The federal government is now finalizing the framework for its new draft endangered species legislation, scheduled for release early next year. The current policy framework shows that the federal government is setting a very low standard on most key elements of the legislation. In some respects, the draft framework proposes a bill even weaker than Bill C-65, the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act (which died on the Order Paper when the federal election was called). For all those concerned about spcies protection, now is the time to voice your concerns directly to the federal Environment Minister, Christine Stewart. Key concerns with the current government proposal include:

• Science not politics: The new draft will permit significantly more political interference in the role of the Committee on
the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), the national body responsible for listing Canada's species at risk. The ultimate decision as to which species are eligible for protection will be a political one. In contrast, a wide spectrum of industry and environmental stakeholders have consistently emphasized the importance of an independent scientific listing process, with legal force and effect given to the national list of species at risk.

• An ounce of prevention: Vulnerable species are not covered under the current proposal _ leaving grizzly bears, woodland caribou and other species without protection, unless otherwise covered as an international transboundary species. By focusing just on endangered and threat
ened species, the government is adopting an "emergency ward" approach instead of a preventative approach to species protection. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

• Habitat sweet habitat: Habitat loss is the number one cause of species decline in Canada. The federal government is only proposing to provide legal protection for a species' residence — basically a species' den, nest or dwelling area. No further habitat protection will be provided until a recovery plan is developed, at least one to two years after listing the species. Furthermore, the government's definition of residence is even narrower than that previously supported by the Standing Committee for Bill C-65.

We need to send a loud, clear message in favour of strong federal endangered species legislation. The best way to make your voice heard is to contact the federal Environment Minister, Christine Stewart. You can contact Ms. Stewart by fax at (613) 995-7536, by phone at (613) 992-8585 or by mail at Parliament Buildings, Room 658, Confederation Building, House of Commons, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6.

To make your voice more effective on species protection, join the BC Endangered Species Coalition's "Save Our Species" action alert email service. We'll send you two to four emails a month, providing updates and suggesting ways for you to get involved. To join the list, email the Coalition's Campaign Coordinator at ksmallwood@wcel.org. We already have nearly 300 folks on our list, and will be soon be adding several hundred more thanks to interest generated by Dr David Suzuki's recent Victoria presentation on endangered species protection. Please join us, and add your voice to the chorus for strong species protection.

Staff counsel Chris Rolfe attended the fourth Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention in Buenos Aires, as the Climate Action Network's environmental representative on the Canadian delegation. Under the Buenos Aires Action Plan, nations declared their commitment to strengthen the Convention and prepare for the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol. Notably, the Plan establishes time frames for decision-making in this regard.

All parties agree: current greenhouse gas limitations are inadequate to protect the world from dangerous climate change. Unfortunately, at November's negotiations, parties were unable to agree on how to overcome this inadequacy.

Developing countries argued that developed nations' commitments are inadequate and unfulfilled. On the other hand, developed countries stressed the need to look at capping emissions from developing countries. At the heart of this impasse is the underlying issue of equity between developed and developing nations.

Both the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol distinguish between commitments of developed nations and developing nations. The Protocol's emission caps, and the Convention's earlier obligation to aim at stablilizing emissions at 1990 levels, only apply to those nations that, in 1992, were members of the OECD or the European members of the former Soviet bloc.

Differing opinions

There are polarized perspectives on this distinction: on the one extreme, the US and most of its negotiating block (including Canada); on the other extreme, China, India and much of the developing world. The US focuses on the fact that total developing country greenhouse gas emissions are likely to exceed those of industrialized nations by 2015 and that China is already the second largest contributor to global emissions. With developing country emissions climbing rapidly, it is essential for these nations to begin limiting their emissions.

The US has insisted that it will not ratify the Protocol unless there is "meaningful participation of developing countries." The US has been actively encouraging individual developing countries to voluntarily adopt emission caps, and at Buenos Aires both Argentina and Kazakhstan announced they would accede to caps within a year.

US proposals for meaningful developing country participation suggest that newly industrialized nations such as South Korea and Mexico should be subject to commitments comparable to developed nations. A second tier of developing nations should be subject to caps that allow for growth in emissions but at a slower rate than business as usual. Finally, the US advocates that least developed nations not be required to cap their emissions.

At the other extreme, China and India have opposed both voluntary emission caps for developing countries and any process for negotiating developing country commitments. China, India and most developing countries have focused on several facts: the US, Canada and a number of other industrialized nations have made no serious efforts to stabilize emissions at 1990 levels; at present about eighty percent of the enhanced greenhouse effect is the result of emissions from the developed world; and, per capita emissions are far higher in the industrialized world. (US per capita emissions are over four times the world average; over seven times higher than China's emissions; and, seventeen times higher than those of India.)

