T.J. Watt of Ancient Forest Alliance stands in July 2011 next to old-growth red cedar in Avatar Grove near Port Renfrew.

Logging B.C. old-growth forests accelerates climate change: Sierra Club report

/in /by

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 B.C. blows away a year of carbon-emissions reductions made through climate-change fighting initiatives such as the carbon tax, says a Sierra Club report released Wednesday.

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.

FORESTS STORE CARBON

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.”

VANCOUVER IS. FORESTS UNPROTECTED

The report says about 1.5 million hectares of old-growth forest in the Vancouver Island South Coast area are 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.

‘THEY DON’T WANT US TO LOG’

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.”

Jeffery 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, such as 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 PROMISES ‘OLD-GROWTH PROTECTION’

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,” Thomson 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 licences 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: https://www.theprovince.com/technology/Logging+growth+forests+accelerates+climate+change+Sierra+Club+report/8023344/story.html

B.C. landscape diversity includes this 0ld-growth Coastal Douglas fir forest in Metchosin on southern Vancouver Island. Just over 15 per cent of B.C. has designations granting the highest level of protections.

B.C. land protection insufficient to conserve species biodiversity: report

/in /by

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

Children's Forest - Cortes Island

The Ancient Forests of Cortes Island #2: The Carrington Bay Children’s Forest

/in /by

There is very little common ground between Island Timberlands’ logging methods and how the community would like forestry to be done on Cortes—but as this is private managed forestland, there’s not a whole lot they can legally do about it. And, as long as the province is benefitting from these operations through their investment wing, the BC Investment Management Corporation (BCIMC)—which manages all of the public sector pension funds—there will continue to be a disturbing incentive for them to maintain the status quo, regardless of what communities may want.

According to Ken Wu of the Ancient Forest Alliance (AFA), “Ultimately, if these lands are going to be protected, they need to be purchased.” But despite the fact that Brookfield Asset Management purchased their coastal timber holdings for bottom dollar, they are now insisting on highly inflated prices. (We will discuss a concrete example of this in two weeks when we explore the Whaletown Commons.) How on earth are humble Cortesians supposed to purchase these forestlands for such astronomical prices?

One option is to engage a Land Trust organization. BC has two provincial land trusts to choose from: Nature Trust and The Land Conservancy. And then there are some smaller, more localized land trusts, such as the Islands Trust. These groups raise tens of millions of dollars each year for the preservation of special areas that happen to fall on private land. But once the lands are purchased, how does a community ensure that those lands remain protected in perpetuity?

In addition to raising funds, land trusts also help with the legal process of placing conservation covenants on privately held land. A conservation covenant is when a private landowner makes a legally binding promise to protect the land in specific ways of his or her choosing. The land trust agrees to monitor the covenant and ensures that its promise is being upheld. Covenants are very flexible as to what one can specify to be protected or restricted on the land, and they are attached to the land title forever—regardless of who owns it in the future.

Or, you could do what they did on Cortes and create your very own Trust. The Forest Trust for the Children of Cortes Island was just incorporated this past summer, with the sole purpose of purchasing and protecting with covenants what is known as the Children’s Forest. This area lies at the mouth of Carrington Lagoon, adjacent to Carrington Bay Regional Park. It contains some of the only stands of old sitka spruce trees on the island. James Creek runs right through the forest and supports spawning salmon. The origin of the name comes from the area’s history of being a place where students would come and learn about forest stewardship, ecology, mushrooms, wildlife, and salmon enhancement.

Island Timberlands, to its credit, has acknowledged the uniqueness of this area and has left it off its immediate logging plans. The company has engaged in a process with the Children’s Forest Trust to allow them some time to raise the necessary funds to be able to acquire the property. The next step is to agree on a fair price—which could number in the tens of millions. If Cortes Island is going to achieve this seemingly unatainable goal, they are going to need a lot of help from the outside world.

But with just two provincial land trusts in BC, there are not a whole lot of places that they can turn to. But even if they are able to get the funds they need to save this forest, the reality is that private land trusts will never be equipped to purchase all these endangered private lands fast enough to save them from liquidation. The only organization in BC with a budget large enough to make these purchases is the provincial government.

