|
FOREST STEWARD
The RPFANS Newsletter Vol1, #1
A message from the President
One of the items that council is currently looking into is an official stamp which every active Registered Professional Forester will have the right to purchase.The stamp will create an impression which will bear the name of the member and the words “Registered Professional Forester, Registered Professional Foresters Association of Nova Scotia”.The stamp will also include a place for a signature.The intent is to provide each member with a professional looking means to seal all official documents and plans prepared by them.The stamp will be very similar to the one used by other registered professional organizations, such as the engineers.The guidelines for using the stamp are in the final stages of development and we hope to have the stamp available for purchase in the near future.Thanks to Kevin Keys for initiating this idea.
We have also been trying to develop a strategy to attract new members to our association.The health and functioning of any association depends on strong membership and we feel it is essential to have as many eligible Foresters as possible to be members.Over the past year, a number of potential candidates were identified.Currently, we are attempting contact those candidates to encourage them to join.If you are aware of anyone eligible, who is not a member, we ask that you please approach them and encourage them to join.Our website lists many of the virtues of becoming a member (http://www.rpfans.ca/index.php).As well, one of the long-term initiatives from our strategic plan is to move toward the “right to practice”.To that end we encourage all practicing Foresters to get involved by becoming active members.The association also has public display materials which promote the practice of Professional Forestry.These displays are available to all members and we ask you to please use them at pertinent events.
The Strategic Direction of the association was developed for the period 2005 to 2009.Following each Annual General Meeting, Council makes a thorough review of the document and develops a plan to accomplish specific initiatives within the year.After four years, most of the strategic initiatives have been completed or are a work in progress.Realizing that 2009 is only one year away, it is time to start thinking about what members would like to see happen next.Over the next several months Council will be starting to focus on the next phase of the Strategic Direction.We ask all members to consider this and start thinking about what we can do to facilitate the advancement of the RPFANS objectives into the future.
I would like to provide an update on the resolution passed (by both the CIF-NS Section and the RPFANS) at the Annual General Meetings held in March 2007.The resolution involved looking into future cooperation and/or joint activity between CIF-NS and RPFANS.The joint committee of both organizations continues to work on implementing the changes compiled from the subsequent survey that was distributed.The most significant changes that were proposed were that the CIF-NS and RPFANS have a shared elected Executive (all positions) with a shared paid Executive Director.This means that changes will occur regarding bylaws, procedures and other protocols which are intended to be introduced and voted on at the 2009 Annual General Meetings.The aim of the proposed changes is to help with efficiencies while maintaining the identity of each organization.
I would like to conclude by acknowledging the contributions of two people.I have been involved with Council over the past five years and during that time several strategic initiatives have been undertaken.Probably the most significant was the approval to create the Executive Directors position on a part-time basis.Ian Millar has been filling that role since 2006 and during that time Ian has been invaluable to our association.Ian has taken on many tasks that that the council and executive simply could not do because of time constraints.I would like to thank Ian for the great work he has done and continues to do.
As most members are probably aware, Peter Townsend resigned as the Registrar for the association effective after the Annual General Meeting held in March 2008.Peter had been the Registrar for six years and did an excellent job.Peter’s efforts and dedication to our association are greatly appreciated.In May, 2008, council approached Brendan Hemens to assume the role of Registrar.Brendan accepted and has been performing the task since May.
John Ross R.P.F.
President
________________________________________________________________________
Councilor Notes:
I have been asked to write about a topic for the RPFANS newsletter. The first thought that came to mind was, “Would you go to a butcher to remove your appendix?””
When most people think forestry, they think large clear cuts; mainly for this reason forestry has been given a bad rap. In past practices they are not far off, just visit any old harvest site and you stand a good chance of finding evidence of deep tire ruts and diverted water ways. Most provinces have past legislation where you must be part of a Professional Foresters Association to practice forestry within the province. As a result forestry practices along with public opinion have improved dramatically. Despite RPFANS best efforts in Nova Scotia, membership to the association remains voluntary while anyone can still practice forestry in Nova Scotia.
Nova Scotia public opinion regarding forestry has improved, however there still remain a few rogue logging companies that undue our best efforts. These companies prey on landowners who are concerned more about the bottom dollar and unaware of the benefits of good forestry practices. In the end the landowner usually ends up with very little money in their pocket and a piece of land that resembles a cratered moonscape. Presently RPFANS is
working hard to improve our position within the province.In the mean time as RPFANS members we can continue to educate the public as well as continue to practice good forestry throughout Nova Scotia.The next time a landowner asks you why they should hire a Professional Forester to manage their lands, simply ask the question, “Would you go to a butcher to remove your appendix?”
