at getting people out of their cars.

As a palliative to environmentalists, the government announced an alternative environmental assessment process to consider environmental concerns. It is not clear whether or not the alternate process will be too late to stop major, expensive mistakes. Commissioner Derek Thompson's terms of reference are vague, although there appears to be some interest in a review of all environmental concerns. More troublesome is the fact that construction can begin while Thompson considers the project. This may lead to a situation where government becomes financially committed to a poor design decision. WCEL and a coalition of environmental groups has already met with Thompson in efforts to ensure that the process has some value. The coalition includes representatives from West Coast Environmental Law Association, Better Environmentally Sound Transportation, Society Promoting Environmental Conservation, Transport 2000, David Suzuki Foundation, and the Stoney Creek Environment Committee.

Passing the Buck:
The BC Government and Fish Conservation

Listening to Glen Clark and David Anderson trade rhetoric and accusations, one would think they were both firmly committed to fisheries conservation. Yet examining the actions of both levels of government reveals a different picture. While federal initiatives to protect Coho are to be applauded, dramatic cuts to Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) staff have effectively eliminated the Department's capacity to enforce the federal Fisheries Act.

Similarly, Anderson's commitment to bigger-is-better fisheries is destructive of fishing communities and local fishing economies. While Clark's defense of the Pacific Salmon Treaty and the creation of Fisheries Renewal BC are worthy of support, the province's failure to act on habitat protection, forestry regulation and climate change will have obvious and adverse impacts on the sustainability of our fisheries. The province's criticism of the federal government would be easier to accept if it was doing more within its own jurisdiction to conserve fish.

Streamside protection

Loss of habitat is one of the chief threats to fish. The province has primary jurisdiction over most activities which damage and destroy habitat. To improve its habitat protection abilities, especially in rapidly expanding urban areas, the province passed the Fish Protection Act in 1997. But most of the Act is not yet in force and there have been long delays in developing the key regulations which would give this law some impact.

For example, the streamside protection regulation should eventually impose strict controls on development of crucial "green strips" (also known as riparian zones) beside streams. Protection of riparian habitat may yield the greatest gains for fish and wildlife while involving the least amount of area. The scientific literature shows that stream setbacks are the best way to protect the riparian habitat characteristics needed to support fish and wildlife populations. It is essential to enact minimum riparian standards so that fish have the same level of protection no matter where they live.

The variability in local standards has led to the current urban stream crisis, well described by the government:

Hundreds of kilometres of streams and streamside habitat have been lost in the Lower Mainland in this century. The Greater Vancouver area alone once had over 60 productive salmon streams. Now there are only about six.

Around the Georgia Basin, the area bordering the Strait of Georgia, over 140 streams have been identified as critical to fish, and many are facing threats from urbanization or development. Some of them support endangered or threatened species as well as salmon.

Coho salmon are teetering on the brink of extinction and eleven percent or greater of salmon and trout populations of larger streams in BC are already extinct or are at risk of becoming extinct. Thirty percent of freshwater fish species are threatened or endangered.

(Backgrounder on Streamside Protection under the Fish Protection Act, BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, 1998.)

Yet the proposed streamside protection regulation, pursuant to section 12 of the Fish Protection Act, has been delayed, and even during the public consultation meetings held this summer, no details of this key regulation were made public. The "streamside protection tools for local governments" listed in the government's discussion paper about the new regulation already exist. Presumably the intent of a streamside protection regulation is to add something new to the legal toolbox. What is currently missing from that toolbox is minimum setback provisions. Guidelines for stream setbacks, such as the DFO-MELP Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Areas, have not worked. Minimum riparian setbacks need to be included in this regulation.

Sensitive Streams

The situation is similar for the sensitive streams regulation, also under development. The draft sensitive streams regulation now lists only fifteen candidates for sensitive stream status, despite the fact that there are considerably more streams at risk in the province. Section 6(2) of the Fish Protection Act states that sensitive streams may be designated when fish populations are at risk due to inadequate water flows or degradation of habitat. It is not clear why only fifteen streams have been proposed, rather than the over 200 streams identified by DFO as candidates for sensitive stream status.

