OBAC and the strange case of the missing word

By Peter Ewart

As noted in the first article in this series, “OBAC and the strange case of the missing word – Part 1”, the Omineca Beetle Action Coalition has so far received $1.7 million from the provincial government.  With these funds, it is supposed to be acting as the “voice” of the communities in this region regarding economic diversification in the wake of the pine beetle.  Yet it has appears to have edited out any mention of the terms “value-added” or “secondary” wood in its policy documents and newsletters on its website.  Furthermore, it has compiled a list of 11 priorities, none of which mentions anything about “value-added” wood.

This omission becomes even more glaring if we compare OBAC’s public documents to that of the Cariboo Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition (CCBAC), which is OBAC’s counterpart south of here in the Quesnel, Williams Lake and 100 Mile House region. 

Unlike OBAC, CCBAC makes value-added wood production a top priority for economic development in that region.  Indeed, it has several documents on its website that specifically focus on the value-added topic, including a 175 page report entitled “Cariboo-Chilcotin Region: Secondary Woods Product Strategy – Summary Paper.”

In another document entitled, “Secondary Wood Products Manufacturing Strategy Outline,” CCBAC points out that the value-added sector “creates significantly more jobs” per cubic metre of wood than the primary industry.  The document goes on to say “that ‘value-added’ or ‘secondary’ wood products manufacturing is consistently identified as a local, provincial and national priority for economic diversification.”  In contrast, as noted in Part 1, OBAC does not see “value-added” as a priority at all.  Tourism, yes.  Agriculture, yes.  Mineral exploration, yes.  Value-added, no.

In its strategy, CCBAC provides analysis about the obstacles and opportunities for value-added wood production in its region.  It acknowledges that the value-added sector is much smaller than the primary industry and it points out that “the sector has not grown as quickly in British Columbia as in many other jurisdictions” and is currently concentrated in the Lower Mainland of the province.  Nonetheless, the CCBAC strategy displays a “can do” attitude towards overcoming any obstacles and lays out clear and ambitious goals for the development of the value-added sector in the region.  Specifically, it puts forward the “overall measurable goal” of doubling “the size of the current secondary [value-added] wood products sector in the region” and increasing the number of jobs in the sector by 25% over the next 10 years (by 2017).

The difference in aims between OBAC and CCBAC could not be more striking.  Indeed, it is hard to believe that the two organizations operate in the same general area of the province, i.e., the Central Interior. 

It is as if there was some kind of invisible line or barrier laid down somewhere between Prince George and Quesnel.  South of this line, value-added wood production is a top priority for communities meeting the challenge of the pine beetle.  North of this line, value-added isn’t even on the radar. 

One can only imagine the impression the CEO of a value-added company interested in setting up operations in the Central Interior would get when looking at the two websites.  There is no doubt that he or she would get a very favourable impression about the CCBAC website and by extension the entire Quesnel, Williams Lake, 100 Mile House region.  Here is a region that enthusiastically invites the value-added industry to come aboard, has a detailed plan that puts value-added wood production as a top priority, and so on.

And then there is the OBAC website that has “destination tourism” and “mining” as its priorities and disdains to even mention the word “value-added.”   Is there any doubt which region this new value-added company would gravitate to?

OBAC’s ignoring of the value-added sector appears to contradict the views of a leading provincial business organization, the BC Competition Council, which issued a report in 2006 that states “there could be much greater opportunities” in developing value-added manufacturing and diversifying “product market mix”, and that “increased levels of secondary processing within BC are possible and desirable as the industry moves forward.”  It further add that, for the BC Interior industry, “the healthy continuation of … value-added plants is vital”  (BC Competition Council – Draft Report - March 31, 2006 – p. 59)

Unfortunately, OBAC does not appear to be alone in its views in this region.  Take, for example, the attitude of a senior economic development officer in this region.  When invited to speak at a conference last Fall on diversification in the wood industry, he declined to participate on the grounds that he was only prepared to speak of the diversification of the local economy “as a whole” rather than diversification in the wood industry.  Presumably, that meant he was willing to talk about call centers, tourism, mining, etc., but not value-added wood. 

There is no other way to put it.  At a critical time in the history of our region, we have a failure of vision and a failure of leadership in the area of wood diversification.  OBAC provides no explanation as to why it completely ignores the development of the value-added industry in its priorities, plans and newsletters. 

There is no doubt that municipal leaders across the region are serious about meeting the challenges of the pine beetle and diversifying our economy.  However, those municipal and community leaders involved with OBAC, some of whom are quite new to the organization, should demand some answers.  And so should our local MLAs.  The people of Northern BC deserve better than this.

In Part 3 of this series, we will discuss the claim that there may be powerful interests who just don’t want value-added wood production in this region, and that OBAC’s views may be simply reflecting this same mindset. 

Friday June 29th  Part 3 of  “OBAC and the strange case of the missing word"

Email | Print | Facebook | Twitter | Digg | Del.icio.us