By Peter Ewart

On March 4th, after repeated delays over the last year, Steve Thomson, the Minister of Forests, once again assured the BC Legislature Estimates Committee that the government will be initiating a “public consultation process” on the government’s proposed move to area-based forest tenure (including the controversial Tree Farm Licenses).  When will this precisely happen?  “In the near future,” the minister said.  And thus the fog hanging over this issue persists, although some faint outlines are beginning to emerge.

Norm Macdonald, NDP Forest critic, asked Minister Thomson to confirm that the reason for the repeated postponements of public consultation was because the backroom lobbying for Tree Farm License (TFLs) rollovers by the Minister and his staff with special interest groups in the forest industry had not gone well.  And, furthermore, that these special interest groups, like the general public, had “deep-rooted concerns about the policy agenda of the government towards further privatization of the rights to public timber on Crown land.”

Minister Thomson responded by disagreeing with Macdonald’s characterization that the government was simply pushing the TFL rollover concept.  He argued that TFLs were just “one of the tools in the toolbox to help address mid-term timber supply in the future” and seemed to be agreeing with the 2012 Special Committee on Timber Supply recommendation that the government look at “the diversity of area-based tenures,” which presumably would include community forests, First Nations Woodland Licenses (FNWLs) and other area-based forms.  This apparent broader scope expressed by the minister contrasts sharply with the government’s  much narrower Bill 8 legislation put forward last year which featured TFLs as the preferred area-based option and which was subsequently withdrawn because of widespread public opposition.

But is this broader scope just an attempt by the government to sweeten the TFL stew pot with a sprinkling of community forests, FNWLs, and other area-based forms?  It remains to be seen.

In any case, Minister Thomson was somewhat more specific about what the proposed public consultation will involve.  He explained that the consultation would involve not only the attributes of area-based management, but also how this area-based management would be implemented and what criteria would be utilized to ensure that options meet community, public, stakeholder and First Nations interests.

However, the Minister continued to remain vague about the supposed evidence showing that TFL area-based forest management in BC is any better than the forest management of existing Timber Supply Areas, in terms of average investment per hectare and intensified silviculture (resulting in more timber supply in the future).  This was a question repeatedly raised during the Special Committee on Timber Supply hearings of 2012, as well as in Estimates Committee debates in the summer of 2013.

At first, the Minister responded with anecdotal information about the positive results from the West Fraser and Dunkley TFLs, claiming that empirical evidence was available in certain studies although he did not appear to be able to specify which particular ones.  The Opposition countered that negative examples could easily be found in other TFLs in the province and that cherry-picking results was not good research.   Later in the summer, in the face of a barrage of questioning about these alleged studies, Minister Thomson admitted in writing that “the ministry has no direct means of recording or comparing silviculture investments on area-based tenures to those on volume-based tenures.  There is little difference in the intensity of management between area and volume-based tenures.”

In the Estimates Committee meeting on March 4 of this year, Norm Macdonald asked whether this lack of evidence will be made clear to the public during the upcoming consultation process.  The Minister was again vague, replying that the process “will have extensive information and will have the evidence on a publicly available website.” 

It is clear that in order to consider what could amount to a major restructuring of forest tenure in the province, independent and credible research must be provided, including any evidence from past practice in British Columbia that shows TFLs result in (or do not result in) better forest management. 

However, there is a larger question about which full information must also be provided.  And that is: What other effects could increasing the number of TFLs have on the forests and the development and diversification of the forest industry as a whole,  given that a rollover to TFLs will likely result in even vaster timber holdings being locked up for a long time in quasi-privatizations by a few big companies, most of which will be multinationals? 

And the most crucial question.  What types of forest tenure will best serve all sectors of the forest industry while ensuring that the forests are kept, to the greatest degree, a publicly-owned resource?

Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia.  He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca