Archive for month: February, 2013

A British Columbia government bill that would radically shift the management of public forests is drawing criticism from environmental groups, the head of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and opposition politicians.

The bill, however, is in the middle of a legislative log jam and may not pass before the province’s politicians leave the legislature to hit the campaign trail.

“This is huge,” said Vicky Husband, a long time conservationist whose efforts have been recognized with an Order of B.C. award. “It’s the biggest giveaway of our forest lands in about 60 years… There has been no conversation, no consultation on this.”

“It’s opening up a real hornet’s nest,” warned Valerie Langer, the director of the BC Forests Campaign for Forest Ethics. If the change is made, it will strengthen companies’ claims to public forests and lead to big compensation payouts from any government that opts for conservation.

Joe Foy at the Wilderness Committee said in a press release if the bill passes, “it will set off a massive privatization of the public’s forest lands… This is the biggest change proposed for forestry that I’ve seen in my lifetime — and it’s all bad.”

“It’s creating considerable concern,” said Stewart Phillip, president of the UBCIC. “It’s a little bill with huge implications.”

No public benefit: MLA

At issue are changes to the Forest Act included in Bill 8, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2013, which covers a grab bag of legislation overseen by seven different ministries.

The changes to the Forest Act would allow the minister of forests, lands and natural resource operations to invite companies to convert their volume-based forest licenses to area-based tree farm licenses. According to the government, any such conversion will be publicly advertised and will include an opportunity for public review and feedback.

Bob Simpson, the independent MLA for Cariboo North, has been raising concerns about the bill since before it was introduced. “The way the bill is laid out, it’s a backroom deal with no requirement for public consultation,” he said.

Converting volume-based tenures to area-based tenures could be accepted in some parts of the province if it were done well, he said. There would, however, need to be some public gain in exchange for the benefit companies would see, he said.

“Solely going to rollover will never be palatable,” he said. “The public will see it as privatization… This is a 100-year conversation in B.C. and the public has always said ‘no’ and they’re going to say ‘no’ again.”

‘We’ve seen this movie before’: UBCIC’s Phillip

The UBCIC worries such a rollover will lead to an infringement of aboriginal rights, said Phillip.

“We’re concerned if you move from volume-based to area-based it creates public liability within the designated area of the license,” he said. Companies that decide they have increased liability will want to put up gates to bar access to the land, he said.

“That is an absolute infringement on aboriginal rights to hunt and carry on traditional activities,” he said.

A similar situation happened a few years ago after the government passed legislation to protect watersheds used for drinking water, he said. Despite assurances access would continue, as soon as the law passed gates proliferated, he said. “We’ve seen this movie before.”

Phillip also noted that in a meeting two weeks ago with Premier Christy Clark, she failed to mention the legislation. “There hasn’t been any significant consultation.”

“This will only solidify the influence of the big forest companies… They will control everything,” said Husband, noting 94 per cent of the province is publicly owned Crown land. “It’s really a taking away from the public.”

And the legislation is vague, leaving too much room for things to happen behind closed doors, she said. “It’s very loose. No details.”

It’s too big a change for a government to make on its way out the door, less than three months before an election, she said.

So vague it’s problematic: NDP

The NDP’s forestry critic, Norm Macdonald, said the Opposition will receive a technical briefing this week on the legislation. “The legislation is, I think, disturbingly vague on what’s going on,” he said. “There’s a challenge about moving legislation when you’re not completely sure what you’re giving license to.”

The Special Committe on Timber Supply discussed moving to area-based tenures and recommended exploring that possibility, with unanimous support from NDP and Liberal committee members. That discussion included various things that were described as area-based, but it’s not clear what the government has in mind with its legislation, Macdonald said.

“We’ll see if the legislation is actually something that’s supportable,” he said. “Right now it seems vague to the extent (that) it’s problematic.”

The process for converting licenses needs to be absolutely transparent, or else it will open the door to back-room deals, he said.

Asked about the charge that the bill lacks details, Forests Minister Steve Thomson said, “I think the criticism is unfounded. The legislation very clearly sets out the public consultation process that’s required when applications are going to be considered.”

The government has committed to further consultation with the public this summer on the criteria for converting licenses and how to determine whether such conversions meet the public interest, he said, adding he hopes that will reduce people’s concerns.

First Nations have been made aware of the legislation and will be engaged in further consultation, he said.

Time running out

Another criticism is that the legislation doesn’t include provisions to require timber from an area to go to any particular mill.

