Blog Archive Layout

B.C. government reopens timber rights talks

Apr 1 2014/in News Coverage

Forests Minister Steve Thomson has reopened talks on giving forest companies exclusive access to timber rights on some public lands.

A year ago, widespread opposition forced Thomson to withdraw related legislation after critics warned that it would give companies too much control.

This time, Thomson is launching a two-month consultation process led by retired civil servant and former chief forester Jim Snetsinger.

Thomson said the government wants to get the public’s input on its plan to convert some volume-based licences to new or expanded area-based licences.

Volume-based licences allow multiple companies to cut trees in a specific timber supply area. Area-based tenures, also known as tree farm licences, give companies exclusive access to the trees in an area.

The government argues that TFLs provide licence-holders with “increased certainty” of timber supply and encourage them to make long-term investments in sawmills and silviculture.

“This, in turn, can provide stability for workers and the community,” states a government discussion paper.

Thomson said the government is considering the change as way to deal with a declining timber supply in the Interior caused by the mountain pine beetle epidemic.

But critics argue that giving forest companies increased control over Crown land spells disaster for the environment and makes it more difficult to settle First Nations treaties.

“When companies say they want greater certainty over the land base, what they mean is greater certainty against conservation measures and treaty settlement,” said Ken Wu, executive director of the Ancient Forest Alliance. “There’s a lot of other users and a lot of other values on those lands besides large-scale logging.”

NDP forests critic Norm Macdonald said there is no evidence that allowing exclusive rights in a timber area benefits anyone other than the big forest companies, many of whom are major donors to the B.C. Liberal Party.

“I get why the private companies want it and I don’t begrudge them at all,” he said. “But why the public would buy into this is beyond me. They have not made the case that it’s for the public good.”

Macdonald said the public, in fact, will lose some of the control it has to protect wildlife and the environment on lands where companies have exclusive access to the timber. “It’s not a total privatization, that’s true,” he said. “But there’s no question you’ve given up greater property rights and, therefore, you’ve given up complete control of that land.”

Thomson said the government’s vision is that companies would be given exclusive access only in areas where there is support and a strong case for doing so. “We’re not contemplating conversions on a provincewide basis, but rather on a case-by-case basis,” he said.

Thomson said he wants to hear from the public what types of benefits the companies should provide in exchange, and what criteria should be used to evaluate applications.

“Before any company would be invited to an application, they would have to be able to demonstrate the public interest and the values under which they’re doing that,” he said.

The public consultation process concludes on May 30. Snetsinger will submit a final report at the end of June.

Thomson declined to provide a timeline for potential legislation.

“I think that would be pre-judging the outcome of the process and pre-judging the recommendations that [Snetsinger] will bring forward,” he said.

Timber companies can’t see the consequences for the trees

Mar 31 2014/in News Coverage

British Columbia is in the midst of an unprecedented and unsustainable salvage operation in its interior forests because of the attack of the mountain pine beetle.

And yet, when two of the province’s biggest forestry companies were caught going into those woods and cutting truckloads of healthy green timber meant for future harvests, Forests Minister Steve Thomson’s reaction was as mild as a milk-sated kitten.

After forestry-ministry staff raised alarms, Mr. Thomson signed an order that could have led to hefty penalties for Canfor and West Fraser for taking greenwood in an area where they were supposed to be targeting the dead and dying pine.

In defiance of the chief forester’s order, set down in February, 2008, the two companies overcut 928,000 cubic metres worth of healthy trees in the Morice Timber Supply Area, around the community of Houston, in B.C.’s northwest.

But the minister’s order was rescinded after the companies – both heavy contributors to the governing B.C. Liberal party – agreed to behave. The past is forgiven, no need for consequences.

“I had concerns about the trend we were starting to notice. We looked at the potential for the order. We got the commitments from the companies to operate within harvest management plans,” Mr. Thomson said in an interview.

“The plans are being closely monitored.”

It is because of the dwindling supply of timber that West Fraser is shutting down its Houston sawmill. Just weeks ago, Canfor permanently closed its Quesnel mill for the same reason.

Between the pine beetle and over-harvesting, the chief forester is expected to dramatically reduce the annual allowable cut in the region.

The provincial government has swept in and helped communities in the pine beetle zone, notably Mackenzie and Burns Lake, by securing exclusive timber supply in recent years. But it can’t do that everywhere – there simply won’t be enough trees to sustain even the region’s current, already curtailed, level of industry.

The alarm was raised last week in a special report from the Forest Practices Board, which has found that companies have shifted from harvesting dead pine trees to live non-pine trees that had been earmarked for the future.

“British Columbia is in the midst of a large-scale salvage program, the likes of which has never been seen,” the report says.

