© News the other press e Sara James e Sara James News Editor In April, Greenpeace and three other environmen- tal groups released their second annual Great Bear Rainforest Agreement Report Card. The BC Liberal government received failing grades for lack of support for the 2001 agreement. ForestEthics, Rainforest Action Network, Sierra Club of Canada, BC Chapter, and Greenpeace, graded the govern- ment on six principle components of the accord: Protection, Credible Science, Ecological Planning and Management, Managing Change, First Nations Rights and Title, and Forest Policy. All four of the environmental groups were involved in the shaping of the landmark consensus. Joy MacPhail, leader of the provincial NDP, said the 2003 Report Card is “a very accurate reflection of this governmentis approach to the environ- ment.” She feels the Liberals are “holding up the agreement” process while all other interested parties are doing their part. MacPhail believes the crucial land-use plan must be resolved in the spirit of the original agreement. Asked what she feels should be the government's first step toward the agreement, she answered, “Get to the Planning Table, now, with resources.” On April 4, 2001, environmental groups, First Nations, coastal communities, logging companies, workers, and the then NDP government reached an historical consensus to protect major valleys in the Great Bear Rainforest and to suspend logging in Option Areas. At the same time, the government entered into a land-use planning agreement with north and central coast First Nations. The Great Bear Rainforest stretches almost 500 kilometres along BC’s central and northern coast. Approximately seven million hectares, it is home to eagles, grizzlies, coastal wolves, and wild salmon runs. The rainforest’s most endangered inhabitant submit@op.douglas.bc.ca is the Kermode or “Spirit Bear.” A creamy white variety of the black bear, they number less than 400, and are only found in three small pockets within the rainforest. The accord included the creation of a 96,458- hectare Spirit Bear protection area, ensuring the safety of the few remaining Kermodes. The landmark 2001 agreement was hailed by those involved in its development. One element of the agreement was the creation of the Coast Information Team (CIT) of independent scientists. Environmental groups, forestry compa- nies, and the provincial government funded $1.5 million of the $3.2 million budget for the team. The CIT mandate is to acquire and analyze data to assist in the implementation of an ecosystem-based land-use plan. The 2003 Report Card gave a “C+” to the CIT team’s progress. It cited a lack of funding and gov- ernmental delays in the delivery of critical data as the causes for the team being behind schedule. Greenpeace Forest Campaigner, Catherine Stewart, blamed the delays on technical chal- lenges—a result of slashed ministry and technical expertise funding. The government was given a “D-” in Protection because of its lack of commitment to extend Orders in Council (OIC) interim protection of Option Areas. OIC’s prohibit logging and development in specific areas within the rainforest. In response to the failing grade, Minister of Water, Land, and Air Protection, Joyce Murray reiterated that the gov- ernment did enact OIC. When asked about the future of the Option Areas, Murray said there were a couple of possibili- ties; they could be protected or be subject to ecosys- tem-based logging. She admitted that ecosystem- eS Page 4 _http://otherpress.douglas.be.ca May 2003 based logging had yet to be defined. Murray called the 2003 Report Card a “negative interpretation of positive initiatives” for BC’s cen- tral coast. She feels the government's inclusion of First Nations, in the land-use planning process, is a reflection of the Liberal’s commitment to sustain- able resource management. Murray seemingly for- got that the NDP were in power during the nego- tiations that led to the agreement, negotiations that included First Nations. Ecological Planning and Management received an “F,” the lowest grade on the Report Card. One rea- son was negotiations between coastal First Nations and the government would begin before land-use planning is complete. Another reason was contin- ued clear-cutting in the Great Bear Rainforest. Murray’s response was that there was “never a promise of no logging outside of protection areas.” The 2003 Report Card takes issue with continued logging practices. It refers to the results of an analy- sis of logging company practices by the David Suzuki Foundation, Global Forest Watch, and Raincoast Conservation Society. Compiled data revealed logging companies have yet to practice “conservation” and “sustainability.” The other three grades on the Report Card were “B-” for Managing Change, “D” for First Nations Rights and Title, and “D-” for Forest Policy. All six grades were based upon twelve benchmarks used to measure the government’s progress in implement- ing the 2001 Great Bear Rainforest Agreement. The grades were slightly improved over the previ- ous year’s Report Card, which gave the provincial government an “F” in two categories, Protection and First Nations Rights and Title. Results of the 2003 Report Card are available at .