Feds Announce More Dollars to The Beetle Battle

Friday, June 08, 2007 01:53 PM

The Federal government has delivered another installment in the $200 million dollars promised earlier this year for the Mountain Pine Beetle Program.

The announcement today brings the total this year to $64.4 million dollars on beetle related projects.

The $39.6 million dollars announced today has been allocated for the following:

Controlling the Spread - $26 million
The objective of this part of the program is to slow the spread of the beetle, especially its eastward progression. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) will provide $21 million for spread control on provincial lands. The remaining $5 million will be delivered through NRCan for spread control on federal lands and private woodlots.

Recovering Economic Value/Creating Opportunities - $7.1 million
$6 million over two years in energy and mineral surveys

$1.1 million to support the development of options for recovering the economic value from forest stands killed by beetles. This could include potential uses for wood from trees killed by the beetles, such as the production of bio-energy and panel board. These funds will also support projects that will assist in forest management and harvesting strategies. The majority of these funds are being distributed to eligible projects through a request-for-proposal process.

Protecting Forest Resources and Communities – $6.5 million

NRCan will support the Union of B.C. Municipalities’ Strategic Wildfire Protection Program will further assist communities in the affected zone in preparing wildfire risk maps and risk-reduction plans.
assist in the development of wildfire risk- management plans around First Nations communities located on federal forestlands
support the Province of British Columbia’s identification and mapping of community wildfire threats in the affected zone. These maps are used to develop forest-fuel management work plans.
reduce the threat to public safety by removing hazardous trees from provincially designated recreation sites and trails.
reducing the threat to public safety by funding the removal of hazardous trees from municipal and school board lands.
a request-for-proposal process for projects that identify and assess options to improve sustainable use of the forest resource, including non-timber uses such as watershed hydrology, wildlife habitat and "viewscape" management.
projects that identify and assess options to mitigate the impacts of mountain pine beetle infestation in areas such as forest value, non-timber use of the forest resource, water quality and wildfire threat.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Friday, June 08, 2007 01:53 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: owl on June 8 2007 3:58 PM

"The objective of this part of the program is to slow the spread of the beetle, especially its eastward progression. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) will provide $21 million for spread control on provincial lands."

The Helicppter business will be continuing ot boom.

Posted by: owl on June 8 2007 4:00 PM

Ok, let me try that again, this thyme with feelink ..

The helicopter business will be continuing to boom.

:-)

Posted by: Chadermando on June 8 2007 5:09 PM

I originally thought the beetle fund and the NDI trust were set up to encourage economic diversification through support of small business start ups ect.

It turns out these fund are only for municipalities, native bands, non-profit groups, and trade organizations, and not at all for small business start-ups. In other words these funds are only for studies, marketing programs, and administrative type projects. The kind of things governments normally pay for out of general revenue, but in this case get lots of photo op's looking like government is there to help.

I know of a lot of people that needed seed money to get up and running very good business proposals that would diversify the company, but the for profit business model is not elligible for any of the NDI or beettle diversification funding.

IMO it explains very well why we have all talk and no action when it comes to diversifying our economy with these funds. The idea of higher risk sharing loan arrangements for start-ups never was part of the program, although the politicians will try to sell it to you as a fund designed to assist small business.

Posted by: Chadermando on June 8 2007 5:13 PM

I think we have all been had by the shell game of existing government fiscal responsibilities.

Posted by: lmorg on June 9 2007 12:11 AM

this is bullshit. The bulk of the money should be going to items 2 & 3. There is no way anything, short of an act of god that will stop the beetles. Nature will take it's course.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on June 9 2007 7:22 AM

Chadermando is right. These "funds are only for studies, marketing programs, and administrative type projects."

It's a lot of money but it's only for paper projects, if someone can get it. Paying for hard assets like the airport runway would mean the government actually has to spend some money and foot the bill, so that project just gets money for paper studies as well. All that paper gets filed or thrown out and no one knows where it gets put. I remember studies paid for by FRBC (F our BC) of plant life in the mountains alpine/tundra area around Blue River that no one could find a year later.

Once you get approval, paper projects are paid up front, so if nothing results, no one cares.

Posted by: lmorg on June 9 2007 11:17 AM

or use the fund to provide direct financial assistance to the families who are impacted.

Posted by: thereasonableman on June 9 2007 5:04 PM

or use the fund to provide direct financial assistance to ...your political buddies. Pay for no-cost, no-investment, no-employment, paper reports or lack of reports, that nobody can find or point to after the money is paid out for them.

Haven't we been there, done that, enough times to no longer be a viable game ?

Here's an idea...burn hog fuel, and low quality bugkill to power steam for electrical generation, and the residual heat can be used to also burn contaminated soils in order to reclaim them. The now-cleansed soils can be mixed with the ashes from the burnt fuel to fortify agricultural lands or sell it to gardeners, etc.