A company like Hampton, for example, which depends on access to more timber to rebuild its mill in Burns Lake, could be sold to another company, said Simpson. While the government justifies the proposed changes as a way to feed the mill, a sale of Hampton could see that timber going elsewhere.

Thomson said it’s correct the legislation doesn’t include anything allowing the government to say which mill wood would be directed to, but in the case of Hampton it makes sense they would feed their own mills.

“Hampton’s licenses themselves will obviously go to their mills and part of looking at area-based was giving them that additional opportunity to grow additional fibre to make that investment in that area,” said Thomson. “But I think it’s important that this initiative is broader. It’s something industry has been looking for for some time.”

With a dozen bills already before the legislature and at least a couple still to come, the government is unlikely to get through everything in the two weeks they intend to sit in the legislature.

Mike de Jong, the government House leader, acknowledged as much, saying this week, “All of the legislation the government tables this session obviously is important, but we’ll have to make responsible decisions based on how much time is left and how much time the Opposition devotes to debating some of them.”

Thomson said he hopes the Forest Act changes will get passed, but Simpson said he’s already told the minister that debating the bill will be time consuming. “I will take up all the possible debate time that’s left on the calendar,” he said.

Macdonald said if the legislation moves forward to second reading, the NDP will do its job. “We’ll be ready to debate it and we’ll do the work of Opposition of due diligence.”

Even if it passes, there will be time to fix or repeal it, he said. “They’re talking about regulations being made in the summer. There’s an election between now and then.”

Husband said people concerned about the bill and other moves that stress timber and jobs to the exclusion of all other values need to raise a ruckus. “If you don’t fight them, they will get passed.” 

Read More: https://thetyee.ca/News/2013/02/27/Forest-Bill-Foes/

Take note that in contrast to the PR remarks of the logging companies in this article, only about 10% of the carbon is stored in long-lasting wood products after logging. The other 90% is released much more quickly through short-lived products that end up as waste in a few years.

VICTORIA — One year of logging old-growth forests in southwestern British Columbia blows away a year of carbon emissions reductions made through climate-change fighting initiatives like the carbon tax, says a Sierra Club report released today.

The B.C. government continues to look for ways to feed more timber to struggling sawmills through proposed Forest Act changes, but the government is failing to consider the massive role intact old-growth forests play in fighting climate change, says the report, Carbon at Risk: B.C.’s Unprotected Old-growth Rainforest.

The report says logging old-growth forests on southern Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland in 2011 — 5,700 hectares — released three million tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, about the same amount saved through green initiatives.

It suggests old-growth forests be considered non-renewable resources and be protected from logging because it takes hundreds of years for the forests to return to their previous status as massive carbon sinks.

Scientists cited by environmentalists say that huge, old-growth trees store massive amounts of carbon. Once they are cut down, all that carbon is released, while the resulting clear cuts store only minimal amounts. Experts estimate it could take 300 to 500 years for the forest to return to the same carbon storage potential.

However, a coastal forestry industry spokesman believes the report’s findings are flawed, noting scientists also agree second growth forests store carbon and new growth actually grabs hold of more carbon than old-growth forests — which are essentially, tired, old and no longer expanding.

Rick Jeffery, Coast Forest Products Association president said the Sierra Club is only interested in halting logging.

The six-page report doesn’t go that far, but does make it plain that preserving old-growth forests through reductions in logging helps to store carbon.

“Avoided logging of old growth rainforest is one of the most immediately effective actions to reduce emissions,” says the report. “From a carbon perspective, converting old-growth rainforest to second growth is like giving away a safe, hefty bank account with a decent interest rate in exchange for a start-up bank account with almost zero money and the promise of spectacular growth based on unreliable forecasts.”

The report says about 1.5 million hectares of old-growth forest in the Vancouver Island South Coast area are currently unprotected, and within that area, about 600,000 hectares could be harvested. Those forests store the equivalent of more than 800 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, more than 13 times B.C.’s annual carbon emissions.

The B.C. government’s climate change legislation sets greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets of 33 per cent by 2020, compared to 2007 levels. The government said it managed to reduce emissions by 4.5 per cent between 2007 and 2010.

Carbon emissions from forests are not counted as part of B.C.’s greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Jeffery rejected the report’s findings and its calls for more protection of southern old-growth rainforests due to their carbon storage capacities.

He said the Sierra Club is using exaggerated data to support long-standing calls to stop logging in old-growth forests.

