PDA

View Full Version : BCWF calls for more oversight .................



Opinionated Ol Phart
09-03-2014, 09:22 AM
http://www.vancouversun.com/Opinion+needs+natural+resource+practices+board/10168587/story.html

hillman
09-08-2014, 08:56 AM
This is a good idea. I support the BCWF's push to expand the mandate of the Forest Practices Board.

The government has legislated professional associations to push their concept of "professional reliance" as a means to speed up approvals. These so-called professional associations now look and act more like government agencies. These "professional reliance" ideas have nothing to do with protecting the public's interest.

Prophet
01-16-2015, 12:58 PM
Professional reliance is a foundational piece of the Forest and Range Practices Act. The Mt Polley mine disaster has zero to do with FRPA, the Forest Practices Board or PR. BCWF should find a new whipping boy, PR is far from perfect but conceptually and practically, it makes a lot of sense.

The concept of a Resource Practices Board is not a new one, it has some attractive features in that it would finally elevate all other resource sectors to equal footing with forestry when it comes to government oversight and accountability to meeting the public interest.

Brno22F
01-16-2015, 01:16 PM
Professional reliance is a foundational piece of the Forest and Range Practices Act. The Mt Polley mine disaster has zero to do with FRPA, the Forest Practices Board or PR. BCWF should find a new whipping boy, PR is far from perfect but conceptually and practically, it makes a lot of sense.

The concept of a Resource Practices Board is not a new one, it has some attractive features in that it would finally elevate all other resource sectors to equal footing with forestry when it comes to government oversight and accountability to meeting the public interest.

Well said Prophet. I have been proud to sign RPF behind my name for over 30 years as a Forester both here in BC and in Alberta. Professional Reliance was a concept that truly needed to be implemented in the Forest Industry.

Angus
01-16-2015, 01:50 PM
Professional reliance is a foundational piece of the Forest and Range Practices Act. The Mt Polley mine disaster has zero to do with FRPA, the Forest Practices Board or PR. BCWF should find a new whipping boy, PR is far from perfect but conceptually and practically, it makes a lot of sense.

The concept of a Resource Practices Board is not a new one, it has some attractive features in that it would finally elevate all other resource sectors to equal footing with forestry when it comes to government oversight and accountability to meeting the public interest.

How friggin dense are you?

There is no point in that article where BCWF says anything derogatory about the FRPA, FBP or PR. They merely suggest that it would be beneficial to set up a similar organization that would oversee resource extraction. Nothing more.

Take a couple minutes and try to re-read the article, this time without moving your lips.

J_T
01-16-2015, 02:44 PM
"Grave" Concerns? I wonder how many people in the business of mining and forestry (a life on the land) are hunters, and might take offense to that comment.

I would agree with Prophet. Would a new proposed structure then bring on other user/stakeholder groups that may undermine any process and any progress?

Why do we have regulations if we are moving toward monitoring boards to monitor performance? Sounds like more red tape. Sounds like an open door to the NIMBY groups.

The Hermit
01-16-2015, 03:54 PM
Well J_T is asking the coyotes to safeguard the hen house working?

J_T
01-16-2015, 04:09 PM
Well J_T is asking the coyotes to safeguard the hen house working? I think when you look at the bigger picture about how much industrial activity is going on out on the land, whether its mining, logging, petroleum, oil and gas, the incidents are very minimal. The current regulations and approval process provide sufficient safeguards are always considered by any industrial activity. Those regulations ensure each person out there working, is aware.

The only thing a new committee will do is provide some group the opportunity to stick their nose in someone else's business. I can't see the logic or the benefit.

It always comes down to risk. What are we doing, that will 'allow' said industrial activity to continue, and in the event of an incident, to minimize that incident. Performance bonding, security bonding, more frequent inspections with professionals that understand the business are all available tools to use. Industry does not need a bunch of chickens clucking away at them.

Prophet
01-16-2015, 04:47 PM
How friggin dense are you?

There is no point in that article where BCWF says anything derogatory about the FRPA, FBP or PR. They merely suggest that it would be beneficial to set up a similar organization that would oversee resource extraction. Nothing more.