Moreover, developing countries have been quick to point out that they have undertaken a number of reforms — ranging from removing subsidies for fossil fuels to regulations on fossil fuel production — that have significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

These polarized perspectives are at the heart of developing country resistance to international emissions trading. Under the Kyoto Protocol, developed nations were allocated emission quotas which they could trade among one another. The allocation of these quotas was purely the result of political negotiation with little reference to any guiding principles regarding fairness. By and large those developed nations with the highest per capita emissions — the US, Australia, Norway and Canada — have less stringent targets than those with far lower per capita emissions, in particular the European Union.

China and India fear that this sets a precedent whereby they will be railroaded into agreeing to an allocation of emission quotas which constrains their economic development even though their per capita emissions are far lower. According to the developing nations, if developed nations want to see greater emission reductions from them, the developed nations can undertake stronger commitments and meet some of their commitment by investing in emission reduction projects in the developing world. But developing nations should not be required to fund emission reductions when they have not caused the current build-up in greenhouse gases and when their per capita emissions are a fraction of those in the developed world.

What is fair?

Determining fairness in this case is far from clear. Caps on developing country emissions will not necessarily stifle economic development — it may help developing countries get on track to long term sustainable development. However, although there are alternatives to economic growth through fossil fuel based development, the latter approach remains the dominant model for developing countries. Also, developing countries can benefit from caps on their emissions, even if these caps are below "business as usual" emission levels. For instance, Kazakhstan and Argentina are interested in a voluntary cap because they have very low emission reduction costs. Caps will allow them to adopt changes to regulations and taxes, and, under international emissions trading, allow them to profit from the resulting emission reductions.

However, the extent to which adopting a cap means a possible loss or gain to a developing country will depend on the stringency of the cap. The Kyoto Protocol suggests that countries with high per capita emissions (Canada, the US, Russia and Australia) will have to do less than countries with lower per capita emissions (the EU). Without progress on defining principles as to how emission limits should be set, the majority of developing countries are likely to continue resisting emission limits. Canada, as a high emitter, has a potential to foster dialogue between developing and developed countries in setting principles which will, over the coming decades, guide negotiations regarding all nations' responsibilities.

When France decided to withdraw from Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) negotiations this October, it effectively scuttled efforts to establish an international investor rights treaty under the auspices of the OECD, at least for the time being.

In announcing its decision, the French government made public a report explaining its reasons for decamping. In many ways that report vindicates the analysis and criticism that West Coast Environmental Law and many other groups have presented, and offers explicit recognition of the valuable role that we have played in fostering public debate about the MAI.

We thought the best way to convey the tenor of France's criticism was to produce an excerpt from the report (the full text of which is available on our web site).

By definition, any international agreement limits the sovereignty of signatory nations. It imposes on them obligations which restrict their freedom to act. However, economically, these obligations have always been, up to now, formulated in relative terms: nations agree not to discriminate within their territories, among products, investments, and even people, on the basis of nationality. With this qualification, nations retain complete freedom to define and implement their economic and social policies. This principle has guided the whole drive toward the liberalization of economic and commercial trade for fifty years.

The MAI goes further. For the first time, within a universal multilateral agreement, the following absolute obligations are imposed on governments:

• it defines principles that have to be followed in the treatment of foreign investors (and these investors alone);

• it thus introduces an element of national policy standardization;

• it implements a dispute settlement mechanism, allowing investors to contest and directly take governments before an international court, thus opening the way to the creation through jurisprudence of new international law to the sole benefit of foreign corporations.

Considered separately, each of these innovations may seem technically justified.
One can understand, in particular, the concern of negotiators to protect foreign investors in countries where the legal system does not guarantee impartiality. However, when combined, the result is explosive. It creates a feeling of a dual dissymmetry — between the rights of nations and the rights of corporations and between national and foreign investors (only the latter benefiting from the guarantees provided in the agreement). [emphasis added]

However, the MAI is far from dead, and its supporters may yet find some way to revive negotiations at the OECD. Meanwhile Canada remains undeterred in its support for this initiative, and is actively promoting this investor-rights agenda at the World Trade Organization and in other fora.