One reason given for the selection of such a low number of streams was that "everyone could agree" about these streams. Selecting only non-controversial streams as potential candidates for listing under this new regulation undermines the whole intent of the Act — to protect fish. The province should show leadership by drafting strong regulations, even if they face opposition by the development industry, to meet the goal of better fish habitat protection.

Forest Practices Code

The impact of forestry on fish habitat is substantial. Despite expectations that the Forest Practices Code would eliminate clearcutting to the banks of streams, this practice continues. In addition, few streams have mandatory reserve zones. (Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Stream Protection under the Code: the Destruction Continues, Vancouver, BC, 1996.) Limiting the impact of forestry on fish habitat is a step that only the provincial government can take.

But instead of strengthening the fish habitat protection in forests, or improving enforcement, recent changes to the Forest Practices Code will limit the opportunity for public review. Recent changes to the Code have been introduced despite the widespread and widely acknowledged damage to fish habitat resulting from forestry practices.

A 1994 report jointly prepared by the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks documents a legacy of harmful impacts and calls for a major new program focusing on stabilizing road and hillslope erosion, intensive silviculture, treatment of riparian zones and instream habitat restoration. It estimates that 90 percent of the primary watersheds draining into tidal waters in BC have already been logged. (Sierra Legal Defence Fund Press Release, "Leaked Ministry of Environment Report Details Massive Fish Habitat Loss Caused by Logging", May 19, 1998.)

Similarly, the Living Blueprint report, prepared by a panel of independent scientists, mostly ex-bureaucrats, also documents the negative impact of forestry on fish habitat, noting that at least 40 percent of provincial forests have been harvested in the past without proper care for salmon streams. It recommends effective, uniform and systematic implementation of the Forest Practices Code at the very least in watersheds that are critical and significant for salmon production. (Living Blueprint for BC Salmon Habitat, Pacific Salmon Foundation: Vancouver 1998.)

Climate Change

Two years ago, News from West Coast Environmental Law published a story detailing growing scientific concern that climate change was adversely affecting salmon and that the plight of BC salmon might only get worse if action is not taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (See News from West Coast Environmental Law, Vol 20:06, September 30, 1996 .)

At the time, WCEL was critical of then Minister of Environment, Moe Sihota, for talking the talk but not walking the walk. Sihota showed leadership on the climate change issue in forums such as the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment, but failed to take many substantive new actions to reduce BC's emissions. Since then, information about the negative effects of climate change on fish has gotten worse, and BC has shifted from being outspoken in favour of strong action on climate change to playing second fiddle to Alberta's anti-climate stance. One of the federal Department of Fisheries reasons for strictly limiting catches was the unusually warm temperatures in BC spawning rivers and increasing evidence that this phenomenon inhibits salmon's ability to spawn.

Meanwhile, BC Minister of Energy Dan Miller has said that the Kyoto target is unrealistic and that "Canada shouldn't ratify the agreement until the provinces buy into it." West Coast Environmental Law recognizes the importance of joint federal provincial cooperation, but is it in anyone's — other than the oil industry's — interest to give Alberta a stranglehold on climate change policy?

And still we are failing to undertake even the simplest measures to protect fish by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, although the BC government has developed its own version of the National Energy Codes for Houses and Buildings, we have failed to adopt these standards as law. Although the Codes will save people money (because they will reduce heating costs) and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they have been resisted by the development industry. The government had committed to adopting the Codes into law by 1997.

The federal government, often a target of criticism by the provincial government, has shown an extraordinary degree of political leadership in its salmon conservation measures. The provincial government should do the same.

What You Can Do

Write to the Premier, the Minister of the Environment and your local MLA and let them know that you want them to take all steps within their power to protect fish and their habitat. Ask for strong new streamside protection regulations, with strong riparian setbacks, to be implemented as soon as possible under the Fish Protection Act. Propose candidates for sensitive stream listing under the sensitive streams regulation. A copy of your letter should be sent to:

Streamside Protection Project Team Corporate Policy Branch
Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks
PO Box 9335, Stn Prov. Govt
Victoria, BC, V8W 9M1

Chinese Environmental Education Please!