“They don’t want us to log,” said Jeffery. “That is the raison d’etre of the environmental groups. For them to tell you anything else is an outright lie.”

He said he agreed that forests store carbon, but disagrees that once old-growth trees are cut, they release massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Products from trees, like houses and furniture, end up storing carbon, and scientific research indicates that second-growth forests also act as carbon storage sources.

“They’re basically telling you that once you cut that old-growth tree, that carbon all gets released into the environment,” said Jeffery. “It goes to other uses. It gets recycled. It goes into buildings and it gets stored.”

Sierra Club spokesman Jens Wieting said forest policy debates are focused on increasing timber supplies for forest companies while ignoring the ever increasing carbon emissions attributed to increased logging of old-growth forests.

“The emissions from B.C.’s forests today are higher than our official emissions from fossil fuels, primarily burning fossil fuels, and nobody’s talking about it,” said Wieting. “There’s forest policy in place and discussions about making changes to the Forest Act without addressing carbon.”

Forests Minister Steve Thomson said B.C. is a world leader when it comes to protecting old-growth forests and introducing environmental policies. He did not directly address carbon emissions and their relation to logging in old-growth forests.

“There’s always concerns around old-growth areas,” he said. “That’s why we need to make sure we have the old-growth protection in place.”

The Liberals introduced amendments last week to the Forest Act that propose to convert volume-based tree farm licences to ones that are area-based.

Independent MLA Bob Simpson said he intends to mount a challenge to the amendments on the grounds that the move from volume to area licenses is simply a proposal designed to appease U.S.-based forest company Hampton Affiliates, which called for a guaranteed timber supply following last year’s explosion that destroyed its Burns Lake mill and killed two workers.

Simpson said the amendments will hurt other area mills because they will reduce their timber supply.

He said the government would be better served amending the Forest Act to offer better ways of protecting and measuring the remaining old-growth forests.

“B.C. does have a problem where they need a forest strategy that addresses the issue that our forests are a massive source of carbon and we kind of hide that,” Simpson said.

Read more at: https://www.vancouversun.com/mobile/news/top-stories/remaining+growth+forests+renewable+Sierra+Club+report/8022735/story.html

Environmental protection of B.C.’s landscapes is fragmented, inconsistent and falls woefully short of what scientists say is needed to conserve species biodiversity, according to a comprehensive land-use review released Thursday by environmentalists.

The report by Vancouver-based ForestEthics Solutions with assistance from West Coast Environmental Law, says 15.55 per cent of the B.C.’s land base (including private property and water bodies) has been placed in the highest categories of protection. That includes 14.4 per cent as parks and protected areas, and 1.15 per cent as wildlife management areas and municipal watersheds.

Another 13.16 per cent has been given moderate protection, a rating that may allow one form of resource extraction while restricting others, 20.57 per cent of land has a few limitations on resource extraction, and 50.72 per cent of land has no specific conservation or resource-restricted designations.

The existing amount of conservation and resource extraction-restricted lands “fail to protect biological diversity and ecological integrity at the provincial scale,” the report says.

ForestEthics recommends a provincewide conservation network that connects legally-designated protected areas and conservation lands; augmentation of land-use plans by all governments using the best available climate-conservation science and cumulative impacts assessments; and updating of laws and policies to better protect biodiversity and help B.C. transfer to a “clean, green economy.”

WCEL executive-director Jessica Clogg said the report does not provide specific targets for protection, because “ultimately the answer to how much conservation is enough should be informed by the best available science and indigenous knowledge.”

The global Nature Needs Half initiative suggests “protecting and interconnecting at least half of the planet’s land and water is necessary to sustain the health, function and diversity of all life.” Supporters include Joel Holtrop, former deputy chief of the U.S. National Forest System and now on the board of directors of the Wild Foundation.

Jim Pojar, a former forest ecologist with the B.C. government, recommended in a 2010 report for a coalition of environmental groups that half of B.C.’s land base should be managed to maintain biodiversity and locked-in carbon, noting “natural forests store carbon dioxide better than do industrial forests.”

New land designations and tenures will likely be required to guide management of the expanded conservation network outside of existing parks and protected areas, his report stated. Only activities “compatible with the long-term objectives of biodiversity conservation and adaptation” should be allowed in these new areas, his report said.

B.C. is home to three-quarters of Canada’s mammal and bird species, 70 per cent of its freshwater fish, 60 per cent of its evergreen trees, and thousands of other animals and plants, that report noted.

Original article in the Vancouver Sun by Larry Pynn, February 19, 2013