Clear Full Forecast

Forest Industry Crisis - One Step At A Time

By Peter Ewart

Monday, January 21, 2008 03:45 AM

 A person has to watch out in winter when climbing slippery steps. For instance, it is usually not a good idea to take two steps at a time – you could end up falling flat on your face.  The same advice could be given to the Chief Forester of BC, who has recently mused that “privatizing” the ownership of forests in the province is “worth thinking about”.

Our forest industry is in the midst of a grave crisis that shows every sign of getting worse.  But this crisis has been a long time coming - the conditions have been created over many years.  To a greater or lesser extent, successive governments have contributed to it whether these have been Social Credit, NDP or the current office holders the BC Liberals.
It is tempting when a crisis hits to look for quick and easy solutions.  But that is where the danger lies.  There is a crucial step that comes before putting forward solutions.  And that is identifying the problem and its cause.  This question must be addressed first, otherwise history will simply repeat itself and we will end up in another dead-end a few years from now.
In the case of the forest industry, there is not just one problem but rather a number of them, and they overlap.  The fact is that over the years the big companies and big government have developed forest policies and made economic decisions that have resulted in BC’s forest industry ending up in a blind alley.
Let’s just look at a few of these.  For years, the big forest companies were told by practically everyone under the sun that they must diversify.  Even their own investment analysts told them this.  For example, Mark Connelly of Credit Suisse, put the issue bluntly: “Every time you read a money management thing, it says diversify.  And B.C. didn’t.”  More than that, it is believed by some in forest industry circles that big companies in the Central Interior and North successfully opposed the development of the value-added wood industry on what seems to be self-serving grounds.  As a result, we have a highly skewed and distorted forest economy that is focused mainly on the primary industry sector.
The big forest companies in BC were also told repeatedly that they must diversify their markets and not have their sales so dependent on one country, the U.S.  But again, they did not listen.  We are seeing the unfortunate results of that decision in the form of massive layoffs and mill closures in our region now that the American housing market has collapsed.
Then there is the pine beetle problem.  Yes, the pine beetle is a natural phenomenon.  But the current outbreak is at least partly related to human causes, such as not addressing the outbreak in a timely manner, engaging in decades of fire suppression that built up a host of older trees susceptible to the beetle, and the planting of a monoculture of pine in various parts of the regions. As a result, we have the worst natural disaster in recorded North American history and a severe blow to the present and future of the province’s forest industry.
And there are other problems that can be directly linked to decisions made by the big companies and allowed by big government, including a lack of reinvestment in forest industry operations, the extreme monopolization of production, the favouring of the interests of the big companies in forest policy over that of medium and small companies, contractors, and so on.
All of this is why the Chief Forester’s comment about privatization of the forests really sticks in the craw.  If the forests are privatized, it is quite likely, given past practice with the awarding of timber licenses, that the big companies will end up getting the best timber and owning the lion’s share of the available productive forest.  In other words, they will be richly rewarded for all their bad decisions and for the fact that the industry is now beset with its worst crisis in modern history.  The existing monopolization, lack of diversification, and so on, could simply end up being reinforced.
Strange as it may seem but that is the trend today.  If you are a big company that makes bad decisions, you will be rewarded, and even get a pat on the back.  Look at the current banking and credit crisis in the U.S.  After pulling a massive swindle on their own clients and the American people as a whole with the subprime mortgage scandal and the “toxic” securities scam, top level bankers are receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses and payouts, and financial institutions are being bailed out behind the scene by government to the tune of billions of dollars. 
So, in reviewing the forest industry crisis, let’s do one step at a time.  Let us first establish what are the problems in the industry and what are the causes.  Then we can go to the next step, which is: what are the solutions.  We may just find out that privatization is not one of them.
Peter Ewart is a college instructor and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia, Canada.  He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
  
Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Jim Pattison diversifies......

http://www.jimpattison.com

High time Canfor bought a hotel chain..... and a guitar manufacturing businees ....

