Expand mobile version menu

Interviews

Insider Info

Sustainable: what does that mean to you? For environmental lawyer Mark Haddock, it will always be synonymous with a high-profile legal battle over logging. Haddock was working for the Sierra Legal Defense Fund when he and lawyer Greg McDade took on the case.

The Sierra Club (a separate organization) was concerned that too many trees were being cut down, even though the rate of logging was legal under current legislation. The chief forester for the region had approved the rate of logging for that particular area in accordance with the law. The Sierra Club wanted to challenge the rate. Their argument hinged on the definition of sustainable logging.

"The timber company had prepared a management plan for the area based on a timber supply analysis," says Haddock. "The chief forester had accepted the plan, but not the rate of cutting. The company had applied for a rate of logging of 2.7 million cubic meters [two million cubic yards] per year. The chief forester took the findings of the timber supply analysis and decided that 2.7 million was too high. He allowed only 2.4 million cubic meters [1.7 million cubic yards] per year."

The company took the chief forester to court, wanting to raise the annual allowable cut. The Sierra Club wanted the allowable cut reduced. Haddock wasn't allowed to gather his own scientific information, but using the company's own tree farm timber analysis data, he came up with his own proposal.

Haddock argued that, for sustainable logging, the annual allowable cut should be closer to 1.1 million cubic yards. The government, logging company and the Sierra Legal Defense Fund ended up in court.

Haddock's work involved preparing legal briefs, drafting arguments, doing case research and presenting those arguments in court.

"The hours are long and the legal process is lengthy," Haddock says. "Sometimes, an argument from the opposing counsel may not arrive till the night before the court case. There's often a scramble to research the legalities. But the work is intellectually challenging and rewarding."

The rewards of environmental law are often emotional, as opposed to financial. Ramani Nadarajah enjoys working in a field where she is promoting public policy and social good. "You're working for the betterment of people," she explains.

Nadarajah works for an environmental law association. She started her law career doing litigation work for an environmental department of the government. She still does litigation work, but she's now involved in law reform efforts and lobbying.

Many cases require a wide basis of legal knowledge. "It's not a narrow field," Nadarajah warns. She's had to use everything from constitutional law to criminal law on the job.

The financial rewards are limited compared to what a corporate environmental lawyer might make, but Nadarajah says that doesn't really matter when it comes to job satisfaction. "I can't think of anything I don't like about the job."

Commercial lawyer Peter Newell has a slightly different approach. He assesses the impact of regulations on his clients. Newell says environmental law isn't about environmental advocacy. It's about the law.

"In advocacy, you can attach a certain amount of passion," he says. "To a lawyer, a dispassionate, analytical approach is fundamental." For that reason, Newell says people interested in this career must be prepared to become lawyers first, and environmentalists second.

However, many environmental lawyers do have an emotional attachment to their work. Haddock and McDade were disappointed when an appeal court judge dismissed their appeal. The Sierra Legal Defense Fund argued that "sustainable" should mirror the literal definition -- you can't cut more than you're growing. But a lower court judge ruled that sustainable meant a level that allowed the chief forester to "maximize economic use of the forest."

In environmental law, even seemingly innocent words like "sustainable" can be the basis of bitter court battles.