West Coast is pleased to announce the formation of a new coalition to reach out to Chinese language communities in BC about environmental issues. At a recent meeting, West Coast joined with SUCCESS (United Chinese Cultural Enrichment Services Society) and APASE (Association for Promotion and Advancement of Science Education) to establish this coalition. Each of the three founding parties brings skills and experience to this initiative.

West Coast will draw on our years of experience in providing accessible legal education and plain language materials. SUCCESS is the largest organization providing settlement services to new immigrants, and is strongly connected to the Chinese community. APASE has provided environmental citizenship training to over 10,000 new immigrants in BC over the past seven years.

This coalition is borne out of research West Coast conducted over the summer. With the assistance of summer student Ellen Hui, we learned that Chinese-language materials on environmental issues are scarce, but that there is a strong interest in environmental issues in sectors of the Chinese-language communities. We also learned that, in the first half of 1998, 59 percent of immigrants from mainland China, 51 percent of immigrants from Hong Kong and 57 percent of immigrants from Taiwan do not speak or read English. Our belief that new immigrants are eager to share their concerns about the environment, and to understand how to help take care of the environment, was confirmed by our research.

It is also our strong belief that all citizens need to be involved in environmental protection and need to understand how the legal system can protect the environment. We hope now to begin to fill this gap in our ability to reach one part of our community.

Over the next few months, we will be asking a range of groups and individuals what Chineselanguage services and materials on environmental issues are currently available, and what is needed. A meeting of interested parties will be held in early December to set out goals and a work plan for this coalition.

If you have any suggestions, know of any existing resources, or are interested in helping us with this initiative, please contact our office at (604) 684-7378.

BC Backs Away from Legislation to Offload Environmental Protection

Facing protests from industry and ambivalence from the environmental community, the BC government recently backed away from legislation that would allow it to pass responsibility for administering environmental programs on to semi-independent "stewardship agencies." Under Bill 40, the Environment Management Amendment Act, the government would have been able to delegate administration of programs for the management and protection of the environment to agencies made up of government-selected representatives from industry, business and government.

Bill 40 was largely aimed at delegating responsibility for "product stewardship" programs, such as programs to collect, recycle and reuse consumer waste products. Industry was vocal in its opposition to the Bill, claiming it would lead to more stewardship programs to deal with waste products such as cars. Beyond product stewardship, Bill 40 would allow delegation of functions like issuing and administering waste management permits. It might even allow delegation of programs under other legislation such as the Forest Practices Code or Wildlife Act.

The Minister of Environment would retain only indirect control of stewardship boards. She could specify general guidelines to stewardship agencies (e.g. "consider potential environmental harm, economic cost, etc., when issuing permits") and specify goals (e.g. "try to achieve a 40 percent reduction in emissions into airshed Y").

Opinions differed on whether or not Bill 40 was a positive step. Proponents of Bill 40 within the Ministry of Environment believed it would

• force stakeholders to grapple constructively with environmental problems rather than simply criticizing government action or being intransigent in their negotiating positions;
• provide more stable sources of funding than those available to government (agencies would be funded by fees they impose on industry); and,
• be more transparent than the current "black box" of government regulation. For these reasons environmental groups involved in product stewardship were generally supportive of Bill 40.

However, government failed to consult beyond the recycling community, and many environmentalists were leery of a program that involved a reduction in ministerial accountability and loss of control by elected officials. In comments on Bill 40, West Coast Environmental Law criticized government for its lack of consultation and recommended amendments which would:

• limit the types of environmental programs which could be delegated;
• ensure that the boards of stewardship agencies were balanced (industry wanted the opposite — amendments ensuring that if they funded an agency they would control it by having a majority of the seats on the board of directors); and,
• ensure that representatives of non-profit groups on boards would be adequately resourced.

Apparently reacting more to opposition from industry than concerns from environmentalists, Environment Minister Cathy McGregor withdrew the legislation in late July, promising to re-introduce it after further consultation. Stay tuned for more.

Welcome to West Coast

We are pleased to introduce two recent additions to the WCEL team — EDRF liaison lawyer Karen Campbell and forestry worker Laurel Brewster.

Karen comes to us from Toronto, Ontario via London, England, where she spent the last two years working and studying in the areas of international environmental and international economic law. While in England, she obtained her LL.M. from the University of London, and was a Research Fellow with the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development.