;-)
Part of the solution will be to stop blaming 'big' companies, government and forest protection strategies of the past. Our challenges are more about changes is regional climate (pine beetle), cost of production (global competition) and the transportation costs required to get those 'value added' products to mass markets willing to buy them (infrastructure & geography).

In the aftermath of the beetle, we must deal with the rehabilitation of our forests. Systems that provide incentive for investment will need to be developed and area based tenure could well be a key initiative. Any forward movement will be welcomed.
If you go back in history to when Peter Bentley 'diversified' Canfor into things as varied as shipbuilding and consumer finance, those 'diversifications' (and the divestiture of them at considerable loss later), were one of the reasons the then privately owned Canfor(by the Bentley and Prentice families), had to offer stock to the public.

With much of what Peter Ewart has written above I agree. But let's DEFINE what "value-added" really is before we jump on the bandwagon that proclaims it as the forest industry's great salvation, whether missed, or potential.

"Value-added", properly, is "any further process beyond the initial stages of any product's manufacture that can RETURN IT'S COSTS plus an ADDITIONAL PROFIT." That's all it is, or ever can be. If it won't perform those two functions, you have no "value-added". Period. And if it won't perform those two functions, why then should you, or I, or Canfor, or Jimmy Pattison, invest in it?

Now, if that's understood, TWO other salient FACTS need to be considered before the 'value-added' prescription can ever be useful in curing the current forest industry's ailments.

The first FACT is that CONSUMER DEMAND is the only sane origin of any economic activity. There is no sense whatsoever in turning out ANY product for which there is NO consumer demand, be it 'value-added', in terms of having put a whole lot more 'cost' into something, or otherwise.

And the second FACT is that even if there is a genuine consumer demand for something, again 'value-added' or otherwise, that demand is only useful if it is, or can be made, an EFFECTIVE DEMAND. In other words, if whoever wants the product has enough MONEY to pay the price required. And it is to this last FACT that we should devote considerable more of our attention than we have to date.
Peter writes, "Let us first establish what are the problems in the industry and what are the causes. Then we can go to the next step, which is: what are the solutions."

Same concept with the economy on a whole today.
It seems the markets realized that GW's economic recovery plan is not to regulate the obvious offenders (banks) that caused the current recessionary problems(monetary inflation tax via asset bubbles and sub-prime packaged scams ect), but GW's recovery plan (and thus the worlds) is to buy off the American population with cheep one time rebate checks (shinny beads). The result was today’s 500 point opening loses to the TSE with everyone running for cover.

It looks like the market says the problem was not recognized and thus the solution to the causes would be the wrong solution....

Is it a conspiracy or is it a coincidence not yet explained for some unexplained reason?


I agree that we should under no circumstances ever allow the forest companies to own the forest. It would be akin to the end of the free world IMO. I don't think it will ever be seriously proposed. I think Pat Bell put it forward because that is the kind of guy he is, but unlike BC Rail and BC Hydro he would be awakening a sleeping giant if he ever tried to pursue that course and would likely get run out of town if not the province in short order.

Hypothetically under those circumstances its likely his neighbours, friends and family would even disown him and hand him over to the mob.
Socred, then by your definition if we see Canfor sending over the finished lifts of lumber to the chipper plant, because it is cheaper to chip lifts of finished lumber then to sell them at a loss (thus more profitable for Canfor-good pulp potential)... will that then be considered value added? Because hypothetically we are not that far off from that next stage.

In fact they could do that right now and make more money at it then selling the lumber to build houses in the states, probably even do it at a profit and everyone gets to stay working....
Wait a minute they are doing that they just skipped the milling stage... so do we still get to call it value added... hmmm....
If you look at privately owned forests in New Brunswick you may find their industry is in as bad or worse shape than ours. So I would doubt that privatizing (piratizing?) would help.
The argument over whether forest land should be 'private' or 'public' is a red herring designed to divert attention away from the REAL problem.

Similar arguments are promoted in regards to the provision of medical services, and whether they should be publicly or privately provided. The debate goes on and on, and in the end, no matter which side prevails, if any, the bigger issue has been missed in both instances.

