Macphail Woods Articles
Guest opinion to the Round Table on Resource Land Use and Stewardship

Guest opinion to the Round Table on Resource Land Use and Stewardship by Gary Schneider

Like everyone else on the Round Table on Resource Land Use, I think I entered the process with some misgivings. Time is an extremely valuable commodity these days and people were asked to give up literally months of their lives since April of 1996. The spectre of the ill-fated Royal Commission on the Land still hovered above our heads and we wondered whether our report would face the same blank stare from government. Finally, I think everyone was concerned with who was around the table. Most of the members came in as strangers from different sectors and backgrounds, and we worried that it would be people defending positions instead of learning about issues and trying to find solutions to problems.

The concerns over time and having government ignore our report remain. The worry about the Round Table's makeup vanished over our 32 meetings. Respect was given, friendships developed and people changed, working together to find solutions. I finished the process feeling elated with the whole exercise. Yet the media coverage on the Round Table's final report, the same media that often seeks out the conflict in environmental issues and ignores the real issues, has been quite negative.

Is the report soft? Did we totally miss the boat? I don't think so, but you'll have to read the document and make your own decision. When you do, keep in mind that the recommendations were developed as a package. They really combine to solve the problems - individually they are but single bolts holding on the tractor wheel. I would like to deal with some of the areas contained in the report that haven't been getting much coverage:

Focus seems to have fallen on the lack of legislative aspects of the report. But if the legislation that we do propose was carried out, and they are all do-able, the Island would have a far rosier future than it does today. The biggest piece of legislation includes the creation of mandatory buffer zones in riparian areas, from 20 to 30 metres along all year round waterways. Imagine what a wonderful change that alone would make. The riparian zones should be our richest areas for wildlife, protect and shade fish habitat and keep silt out of the waterways. Instead, these areas are often impoverished landscapes with cattle trampling the banks and silt running into the rivers. The other key legislative recommendations were that no cattle be allowed in streams and that row crops could not be grown on slopes greater than 9%.

There are so many recommendations that couldn't be made into legislation given their nature, but are equally important. Just look at the changes we are asking from the provincial forestry division, things that will drastically alter the way they do business:

• No subsidies for planting non-native species (today, almost 30% of the species planted are non-natives such as Norway spruce and Austrian pine).
• No subsidies for single-species plantations or brush burning.
• Herbicides only used where there is no other way to protect the investment of public funds in a plantation.
• The provincial nursery should increase significantly its production of late successional hardwood species (such as yellow birch and sugar maple).
• More incentives for forest management techniques that are not based on clearcutting and plantations, and significantly increasing the acreages these subsidies cover.
• On provincial lands, we seek management plans that first promote and increase in biodiversity, with the preferred treatments being small patch-cuts and shelterwood cuts, managing for natural regeneration and planting long-lived native species of late successional hardwoods and softwoods.

To the provincial agriculture division we look for a host of changes, things that will greatly improve the Island environment and save money in the long term. The division should develop a pesticide reduction strategy based on bio-intensive integrated pest management and should provide funding for Environmental Farm Plans and soil conservation efforts. We also sought public disclosure and input into plans for introduction of genetically-altered potato varieties. The Department should let the public know that they will enforce federal regulations on pesticides, so if a label says "Do not spray at wind speeds over 12 km an hour", then that is the law, even if we have a 25km provincial windspeed recommendation. We want the provincial and federal governments to increase research in the area of excessive nitrates in wells and use this research to restore contaminated wells. We seek a soil erosion risk index to identify problem areas, and increased GIS capabilities to look at levels of compliance.

From the Department of Transportation we are asking for no net loss of crown land, meaning, unlike what has been occuring recently, they will not be allowed to sell off publicly-owned land unless they are planning to purchase more. There is so little public land in the province that we thought it a key to at least maintain the present base. As well, we seek the establishment of "no-cultivation" zones along all roadways within the public right-of-way and that the Department of Transportation make every effort to establish and maintain permanent vegetative cover in ditches and along roadsides.

The areas of staffing and enforcement came up again and again, cutting across all departments. We felt that new training and ideas within government were necessary to help us solve the problems, so we asked the provincial government to hire a fisheries biologist, a non-game biologist, a forest ecologist and, most importantly, a specialist with expertise in bio-intensive integrated pest management. Both the province and the federal government already have legislation in place that, if enforced, would greatly alleviate some of the existing problems. Yet because the issues of siltation, cattle in streams and pesticides in waterways are such hot political topics, few charges are ever laid. So we asked the responsible governments to enforce their existing laws. It is always surprising when you have to ask a government to enforce its laws, yet the same media that is calling for more legislation in the report has rarely called on government to get tough with offenders.

The federal government is also asked to help improve the situation. We want the Agriculture Research Station to place a higher priority on soil conservation practices. We also seek a successor to the Green Plan to help fund soil conservation projects such as hedgerows, manure storage and fencing systems.

With the potato industry, they asked to be involved with the solutions and we have given them a chance. We have asked them to adopt the soil conservation code of practice, mandatory crop rotation and zero-tolerance for spray drift. But what people fail to understand is that this was not meant to be a "polite" request. These problems were identified by many in the industry, and certainly the general public made us vividly aware of unacceptable practices. When Elmer MacDonald, chair of the Round Table, said publicly that "Islanders should not have to live in fear of being sprayed", he spoke for all of us. The potato industry itself should lead the way in this, and I hope they do not fail. No one on the Round Table, including the four members who grew potatoes, felt that a lack of action by industry would be an acceptable option. If they do not take action, we will look to government for stiff legislation. But we felt the industry was genuine in their recognition that something had to be done to improve the situation. Time will only tell.

But one thing I have learned over the years of being involved in environmental and resource issues is that governments respond to public concerns. If they hear no support for these issues, I fear that much of the heart of the document will be torn out. You can be sure that others are lobbying to keep things as they are. I feel we are at a critical time in this province, a crossroads where one direction points to a healthier (in all aspects) place and the other leads to increased concentrations of wealthl and little regard for the land and our future. Please take the time to read the report and let people, including elected officials and civil servants, know how important these issues are to you.

Round Table on Resource Land Use and Stewardship

The report of the Round Table on Resource Land Use and Stewardship was released to the public on September 3, 1997. Web development and maintenance by Chris Martin.