More Needs to be Done to Mitigate Cumulative Effects of Resource Development
Prince George, B.C.- The Auditor General for B.C. Carol Bellringer recognizes there is a fine line between the need to protect the environment and the need to grow the economy, but says more needs to be done to understand and mitigate the cumulative effects of resource development.
In one of two reports issued today, Bellringer calls for immediate action “We acknowledge that efforts to consider and manage the cumulative effects of natural resource development remain a fledgling practice in Canada. But, managing cumulative effects will become even more complex than it already is as development pressures on the province’s land continue to increase. It’s in the interest of British Columbians to address cumulative effects management without delay.”
She says while the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources is doing work to support cumulative effects management, more needs to
be done and points out the Ministry’s work will not be fully implemented for another 6 years. She says decisions continue to be made without fully understanding the implications for the environment. She calls on Government to provide direction so all of the natural resource ministries and agencies can “jointly address cumulative effects.”
In a second report also issued today, she examined the Environmental Assessment Office’s oversight of certified projects. She says the EAO has made progress in implementing the recommendations originally made by her office in 2011.
“There are approximately 73 major projects in the environmental assessment process, potentially worth billions of dollars and with significant social, economic and environmental impacts to the province,” says Bellringer. “Improving the EAO’s performance is important as government’s focus on natural resource development
increases.”
Comments
Our provincial and federal governments do not know what “sustainable” means when it comes to natural resource extraction / development. More than a fifth — 21.4 per cent — of the world’s deforestation (forest degradation) occurred in Canada. That’s more than any other country. Russia, in second place, accounted for 20.4 per cent of the damaged or destroyed virgin forests, while Brazil, site of the Amazon rainforest, accounted for slightly more than 14 per cent.
Researchers analyzed detailed satellite imagery to locate “intact forest landscapes,” as they are known, around the world, and then tracked their progress from 2000 to 2013.
The imagery shows severe loss of forests in the northern parts of the Prairie provinces, including around the oilsands operations near Fort McMurray, Alberta. Very little new forest coverage has been added to compensate.
The interior of British Columbia has seen widespread forest loss, as have parts of northern Ontario and northern Quebec. Only the Maritimes showed evidence of any significant reforestation.
Timber harvesting is not the only cause of forest degradation. The effects of global warming are increasing the frequency and size of forest fires which are further contributing to the degradation of forests here, and around the world.
We need to collectively ask that important question; what kind of planet are we going to be leaving our children, and our children’s children?
www. huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/05/canada-deforestation-worst-in-world_n_5773142.html
Copy, paste to address bar, and delete the space between www. and the h
The term “dripping in condescension” comes to mind. I think I will go and cut off my catalytic converter just to be contrarian.
Oh oh there is that climate change thing again with no emphirical proof just father.
Sage so you believe there was no climate change before Mann.
With the rise in C02 mostly natural by the way, plants love it and the world has greened 30% since the increase.
What are you babbling about there Sophic Sage. Any areas harvested over 1 hectare in size have to be reforested by law in BC. Where are these massive clearcuts not being reforested? These so called studies are total bull-oney they have no idea what goes on in the forest. They think we clearcut to plant crops, most areas that are cut are planted back at a higher density than they were when cut down. There is very little being clearcut to make way for cash crops and farming in BC, in fact it is going the other way where farms are being bought to provide carbon credits to European companies by planting trees on good fertile soil which should be used to feed the masses closer to home.
Slinky wrote: “farms are being bought to provide carbon credits to European companies by planting trees on good fertile soil which should be used to feed the masses closer to home.”
To add to that:
According to Quesnel Councillor Scott Elliott “more than 10,000 hectares has been purchased in our area alone” by the UK’s Reckitt Benckiser for the purpose of carbon offsets.
These come with a 100 year covenant; once they’re forested that’s the state they’ll stay in.
In 2006, the BC Liberal government passed legislation aimed at preventing deforestation. The Zero Net Deforestation Act, made good on a two-year-old throne speech promise and would “encourage” an equal area of trees be planted any time forest land is “permanently cleared for another use.”
Unfortunately, that new “take a tree, plant a tree” law only applied to deforestation for another use; such as cash crops and farming in BC, which in your own words Slinky, “there is very little being clear cut”. I agree with you on that point Slinky, only 1-2% of trees cut in our province would be for that purpose.
However; if this government was really serious about addressing deforestation in this province, why did they not apply the Zero Net Deforestation Act to the timber harvesting industry? Why not have that “law” apply to all forest companies operating in our province where; for every tree they cut, they must plant a tree?
In the end, “The Zero Net Deforestation Act” sure sounded impressive, but we now know it was nothing more than wall paper applied by this government to make itself look like it was being proactive in addressing deforestation.
Sage can you see those barren clearcuts from space?
“Why not have that “law” apply to all forest companies operating in our province where; for every tree they cut, they must plant a tree?”
If that were “law” forest companies would be planting less than they are now. To the best of my knowledge, forest companies plant far more trees than they harvest, usually 12-1800 per hectare, if memory serves. Natural regeneration would of course augment that.