In fact, as Canadians know, the prototype for the MAI is alive and well in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) where it has recently proven an effective weapon for attacking government efforts to achieve health and environmental protection goals. The case in point is Ethyl Corporation's claim against the government of Canada (see News from West Coast Environmental Law, issues 22:02 and 21:04). Moreover, similar investor protections can also been found in dozens of bilateral investment agreements that Canada has quietly negotiated over the past few years. For these reasons understanding the MAI, its origins and the larger context within which it exists is as relevant today as it was before the wheels recently came off the OECD-MAI cart.

Please visit our web site for more in-depth analysis of the MAI and the investment provisions of NAFTA, including a recent and detailed report documenting the far-reaching implications of these rules on natural resources policy and law for BC resource sectors.

Earlier this year the BC Legislature established an all party committee on the MAI which was conducting public hearings through the early fall. The hearings represented one of the very few efforts anywhere within the OECD to engage interest groups and citizens in public discussion and debate about this investment treaty.

West Coast Environmental Law was invited to appear on two separate occasions before the Committee, and many other groups from BC, Canada, the US and Europe took advantage of the opportunity these hearings offered to make their views known. Representatives of business, labour and diverse non-governmental organizations participated.

But unfortunately the future of the Committee is now uncertain because of a skirmish that broke out between the Liberal and NDP members of the Committee that resulted in the Liberals withdrawing from the Committee's work. At this point, remaining NDP members are planning to proceed with the second phase of the hearing process that would take place in various BC communities and provide an opportunity for groups and individuals from those communities to participate in this important public debate.

Without wishing to take sides, we believe that the work of the Committee is as important today as it was when hearings initially got underway. These hearings, and the report of the Committee that will come from them, will be much stronger with input from the Liberal members of the committee, whether they dissent or concur with the majority.

We can only invite both government and opposition members to make a serious effort to resolve their differences in support of this democratic process.

This article was originally printed in the Sierra Club newsletter. It is written by Dr Tom Perry, a member of the West Coast Environmental Law board of directors.

Stakeholder consultations were held to help define the limits of"provincial interest" in light of the Six Mile Ranch public hearings. Staff counsel Linda Nowlan prepared a submission for the consultations. The Quayle report mentioned below was based on these consultations.

BC may be on the verge of another phase in the tortuous 25-year history of the Agricultural Land Reserve, UBC's new Dean of Agriculture, landscape architect Dr. Moura Quayle, reported September 25, 1998 on her four month review of the Act. Dr Quayle was asked by Agriculture Minister Corky Evans to review the Act in the wake of last spring's controversial Cabinet decision to exclude much of the Six Mile Ranch near Kamloops from the ALR.

The Six Mile decision in favour of a real estate and golf course development on Class I agricultural land marked the first time Cabinet has overruled the Agricultural Land Commission since the NDP took power from the Socreds in 1991. The Clark government invoked a so-called "Provincial Interest" clause contained in 1993 amendments which had been designed to protect the ALR. Whether or how this "Provincial Interest" should be further defined was the main purpose of the Quayle review.

In contrast with last February's inquiry on Six Mile by the David Perry Commission, considered by many participants a travesty of public process, Dr Quayle's report is refreshingly thoughtful. Despite having only four months to complete her review, Stakes in the Ground: Provincial Interest in the Agricultural Land Commission Act, it nonetheless reflects a surprisingly thorough effort to consult with interested parties and the public. It also shows a thoughtful, if succinct approach to how society can ensure the conservation of a non-renewable resource. Most important, Stakes in the Ground reaffirms the importance of the ALR to agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability in BC by throwing down the gauntlet of challenge both to government and society at large:

Without the courage to hold firm with stakes in the ground, there will be no incentive to better manage our land base in the face of competing uses. We must halt the slow, but steady erosion of our agriculture and food resources, and support our varied agricultural industries. As a forward thinking society, we must dig in, take responsibility, and make sure that future generations have a vibrant agricultural land base. (conclusion, p. 27)

The report makes four main recommendations

1. "Provincial Interest" in the ALC Act (the excuse for removing or designating new land in the ALR) should be defined in the Act as "province-wide public interest" (as opposed to local, regional, or private interest) and should explicitly consider the long term consequences of any change to the ALR. The decision making should be more open and accountable and recognize "the preservation and management of scarce and important provincial assets." (report summary, p. 52)

2. Since "the preservation of agricultural lands and the promotion of agricultural purposes is in the Provincial Interest," in any balancing test the former should have priority over: a) environmental and heritage factors, and b) economic, social and cultural factors, in that order. Economic, social and cultural factors reflect a short-term and often private instead of public perspective. For these reasons, they should factor little in any consideration of the Provincial Interest." (p. S. 2-3)