Up until 2008 the province had a land acquisition fund. However, since the recession, a fund has not been included in the budget. That is why the Ancient Forest Alliance has authored a petition calling on the provincial government to establish a BC Park Acquisition Fund of $40 million a year—or about 0.1% of the annual provincial budget.

Over ten years this fund would add up to $400 million and could be used to purchase lands with important ecological, cultural, and recreational value, to be added to the BC parks system. The petition also points out that, “For every $1 invested by the BC government in our parks system, another $9 is generated in the provincial economy through tourism revenues.” Not to mention the ecological services that a forest provides in purifying our air and water. (We will discuss ecological services next week in Green Valley.)

There is a compelling economic argument to be made for investing in a standing forest—simply to allow it to continue doing its job as a forest. But before that can happen with the Cortes Island Children’s Forest, Island Timberlands will have to agree to sell the land at fair value. And even if that does occur, the province will have to start making the acquisition of private forestlands a priority if communities like Cortes are going to survive, let alone purchase these lands. And no matter what, the Children’s Forest Trust is going to have a huge amount of fundraising on their hands.

But perhaps most importantly, for all the land that is going to remain in the hands of the corporations, there is a need for stronger regulations and enforcement of violations on Private Managed Forestland. Sensitive ecosystems and species at risk do not understand property lines. And the long-term effects of industrial logging practices have innumerable downstream consequences for neighboring communities. So the whole argument that says, “It’s their private land, they can do whatever they want.” Well, therein lies the problem—and I don’t buy it.

Next week we will take a journey into Green Valley, a luscious, mossy valley that purifies the drinking water for the people of Cortes Island. This is the next section of forestland in Island Timberlands’ logging plans.

Tourism group set to battle Okisollo loggers and the provincial Liberals

/in /by

Tourism operators who pump millions of dollars into the local economy are preparing a campaign to save the picturesque Okisollo Channel from becoming a clearcut eyesore.

Members of the Discovery Island Marine Tourism Group say their concerns have fallen on the deaf ears of the B.C. Liberal Government and the current logging operations will harm their industry for years.

“Gee, I guess it’s time to cut down all the trees,” said Ralph Keller, a spokesman for the group, in musing about the government’s rationale for green-lighting logging.

The tourism lobby group is not against logging, Keller stated, but are opposed to the current logging plans that will ruin magnificent viewscapes and scare away tourists. Keller operates Coast Mountain Expeditions and Discovery Islands Lodge on Quadra Island.

The tourism group is specifically concerned about two new logging operations on Sonora and Maurelle Islands, flanking Hole in the Wall – one of the most scenic areas for boaters and kayakers in the Discovery Islands. One operation is on land belonging to TimberWest while the other was contracted out by BC Timber Sales.

“The government thinks it’s 1955 and the forestry industry is still king – it’s still important, but in Campbell River we’ve lost two sawmills and the pulp and paper mill,” he said.

And as the forestry industry went into decline, Keller added, the area’s fishing lodges retooled to cater to wildlife- and eco-tourism. This was done at considerable expense, but has resulted in sustained economic growth that contributes millions of dollars annually.

“With logging we’re about a few jobs and few benefits for the local economy,” he said. “The tourism industry has grown up…yet our concerns are being ignored.”

According to Keller, in 2011, a survey was conducted of 57 tourism-related businesses that operate in and around the Discovery Islands.

The survey indicated the businesses generate approximately $22.3 million in annual revenue and employ more than 600 seasonal and full-time workers.

“There is still some salmon fishing, but this is not the larger part of the local tourism economy,” said Keller. “The Discovery Islands are the second largest wilderness tourism destination in B.C. after Tofino and the Pacific Rim.”

The group met twice with Pat Bell, Minister of Jobs, Tourism, and Innovation, and thought its economic clout might interest the pro-business Liberal government. They were wrong.

 

Clearwater Valley

Protecting the Clearwater Valley would help mountain caribou recovery

/in /by

IF WE CAN’T maintain a viable mountain caribou herd in a vast protected area like Wells Gray Provincial Park, then what hope is there of doing so elsewhere?