Prior to her departure for London, Karen worked in the Policy Branch of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, on a range of legal and intergovernmental initiatives, including the Canadian Council of Ministers on the Environment Harmonization process, and other issues including environmental liability, environment and trade, and public participation in environmental decision-making.

Karen articled with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, and has been active with the Canadian Environmental Network and the East Coast Environmental Law Association.

Selling Clean Air A workshop on market instruments for climate protection

October 15 & 16, 1998, Vancouver, BC,
hosted by West Coast Environmental
Law Research Foundation

Blue Horizon Hotel, 1225 Robson

Environmental panacea or license to pollute? What are market instruments, and can they play a useful role in addressing the challenges of climate change?

Selling Clean Air is a free two-day workshop, but space is limited. Please register by phone at 1 800 330-WCEL in BC, or at (604) 684-7378, or via email at admin@wcel.org. The agenda is available on our web site. While we strongly recommend attending both days, participants can register for either or both days.

There's still room..
Register today!

Endangered Species Update

The BC Endangered Species Coalition has been extremely busy over the summer and we are delighted to tell you about three exciting new initiatives:

Paw Print Program

Many kids in BC are growing up largely ignorant of British Columbia's remarkable natural heritage and the threats to that heritage. Ask kids in BC about endangered species, and while they may mention grizzly bears, bald eagles or salmon, their primary focus is generally on tigers, pandas, elephants and other international species. Educational material for teachers and students about BC species at risk is extremely limited. At present, with one or two notable exceptions, we have to refer teachers and students to American lesson plans and classroom activities on biodiversity and endangered species protection.

The Paw Print Program is working to change this. An educational program of the BC Endangered Species Coalition, the goal of the program is to educate kids about the importance of protecting endangered species and their habitat. The program provides kids with the opportunity to "make their mark" on endangered species protection by learning about endangered and threatened species in their area, by educating other people about endangered species and by choosing and undertaking a specific action to protect species at risk.

Membership in the program is free and kids can either sign up to the program individually, or as a whole class or group. There are no geographical restrictions - we welcome kids from BC, from Canada and from other countries.

Although British Columbia is the primary focus for the Program, we will be linking with kids across Canada as part of Dr. David Suzuki's national tour on endangered species protection. The tour will cover 10 cities and run from September, 1998 until the end of March, 1999. As part of the campaign for comprehensive federal endangered species legislation, we will be working with federal environmental groups to develop educational materials about Canadian species at risk. The Coalition's primary contribution to educating Canadian kids about their heritage will be through our web site. Flyers being distributed throughout Dr. Suzuki's tour will encourage kids across Canada to send us their research on species at risk, so we can post the information on our web site, divided by region. Kids across Canada can then learn from other kids what species are at risk in Canada and where they are found.

The Coalition is currently seeking funding to hire an environmental educator for the program. Educational materials will be prepared for both elementary and secondary school students about BC endangered species and slide show presentations given to schools in the Lower Mainland. Call the Coalition for more information.

Visions for the Earth

As part of the Coalition's outreach work with religious organizations, we are working on the Visions for the Earth event, scheduled for Thanksgiving weekend, October 10 and 11, 1998 in Vancouver.

Visions for the Earth is one of a series of events being promoted by VISION TV (the Canadian faith television network) to celebrate the 50^th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The BC event will be focusing on the environment, with particular emphasis on building alliances between environmental groups and religious groups on environmental issues.

The experience in the United States has shown that such a coalition can be a potent force for protecting the environment. Although most major North American social movements, like women's suffrage, the anti-nuclear campaign, anti-racism, civil rights, workers' rights and universal health care have relied upon a strong collaboration between social activists and faith groups, to date there has been little or no engagement from Canadian religious groups in environmental causes. This is a key omission considering that faith groups constitute the largest grassroots organizations in Canada.

The Thanksgiving event will feature keynote speaker Paul Gorman at the Plaza of Nations on the evening of October 10. Mr. Gorman is the Executive Director of the US National Religious Partnership for the Environment ("NRPE"). The NRPE — a federation of American faith groups — has done magnificient work in involving faith groups in environmental issues, including protection of endangered species. Mr. Gorman will be joined by leading BC environmentalist, Valerie Langer from Friends of Clayoquot Sound. Tickets to the Saturday evening event will be $8 and can be purchased in advance or at the door. Call the Vancouver Multicultural Society at (604) 731-4648 for more information.

