AG Says TFL Decision Made Without Sufficient Regard for Public Interest
By 250 News
Wednesday, July 16, 2008 01:42 PM
Victoria, B.C. - Auditor General John Doyle has released his report on the processes supporting the decision to allow the removal of private lands from three tree farm licences on Vancouver Island.
"My team examined documents supporting the decision, and interviewed government officials and other key stakeholders," he said. "Based on this evidence, I concluded that the removal of private land from TFLs 6,19 and 25 was approved without sufficient regard for the public interest."
The report also notes that the decision was based on incomplete information and that consultation with key stakeholders and the public was inadequate.
"I am not criticizing the policy of allowing licensees to remove their private land from TFLs," said Doyle, "but I expect that such decisions will be thoroughly informed and that stakeholders will be consulted. In this case, the Minister's decision was based on an incomplete analysis."
On January 31, 2007 the Minister of Forests and Range approved the removal of approximately 28,000 hectares of private land from three coastal TFLs held by the licensee, Western Forest Products Inc. At the time, the ministry estimated the value of the land at $150 million if removed from the TFLs.
Recent legislative changes allow licensees to more easily remove their private land from a TFL, and from forest use altogether.
The decision to remove private land from TFLs 6, 19 and 25 has drawn criticism from many members of the public and First Nations. The Auditor General of B.C. received many requests from individuals and organizations to review the land removal decision. After considering the issues, the Auditor General decided to review the processes supporting the Minister's decision and assess whether due regard for the public interest was exercised in allowing the removal of private land.
The Auditor General's overall conclusion is that the removal of private land from TFLs 6, 19 and 25 was approved without sufficient regard for the public interest.
Key findings are as follows:
- the decision was not adequately informed - it was based upon incomplete information that focused primarily on forest and range matters and the interests of the licensee, with too little consideration given to the potential impacts on other key stakeholders;
- consultation was not effective and communication with key stakeholders and the public about the decision was not transparent; and
- the impacts of previous land removal decisions were not monitored to help inform future decisions.
Previous Story - Next Story
Return to Home