Old large stump from bygone harvest looks down on present offerings |
The BC Legislative Special Committee on Timber Supply
is trying to seek solutions to impending declines in timber supply. Forest
dependent communities around BC will suffer. Given that BC is suffering
sustainability problems, it would seem logical to examine the wisdom of our
arrangements for sustainable forest management.
Sustainable forest management is the central issue but
the issue is being obscured in public relations gloss and outright deluded
thinking. Most forest companies operating in public forests have had their
operations certified under one of several sustainable forest management
certification schemes. Most of these certifications provide a stamp to improve
the marketability of wood products. None
of these certification schemes examines or questions the quality of the legal
and institutional arrangements that a jurisdiction makes for sustainable forest
management. Some major problems have slipped under their radar.
But what about the mountain pine beetle epidemic? The
climate change tune that has been played at high volume on the amplifier is
perhaps the greatest delusion. Yes, mountain pine beetles survive better in
mild winters, but they have survived in BC for a long time because BC's
proximity to the Pacific Ocean can moderate winter temperatures. Things are
seldom simple in forest management and more than one factor is usually
involved. A major factor is that Lodge Pole Pine becomes susceptible to attack
by mountain pine beetle at about 80 years old. BC's system of forest management
encouraged huge areas of Lodge Pole Pine to become old and ripe for a super
epidemic. The super epidemic has wasted about $100 Billion worth of public
resources. BC residents usually get up in arms about even minor waste of public
funds or resources. We get excited about wasting a drop in the bucket but the
public relations people have managed to fly this really big bucket under the
radar.
What is the problem with BC's existing legal and
institutional arrangements for forest management? They are not really arrangements for forest
stewardship but arrangements or rights to harvest public timber. They are conceived as a Public Timber Take
Out. Yes, you have to reforest and meet
a considerable number of requirements before you can harvest, but building
forest stewardship arrangements around rights to harvest means you are going to
get exploitation perhaps obscured by a facade of extras. The extras may give
you enough brownie points to get some sustainable forest management stamp on
your timber. The certification will not do much good if you do not have enough
timber to stamp.
BC's Timber Take Out was operated with leniency. The
best most profitable timber went out the door first. This means that forest
operations will become less profitable when the best is gone. This was the
problem in the coastal forest industry. In the interior of BC, less desirable
Lodge Pole Pine was left to get old and susceptible to mountain pine beetle.
Government aided in the aging process by suppressing fires that would have
naturally recycled old pine stands.
The Special Committee on Timber Supply seems to be in
the position of "Old Mother Hubbard" with bare shelves and little
room for maneuver. Will it try to solve the problem by recommending further
leniency that may damage the forest environment, and just postpone the day of
reckoning?
Timber is a major driver in the BC economy. We see
forests as timber and therefore dollars. It is not just about timber supply at
the BC Timber Take Out. The committee will do greatest service to affected
communities if it considers the "maintenance and enhancement of long term
multiple socio- economic benefits of the forest." This is Criterion 6 of
the Montreal Process, the international agreement and comprehensive standard on
sustainable forest management. Work through it and look for opportunities,
solutions and effective recommendations:
Value and volume of wood and wood products
production, including value added through downstream processing.
Value come first but the
committee is focused on volume of wood for commodity wood products
manufacturers favored by BC's Timber Take Out. Increasing value could save many
jobs or even increase jobs in affected communities. The allocation of most of
BC's public timber to commodity wood processors in a non market system of
administrative prices restricts the availability of timber to value added
manufacturers and acts against diversification.
In addition, the non market system makes BC's wood products vulnerable
to discriminatory export tariffs and taxes and removes value. Local forests should be managed as forest
businesses selling wood on an open market. This will create conditions that
will foster increased value in the long term while enabling existing
manufacturers to purchase timber.
Value and quantities of production of non-wood
forest products
Forest companies that
presently share forest management with Government and do most of the
operational planning and activities are only concerned with these as a
constraint or a nuisance. Yes, timber is likely to remain the largest economic
ticket item, but these offer additional economic activity for pressed forest
dependent communities. Active management in conjunction with timber planning
would be most effective if handled by an independent local forest manager charged
with the management of the full natural capital of the forest landscape.
Recreation and Tourism, the nature based non
consumptive forest economy
This is the BC's greatest
non-timber forest economic opportunity. The area of forest that can be devoted
to this economic opportunity is greater than the area of forest in BC that can
be harvested. We need to stop thinking about protected areas or parks and the
areas in working forest landscapes that cannot be harvested as some sort of
economic impediment. Local forest management under trust arrangements requiring planning and management could
realize the full economic potential of the natural capital in forest landscapes.
Investment is required to develop these opportunities. Small investments in
local hiking trails and recreational facilities are more likely to preserve the
natural capital while generating income. Switzerland has generated a huge
nature based economy with much less natural capital in forests and mountains
than BC.
Investment in the Forest Sector
BC has employed leniency at
the Public Timber Take Out to encourage investment. It worked initially to get
commodity wood processing plants built after WWII. After the initial
exploitation of the best timber, you come to the less profitable timber and
ongoing investment is less attractive. In exchange for rights to harvest,
government has relied on forest company expenditure to re-forest harvested
areas. Unfortunately, the Government had no such contractual arrangements with
mountain pine beetles and re-foresting areas killed by the beetles is a
problem. Revenue from public forests goes into general BC Government Revenue
where other demands remove funds that should have been returned for necessary
forest maintenance. A devolved local forest trust operating as a business would
return income directly to forest stewardship and be more inclined to manage the
local forest for balanced long term profitability compared to boom and bust
under the present arrangements.
The Montreal Process outlines other items that would
help to improve economic sustainability in forest dependent communities that
will be affected by declining timber harvests. Few if any of the potential opportunities
can be realized if BC persists in its existing Public Timber Take Out
arrangements for forest management. In 1909, a BC Royal Commission on forests
reminded legislators that their main responsibility was to ensure wise
arrangements for forest management in order to produce the outcome of
sustainable forest communities and a healthy forest sector. BC Legislators
failed in the 20th Century, and hopefully this present committee will have the
sense to replace the present unwise arrangements with a new, wise arrangements.
Under Canada's constitution, BC will always retain authority over
its public lands and forests. However, legislators should consider delegating
and devolving some of the responsibility for forest policy and management. Some
new institutions are needed. A BC Forest Trust Assembly could act as the main
central forest policy an support agency. It would be directed by elected and
professional delegates from local forest trusts. The local forest trust would
be the building block of new arrangements. The local forest trust would involve
a relatively large area of local forest landscape that is large enough to be a
self supporting forest business enterprise. It would have board elected on a
ward system from communities and rural areas in the vicinity and professional
staff. The local forest would be managed under trust agreements that requires
sustainable management of the full natural capital of the local forest
landscape. Timber would be sold on an open market and revenue from sales would
cover the expenses of forest stewardship. It would be audited and supported by
the BC forest trust assembly.
A devolved system with Local Forest Trusts and a BC
Forest Trust Assembly would give BC residents independent, accountable
democratic management of their public forests. It is a business, free enterprise
model that will encourage diversity in wood products manufacture, expand the
non timber and nature based forest economy, cover forest stewardship expenses
while reducing the vulnerability of BC wood products to discriminatory export
tariffs and taxes. The new trust institutions will ensure that public forest is
not subject into enclosure by private interests.