Endangered Species Online!

The Coalition's new "one stop shop" web site is now up and running on West Coast's home page. Check us out at http://vcn.bc.ca/wcel/esc for information about BC, Canadian and international species at risk; recent federal policy documents; our new educational program for kids — the Paw Print Program; and a whole bundle of endangered species educational materials, including lesson plans and classroom activities.

We even have "cool sites for kids"! Although currently lacking in visuals, the web site will be re-developed over the next few months. We're also facilitating kids teaching kids about endangered species by posting kids' research on the site.

Library News: Resources for Environmental Groups

If you are part of a citizen's group, society, or non-profit organization — either established or just starting out — consider using our library as a resource for information on managing and working with your group.

As a non-profit organization hard at work for nearly 25 years, West Coast Environmental Law has built up a sizable collection of resources and experience on fundraising, working with boards, dealing with volunteers, and other associated non-profit activities. During this time we have also collected directories, articles, workshop material, and books on a wide range of topics such as proposal writing, media relations, fundraising theory, financial management, group dynamics, and directors' liability.

The following is a list of just some of the materials that are available for use at our library.

Directories

• Canadian Directory to Foundations and Grants 1996-97. Canadian Centre for Philanthropy, Toronto, Ontario.
• Funding Sources Directory. British Columbia Environmental Network, Vancouver, BC.
• Environmental Grantmaking Foundations 1998. Environmental Data Resources Inc., Rochester, New York
• Directory of Computer and High Technology Grants 2nd Edition. Research Grant Guides, Loxahatchee, Florida.
• Guide to Pollution Prevention Funding Organizations. Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Research Centre, Seattle, Washington.

Proposal Writing

• Grassroots Grants: An activist's guide to proposal writing. Andy Robinson. Chardon Press. Berkeley, California.
• Building Foundation Partnerships: The basics of foundation fundraising and proposal writing. Ingrid van Rotterdam. Canadian Centre for Philanthropy.

Organizations/Groups

• Boards that make a difference: A new design for leadership in nonprofit and public organizations. John Carver. Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco, California.
• Democracy in Small Groups: Participation, decision-making and communications. John Gastil. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
• Risk Management for Directors of Not-for-Profits. Continuing Legal Education Society of BC, Vancouver, BC.

Our library is open to the public Monday to Friday, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.

Did you know we have the largest collection of environmental legal holdings in the province? As always, we also encourage citizens, activists, students, reseachers and lawyers to come in and use our extensive collection.

Our library intern, Sandra Janzen, is available daily to help you begin your research on climate change, water pollution, land trusts, forest practices and many other environmental and resource related issues. For more information, call (604) 684-7378, or 1 800 330 WCEL toll free in BC.

Guide to Forest Land Use Planning

West Coast Environmental Law will soon release a new major work on forest and land use law.

The Guide to Forest Land Use Planning offers readers a comprehensive look at forest land use planning in BC. The Guide will provide a comprehensive source of information on the laws and policies respecting forest land use, so that those involved in planning can be made aware the full range of land use designation options, and how land use plans are linked to practices on the ground. Through the authorities and materials cited for further reference, readers will be able to find their way to more detailed information where required.

The Guide discusses the various aspects of all levels of forest land use planning, from strategic to operational. It also provides a summary of legislation and policy relevant to forest planning in BC. The Guide is currently in the final stages of editing and will be available this fall.

Readers may order a copy now through our office, or visit our website for up to date informaton on the release of the Guide.

Advocacy Workshops

WCEL is pleased to announce a new series of workshops on Advocacy Training for Stewardship Groups. The workshops are funded by the Urban Salmon Habitat Program of the BC provincial government and will be scheduled over the fall and winter of 1998-99 in the Lower Mainland.

The workshops are designed to answer the following questions:

• How does the local government decision-making process work?
• What legal powers do local governments have to protect fish habitat?
• How can community groups act as effective advocates for fish habitat protection before local governments?

If you are interested in having a workshop in your community, please contact Linda Nowlan at (604) 601-2509.