3. In exceptional cases when Cabinet reviews an application for change to the ALR, the decision making process should be "open and accountable." To this end, Dr Quayle recommends that a new and independent position of "Provincial Agrologist" be established, similar to the Provincial Forester or Provincial Health Officer. The Provincial Agrologist would become an ex-officio member of the Environmental Assessment Board, which should be established (replacing the one-person political appointment such as Dennis Perry). The EAB's report should be released for public review before the Cabinet's decision, and the Board should hold hearings in all regions of the province. Landowners granted exclusions should be held accountable for any promises by the requirement of specialized contracts.

4. Promotion of "integrated land management and agricultural innovation" through a variety of measures including establishment or a "BC Lands Trust," integration of the ALC with the Forest Land Commission, initiation of a review of marginal agricultural lands (Classes 4 and 5), and creation of an "Agricultural Infrastructure Fund."

Dr Moura Quayle's discussion of these recommendations and her underlying reasoning is interesting and worth reading in full. The report is brief (27 pages plus appendices) and should be widely read. It can be obtained on the Internet at: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/polleg/quayle/index.htm

A copy may be obtained by telephoning Shannon Pitney at (604) 822-1219, or by contacting her via email at pitney@unixg.ubc.ca, or by writing to her c/o the Dean's Office, Faculty of Agriculture, Sciences, Suite 248, 2357 Main Mall, UBC, Vancouver V6T 1Z4; fax: (604) 822-6394.

What happens next?

A fall sitting of the Legislature is expected to deal with the Nisga'a treaty. Although technically the government could also choose to amend the ALC Act, this is more likely to occur through a Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act in the Spring 1999 session. Depending on timing and public reaction, it could pass in the wee hours of the morning during Victoria's traditional phase of legislation-by-exhaustion in June or July.

It is reasonable to expect a strong lobby from owners of speculative land holdings (e.g. much of the farmland in Delta municipality) and the development industry against any strengthening of the Act. On the other hand, a substantial fraction of NDP voters and the party's membership are disillusioned by the Clark government's retreat from environmental stewardship. Premier Clark may be susceptible to environmentalist pressure to demonstrate some genuine commitment to conservation, perhaps by shuffling Environment Minister Cathy MacGregor into a less embarrassing portfolio and by measures such as those recommended by Dr Quayle. But any positive change is unlikely to happen without a concerted public campaign.

Your should contact your local MLA, with copies to Agriculture Minister Corky Evans, Environment Minister Cathy MacGregor, and Premier Glen Clark. Letters to local newspapers will help to bring the issue back into the public eye. A good first step for anyone concerned about this issue is to read the Quayle report and prepare to follow any legislative debate from an informed perspective.

Tom Perry, MD, is a former NDP MLA for Little Mountain in Vancouver.

On November 4, 1998, BC Environment Minister Cathy McGregor and Mines Minister Dan Miller issued a joint announcement that the government would be altering the threshold requirements for triggering environmental assessments of industrial projects in BC. Within less than a month, and with no apparent consultation with stakeholder groups, the alterations to BC's Environmental Assessment Act's Reviewable Projects Regulation were in effect. These regulatory changes will weaken environmental protection by allowing a greater number of projects (which otherwise would have been subject to review) to proceed through the permitting processes of government ministries, rather than the environmental assessment process.

The industries affected are mining, oil and gas, power, municipal solid waste, special waste, groundwater projects, as well as plywood and veneer plants.

The changes purport to be a response to an independent evaluation of the Environmental Assessment Process, conducted by Barry Sadler in 1997. After receiving comments from many interested parties, the Sadler report recommended more relevant thresholds that would be based primarily on the environmental impact experienced in past projects. The actual threshold changes do not, however, appear to be based in any way on experience gained with other past or current projects. In most cases, they simply raise the threshold levels for environmental assessment review.

Sadler also recommended that consultation with interested parties be part of any review of thresholds, and that support and buy-in of the changes would be critical to their success. Notwithstanding these recommendations, the government has unilaterally implemented increases to these thresholds, suggesting that if significant adverse impacts are expected, there is always recourse to s. 4 of the Environmental Assessment Act which gives the Minister discretion to designate a particular project as subject to full review. However, this provision has been invoked by the Minister only in the rarest of circumstances.