“There is nothing sustainable about this harvest; this is a one-time activity initiated by the province to recover value from the trees killed by the mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic and to speed regeneration of affected areas … The issue, simply put, is that the more live trees that are harvested now, the lower the sustainable harvest level will be after the salvage program is finished.”

In the same report, the board, B.C.’s independent watchdog for forest practices, also warns the government really doesn’t know how much timber is left to salvage. “There is a growing disparity between government’s estimate of the amount of salvageable timber and the actual economically viable timber available on the ground.”

And it is, clearly, just an estimate. The B.C. Government and Service Employees’ Union says the forest ministry’s compliance and enforcement program conducts a third of the number of inspections of forest operations compared with a decade ago. And a recent report from the Professional Employees Association also warns that the number of licensed science officers, including foresters, has dropped by 15 per cent in the past five years.

NDP forestry critic Norm Macdonald said those cuts make it hard to detect overcutting, and signal to industry that there is little intent to uphold the rules. “The government has to accept responsibility – they have consciously chosen not to collect proper data, which [are] essential to properly manage the public lands,” he said in an interview. “And it means a much bigger problem in the future for communities’ stability.”

The future may not be far off. The chief forester is required only to set the annual allowable cut once every decade for each timber supply area. In this case, however, Mr. Thomson says he wants an update by the end of this year in the Morice Timber Supply Area. “I expect the review is going to show there will need to be adjustments, downward adjustments, in the annual allowable cut in those regions.”

Canfor and West Fraser will have little grounds to complain.

Comment: Forest, parks bills should be open to debate

Mar 30 2014/in News Coverage

Big changes are being discussed for the future of British Columbia’s parks and forests. Despite the impact of these changes, British Columbians are not being consulted.

On Feb. 25, two proposed bills, Bill 4 and Bill 5, entered their second reading and almost no one noticed. If passed, the two amendment bills — known as the Park Amendment Act and the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act — would adversely affect forest-based jobs and our protected areas network, which are anchors for the motto “Super Natural B.C.”

Buried within a 36-page document, Bill 5 looks to make what is being called an administrative change to speed up the process for the export of wood chips. In reality, this change is anything but simple and could have undesirable impacts for communities and those who work in the forest sector.

Forest Lands and Natural Resources Operations Minister Steve Thomson proposes an increase to the maximum amount of wood residue (wood chips) that the minister can permit for export from 5,000 bone-dry units to 200,000 bone-dry units.

Put plainly, the minister can currently approve the export of 217 double truckloads of wood chips in a single application without the requirement of an additional level of approval from cabinet. This balance and check ensures that all wood chip exports are, in fact, surplus and in the public interest. If the bill is passed, the minister could approve the export of more than 8,500 double truckloads of wood chips and shavings without any additional review of the application. This is a 40-fold increase and would logically have a correlation to employment.

B.C. is currently a net importer of wood chips. If the province needs more than we are exporting, why is the minister rushing to move more of our forests out of B.C.? With mills around the province shutting down and an exhausted timber supply in the mountain pine beetle-affected areas, this ability to approve a massive increase in exports sounds like a lot less value for B.C.’s forest products.

It also sounds like fewer jobs for British Columbians at a time when our government should be trying to keep forest product processing and production at home.

It’s not looking good on the environmental side, either. If passed, this amendment could lead to the expansion of forestry for export in areas that already do not have sufficient ecological conservation with little or no net gain for communities. The government should increase levels of forest protection from its current 15 per cent to scientifically mandated levels, instead of adding pressure on our forests by eliminating steps that help ensure a healthy balance is maintained.

Add to the mix the minister’s current priority to roll over volume-based tenures to area-based tenures, and one wonders whose interest is being served by these changes.

Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act brought forth by Environment Minister Mary Polak, proposes to allow “research” in the province’s parks related to feasibility and environmental assessment for pipelines, highways and transmission lines. However, the term “research” is not defined, and could mean anything from taking a water sample to drilling a test well. If the bill is passed, the minister could approve a permit for this range of research even if it isn’t consistent with the purpose of the park.

As written, Bill 4 would make every protected area vulnerable to large industrial projects.

When changes of this sort are proposed by a government, it is expected that public consultation and collaboration with affected sectors be done. This public vetting of policy ideas ensures that the resulting bill reflects the will of the public and affected interests. Decisions that affect the well-being of communities and forests should be up for public debate. Up to today, there has been no consultation with the public, environmental or labour sector.

Forests and forest workers deserve sustainability, and this should start with the government working to protect forests and keep jobs and forest-product manufacturing in B.C.

Fortunately, these are only proposed changes. There is still time to pull them off the table before we chip further away at our forest sector and our protected areas.