With regards to private forest lands, the two arguments most commonly advanced AGAINST them, is that they would 'restrict' the public's access to the forest for recreational or other purposes. And that they would very quickly become concentrated into fewer and fewer hands (than they already are), and their 'ownership' would be even more absolute in the hands of a developing timber monopoly than through other forms of tenure.

The arguments FOR them are that they lead to their 'owner' being more responsible in their management over the long term as an 'owner' than he is as a lower form of tenure holder. And, that if they are privately 'owned' they can be publicly taxed.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating FOR or AGAINST. But ALL the arguments, on both sides of the question, will not hold up to close scrutiny.

There are extensive 'fee simple' private forest lands on Vancouver Island and also in the Kootenay's. On the Island, the public's access has NOT, until just recently, ever been impeded.

Both of the former major private land holders, MacMillan Bloedel and Crown Zellerbach Canada, not only generally gave the public free access to their properties with a minimum of limitations, they also gave out maps of their logging road networks, developed campsites and picnic areas near popular fishing lakes, and even, in some instances, allowed people to 'squat' on their lands with summer cabins on various lakes, hunting cabins in the distant backcountry, and also ones for cross country skiers.

The public did not always respond to their generosity in kind. A great deal of vandalism was done to both firms' logging equipment, there was continual theft of supplies, and even firewood cutting of prime sawlogs, (when other wood for firewood was readily available, and given for the asking).

In one instance, a diesel tank on a piece of mobile logging equipment was used for target practice. The tank was punctured, the fuel spewed out onto the ground, into a ditch, and thence into a salmon sream. Who was charged with 'pollution'? I'll leave it to you to guess.

As to 'ownership', remember that even under 'fee simple', the ultimate title to the land remains with the Crown. Just forget to pay your taxes on 'your' land for a couple of years, and that point will be made abundantly clear to you! The other proof of this, is that the Crown always can expropriate any piece of private property on payment of compensation.

You can argue to the highest Court in the land over the adequacy of the compensation, but you cannot argue to prevent the expropriation.

It should be noted that in the USA, where there was an attempt by many large forest products firms to acquire more and more forest land, most of those firms have now divested themselves of these accumulations. What they once thought would 'pay', didn't.

New Brunswick has 5.9 million hectares of productive forested land. Irving has Freehold has ownership of approximately 725,000 hectares in New Brunswick. In addition, they manage 1,000,000 hectares of public Crown License in New Brunswick.

New Brunswick has allowed this giant to control almost a third of the productive forest land. By allowing this to happen we have created a monster.

Irving is a very cut throat company, and they have gained enough power to bully the government into business deals that are I believe in the people of New Brunswick's best interest (eg. Tax deals for the LNG plant but only giving the NBgov 24 hrs to make up their mind, trying to get increased AAC based on unattainable timber volume forecasts (much like Enron's Accounting technique) , etc). They are doing very well, however most New Brunswicker's feel ripped off on a regular basis by the company both economically and environmentally.

We need more free markets - not less. We need to make sure that the legislative and legal framework in Canada and New Brunswick doesn't allow for too much economic concentration.

To read more about Irving and NB check out http://www.irvingsucks.com/
New Brunswick has 5.9 million hectares of productive forested land. Irving has Freehold has ownership of approximately 725,000 hectares in New Brunswick. In addition, they manage 1,000,000 hectares of public Crown License in New Brunswick.

New Brunswick has allowed this giant to control almost a third of the productive forest land. By allowing this to happen we have created a monster.

Irving is a very cut throat company, and they have gained enough power to bully the government into business deals that are I believe in the people of New Brunswick's best interest (eg. Tax deals for the LNG plant but only giving the NBgov 24 hrs to make up their mind, trying to get increased AAC based on unattainable timber volume forecasts (much like Enron's Accounting technique) , etc). They are doing very well, however most New Brunswicker's feel ripped off on a regular basis by the company both economically and environmentally.

We need more free markets - not less. We need to make sure that the legislative and legal framework in Canada and New Brunswick doesn't allow for too much economic concentration.

To read more about Irving and NB check out http://www.irvingsucks.com/