Areas requiring improvement are identified practices that are in non-compliance with legislation but are not considered significant. In certain cases, the Board may wish to highlight the practice as requiring improvement, but is not likely to make a recommendation.
These items could include:
- a non-compliant forest or range activity, or activities, that does not meet the test of significance, but is considered a poor practice, and should not be repeated by the auditee.
- For example, where the auditee has constructed 30 kilometres of new road during the audit period, of which 28 kilometres are constructed well, but on a 2-kilometre section, there are 4 crossings that did not maintain the natural surface drainage patterns and were not removed at the end of construction or prior to spring freshet – contrary to legislation. While minimal harm may have occurred, this practice should not be repeated; therefore, this could be considered an area requiring improvement.
- For example, where the auditee does not conduct formal fire hazard assessments but does abate the fire hazard. Even though the fire hazard is being abated, without a formal fire hazard assessment, the auditee cannot demonstrate that it has been diligent in assessing the hazard, which is a non-compliance with legislation. This non-compliance is considered not significant since fire hazards are being abated in an effective and timely manner. As a result, this could be considered an area requiring improvement.