That’s my question for Canfor, the corporate giant now ramping up to “salvage log” hundreds of hectares of mature and old-growth forest near the southern and western boundaries of Wells Gray, two hours north of Kamloops.

Clearcut logging in the Clearwater Valley will inevitably create winter forage favourable to deer and moose. As these animals increase in numbers, so will their main predators, cougars and especially wolves. This is hardly good news for the mountain caribou that make their home in the park’s high-elevation old-growth forests a few kilometres distant.

Government biologists are well aware that past logging just outside the park is largely to blame for a recent collapse of the south Wells Gray herd. Ten years ago this herd numbered about 325 animals. Today only about 200 are left, down by about one-third.

Clearcut logging exposes the mountain caribou to levels of predation they did not evolve with and are unable to adapt to. Compounding the problem is a low reproductive rate, a mature cow caribou giving birth to only one calf every two years. Clearly it doesn’t take much to tip these animals toward extinction.

The flow of cause and effect could hardly be more straightforward: clearcuts support more moose and deer, more moose and deer support more top predators, more top predators roam in greater numbers into nearby protected areas, and then mountain caribou decline. Or to simplify, the more adjacent clearcuts we create, the more rapidly the mountain caribou disappears.

Clearly this is not the time to lobby the B.C. government for management decisions certain to bolster predator populations in Wells Gray area. Canfor’s Vavenby planner Dave Dobi acknowledged as much at a public meeting about a year ago, but is proceeding with his plans nonetheless. At the same meeting he also made clear his company’s intention eventually to log the entire Clearwater Valley. Whatever timber Canfor has a legal right to log, it will log.

Such a statement is hard to reconcile with sentiments recently expressed by Canfor CEO and president Don Kayne, who in a letter to the Vancouver Sun asserted that Canfor “will not support actions that impact parks or critical habitat for species at risk”. One can’t help feeling that Kayne would be appalled if he knew what his Vavenby planner was up. To be implicated in the decline of a nationally threatened animal like the mountain caribou surely can’t be good for business.

In 2002, the mountain caribou was designated as nationally threatened. Its global range lies almost exclusively within British Columbia. Decisions being made in B.C. today will have long-term implications for its future viability. Already the province’s southern herds are blinking out—sustained entirely by predator culls and other costly, dubiously effective forms of life support.

Best science identifies Wells Gray Park as one of only two regions where the mountain caribou might reasonably be expected to persist into the long term, in a human-dominated world. (The other area is the Hart Ranges in the far north of the range.) This makes it imperative that the Wells Gray herd receive special attention now, before it’s too late.

This returns me to my opening question: If we can’t maintain a viable mountain caribou herd in a vast wilderness park like Wells Gray, then what hope is there of doing so elsewhere?

In its Mountain Caribou Recovery Implementation Plan, announced in 2008, the B.C. government placed 2.2 million hectares of prime high-elevation winter caribou habitat off limits to logging. Clearly this isn’t working; it’s not enough. For recovery to take place, we also need to refrain from creating additional pressure from predators by logging at lower elevations just outside their key habitat. Areas like the Clearwater Valley.

The Wells Gray World Heritage Committee (WHC) recently challenged the B.C. government to help make Wells Gray Park ecologically self-sustaining by adjusting its boundaries southward. This has been done twice in the past: once in the mid ’50s, and again in the mid ’90s.

The habitat needs of mountain caribou played a major role in both decisions. Protecting a small area adjacent to the park would be a huge step to recovery for the Wells Gray herd.

As an interim measure, WHC is also calling upon B.C. minister of environment Terry Lake to establish a moratorium on industrial logging in the Clearwater Valley. For more information, or to help, please visit the WHC website.
 

Link to online article: https://www.straight.com/news/351556/trevor-goward-protecting-clearwater-valley-would-help-mountain-caribou-recovery

The last of BC's old-growth forest continues to be targeted by logging companies like this example on southern Vancouver Island.

Forest policy must change, forum hears

/in /by

B.C. forests are in crisis for a multitude of reasons and politicians of all parties must be held to account in the spring election, a union-led forest forum heard Wednesday night.

