CEO of Canfor comes out against proposed tenure changes
By Peter Ewart
The CEO of Canfor Corporation, Don Kayne, notes in his World of Wood blog that the BC Interior forest sector is “undergoing a significant transformation in the wake of the mountain pine beetle epidemic” and that there is much uncertainty about timber supply.
However, he states that now “is absolutely not the time for the provincial government to make major changes in tenure administration” in the province, and that “there are many higher priorities that would yield greater positive impacts.”
This statement is a direct rebuke to the provincial government regarding its current campaign to set the parameters for more area-based tenure in the province’s forests, specifically Tree Farm Licences.
“As far as Canfor is concerned,” Mr. Kayne argues, “the risk of aligning the public against B.C.’s largest forest companies outweighs any marginal benefits of expanding area-based tenures” and is a deal-breaker. According to him, “changes of this scope require broadly informed public support, not a brief and limited consultation…. Forcing unwanted tenure reform brings the risk of serious repercussions for our sector…. And is a serious step in the wrong direction.”
Besides challenging the government’s notion that area-based tenure would improve stewardship and management of public forests, Kayne also says that with “a lack of reliable inventory data and intense competition for fibre, the [government’s] process is almost guaranteed to fail” and to “unfairly advantage some companies over others.”
He goes on to say that “Canfor would only support a fully transparent process that is fair to all licensees and involves sufficient public involvement so we could be confident it has the support of British Columbians.”
In his opinion, government resources “should be focused on maintaining the health of the interior forest sector, completing an updated forest inventory to support planning and decision-making, resourcing smaller tenure holders and the B.C. Timber Sales program so they can access their tenure volume, and assisting communities with any necessary rationalizations in primary manufacturing.”
Word has it that other big companies also have reservations of one kind or another about the provincial government’s push for area-based tenure and the accompanying consultation process, even some of those companies who favour TFLs. This likely leaves only one faction of the big companies, i.e. West Fraser and Hampton, fully supporting the push for legislative change and more TFLs.
It is clear that the provincial government’s narrow and risky policy agenda of promoting one type of area-based tenure, i.e. Tree Farm Licences, is coming unglued. It is not a solution to the problem of diminishing timber supply, nor will it address the other serious problems facing our forests and the various sectors of the forest industry.
We need to renew our woods. But, as was hammered home by Anthony Britneff, Vicky Husband, Leonard Thomas, Keith Atkinson and other speakers at the Stand Up for the North Committee forums on April 12 (Prince George) and April 13 (Mackenzie), as well as a forum organized by other groups in Williams Lake on April 14, the provincial government’s current policy of pushing Tree Farm Licences as the solution to serious tenure and timber supply issues, will only end up in more incoherence and division. It should be withdrawn.
Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
Comments
Based on the article, Kayne feels there is “a risk of aligning the public against B.C.âs largest forest companies”
He also feels that that risk “outweighs any marginal benefits of expanding area-based tenuresâ.
So, he feels that there might actually be benefits of expanding area based tenures, be they ever so slight.
According to him, âchanges of this scope require broadly informed public support, not a brief and limited consultationâ¦.”
INFORMED public support. I totally agree with that.
INFORMED public support, however, can only come from open debate among those who understand woodland operations and not single minded lectures in each camp which do not allow for positions to be put to the test.
Aren’t there already TFLs in the PG district? TFL 30 already belongs to Canfor.
Amen gus!
âYou are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.â
â Harlan Ellison
The TFL’s seem more to be about the BC government absolving itself of its responsibility to our forests and its regeneration after the pine beetle fall down, than anything else.
Regenerating the forest for the next generation costs money, and protecting these forests also cost money to have a properly staffed Ministry of Forests.
The BC liberals are a government that sells out future generations for todays provides and dividends… they are a globalist, monopoly capitalist, Wall Street owned government… as this latest push for TFL’s goes to show they are not a government that takes seriously their fiduciary duty to future generation nor to the provincial history of free enterprise and equal opportunity for future generations.
How can the government have fairness in their policy when they lock into a TFL policy and we have a still unfolding pine beetle fall down situation in our local forests? It seems rather obvious there will be big winners at the expense of other companies, entrepreneurs, and communities. Who gets to pick who the winners will be with the TFL process? Most likely the BC liberal party fundraisers.
Above comment should have read:
‘The BC liberals are a government that sells out future generations for todays profits and dividends…’
Posted by: Eagleone on April 16 2014 8:50 AM
Above comment should have read:
‘The BC liberals are a government that sells out future generations for todays profits and dividends…’
———-
You can pretty much say “and sitting government” in this context. You’d be hard pressed to find any AAC determination that was made with sustainability in mind; it’s always been about keeping the fallers falling, the truckers trucking, the mill workers milling, etc. etc. etc.
Comments for this article are closed.