Throw out the "studies" and DO SOMETHING TANGIBLE !

Posted by: owl on June 9 2007 7:30 PM

The bulk of the money is not for paper projects. The bulk of the money is $26 million and is being used in the woods, as it has been for 5 years, to try to prevent the spread eastward.

It is going to companies and people working in the woods to harvest and sanitize as best as they think they can. I think they are smokin� tumbleweeds if they think they can control it, but it is being spent by giving funds to forestry workers and getting wood harvested before it is no longer usable.

On an associated note and the link below:

�100 Mile House Mayor Donna Barnett said Alberta has done a lot of mitigation; they�ve been trapping the beetles for five or six years and burning in the Banff and Jasper areas.

�It hasn�t stopped the beetle but has kept it under control,� she said.�

http://web.bcnewsgroup.com/portals-code/monitor.cgi?paper=27&id=997118

------------------
Then we have this associated article from the Sun:
�The loss of over 1,000 British Columbia forest industry jobs in the last two weeks has prompted the three forest-sector unions to call on the provincial government to step in with aid to resource communities.� ��..

��. "Nobody likes the situation. Mills are actually operating below cost, and the fact that B.C. mills have operated this long is part of the problem pushing prices lower." ��..

�.. �B.C. Interior sawmills are among the continent's most efficient, and they stayed open when their less-efficient competitors in other regions were forced to shut down.� ��

��. Taylor said the U.S. housing market will eventually come back to restore profitability in the Interior. But it's going to take a new supply-demand dynamic to ease the Coast's woes. And although he sees that on the horizon, it is still more than a year away. ��.

��. Supply shortages brought on by the mountain pine beetle epidemic, lower harvest levels in Ontario and Quebec, new taxes on Russian log exports, and the demand from China for fibre will ultimately restore the Coast to profitability, he predicted��

��."All these factors are going to play well into the B.C. Coast's future. But it's not going to be in 2007 or 2008."

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=4d110bf3-f645-471f-8670-bcc141c064ec

Posted by: owl on June 9 2007 7:35 PM

"$6 million over two years in energy and mineral surveys"

This is paper work? I suppose the final conclusions will be reported on paper.

Does anyone here read?

Posted by: owl on June 9 2007 7:44 PM

- "NRCan will support the Union of B.C. Municipalities� Strategic Wildfire Protection Program will further assist communities in the affected zone in preparing wildfire risk maps and risk-reduction plans."

That means paying technicians to look areas where trees are dying and deciding whether these pose a public risk.

- "reduce the threat to public safety by removing hazardous trees from provincially designated recreation sites and trails.'

We can keep them there or pay for it through local dollars if you wish.

- "reducing the threat to public safety by funding the removal of hazardous trees from municipal and school board lands."

We have been doing that and will continue to do that and it is being done with provincial and federal tax dollars wherever possible rather than local tax dollars sop that the cost is spread over a larger population.

- "a request-for-proposal process for projects that identify and assess options to improve sustainable use of the forest resource, including non-timber uses such as watershed hydrology, wildlife habitat and "viewscape" management."

So there is one of the "diversification" projects which is a paper exercise which will likely no produce too much as far as I can see.

- "projects that identify and assess options to mitigate the impacts of mountain pine beetle infestation in areas such as forest value, non-timber use of the forest resource, water quality and wildfire threat."

This one is a bit better but still a planning or paper exercise.

Most of the money is mitigation, little money for diversification in this group. But hardly a preponderance of paper exercises; and all federal dollars going into the local economy rather than into foreign aid.

Posted by: charles on June 9 2007 9:00 PM

Owl, I think this new tax on Russian log exports might not be so advantageous to the future prospects of the B.C. forest industry as the analyst in the article you have quoted thinks it may be.

Russia as you know has the worlds largest forests. I think the increased output of forest products from Russia in the future will just be adding to the "perfect storm" the B.C. forest industry is presently facing.

International Paper has just announced it is making a large investment in Russia's forest industry.

http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/memphis/stories/2007/06/04/daily12.html

A company from Finland has also just announced it is going to be making a large investment in the Russian forest industry.

http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/memphis/stories/2007/06/04/daily12.html

Posted by: charles on June 9 2007 9:06 PM

My appologies. The second link in my post should have been the following.

http://newsroom.finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=15813&group=Business

Posted by: owl on June 10 2007 9:10 AM

I agree with you Charles. I think that the point of view is based on the notion that BC log exports may be able to increase. That is mainly an island and lower mainland issue since the mills in that region have typically not been updated to the degree that the interior mills have been.

Remember, the benefit cited is to that part of the province. It means a maintenance or even increase in woodland jobs.

The Interior�s traditional market has been to the south for the purpose of feeding the North American wood frame housing industry. That industry is unique in the world. Virtually no one else builds houses in that fashion. Rather than changing our product to fit the specification to other countries, we have tended to try to change the way others build. I think we have tried to accommodate the Japanese market and I do not know how well that has worked.

The plants in Russia feed other markets which we have really not touched. I would think the time will come when Russia may impact the North American market.

So, if the southwestern part of this province does not have the plants but they have the wood and they are exporting it as raw log products, and the Interior has mill capacity, many of reasonable production standard but a reduced amount of harvestable timber for the next 50+, it would seem to me to make sense to send the logs to the mills here rather than to China and elsewhere. The plants are all strung out along good rail access, which now has improved port access at Rupert. I do not know the extent of retooling which may need to take place to accommodate coastal wood.

http://www.bc-forum.org/_lectureseries/Roberts-RussianTaxPPTFeb07CDNAPPVD.pdf
notice the major impact of tax on Russian logs will be in 2009.

�Russia accounts for about 40 per cent of the world's softwood log exports and more than 80 per cent of logs flowing into China and Finland, Mr. Roberts said.�
http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070227.wlogs0227/GIStory

http://www.woodmarkets.com/Press%20Releases/03-03-27%20-%20Russia%20Wood%20Industry.pdf

Posted by: owl on June 10 2007 9:28 AM

I wonder if anyone is considering the Mexican market which is, after all, part of NAFTA and we need their workers for our farms and tree planting operations since we are rapidly running out of manpower.
http://www.realestatejournal.com/propertyreport/residential/20050228-lyons.html?refresh=on
http://www.homex.com.mx

Posted by: Chadermando on June 10 2007 2:22 PM

Owl, again you are off on an unrelated tangent confusing the real issues. It is not about log exports to China or Russian wood flooding our markets.

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

NDI web site is down right now, but here is what it says:

Eligibility for funding from the Northern Trust is characterized by both the applicant's and the project's ability to meet the following criteria:

-Local governments
-Registered not-for-profit societies
-First Nations Communities
-Non-Profit authorities
-Industry associations

As you can see the for-profit entrepreneurial start-up never did fit their criteria for funding. Its not about funding actual economic activity, but rather funding hypothetical economic activity reports and government related issues.

The notion that the fund was to diversify the economy was a lie and the real purpose is to provide money for politically connected empire builders; none of which had any involvement in BCRail and realized no lose in economic opportunities as a result of BCRail sale.

NDI funds are to buy off the rabble rousers of the politically elite to smooth over Campbells sale of provincial essential infrastructure, with the benefit that the bribe money must be used for area's the provincial government would normally be expected to fund allowing the government to get off the hook for funding northern issues directly. Of course mayor Kinsley was on board with the sale of BCRail as it gave him control and access to a couple of hundred million for his pet politically connected projects.

The key here is the government, even with its bribe money to sell off our competitive infrastructure, does not support sharing risk in making loan funds available for actual economic diversification and small business start-ups. In other words all the risk for the economy is in the north to be taken by northerners, and the only risk sharing by government will be for large established multinational corporations like Alcan, Canfor and CN Rail, all of whom could give a rats asz about northerners and northern communities with the only thing of importance being the profitability that their hedge fund managers require from their operations.

Posted by: owl on June 10 2007 8:16 PM

"Owl, again you are off on an unrelated tangent confusing the real issues. It is not about log exports to China or Russian wood flooding our markets."

In your opinion Chadermando.

The headline to this speaks about FEDERAL dollars for forestry as a result of MPB. NDI is BCR provincial dollars having nothing to do with the MPB, but happening to be there at the time of the MPB. It is purely coincidental AND lucky for us, maybe. I say maybe because the province probably looks at it saying that we got money due to the BCR sale and so we do not need so much for the MPB.

This is on target since the question of whether the forest economy is heading downhill due to the MPB or other factors such as the Canuck dollar or the housing downturn in the US, or the fact that Russia has 4 and 5 times the forest resources that CANADA has, never mind little ole BC.

So, don't know where your head is at getting stuck with NDI.

Posted by: owl on June 10 2007 8:17 PM

Russian wood flooding our markets? Where on earth did you read that?

Posted by: owl on June 10 2007 8:58 PM

Now, if you want to bring the "conversation" around to the NDI Trust, that is fine with me. I will tend to agree with you that so far nothing much has come of it with respect to what I was thinking it would be about. I am looking for an incubator role. Instead it seems to be have a �topping up� role. Topping up an ice arena in Terrace, for instance.

On top of that, they are really not very transparent to the community at large as to the projects they have done and are doing and what the results are. From my point of view, every single one of them should be on the web site and the exact same criteria be developed against which each one gets measured. Some of them are there, but in a very anecdotal fashion.

