250 News - Your News, Your Views, Now

October 28, 2017 10:41 am

Widespread Outcry Urged On TFL Rollover

Saturday, April 12, 2014 @ 4:16 PM

Crowd gathers at CNC for community forum on proposed changes to BC's forest tenure     250News photo

Prince George, BC – Retired professional forester, Anthony Britneff, says only widespread outcry and 'your hard-nosed resistance' will stop the provincial government's proposed switch from volume-based forest licences to tree farm licences (TFLs).

"Is area-based management preferable to volume-based management? In my opinion, absolutely – in theory," says the former bureaucrat-turned-policy analyst.  "But tree farm licences are not the way to go.  There are other options for area-based management that can keep your forests public without tenure."

Speaking at a community forum organized by the group, Stand Up for the North, and sponsored by local unions and labour groups, Britneff has told the crowd of mill workers, forest workers, and city residents there's nothing subtle about the government's strategy for further privatization of public forests.

On April 1st, the Ministry of Forest, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations announced it would be seeking public input on the proposed TFL rollover.  (click here, for previous story)  "Just as many of you predicted, the government's process is not consultation at all," he says, "But simply a process to get public feedback on what it intends to do – which is to rollover the replaceable forest licences into TFLs."

Britneff says the proposal is the culmination of a 'perfect storm' of government mismanagement that started to unfold in 2001, just as the largest climate change event in the province's history – the mountain pine epidemic – began to affect the forest economy.

Pointing to the government's deregulation of parts of the Forest Act requiring it to maintain the forest inventory and a decade of deep budget cuts to everything from the BC Forest Service, to reforestation, to pest management, the former senior government forester says we're in the eye.

"With forest management of public forests in British Columbia rendered dysfunctional, and with most of the interior communities of forest workers and contractors in a state of shock from the beetle epidemic, the stage is ripe for the final step in privatization – the coup d'etat – that is, to pass enabling legislation to rollover replaceable forest licences into tree farm licences."

Britneff says the government claims to have spent just under $1-billion dollars in mitigating the environmental and economic impacts of the mountain pine beetle.  "So where is the plan?  Where was the plan when the Houston mill went down?  Where was the plan when the Quesnel mill went down and where was the plan when some of you lost your jobs?"

"You tell me why companies that close mills and lay off hundreds of workers should even be allowed to keep their replaceable forest licences, never mind roll them over into tree farm licences."

The retired forester disputes government claims that TFLs will increase the timber supply, saying the government's own senior manager responsible for timber supply has advised, in writing, that moving to TFLs within the mountain pine beetle zone will result in an overall reduction in supply.  He also dismisses assertions TFL holders take on more responsibility for forest management.  "The government still pays for forest inventories, reforestation through stumpage deduction, road and bridge building through stumpage deduction, fighting wildfire when adjacent Crown land and private property is threatened – so, precisely, what additional cost responsibilities does the TFL holder take on?"

Of further concern to the Interior, Britneff says, is that the mid-term timber supply is being over-harvested and the lion's share of the Not Satisfactorily Restocked (NSR) forestland in BC is in the mountain pine beetle zone.  He cites reports from the Forest Practise Board, stating in the Prince George Timber Supply Area in 2012, 125-percent of the sub-partition for spruce leading stands was harvested and it's estimated that over 180-percent will be harvested in 2013-14.  Of the non-pine partition in the Morice Timber Supply Area, 185-percent was harvested in 2012-13, and the Forest Practises Board estimates 200-percent will be harvested in 2013-14.  "That," says Britneff, "Is your mid-term timber supply."

"If you are to survive the government's self-created 'storm of mismanagement', coupled with the ongoing impact of climate change, then you will need to demand change." Britneff recommends:

  • calling on the chief forester to immediately reduce the annual allowable cut throughout the mountain pine beetle zone
  • taking back volumes as replaceable licences expire
  • a new model of forest governance where local communities and First Nations have jurisdiction over public forest
  • becoming truly sustainable by repealing provincial forest laws and replacing them with legislation that aligns with nationally and internationally-recognized criteria for sustainability
  • creating an open and honest provincial log market, administered regionally, to ensure local timber for local mills and local jobs

Bretneff says the concept of 'Local Forest Trusts', is one that has been put forward by retired forester, Andrew Mitchell, at www.greenbccommunities.com.  It involves devolving jurisdiction over local Crown forests to local trustees, with oversight by a provincial forest trust assembly.  In response to a question from the crowd, Bretneff says the concept is not to be confused with local community forests, where there's some good work being done on ecosystem management, but it's only a small piece of the pie – two-percent of the province's cut.  There are no such trusts in BC, but he says there are examples in Scandinavia.

In closing, Britneff has urged those in attendance to make their voices 'loud and clear' on the the government's proposed rollover.  "After you leave this meeting, I encourage you to re-group and discuss alternative models of governance that will keep your forests public and sustainable, and your communities resilient to climate change and to an unstable global financial system."

"As the late reggae singer, Bob Marley, says 'You never know how strong you are until being strong is your only choice.'  Go for it, you have no other choice if you want to take control."

Tomorrow, Britneff will deliver his message in Mackenzie, as Stand Up for the North hosts a second public forum on the issue at the Mackenzie Recreation Centre between 1pm and 4pm.

 

 

Comments

Government has already given the forest companies 1 billion in regulatory changes in 2001and what happened to the promised billion dollar investment companies committed> answer Canfor and west Fraser jumped to buy Mills in the USA.They have had control for the passed 14 years and the results are 23 mills closed over cutting and no idea of what the long term timber supple looks like. So giving them even more will not fix the problem only mean more control from investment groups that don’t care about communities or workers its profit today screw tomorrow.

I listened to his lecture. That is what it was, a lecture. It was not objectively informative. It was a very subjective, one-sided viewpoint. Other than a couple of people in the audience, no one dared to address his argument. That was not the place to debate the issues. The issues need to be debated, but not in that kind of forum which shuns informed debate.

Canada’s forests, and by that I mean the true, all-encompassing meaning of the word forest, not just the fibre content of the forests, are under the jurisdiction of the provincial crowns. Forest tenure, thus can vary from province to province, and it does.
Area-based tenure agreements are used in Ontario, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Volume-based agreements are used in Manitoba, Quebec, Yukon, and Northwest Territories.
Both are used in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia.
So that the fear is that BC might be moving to solely an area based tenure system to match that of Ontario, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

If that is so, would a reasonable approach not be to see how the other provinces are doing in order to determine which, if any, of the tenure systems is the best?

I think too many people are getting confused with the effect of the MPB and the effect of modernization of the manufacturing of goods which, in most cases, has led to reduction of workers and an increase of the productivity of the process. The first is a natural disaster; the second progress in human capacity to produce goods and services which has been going on for many thousands of years.

By a show of hands, at least half the audience worked in the mills, with only a few working in the woodland operations of the licensees. The question of how many were working in the knowledge industry for the ministry, forestry consultants, etc. was not asked. In my humble opinion, it is the latter two groups who would actually have the most knowledge about the topic of tenure and the greatest effect on making whichever system is in place work to the best of their ability. In fact, one professional forester got up to basically state that they are doing the best they can. It is not as bad as the speaker suggests. Mike Nash, a member of the Forest Practices Board also had to make a correction to the type of work the Board actually does that does while working within their mandate.

I walked away thinking this was not the way to find a meeting of the minds. Like the water fluoridation question and many more like it, this was a way to set up a confrontational situation.

Comments for this article are closed.