Confidential report warns pine beetle set to destroy B.C. forestry jobs

The full, devastating impact of the pine-beetle epidemic that has swept across British Columbia will be felt in the next few years when up to half the forest-industry jobs in the province’s interior will vanish, according to a government report meant to be confidential.

You can download the report here (other sources of the report: The Globe and Mail, internal)

The document, a briefing report for the provincial Forests minister, was inadvertently posted on the internet. It gives details on the unfolding timber supply crisis that threatens “the short and medium-term sustainability” of communities that have depended on logging for generations.

• Confidential report warns pine beetle set to destroy B.C. forestry jobs (The Globe and Mail, Mark Hume)

• A Shocking Glimpse of BC's New Forest Plan (The Tyee, Ben Parfitt)

• Government’s Unpublished Mid-Term Timber Supply Report Available Here (Bob Simpson)

• Power Grab Eyed by Clark Gov't to Set Logging Levels (The Tyee, Ben Parfitt)

• B.C. plan would open Interior’s protected woods for logging (The Globe and Mail, Mark Hume)

• Leaked Cabinet document reveals how far government was willing to go (Bob Simpson)

The Government of British Columbia: Mid-Term Timber Supply Project

In response to concerns expressed by local communities, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations staff have been analyzing potential opportunities to increase timber supply.

August 15, 2012:
The Special Committee on Timber Supply: Committee recommends measures to increase timber supply
For a detailed report on responses to the Committee recommendations can be read here...

October 2012:

Letter from Steve Thomson, BC’s Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations regarding timber supply action plan

Two answer letters:

One from Dr. Fred Bunnell, a world renowned conservation biologist:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Provincial+timber+policy+lacks+relevant+data/7386407/story.html

And this one from Ed Mankelow: 

http://www.timescolonist.com/Logging+growth+step+backward/7386190/story.html

Ed Mankelow has been involved in B.C. parks protection and establishment since 1961. He was the chair for many years of the B.C. Wildlife Federation’s parks committee and past chair of the Canadian Wildlife Federation’s parks committee. His role has always been to protect the parks and wilderness. 

Both writers are responding to the government's response to the report of the Special Committee on Timber Supply -- here is the link: www.gov.bc.ca/pinebeetle

Anthony Britneff gave an interview to discuss overcutting issues in BC:

The BC government says it is opening the door to the idea of logging old-growth forests to help boost timber supply. Forests Minister Steve Thomson insists any decision to cut would be based on science and would only be done if consensus was reached from all members of the community. As many as eight sawmills face closure as the timber supply grows thin. Examining the old-growth potential in central BC is just one of several actions the province plans to take.
For reaction to the government's plans we have reached Anthony Britneff. He is a retired professional forester who spent 40 years with the BC forest service, where he held a number of senior positions. He is still a registered professional forester in Victoria, where we have reached him at his home this morning.

Read further here...

• Manage forests for the future
• Long-term plan needed for B.C.'s forests
• Wisconsin tribe has much to teach us

January/February  2013:

Ben Parfitt: Sneaky Liberals are planning a B.C. forest giveaway

Given the short duration of the upcoming legislative session and the provincial election to follow, a government plan to introduce a scant two-paragraph bill granting it powers to fundamentally alter the course of forestry in B.C. is disturbing, to say the least.

According to several sources who have been briefed on the legislation, the bill would give the provincial cabinet powers to grant forest companies de facto private control over public forestlands without first having to notify or consult with the public.

Instead of companies enjoying rights to log set volumes of trees on public forestlands, companies would gain dramatically expanded powers to log trees on defined areas that in effect become their own semi-private fiefdoms.

The bill follows a year in which the government has faced mounting criticism over a forest-health crisis due to decades of over-cutting and an unprecedented mountain pine beetle attack. Numerous sawmills now face closure, with all the hardships that portends for many rural communities.

It also follows the losses of sawmills in Burns Lake and Prince George due to explosions and ensuing fires. In the wake of those events, various government documents were leaked indicating that the provincial government was revisiting a controversial “rollover” idea first pursued 25 years ago. At that time it met with such a groundswell of political and public opposition that the initiative was scuttled.

Then-provincial forest critic and MLA for Prince Rupert, Dan Miller, called it “privatization on a massive scale” and warned: “Never before in the history of the province has this kind of giveaway been contemplated.”

Read further here...

---------------------

MInister Steve Thomson: Nothing sneaky here

I'm writing in response to Ben Parfitt's speculative and misleading Jan. 27 op-ed about upcoming proposed forestry legislation.

Here are the facts: On Aug. 15, the bipartisan committee on timber supply released its unanimous report after visiting 15 communities and reviewing over 650 submissions. One of its recommendations was to enable the conversion of volume-based forest licences to area-based forest licences.

On Oct. 9, I released Beyond the Beetle: A Mid-Term Timber Supply Action Plan - the government's response to the report, which contains the commitment to introduce legislation and states, "one requirement for any proposed conversion will be ensuring that the public interest is addressed, through the support of the local community, First Nations, stakeholders and the public."

To reiterate: a public commitment in response to a public report, with public consultation needed before implementation - certainly not sneaky in my books.

Steve Thomson, minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources

--------------------

Letters published:

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