Sage , what percentage of the Canadian Forests are beetle killed
forest ?
The beetle infestation has now reached the Alberta & Saskatchewan border.
Almost every forest company in BC replants more than they cut with Canfor and West Fraser leading the way both companies actually spend huge amounts in reforestation projects every year and BC unlike many other countries has one of the best reforestation and sustainability plans in the world which in countries where the environment comes first is desirable when they focus on buying forest products from another country.
Japan, Germany and ironically enough the US all have very strict environmental policies in place for buying renewable resources from other countries and BC is one of the very few that meet or exceed the criteria set forth by those countries and believe me the Germans and Japanese governments have extremely tight guidelines on renewable resources.
Forestry is a mainstay in BC and sustainability is key and damn near every forest company in BC exceeds replanting regulations on areas they have timber rights. Even Ontario and Quebec can’t say the same. All the above is available to the public and can be found on many forest company websites as well as many independent sites.
Too bad the environmentalists and eco-terrorists don’t report these facts back to their memberships but then again it would make many of their so called platforms moot when they stand on their soap boxes and whine and snivel.
ram tough perineum states; “To the best of my knowledge, forest companies plant far more trees than they harvest”
Dearth states; “Almost every forest company in BC replants more than they cut with Canfor and West Fraser leading the way both companies actually spend huge amounts in reforestation projects every year and BC unlike many other countries has one of the best reforestation and sustainability plans in the world.”
Could either of you provide us with specific references / sources that back up your assertions that; most every forest company in BC replants more than they cut? Because my sources say reforestation inn BC is in big trouble!
“Yet, at a time when we need it most, planting is expected to decrease next year — by as many as 70 million seedlings — as forestry companies curtail silviculture along with other operational expenses. That will be the lowest in two decades, and some analysts project province-wide investment in forest regeneration efforts will continue to fall far short of where it should be. As a result, say some experts, it is time to rethink how we view the benefits we get from replanting trees in British Columbia, and the way we go about it.”
http: //thetyee.ca/News/2008/04/28/ReviveForest/
Copy and paste to your address bar, then delete the space between : and /
Having an aggressive reforestation program in BC allows the forest companies to basically strip log the forests.
We all know that a replanted tree takes at least 80 years to mature, and therefore anything logged to-day would not be available for quite some time.
Soooo. Is reforestation merely a way to clear cut the forests cheaply, and get it all logged off in the short term??? Then what.????
We have had significant downsizing in the forest industry, and with the continuation of clear cutting, the devastation caused by the Pine Beetle, etc; we could refer to forestry in BC as a sunset industry.
A Tyee (LOL) article from 7 years ago with a bunch of “what-ifs” and “maybes”.
There’s no point arguing, your mind is made up. Big Bad Forestry… It’s an insult to those of us who work in it and give a damn about the job we do. And believe it or not, we DO give a damn about what we do. The problem is people like you who think they’re experts spouting off bullsh*t with nothing more than innuendo and pick-and-choose statistics to back it up.
As far as forestry being a “sunset industry” there’s a hell of a lot more to forestry than just cutting down trees.
ram tough perineum.
Take a look around the Province and see all the clear cuts. In addition give me some facts as to when we can start logging the tree’s that were planted in clear cuts.
There may be more to foresty than just cutting down tree’s however it is the cutting down of tree’s and selling the lumber, pulp, and paper, pellets, etc; that makes the money. Without the money there is no industry.
Tree’s in the Southern States mature much faster than in these Northern Climates, which might explains why Canfor, and other big forest companies are buying mills in the Southern USA.
Perhaps planning their future.
Sophic Sage, posting links to the Huffington Post, the Tyee and the CBC won’t win you any points for credibility. Perhaps you might consider posting a link or two once in a while that takes a more balanced view of issues!
@HG
Thought you would be happy to have your peeps back. Only now is @SS instead of @P#1 or @BH.
My sources indicate that Death’s statement: “British Columbia unlike many other countries has one of the best reforestation and sustainability plans in the world,” is patently a false statement.
“At the same time, the province is falling behind on its targets to replant forests ravaged by pests, disease and fire. Last week, a report from the Auditor-General found that the government’s reforestation program, Forests for Tomorrow, has replanted a little better than 8,700 hectares a year over the past five years. That’s far short of the plan to plant 22,000 hectares a year.
At that rate, it would take 85 years to replant all the land that is known to be due for replanting.
Al Gorley, chair of the independent Forest Practices Board, believes the amount of land that the government should be planting is at least double the amount identified in the government inventory.”
www. theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/timber-inventory-a-guessing-game-critics-charge/article533647/
oops… did I just use The Globe and Mail as a source?
You do realize that forests also regenerate naturally, don’t you? (As in: those forests “ravaged by pests, disease and fire”). Not to be condescending but pests-disease-fire is kinda how forests work.
@ Sparrow.
I’ve been away a lot lately and haven’t had much chance to catch up here, but I never for a moment doubted that Peeps, People#1, BeingHuman wasn’t watching, haha! Might be sharing time with Mattyc! ;-)
Comments for this article are closed.