Summary of Comments from Public Review

This is a summary of the public review of the draft Wood Sustainability Regulations and the draft Wildlife Habitat Management Regulations. The report is available at Department of Natural Resources Offices, Access Nova Scotia Centres and public libraries or you may download from the website.

Public Review of the Draft Wood Sustainability Regulations and the Draft Wildlife Habitat Regulations

by

Bruce L. Smith Consulting Inc.
Group Work / Conflict Resolution
P.O. Box 716
Liverpool, NS B0T 1K0

Publication Number: Info Series
DNR 1999-1
November,1999

Executive Summary

A public review of two sets of draft regulations under the Forests Act: the Wood Sustainability Regulations and the Wildlife Habitat Management Regulations was conducted between June 12 and July 12, 1999. In addition to circulation of the draft regulations and background papers, the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) held concurrent open house sessions on June 24, 1999 in Yarmouth, Truro and Port Hawkesbury.

Sixty-four (64) written submissions were received, totaling approximately 150 pages. Many comments were broad and general in nature, addressing issues relevant to forest management, ecology, economics and public policy. Others were quite specific, directed at sections or subsections of the draft regulations.

This report organizes the comments according to the section headings of the regulations. Where dominant themes emerge, they are used to provide further organization.

The remainder of this summary is divided into three sections: comments relating to the Wood Sustainability Regulations, comments relating to the Wildlife Habitat Management Regulations, and comments which relate to both regulations.

Many comments were received about the rights, roles and responsibilities of a private landowner. This theme was the subject of more comments than any other. Many respondents stated that private landowners must have a central role in silviculture planning and decision making. They should be specifically mentioned in the regulations, and their roles, rights and responsibilities clearly outlined. Private land silviculture requires the permission, cooperation and the involvement of the landowner. An ongoing dialogue between private landowners and government is needed to clarify and understand the complex dynamics between private ownership and public interest in Nova Scotia forests.

Respondents made numerous comments about the roles and relationships of government, industry and small operators. Government is seen as being overly supportive of industry, with large companies having too much control of what happens in the forestry sector. Many respondents felt that all stakeholders, large and small, should be treated fairly and equitably. The contribution of small forestry operations to the economy of rural Nova Scotia should be recognized and valued. Government should be careful not to skew market competition factors when making policy decisions, passing regulations, developing programs and setting standards and rates.

Funding silviculture: who should pay, and how much? Was a topic of importance to many respondents. A wide range of views were expressed about this topic. There is general concern that government will use the regulations to end its role as a silviculture funding partner. The views include:

• government should be responsible (or primarily responsible) for funding silviculture because of the overall importance of forestry to the provincial economy and public interest
  
• industry should be responsible because it makes more money from forestry than any other stakeholder, and has the greatest impact on forest lands in the province
  
• landowners should be responsible because they receive an increase in asset value as a direct benefit of silviculture
  
• many respondents felt that the funding of silviculture should be a three-way partnership between landowner, industry and government
  
• socioeconomic factors should be considered in setting variable rates (exporters should pay more due to loss of jobs to NS; low value product producers should pay less because they create jobs.)
  

A number of specific comments were received regarding requirements for snags and cavity trees. Respondents commented on the required size and number of trees specified to be left standing. Suggestions were made that the clumping of trees should take into consideration the shape of the cut, especially if “fingers” were left, and otherwise that the trees should be left to form corridors and pathways. A number of respondents stated that the term “tree boles” should be changed to “large woody debris,” and that the regulations should not require that merchantable timber be left on the ground.

Respondents made a number of suggestions regarding special management zones. A number of respondents suggested that 20 metres is too narrow, and that greater widths (30 m, 20-50 m, 33 m) should be used. A respondent noted that a stream width of 50 cm will exclude a lot of productive land. Comments were received that the definition of a watercourse is too broad. It was suggested that DNR focus on maintaining the integrity of the SMZ, and that special permits be issued when circumstances justify. SMZ ecological integrity should be the primary concern.

Government should say more about appropriate harvest methods for specific forest types. Clearcutting should be discouraged (or not permitted) in hardwood and mixedwood shade tolerant forest types. DNR should encourage and reward forest harvest methods which contribute to and promote natural regeneration.

Enforcement of the regulations will be essential but difficult. The lack of resources within DNR was cited by several respondents as a concern, as well as the need for departmental and political commitment. It is important that the regulations are clear and comprehensive so that criteria for compliance are known and understood by all. This would be enhanced through the inclusion of standards, criteria, processes, formats and other details that will contribute to stakeholder understanding of compliance requirements.

The overall concept of the regulations is well received, and the content generally well received with significant suggestions for improvement. Achieving sustainability will require more than silviculture. More should be done on ecosystem conservation and management. Annual harvest levels should be set based on accurate data. Silviculture should be considered in a framework which is designed to achieve sustainable forest management.

A large number of respondents felt that a 30 day public review process was insufficient to conduct a public review of complex and important regulations. For some, the short period was seen as a sign that government did not want to hear from the public. Several respondents declined further participation. Given expectations of significant changes to the draft regulations as a result of this review process, a number of respondents suggested that a second public review should be conducted before the regulations are finalized.
Other general comments were made which are relevant to both sets of regulations. The need for the regulations to include reference to Imperial measures was noted by numerous respondents. There were several suggestions that DNR should consider the use of economic incentives to achieve its objectives in addition to regulations. It was recommended that implementation of the regulations should be periodically assessed and the regulations modified based on what has been learned.