Barry Geddes, RPF
RPFANS Councilor
________________________________________________________________________
Executive Directors Post
Welcome to the first issue of the Forest Steward. Actually this is our second newsletter, but the first, following the competition to select a name for the newsletter. Council expresses their thanks to all that submitted suggestions for names, and congratulations to Tom Rudolph for submitting the selected entry.
I find it difficult to write a posting for the Forest Steward, as I have sent, by email, all of the significant, or good, information that has found its way in to my email box; and have covered other significant business items in the minutes of the Council meetings. Never the less, I will not bore you by repeating the same information, but will try and provide some more depth on a single topic. I will try and be unbiased, but if you detect a bias “dems du brakes”.
You may recall that back in the spring I sent you an email regarding “An Act Respecting Fair Access to Regulated Professions”. This act was not passed and the Government has subsequently replaced it with “An Act Respecting Fair Registration Practices” to be known as the “Registration Practices Act” (RPA). Schedule “A” of the RPA contains a list of some 37 organizations / boards / colleges / associations, which have been given regulatory responsibility by the government for the governance of a profession or trade. Your Association, RPFANS, is included in this list because the Association is responsible for establishing the criteria by which a person would be eligible to state that they were a “Registered Professional Forester” and authorizing the use of that title and its abbreviations; or as it says in the Act “use a designation or certification granted by a regulating body”.
The other criteria for being included in Schedule A is; where an applicant seeks to “…engage in the practice of an occupation governed by a regulating body,…”. Where this is the case, the regulating body is usually providing a license to practice. Examples of this, as you might expect, are for medical doctors or engineers etc. Over the summer and fall I attended several meetings with the other organizations listed in Schedule A. At one of our meetings we were all asked if our organization could limit who could practice. The interesting point arising from this question was that of the some 30+ organizations present, only 3 did not have the right to license those who could practice their profession in the province. As you are aware, RPFANS is one of those organizations without the right to license all those persons who are “practicing forestry” as described in our Act.
But I have digressed. The objective of the meetings was to develop suggestions for alternatives to the wording in the original Act that would result in fair registration practices, but would not place an undue reporting burden on the affected organizations. I would say that to some extent, they were successful. However there will still be a significant amount of additional record keeping and reporting. Section 16(3) identifies some 21 specific types of information that are to be provided on a regular basis to the Review Officer. In order to accommodate this requirement for information, RPFANS will have to develop some new spreadsheets. Likely more difficult for volunteers, will be the task of ensuring that the individual who is keeping the data base(s) is informed on a timely basis, of all the changes and the dates on which they occur.
It is interesting to note that the reporting requirements are presently the same for all of the organizations. That is neither the size of the organization, or its responsibility with regard to licensing of practitioners, has an impact on the reporting required. I for one, find this to be unfortunate for RPFANS. This piece of legislation raises the question: Should RPFANS seek Right to Practice legislation?
In addition to the above, the provincial government is working with its counterparts, to finalize Chapter 7 (Labour Mobility) of the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT). Based on the current version (draft 6), I see little in it that was not covered, in a lot less words, by the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) between the professional associations in Canada; except for the likely reporting requirements. These will likely include specific descriptions of the training required to enter the profession; and justification for any additional training required by persons moving between jurisdictions. The big problem here is that all of this has to be spelled out beforehand. It is not an option to look at the qualifications of an individual and then decide if additional training is required for that person from another jurisdiction; it must be clearly stated, and justified, in our membership requirements, and applicable to all.
While it is not clear as yet, there has been some concern expressed by those associations that have Right to Practice, that as a result of AIT they may have to examine more closely those members who are requesting a transfer from a Right to Title association. This was not a problem under our MRA as we all knew and trusted each other. There was not a big brother looking over our shoulder, therefore, if a fair exchange of information took place, we could decide on a more individual basis, if additional training would be required.
Obviously we have not come to the end of this path yet. A couple of years experience will be needed to determine the best course of action. However, we need to consider our best options for the future, and start planning now so that we can implement it when appropriate.
Ian Millar R.P.F.
|