Unfortunately, this amending regulation has already been proclaimed. West Coast encourages all readers to write to the Premier, Minister McGregor and Minister Miller, as well as your MLAs, and express your concern about these unilateral alterations to the threshold requirements, and the secretive process by which these changes were made. Send your letters to: Glen Clark, Premier, 156, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, BC, V8V 1X4, phone (250) 356-6342, fax (250) 387-0087; Cathy McGregor, Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, 337, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, BC, V8V 1X4, phone (250) 387-1187, fax (250) 387-1356; Dan Miller, Minister of Energy and Mines, 152, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, BC, V8V 1X4, phone (250) 387-5896, fax (250) 356-2965.

On October 15 and 16, West Coast Environmental Law hosted an Emission Reduction Trading Workshop in Vancouver.

Emission trading is becoming an increasingly viable policy option as a means of combating climate change, as it incorporates an economic dimension into a critical environmental protection objective. This is particularly important given that any efforts to address climate change will impact upon economic development.

By all accounts, the workshop was a success. Over 80 attendees from a wide range of disciplines and backgrounds participated throughout the course of the two day program. The agenda was carefully designed to include an overview on the science and economics of climate change, a primer on market instruments, a consideration of key issues surrounding the use of market instruments, and some real world examples of credit trading and market instruments in action.

Intense and informative discussion ensued after every panel presentation, providing an educational and stimulating atmosphere throughout.

West Coast Environmental Law is preparing a summary of the workshop, which we hope to make available in early 1999.

Library News: keeping up with the issues

Magazines, journals, and newsletters are a great way to keep up-to-date with environmental and legal developments, and they are also valuable research tools. Our library currently receives 135 serial titles, many of which are not available at other libraries. We have items which focus on conservation, climate change, pesticides, forestry, development, energy, pollution, transportation and wildlife to name just a few topics. Many of the journals and newsletters are available in online versions on the publishers' web sites.

The following describes four titles which focus on issues with an international scope.

Traffic Bulletin
Traffic International, Cambridge, UK

Traffic Bulletin is a magazine dedicated to the publication of current information and original papers about trade in wild animals and plants. The most recent issue examines the exploitation, trade and management of corals in Indonesia; the US pitcher-plant trade; and, whale meat and whale meat products collected in Japan. Excerpts from the magazine are available at http://www.traffic.org/publications/index.html.

World Rivers Review
International Rivers Network, Berkeley, CA

International Rivers Network is devoted to stopping the construction of large dams and promoting viable alternatives. Their newsletter reports on hydroelectric projects from around the world and documents their impact on local people. The latest issue of World Rivers Review has articles about the growing support for the decommissioning of obsolete dams in US rivers and the Patuca II project in Honduras. World Rivers Review is available online at http://www.irn.org/pubs/wrr/index.html.

Economiquity
CUTS Centre for International Trade, Economics & Environment, Calcutta, India

Economiquity provides a view of trade, globalization, and environment from an Asian perspective. Regular coverage is provided of competition issues, trade disputes, and investment. Coverage is mostly in the form of short updates rather than in-depth articles. CUTS publishes occasional briefing papers which examine issues in more depth. The latest issue of Economiquity provides updates on the patenting of Basmati rice by Ricetec in the US and the status of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. Their web site will be online soon at http://www.cuts.org.

Global Pesticide Campaigner
Pesticide Action Network (PAN) — North America Regional Center, San Francisco, CA

PAN is an international network of citizens' groups and individuals who promote the use of ecologically sound practices as a substitute for pesticide use. Global Pesticide Campaigner contain articles about the pesticide industry, case studies on alternatives to pesticide use, and discussions on health and ecological effects of pesticide use. In the September 1998 issue the cover stories were "Toxic Secrets: Inert Ingredients in Pesticides" and "Resolving the DDT Dilemma." Articles cover both US and international news. The magazine is available online at http://www.igc.org/panna/

If you would like a complete listing of journals and newsletters to which we subscribe, or have other research questions, contact our library intern, Sandra Janzen at (604) 684-7378, or toll free in BC at 1 800 330-WCEL, or by email at sjanzen@wcel.org. Our library is open to the public Monday to Friday, 8:30 am to 5:00pm.

West Coast's Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund (EDRF) has recently provided funding for Raincoast Research to appeal a pesticide use permit granted by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks for aerial spraying of glyphosate in and around the Kakweikan watershed, which is prime coho habitat near Simoon Sound.