Take a couple minutes and try to re-read the article, this time without moving your lips.
Derogatory? I would not characterize this article as derogatory. I did as you suggested, I re-read the article without moving my lips (again), here is a direct quote from that article.


The B.C. Wildlife Federation has long been concerned with the move by government towards the “professional reliance” model, by which resource extraction within the province has replaced government planning and oversight.
In light of these questions and concerns, BCWF has encouraged the B.C. government to expand the mandate of the Forest Practices Board to include a new multi-interest board that provides oversight for all resource extraction activities within the province.

So to answer your question of how dense I am, maybe others can determine that once they read this thread.

The article quoted was a reaction by BCWF to the Mt Polley disaster, I failed to see how professional reliance fit into that issue since it is solely associated with FRPA, not with mining or any other resource sector. The inference in this article is that PR has failed to provide adequate environmental protection in BC - huge leap imo as PR is not germane to the Mt. Polley disaster or the mining industry in general.

Maybe now you can connect the dots and take your own advice - do it without moving your lips.

GoatGuy
01-16-2015, 05:00 PM
I think when you look at the bigger picture about how much industrial activity is going on out on the land, whether its mining, logging, petroleum, oil and gas, the incidents are very minimal. The current regulations and approval process provide sufficient safeguards are always considered by any industrial activity. Those regulations ensure each person out there working, is aware.

The only thing a new committee will do is provide some group the opportunity to stick their nose in someone else's business. I can't see the logic or the benefit.

It always comes down to risk. What are we doing, that will 'allow' said industrial activity to continue, and in the event of an incident, to minimize that incident. Performance bonding, security bonding, more frequent inspections with professionals that understand the business are all available tools to use. Industry does not need a bunch of chickens clucking away at them.

Just compare BC's track record, net present value of natural resource extraction, and incident rate to the global rate. You can even bring developing world countries into the mix.

You will find BC is doing an extremely poor job of managing natural resources, particularly non-renewables. At least from an economics perspective.

J_T
01-16-2015, 05:13 PM
Just compare BC's track record, net present value of natural resource extraction, and incident rate to the global rate. You can even bring developing world countries into the mix.

You will find BC is doing an extremely poor job of managing natural resources, particularly non-renewables. At least from an economics perspective. Are we talking about economics? Or environmental risk?

"I will find" Is your judgement. Not a collective opinion of an unbiased third party. I'm not sure you can compare BC to other jurisdictions. What I would say about 'track record' is that we document far more than most jurisdictions and that information is more available on social media than most other countries. This leads to greater and more critical judgements like yours. Until all countries operate on the same set of standards under the "Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative" one jurisdiction's performance can not be compared to another. What is acceptable in Latin America, is likely not acceptable here. Yet our practice might be better.

I don't disagree we can do a better job, I'm just not sure that acting like any other 'anti' group out there is the way to go about it.

If we look at industrial activity in other jurisdictions relative to BC regulations, these other countries need to clean up their laws with respect to social inclusion and environmental regulations. BC is way ahead in terms of operational practice.

FYI, In most countries, Inspectors are hired by the company, paid by the company and know they will be out of work if they don't give a favourable report. In BC we do need more inspectors but at least these are neutral Government Inspectors.

GoatGuy
01-16-2015, 05:22 PM
Are we talking about economics? Or environmental risk?

"I will find" Is your judgement. Not a collective opinion of an unbiased third party. I'm not sure you can compare BC to other jurisdictions. What I would say about 'track record' is that we document far more than most jurisdictions and that information is more available on social media than most other countries. This leads to greater and more critical judgements like yours. Until all countries operate on the same set of standards under the "Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative" one jurisdiction's performance can not be compared to another. What is acceptable in Latin America, is likely not acceptable here. Yet our practice might be better.

I don't disagree we can do a better job, I'm just not sure that acting like any other 'anti' group out there is the way to go about it.

If we look at industrial activity in other jurisdictions relative to BC regulations, these other countries need to clean up their laws with respect to social inclusion and environmental regulations. BC is way ahead in terms of operational practice.

FYI, In most countries, Inspectors are hired by the company, paid by the company and know they will be out of work if they don't give a favourable report. In BC we do need more inspectors but at least these are neutral Government Inspectors.