“We’re all here tonight because we care about the future of our forests,” said Brenda Brown, a vice-president of the BCGEU and a resident of Quesnel, hit hard by the industry difficulties of the past decade. “We care about the future of our families and about the future of our communities.”

Brown said logging trucks leave the community filled with raw logs for export.

“We’re tired of being told that everything is great in the forest while logs are shipped overseas.”

Jointly organized by the B.C. Federation of Labour, BCGEU, United Steelworkers and CEP, the forum stopped in Kamloops as part of an eight-community tour.

“We’re working with all politicians, all candidates, all parties, to address the issues,” said BCGEU co-ordinator Carol Adams.

All candidates were invited, but only NDP nominees Tom Friedman and Kathy Kendall attended, along with about 30 others, including mill workers and retired forest service employees. They were shown a short video about Mackenzie, a northern town that has suffered greatest losses through the crisis. A panel then sought to put the issues into local perspectives.

Policy analyst Eric Hamilton-Smith said there is growing pressure to log marginal forest — including old growth — to compensate for the shortfall due to mountain pine beetle. He also pointed to increased volumes of waste wood, policies absolving companies from having to build mills in communities and a draft policy to convert forest licences into tree farm licences.

If government were serious about developing secondary manufacturing in the sector, it could create tens of thousands of jobs, he said.

Rick Turner of the Council of Canadians said he saw life sucked out of Barriere due to forest policy changes when he lived there. Students used to skip class to work a shift at a mill.

“Policies have change and, in effect, one-third of those guys aren’t there anymore.”

Biodiversity should be a priority and the general public needs to stand together with First Nations to demand sounder forest management, said Skeetchestn Chief Ron Ignace.

“I call upon you and I implore you not to fear us but to stand with us,” Ignace said.

A Domtar worker, Charlie Fraser, said he watched the Mission Flats sawmill dismantled and shipped overseas a few years ago. Now the pulp mill’s about to let go of another 107 workers.

“We’ve been in discussions with the employer, who could care less about people,” he said. “All they care about is the bottom line.”

Participants broke up into tables to come up with three priorities for change.

“It goes round and round,” said Bob Gray, a semi-retired forest service employee. “Everything’s been tried.” Yet he feels government must be made responsible again for reforestation.

“By virtue of you not having that obligation to reforest, that tells me you’re not managing.”

There was also agreement about a need to restore community input in forest management decisions.

online article: https://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/20130214/KAMLOOPS0101/130219937/-1/kamloops01/forest-policy-must-change-forum-hears

Ancient Forest Alliance

Environmentalists look to insert Great Bear Rainforest into B.C. election agenda

/in /by

VICTORIA — An environmental coalition will Thursday attempt to push protection of the Great Bear Rainforest onto the already crowded election agenda, issuing open letters to B.C.’s main political leaders, calling for more immediate action.

“The people of British Columbia want the Great Bear Rainforest agreements completed,” said letters sent by the coalition to Premier Christy Clark and New Democratic Party leader Adrian Dix.

“We are asking your party to include the completion of the Great Bear Rainforest Agreements in your platform and priorities for the first 100 days after the election.”

The letters were written by the Rainforest Solutions Project, who have been working for years with the forest industry to implement an agreement to protect a massive temperate rainforest on B.C.’s coast. The letters come on the seven-year anniversary of that agreement, signed in 2006 by then-premier Gordon Campbell.

Negotiations have been unfolding since, with land use orders signed by government in 2009 to go from 50 per cent protection of old growth in the area to 70 per cent by March 31, 2014.

Last month, the environmental coalition behind today’s letters — comprising ForestEthics Solutions, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club — expressed significant frustration, saying the forest industry has not been moving quickly enough.

“We have worked with logging companies on finding solutions how to increase conservation but it’s incredibly difficult,” Jens Wieting, a campaigner for Sierra Club BC, said in an interview Wednesday.

“What we would like to see is the government do what government’s are there for, which is to solve problems,” he added, calling on government to push for a solution.

A major block in negotiations is balancing the target of preserving 70 per cent of the rainforest’s old growth with an agreement to allow an annual timber harvest of 2.7 million cubic metres of logs.