The EDRF is available to assist community groups throughout the province to help resolve environmental disputes and use the law to better protect the BC environment. If you are aware of any issues in your community, or if you work with an organization that would like to use the law to protect the environment, please get in touch with us, and we'll see if we can help. To learn more or to make an application, contact Karen Campbell, staff counsel, at (604) 684-7378, or at 1 800 330-WCEL if you are outside the Lower Mainland, or by email at kcampbell@wcel.org.

Protecting Fish Habitat

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 staff counsel Linda Nowlan at (604) 601-2509.

WCEL's web site gets a new name!

At long last, you can now visit our web site at its new, easy-to-remember address: www.wcel.org. Don't worry, we haven't moved, and the old address will still work. We would like to thank the Vancouver CommunityNet for their help.

We are pleased to announce our latest publication, the Guide to Forest Land Use Planning.

Forest Land Use Planning by Mark Haddock

The Guide is one component of our ongoing work to provide the resources and tools necessary for all British Columbians to become actively involved in forest land use planning. In addition to the Guide, we are currently gathering input from interested individuals to help us develop a series of workshops on forest land use planning. The workshops will be held across the province beginning in the spring of 1999, and will be open to anyone with an interest in land use planning. To ensure that the workshops are relevant to particular communities, we will be designing individual workshops to suit the particular interests of those communities.

Forest land use planning can be complex and involves multiple levels of planning, ranging from broad, regional strategic plans prepared by multi-stakeholder planning teams, to site specific operational plans prepared by timber licence holders. Our Guide to Forest Land Use Planning provides a single, comprehensive reference for anyone interested in forest land use planning. It explains much of the technical jargon associated with forest management and provides explanations of the legislation and policies respecting the use of Crown forest land in BC.

The Guide consists of five sections, each one dealing with a different component of land use planning. The first three sections explain strategic, higher level and operational planning — the three main levels of forest land use planning in BC. These sections discuss such plans as Land and Resource Management Plans, Forest Development Plans and Silviculture Prescriptions, explaining the intent and content of each. The Guide clarifies how these levels of planning relate to each other, how they relate to practices on the ground, and what the various legal linkages are between the different levels of planning.

Another section of the Guide reviews over 30 land use designations that could be applied to public forest lands in BC. By applying a specific designation to an area, certain activities can be allowed, while others can be explicitly restricted or prohibited. Some designations, such as "park," are commonly used, while other lesser known designations such as "nature conservancy" are not used as often.

The final section of the Guide contains a synopsis of the provincial and federal legislation that affects forest land use decisions, such as the provincial Park Act and Wildlife Act, and the federal Fisheries Act.

Our Guide to Land Use Planning will be distributed to libraries and municipalities across the province over the coming months. It will also be available to the general public. If you have any questions about the Guide or about our workshops, please contact Laurel Brewster at (604) 601-2501, or toll free in BC at 1 800 330-WCEL, or by email at lbrewster@wcel.org. The Guide will also be available shortly on our web site at http://www.wcel.org.
 

From the Introduction... The 1990s have been times of significant change for forestry and land use in British Columbia. The provincial government's land use strategy has brought hundreds of British Columbians to planning tables (participatory, multi-stakeholder land use planning teams) in an effort to reconcile diverse interests and try to find ways to manage natural resources in a manner that will ensure that a wide range of values and interests are met. These efforts are ongoing — some land use plans have been approved and are in various phases of implementation; numerous land and resource management plans are under discussion; and, some regions of the province are just beginning land use planning processes. At the same time as these efforts are under way, the provincial government has passed and amended legislation, regulations and policies respecting forest practices. Many of these rules have a direct bearing on land use plans. The Forest Practices Code is one of the most recent examples of legislation and policy governing forest resource use. This Guide to Forest Land Use Planning provides a comprehensive source of information on the laws and policies respecting the use of public forest land in BC. Most land use planning takes place within the framework of these laws and policies. By becoming familiar with them, those of you involved in forest land use planning will better understand the structure, hierarchy and intent of the planning process. An integral part of land use planning is the use of "designations" which explicitly define permissible land use activities within a specific area. The appropriate use of such designations can be a powerful tool with which to achieve certain land use objectives. This Guide explains the full range of land use designation options, and clarifies how these designations can be incorporated into the planning process. Land use planning is governed by a plethora of laws, regulations, guidebooks, policies and directives, making it impossible to provide an exhaustive guide in a single, usable volume. This Guide will, however, provide you with all the basic information. Through the sources cited for further reference, you will be able to find your way to more detailed information where required.

Welcome!

We would like to extend a warm welcome to past board member Sue Fraser. She is working in our offices for two months as a contract lawyer conducting legal research.