Tailing ponds failures and leaks compared to other jurisdictions or to the global rate.

Cost/benefit environmental economics incorporate risks and costs.

J_T
01-16-2015, 05:44 PM
Hey, I'm not going to fight with you on this. I worked in Peru for a joint Canada Peru mission from 1998 - 2002. Tailings ponds for mine waste did not even compare. Not even close. What I saw there looked what we might have seen here 100 years ago. In fact, creating new environmental standards was entirely our objective. As you know, I've been working in Colombia the past year on precisely the same thing. If you look at worker safety, worker compensation there is no comparison. If you look at the environmental approval process, you can't compare because other jurisdictions don't have one. All you have to do in these other jurisdictions is make sure the Mayor of the local community is on your side. That's all.

"Global rate" What is that? Some sort of double standard? There is no global rate. Even the Fraser Institute is bias. Most jurisdictions don't have a mechanism to report and don't report. How can you compare that which is not reported other than to say, zero reports.

Cost benefit? How do you measure that? How many lives are lost? Or how many leaks we have?

Avalanche123
01-16-2015, 06:16 PM
Well said J_T.

J_T
01-16-2015, 06:19 PM
As an example FARC, a recognized terrorist organization by force took over a community killed (killed dead) opposition to the takeover and are now running a mine. And selling to US companies. Your Sony products and others are made from this. That mine isnt even on any controls. Im quite certain that isnt happening here.

GoatGuy
01-16-2015, 06:20 PM
Hey, I'm not going to fight with you on this. I worked in Peru for a joint Canada Peru mission from 1998 - 2002. Tailings ponds for mine waste did not even compare. Not even close. What I saw there looked what we might have seen here 100 years ago. In fact, creating new environmental standards was entirely our objective. As you know, I've been working in Colombia the past year on precisely the same thing. If you look at worker safety, worker compensation there is no comparison. If you look at the environmental approval process, you can't compare because other jurisdictions don't have one. All you have to do in these other jurisdictions is make sure the Mayor of the local community is on your side. That's all.

"Global rate" What is that? Some sort of double standard? There is no global rate. Even the Fraser Institute is bias. Most jurisdictions don't have a mechanism to report and don't report. How can you compare that which is not reported other than to say, zero reports.

Cost benefit? How do you measure that? How many lives are lost? Or how many leaks we have?

Mostly about economic benefits.

BC lives with a resource curse and manages it poorly. Same as Alberta. The "today" approach is short-sighted and expensive in the long-run.

Not interested in the fight either, enough of those to go around lol.

forestwalker
01-16-2015, 08:38 PM
I agree that the practices currently in place are not working and something needs to be done. Creating another committee to oversee all natural resource operations makes sense only because everything is encompassed and judged under the framework of the one committee. I would only see it working if this committee was the one and only shaping the guidelines and regulations for the province. The hope would be uniform/set guidelines, no loopholes and direct accountability. Professional Reliance is a good concept and would work marvelously, except it seems that the government has no use for professional advice or scientific approach if it stands in the way of economic growth. Maybe BRNO 22F can give some insight into how much a Registered Professional Foresters voice and credentials weigh in terms of government decisions in forestry these days, I for one would like to know.
An interesting topic nonetheless.
Cheers
Rick

albravo2
01-16-2015, 08:47 PM
Well said J_T.

x2. Nice to see someone with relevant experience commenting.

J_T
01-16-2015, 10:13 PM
I guess my position is we dont need more committees, meetings and time to make something better.
From an operational perspective, Id prefer to look at other ways for input. MOE are already using online consultation for hunting regulations. Just expand the questions online to include input from you/us on other matters on the land.

For rights acquisition (chattel interest) I believe the best method to consider input from all user groups is e-consultation. I believe this is ocurring now in many business processes.

Sitkaspruce
01-16-2015, 11:19 PM
You cannot put ETHICS and PROFITS in the same sentence. And with PR, it is one or the other.

PR can work, but when the pressure is on to make $$$, the ethics and/or responsibility to the people of BC can either go right out the door, or be dummied down to fit.

Sadly, the way the Gov allows PR to work does not always "fit" what the public would like to see.

And I am one of those guys with the letters after my name.......

Cheers

SS