Addendum: On the EA

nsforestmatters.ca/Links/NS Gov Info/Harvest Notices/Implementation of OBFM on 1Aug2024/Addendum: On the EA (This Page)

# 73  (Under section 3.3 Conclusions on the Legislative and Planning Framework for Crown Lands) More than an improved ecosystem‐based management process and improved regulations(or policy) on specific forestry practices is needed to ensure that forestry on Crown land becomes the model of ecological forestry that DNR says it should be. Measures are required to make sure that the necessary change of paradigm is embraced from top to bottom within DNR as well as by those who are licensed to conduct forestry on Crownlands. These measures should include changes in the legislative and institutional context in which the management of forestry on Crown land occurs, to ensure that ecological forestry, including a strong ecosystem‐based prescription process, truly determines how forestry is governed by DNR and conducted by licensees.

# 74. These changes should include…
c. establishing a legislated forestry management planning process for Crown lands under which those given tenure to conduct forestry on Crown land (for example, under a forest utilization license agreement [FULA]) would be required to complete their forest management plan through a Class II environmental assessment under the Environment Act or a process akin to a Class II environmental assessment conducted by an independent third party (or panel) appointed by the Minister of Natural Resources or jointly by the Minister of Natural Resources the Minister of Environment

# 77. The rationale for requiring “FULA holders” to complete a legislatively mandated forest management plan through a Class II environmental assessment – or a process akin to that kind of environmental assessment – is multi‐faceted. It is explained in greater detail in the paper on environmental assessment and forestry by Professor Peter Duinker, found in the Addendum to this report. Such a process will fill a gap in the management system for forestry on Crown land with a process like the one followed in some other provinces. It will ensure that the public has an opportunity to have input at a level and scale where thedecisions are made that will guide many harvesting decisions over a wide landscape and over multiple years. It will bring important elements of independence, transparency, andparticipation to a process that is now seen to be compromised by the double mandate of DNR, the self‐interest of forestry companies, and a high level of opaqueness. Further, it will help to ensure that ecological forestry principles, concepts, and methods are incorporated into the plans that guide licensees in their harvesting planning and activities and in their operational decision making at the stand level

# 78. A legislated forestry management process conducted as a Class II environmental assessment – or in a comparable process under an independent third party (or panel) – has the potential to accomplish a range of objectives:
a. It will bring transparency to the management of Crown land for forestry production and provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to contribute to Crown land management at a strategic level of decision making.
b. It will help to ensure that forestry is conducted on Crown lands in ways that are
compatible with the full range of values applicable to the management of public lands, with the activities of other users of Crown lands, and with activities taking place on neighbouring lands.
c. It will help to embed the principles and values of ecosystem‐based forestry (or of
ecological forestry) into the plans that will then inform operational planning and
harvesting decisions.
d. It will bring a significant measure of institutional independence from DNR to the
planning of forestry on Crown land.
e. It will create opportunities for stronger and continuing relationships between operators and their stakeholders and mechanisms for ongoing dialogue with those stakeholders through the process of a plan’s ongoing implementation.
f. It will facilitate and enable customized application of the principles of ecosystem‐based forestry to account for relevant regional differences.
g. If done properly, with openness and transparency and based on strong science, it will reduce the pressure for intense scrutiny by DNR or the public of individualized harvesting decisions.

# 80. An alternative outcomes‐focused system – under which DNR’s responsibility for the forestry aspect of its management of Crown lands is focused on policy, science, licensing, the approval of land use management plans, regulation, and enforcement – should be developed and implemented. This system should include measures to ensure full and effective implementation of the Endangered Species Act on Crown lands; adoption and implementation of amendments to the Crown Lands Act designed to ensure that theconduct of forestry on Crown lands is compatible with the full range of values and objectives that should apply to the management of all Crown lands; and legislative establishment of a forestry planning process conducted as or like a Class II environmental assessment under the control of an independent third party as a condition of obtaining
permission to conduct forestry on Crown lands.