In other words, what is the money for, what is supposed to be accomplished, has it been accomplished, if not, why not, if yes, then why was it a success, what can we learn from the positive and negative outcomes, etc. etc.

It all appears to be about matching funds. I think that is a questionable reason. How do we know that without the NDI, those who are applying the matching funds would not have done the project anyway? I would rather give money to a worthwhile cause that no one else would give money to because they think it is too risky.

It is like research. It is a gamble. 10 projects and 1 will be a hit. Matching funds results in "wishy-washy" projects, they are not likely to be a resounding success, nor are they likely to be a resounding failure. Just my view of it.

I also think that too many are being left to junior people. By that I mean the ones I see that have university students writing grant proposals. For God's sake, these are university students. Unless they are 35+ years old and have had reasonable previous business experience, they really do not have a clue how to put projects together.

If one wants big bucks, one needs to get qualified people to lay the foundations of the projects. This is hardly where one would use a neophyte. I have seen some of those proposals. They are atrocious.

I too do not have much faith in the NDI being a catalyst to get this region into what I would consider to be industrial diversification.

Posted by: owl on June 10 2007 9:24 PM

So here is the latest newsletter:
http://www.nditrust.ca/docs/news/200703_march_newsletter.pdf

Some projects

Lillooet - $17,600 for a tourism project � the nature of that one should have come from tourism BC

Kersely - $30,000 to fund a summer performing arts program � should come from the minister responsible for Culture.

Cache Creek - $4,900 for billboards at Hat Creek � Should come from Tourism BC

Telkawa - $350,000 to upgrade water infrastructure � should come from minister responsible for municipalities, as well as regional district and possibly some federal dollars.

Fraser Lake - $30,000 for renovating recreation arena � from village funds and Regional District funds.

I think none of the above projects should have received NDI funding. It does not go to diversification.

I think the following one is on the borderline since it only includes non-profit.

$25,000 to mentor and provide business plan development grants for non-profits which produce revenue and job producing enterprises.

Finally, there is the one to develop Three months� wages will be granted towards the hiring of university or college coop or summer students to write grant proposals for projects that are important to that community.

In my mind this should be provided through federal programs to hire new grads or summer students. On top of that, I have seen too many of the proposals such individuals have put together. They are hardly ones that deal with obtaining funds to start up a small production plant to produce a new gizmo used to control a gadget used by the automotive industry so that the plant can compete with other companies in regions of the country where obtaining such grants is much easier because they are south of Hope and east of Windsor.

Based on that, I would say the NDI is a bueaucrat's answer to a wet dream come true.

Posted by: owl on June 10 2007 9:26 PM

From their site:

The Northern Trust "is an economic development funding corporation for central and northern British Columbia. The Northern Trust operates independently from government and provides the funding and ability to identify and pursue new opportunities for stimulating economic growth and job creation."

Posted by: owl on June 10 2007 9:27 PM

NEW OPPORTUNITIES are the KEY operative words for me.

Posted by: Chadermando on June 10 2007 9:30 PM

Owl, that�s more like it. Good post with some good points. For the record I took part in writing one of the proposals that I thought was ridiculous and yet it was accepted because it met the criteria (marketing), and had the political connections. It was a complete waste of the NDI funds IMO, but I was just doing my job until I got fired for playing by the rules.

I have also seen a lot of worthwhile for-profit projects that should have got some risk sharing loans, but did not meet the criteria. Three that involved expanding the manufacturing opportunities in northern BC, a few that involved tourism, and one that involved forestry diversification. All have since left northern BC to find success elsewhere, and the lone holdout looks to be relocating to the Kooteney�s if their foreign financers finalize their shared business arrangements.

My opinion about the other issues (log exports, Russia)is that they are secondary issues that are not specific to this region. Therefore a distraction from the real issues that should get heard if we are to find the means to support the diversification of our economy in the few short years we have left to do something.

Posted by: owl on June 11 2007 10:35 AM

A little birdie tells me to wait for the June 20 NDI board meeting since there may be SOME changes in the types of projects approved.

So, I will wait and decide on options open to me and others who feel like you and I.

Have you, or others on here ever read the paper written on the economic impacts on the PG TSA in 2005 by Patriquin, a forest economics? It gives a good synopsis of the economic sectors in the PG region and comapres it in tabular form to the rest of BC.

Worth a read for those who have the time.

http://warehouse.pfc.forestry.ca/pfc/25270.pdf

Forestry makes up 22% of the PG TSA regional economy, while it is only 6% of the provincial economy.

More telling is that it is 54% of the regional tax base and only 9% of the provincial tax base.

Forestry makes up 12% of the regional employment and 5% of the provincial employment.