Groundhog Day For “Forest Stewardship”
“Stewardship” and “Sustainability’ Remain Vague Aspirations
Forestry Program Collateral Damage From Gov. Christie’s RGGI Veto
According to a 2009 law (P.L. 2009, c.256) signed by Governor Corzine just days before current Gov. Christie’s Inauguration, DEP was required to adopt a “forest stewardship program” and a “forest certification program”, including “sustainability criteria”, “indicators”, and regulations.
Section 8 of that law directed DEP as follows:
C.13:1L-36 Rules, regulations.
8. The department shall adopt, pursuant to the “Administrative Procedure Act,”
P.L.1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.), rules and regulations necessary for the implementation of P.L.2009, c.256 (C.13:1L-29 et al.), including rules and regulations:
a. setting forth policies, guidelines and best management practices that establish standards designed to ensure the sustainability of forest lands, which may be applicable to any publicly and privately owned forest land;
Four years later, DEP has yet to distribute draft rules for public comment or formally propose and adopt them as regulations, as required by this 2009 law.
Virtually a well kept secret, the 2009 “forest stewardship” program was to be funded by the “Global Warming Solutions Fund,”, which received revenue from the emission allowances sold under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).
Four years later, there is no money in that fund, because Gov. Christie unilaterally withdrew NJ from the 10 northeastern states’ RGGI pact – and stole the money to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate subsidies.
Why do the conservation groups that support “forest stewardship” remain silent in criticizing the Gov. for RGGI withdrawal, a move that collaterally killed the “forest stewardship” program they so strongly support?
Why do conservation groups that support forest stewardship not criticize DEP for failure to implement the 2009 law?
We do know that those groups don’t consider climate change worthy of mention.
But in contrast to the silence on criticism of Gov. Christie’s climate rollbacks, we do know that those groups do criticize legislators who do not support funding programs that they themselves derive financial support from, like “forest stewardship” and open space acquisition (e.g. see the absurd whining attack on Senator Beck, who opposed sales tax Open Space bill in a losing landslide vote, like 36-2).
But, absurdly, despite DEP’s failure to implement this 2009 law, Section 3.c.(1) of the bill now on the Gov. desk links the new “forest stewardship” program to DEP regulations that were required to be adopted under the old 2009 law, but never were.
How are we to judge this legislative provision? How can know whether its a good bill when those 2009 rules were never proposed so we have no idea what DEP standards and criteria are to define “stewardship” and “sustainability”?
It’s all a sham.
The sponsors know that those 2009 DEP rules will never be proposed. There are no regulatory safeguards – that provision is a charade.
We are not fooled by that empty and fake attempt to create the appearance of regulatory safeguards.
So, the real question is: why is it groundhog day on “forest stewardship”?
But this situation is worse than just the typical extensive delay by DEP in developing a new program.
And it’s even worse that the fact that the Christie Administration’s hostility to regulations has virtually blocked any new DEP regulations.
The “forest stewardship” bill now on the Gov.’s desk was drafted by Democrats who knew about DEP’s failure to implement the 2009 law and failure to propose regulations and standards to define essential terms and appropriate regulatory safeguards.
Instead of confronting that DEP failure head on, the Democrats thought they could make an end run around DEP.
They chose to design a forestry program that would operate without DEP rules.
Instead of traditional DEP rules to provide safeguards, the program would be governed by private “standards” and oversight by the private Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
The DEP initially reluctantly agreed to go along with all that – including FSC certification – in negotiating a political compromise last year with the sponsors and supportive conservation groups that DEP handpicked as “stakeholders”.
That political compromise was memorialized in a Senate Substitute bill – S 1085 SCS – that has passed both houses and now sits on Gov. Christie’s desk.
But, DEP rescinded prior support for FSC certification in a June 10, 2013 letter testimony.
We never supported the compromise or FSC as a replacement for public oversight via regulations.
So, we urge the Gov. to outright veto the bill.
Given DEP’s opposition to FSC certification, at a minimum it is likely that the Gov. will conditionally veto the FSC certification and audit provision, which are the core safeguards and foundation of the political compromise.
Either way, the bill is effectively dead (as it is virtually guaranteed that the legislature would not over-ride an Absolute Veto and the Democrats would negotiated the FSC certification could never ratify a CV).