# 143. I have instead concluded that forestry on Crown lands should be governed by a forest  management planning process under which “FULA holders” will be required to develop a forest management plan for the lands they are to manage through a Class II environmental assessment under the Environment Act or a process under the supervision of an independent third party that emulates such an environmental assessment. In either case, there should be a written report to the deciding minister or ministers and a decision with supporting written reasons from the minister or ministers. The requirement for such plans developed through a public process is a level of forest management on Crown lands – required in other jurisdictions – that is missing in Nova Scotia. It is a level that should be instituted however forestry is to be conducted on public lands, but it is especially important if Nova Scotia is serious about conducting ecosystem‐based forestry on a landscape basis. Other provinces use environmental assessment, or a process like environmental assessment, to conduct this level of planning, including using it as a vehicle to facilitate the public’s participation in forestry at a strategic planning level. Doing so in Nova Scotia under the authority of the Minister of Environment creates an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the process and to mitigate the concerns about how DNR internally manages its competing responsibilities.

# 160: The conclusions I have reached, with the associated recommendations, are interrelatedand mutually dependent on one another. For example, without adoption of a forest‐planning process through environmental assessment, I would consider other options for addressing concerns about DNR’s competing mandates and for ensuring that forestry onCrown lands is generally conducted in accordance with ecological forestry principles. Similarly, without that recommendation, I would be less inclined to emphasize the importance of extricating DNR from operational decision making and leaving that responsibility with industry and its professional advisers. As another example, without action on effective implementation of the Endangered Species Act and the changes I have proposed to the regulations that already apply to private land, I might reconsider my conclusion that forestry on private land should not be more generally regulated.

Page 25: I also received a project update on the work underway on environmental assessment and an accompanying document called “Forest Stewardship Planning Standard, Guide for the Preparation of Forest Stewardship Plans in Nova Scotia, Second Draft,” dated March 2021

Page 28: The work on EA is clearly at an earlier stage than the work on the SGEM, the mapping of natural disturbance regimes, a framework for high-production forestry on Crown lands, and the Old Forest Policy. Still, in light of the history of the sometimes contentious relationship between the department of environment and the department responsible for forestry, I find it encouraging that the two departments have agreed on a framework to make forestry on Crown lands subject to environmental assessment under the Environment Act.

Page 53: The blue text box lists FPR recommendations for Crown lands that target implementation of ecological forestry in the matrix, or aim to ensure that the intensive forestry that continues to happen on Crown lands is subject to better accountability for ecological outcomes. These recommendations include the recommendation to make environmental assessment part of the forestry management process

Page 56: The primary mechanism by which changes in governance – the policy architecture for forestry  are expected to affect forest practices is through forest planning processes. Recommendations that are about forest planning – about how forestry is planned, organized, and conducted in particular locations and time frames to advance provincial forest and forestry policy – are therefore in the next phase or stage of the logic model. On Crown lands, the foundational one is the application of the triad. Another is the process of land use planning proposed for western Crown lands. A third is the alignment of forestry with the revised mapping of natural disturbance regimes. A fourth is the environmental assessment process recommended for forest management plans. The land use planning process for western Crown lands also fits into this category of recommendations.

CARMAN KERR: Will the department require an environmental assessment, as recommended by Lahey and agreed to by the province, when deciding whether to renew Northern Pulp’s utilization licence agreement – this July, I believe.
TORY RUSHTON: Sorry, I missed the very first part of that question.

CARMAN KERR: It’s around the environmental assessment requirement as recommended by Lahey, agreed to by the province, when deciding whether to renew Northern Pulp’s utilization licence agreement, I think by July.

TORY RUSHTON: Yes, it is recommended. I think it’s number 18 in the Lahey recommendations. Actually, I believe you said that. Now that I’m saying that, I remember it. That is a process that is in the works, in collaboration with the Department of Environment and Climate Change, to set up those standards. Will they be enacted by the end of July of this year? I can’t commit that they’ll be finalized and finished, but that is the goal of this department – to get to the environmental assessment process. I actually made reference to that in my opening remarks, that eventually we want to get to that EA process and implement number 18, if you will.

CARMAN KERR: The question begs, why wasn’t that process in place before Port Hawkesbury Paper’s licence was renewed?

TORY RUSHTON: Very simply, it was a 20-year deal and there was an option to renew it at 10 years. That’s when Port Hawkesbury Paper actually did. They came in and made the application to have it extended out for the 10-year review.