On Wednesday, Minister of Forests Steve Thomson said he believes the parties are on track to meet the 2014 deadline, and said he saw no reason to commit to an earlier timeline.

“I think setting a specific timeline beyond what we’ve agreed to currently will set some expectations we may not be able to achieve.”

The call for more immediate action comes as several other special interest groups are also hoping to get their issues on the agenda for the election in May.

Within just the last week, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has called on government to raise and reform taxes, the Climate Justice Project has sought to draw attention to the issue of climate change, and the Canadian Bar Association has called for a major overhaul to improve the province’s justice system.

Wieting acknowledged his organization is entering a crowded field, but said a poll commissioned by the coalition proves the Great Bear Rainforest is an issue that resonates across the province.

Conducted by Justason Market Intelligence between January 25 to February 1, that poll found 68 per cent of people fell it important that “the BC government fulfil all elements of (the Great Bear Rainforest Agreement) before the upcoming provincial election in May.”

“We know that whoever is in the next government will be faced with very difficult questions,” he said. “This one should be a clear ‘yes’ because British Columbians care about this; people around the world care about it.”

The poll has a four percentage point margin of error, 95 per cent of the time.

Rick Jeffrey, president of the Coastal Forest Products Association and chief industry negotiator, said a deal is “doable”, and that he does not think the issue should be pushed onto the campaign trail.

“We’re working very hard and diligently with the coast forest initiative companies and Rainforest Solutions Project on a solution set,” he said.

“We think there’s a high degree of likelihood we’re going to achieve success, and once we achieve that success we’ll present the plan to government and we’ll encourage government to implement the plan.”

Read more: https://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Environmentalists+look+insert+Great+Bear+Rainforest+into+election+agenda/7929901/story.html#ixzz2KMtiaRa6

Letters: B.C. forests, Steve Thomson, Ben Parfitt, Bob Simpson…

/in /by

Minister’s account is ‘pure fiction’ 

In response to Ben Parfitt’s op-ed about the B.C. Liberals’ intention to introduce legislation to rollover replaceable volume-based timber licenses to area-based tenures, the forests minister claims as a “fact” that the legislation stems from a recommendation from the special committee on timber supply that toured B.C. last summer.

That is pure fiction.

According to a leaked cabinet document, the “rollover” of volume-based licenses to area-based tenures was recommended to cabinet in April as an option to enable the rebuilding of the Burns Lake sawmill — a month before the committee was formed and five months before it made its recommendations public.

The committee did not “in fact” recommend the conversion of volume-based licenses to area-based tenures. Rather, it gave significant and thoughtful cautionary recommendations “if conversion to more area-based tenures is desirable.” The committee found there is still no consensus on the relative merits of area-based tenures and significant concern about the potential privatization of our largest public asset.

The minister also gave Hampton Affiliates a “letter of intent” in September committing to the conversion of this U.S. company’s volume licenses to area-based tenures — a full month before he publicly released a response to the committee’s recommendations.

The fact is: the Liberals were on the rollover path long before any public process.

Enabling legislation will not guarantee in law any defined public process in the rollover decisions. It is used to give politicians “flexibility” to take actions without the constraints of law or guiding regulations. Used inappropriately, it can be a very “sneaky” instrument indeed.

We must oppose giving politicians the unfettered right to radically alter forest tenures or to privatize our public forests. I certainly intend to do that in this upcoming session. It would be nice to know if the NDP will join me in this fight.

Bob Simpson, MLA, Cariboo North

 

Prove me wrong

Forests Minister Steve Thomson takes issue with the “highly speculative” nature of my recent op-ed in which I suggest that the provincial government intends to grant cabinet open-ended powers to give forest companies de facto control of public forestlands.

He does not quibble with the fact that legislation is, in fact, coming, but says that government will be open and accountable by “ensuring” that the public is consulted.

But will public consultation be enshrined in law? That’s the question. If Mr. Thomson wishes to end speculation that the interests of First Nations, communities and other stakeholders could be circumvented in the upcoming bill, he should simply publish the contemplated legislation. I would consider it a public service and a small price to pay to be proven wrong.

Ben Parfitt, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Link to online article: https://blogs.theprovince.com/2013/01/30/letters-b-c-forests-steve-thomson-ben-parfitt-bob-simpson-post-office-sun-media-protesters-public-sector-pensions/

Forests Minister Steve Thomson

Response to Minister Thomson – The Real Facts about the Proposed Tenure Legislation

/in /by

In response to Ben Parfitt’s op-ed about the B.C. Liberals’ intention to introduce legislation to rollover replaceable volume-based timber licenses to area-based tenures, the forests minister claims as a “fact” that the legislation stems from a recommendation from the special committee on timber supply that toured B.C. last summer.

That is pure fiction.

According to a leaked cabinet document, the “rollover” of volume-based licenses to area-based tenures was recommended to cabinet in April as an option to enable the rebuilding of the Burns Lake sawmill — a month before the committee was formed and five months before it made its recommendations public.

The committee did not “in fact” recommend the conversion of volume-based licenses to area-based tenures. Rather, it gave significant and thoughtful cautionary recommendations “if conversion to more area-based tenures is desirable.” The committee found there is still no consensus on the relative merits of area-based tenures and significant concern about the potential privatization of our largest public asset.

The minister also gave Hampton Affiliates a “letter of intent” in September committing to the conversion of this U.S. company’s volume licenses to area-based tenures — a full month before he publicly released a response to the committee’s recommendations.

The fact is: the Liberals were on the rollover path long before any public process.

Enabling legislation will not guarantee in law any defined public process in the rollover decisions. It is used to give politicians “flexibility” to take actions without the constraints of law or guiding regulations. Used inappropriately, it can be a very “sneaky” instrument indeed.

We must oppose giving politicians the unfettered right to radically alter forest tenures or to privatize our public forests. I certainly intend to do that in this upcoming session. It would be nice to know if the NDP will join me in this fight.

[Original Bob Simpson article no longer available]

Much of Vancouver Island's second-growth forest is being logged quickly and shipped out of BC as raw logs instead of being processed and manufactured at local mills.

Privatizing Our Public Forests

/in /by

Although the timber supply does not exist to allow the Burns Lake sawmill to be rebuilt without negatively affecting other mills, communities, and jobs on Highway 16, the government has chosen to ignore this reality and appears intent on getting the Burns Lake mill rebuilt at any cost.

“Any cost” includes the commitment to introduce legislation this spring that will enable Cabinet to give Hampton Affiliates, an American company, exclusive rights over specific areas of our public forests in the Lakes Timber Supply Area in a manner that will open the door to the broad-scale privatization of our public forests.

In their dying days, the BC Liberals will introduce enabling legislation that will allow politicians to give forest companies exclusive rights over our public forests without the checks and balances of governing laws or regulations, or the guaranteed scrutiny of a transparent public process.

The Social Credit Party attempted a similar “rollover” of replaceable volume-based licenses to area-based tenures in 1988. The Socred Forests Minister of the day estimated their legislation would put over 60 percent of BC’s public forests under the exclusive control of private companies. The NDP Forest Critic at the time dubbed the legislation “privatization on a massive scale,” and it was squashed by significant public backlash.

Twenty-five years later, our forests are under assault by pests, disease, and fire. As the Auditor General pointed out, we have an appallingly weak forest inventory. And only a few large companies now hold replaceable volume-based timber licenses. Yet with the BC Liberal Party on the verge of losing the May election, they’re going to ram legislation through the BC Legislature that will do what Social Credit could not obtain the social licence to do in 1988.

As last summer’s Timber Supply Committee found out, the social licence still doesn’t exist to support the wholesale rollover of renewable forest licenses to area-based tenures. That’s why the Committee did not recommend this action. Instead, it gave some cautionary provisos to government for consideration “if conversion to more area-based tenures is desirable.”

I plan to oppose this legislation when it is introduced this spring. We’ll be posting more information this week to our website so you can learn more about the significant implications of this change to our public forest tenure system. Then, decide for yourself whether it ought to be supported or opposed.

Link to Bob Simpson’s online article: https://www.bobsimpsonmla.ca/privatizing-our-public-forests/