PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

Participatory decision
making is necessary

By Gerry Stoney

UR Union has been committed to
\sustainable forestry since the early
‘days of its existence as an organiza-
tion.

The future stability of IWA families
and the communities that they live in depend
— without a doubt — on sustaining the forest
industry and, therefore, on sustaining the
many values of our forests.

It has been our contention that some indus-
trial practices, some corporate priorities and
some government actions have not been con-
ducive to sustaining our forests.

The traditional list of complaints by the
IWA is long. However, we should not dwell on
the past. As has often been said, “The politics
of blame offer no relief.”

And we have often heard: We have seen the
enemy and it is us — all of us.

And if that’s the case, it’s going to take all
of us to set things right again.

Though governments have the official man-
date to develop better rules, regulations and
processes — rules and regulations alone are
not going to solve these problems. People are.

People who are willing to work; people
willing to give; people willing to look beyond
their own backyard and accept some responsi-
bility for the common good.

When all is said and done, we have to do the
right thing by our forests — not just because
it is the law, but because it is worth doing.

There has never been a better time than
now for that to happen in Canada. There has

never been a better time
than now to learn from
our mistakes and to
move on.

We must focus on the
future. We should talk
about the past only to
the extent that it can
teach us how to be bet-
ter managers and plan-
ners for the future.

We in the IWA seri-
ously believe that the
future require a lot more
accountable participa-
tion by average citizens
in forestry decision-
making.

Participatory deci-
sion-making can work

and has a very signifi- LAA

mits itself to that task.

A broad range of par-
ticipants in ‘ision-
making ensures that
environmental values,
other than the strictl
timber related one, will
mean that those values
will not only be consid-
ered but will be
protected.

Protection of other
values, including social,
will mean that, in the
long-run, the quality of
our timber will remain
high and we will not
face continued boycott
attempts by our inter-
national consumers.

+
S Z
y However, at the same

cant role to play in the future of our industry.
Open, informed and effective public involve-
ment in decision-making is the way of the
future.

The commitment that we made in our 1989
Forest Policy states that: IWA
- CANADA commits itself to the establishment
of fully sustainable forestry. Forestry opera-
tions must leave to future generations of
Canadians a rich endowment of fish and
wildlife, soils capable of supporting varied
ecosystems and forests managed so as to
provide many more jobs and the wide range of
the forest recreations that Canadian value if
we are to achieve sustainable development —
as with all other industries that provide the
physical necessities of human life, much has
to be done to reform the destructive and
greedy systems of the past, and even more
remains to be learned about how to practice
truly sustainable forestry. IWA- CANADA com-

time as protecting our environmental heri-
tage, we must not forget our cultural heritage.
That cultural heritage is often tied into earn-
ing a living from harvesting natural resources.

Those of us who have earned our living in
that way know that it is honourable and know
that future generations have the right to earn
their living in this way.

Public participation ensures that not envi-
romental values but working values will also
be included in decision-making.

Companies are responsible to shareholders
with quarterly reports. Many environmental
groups feel responsible to future generations.
IWA-CANADA is responsible on a day-to-day
basis to the membership and to future genera-
tions. We must consider the long-term and the
short-term in all of our decision-making.

Participatory decision-making is one way
to do that.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPME

Vancouver watershed
includes our concerns

by Claire Dansereau

/ANCOUVER and area residents receive
their drinking water from three water-
sheds situated on the north shore of the |
/ lower mainland. There has been a long
history of management in these water-
management programs ranged from all out log-
ging and mining to a hands-off approach that
excluded all human activity and back to manage-
ment that includes some very careful logging.

Recently some special interest groups have
tried to once again stop all logging in the water-
sheds using the argument that clear-cut logging
harms water quality and quantity.

The history of the call for a moratorium is long
and convoluted. Many newspaper articles were
written by people who argued against logging.
The regional district responded by hiring a group
of independent consultant's to review the impacts
of the current management program on water
quality.

The consultants were selected from universities
and were therefore independent from the political
process and from the day-to-day workings of the
water department.

They researched and they held public meetings.
They concluded that, though the management
program could benefit from some updating, log-
ging did not harm water quality in any way. They
were unable to provide any evidence to suggest
otherwise.

The committee analyzed the harvesting tech-
niques, road-building practices, reforestation and
the entire planning process.

They concluded that, overall, the management
plan was a good one but could do with some
changes. They agreed that the watersheds needed
some additional ecological information, that a
two-hundred year vegetation plan was required
and that changes to the selection criteria for cut
blocks might be required.

Your Union agreed with their recommendations
and also with their methodology. It was our
contention that tough political decisions such as
this one need a third-party approach so that facts

Unfortunately, the anti-
logging proponents re-
jected the results of the
study and continued. to
insist that a moratorium
was the only route to fol-
low.

The decision-making
process for watershed
issues is also convoluted.
First the Water Commit-
tee,appointed by the
chairperson of the Greater

Vancouver Regional Dis-

trict, must make decisions with respect to the
overall management program and then present
those recommendations to the GVRD Board of
Directors.

The Board of Directors votes on the recommen-
dations. If the motion is passed the issue is
resolved. If it does not pass the Water Committee
must propose another recommendation at the
next Board meeting.

In this case, the Water Committee initially
proposed a series of recommendations to the

GVRD Board of Directors on changes to the
management program.

upgrading it to include new environmental
information.

We were pleased with this decision since it
incorporated our economic and our environmental
concerns.

We would not have argued for continued log-
ging in the watersheds if we thought that current
or future residents of the Lower Mainland would
have been harmed by that logging.

The future of the watersheds is now a little less
threatened than it was prior to the decision.
However, proponents of the moratorium will not
let the issue go away. Therefore, Local 1-217, the
National Office and a group of concerned citizens
will continue to work as a committee to keep up-to
date on watershed issues.

We intend to keep a very close eye on the
logging program in the watersheds to make sure
that it continues to meet the highest possible
standards. Our water supply is critical to our
survival. Logging does not threaten that water
provided that it is carefully done. We will do our
best to make sure that this is the case.

The average size of clear-cut openings in the
watersheds is 7 hectares, road building consis-
tently exceeds provincial standards and reforesta-
tion plans provide a spe-

This included a recom-
mendation that would
have resulted in a morato-
rium. At the same time,
your Union requested
that the Board of Direc-
tors be given a chance to
hear new information be-
fore voting on the morato-

We intend to ensure that
watershed logging continues
to meet the highest possible

environmental standards

cies and age-class mosaic
that reflect the forests
that were logged.

In short, the kind of
logging and reforestation
that go on in the water-
sheds are exactly what
IWA-CANADA’s forest
policy call for. We only

rium. We were given two
months to gather up new information and present
it back to the Water Committee.

__ At the end of the two-months we presented our
information on the environmental impacts of not
logging in the watersheds. We agreed that some
changes to the logging program be initiated.
However, we argued that not logging would be
detrimental. Our entire brief was based on the
issue of water quality. The issue of jobs had to be
secondary since we would not promote a program
that would detrimentally affect the health of lower
mainland residents.

The Water Committee proposed a final recom-
mendation to the Board of Directors which
removed the threat of a moratorium while making
sure that more stringent environmental protec-
tion mechanisms be included. The Board of Direc-
tors approved a motion that allowed the continua-

rather emotion are used to provide answers.

tion of the management program while continually

wish that we could have
such high quality programs everywhere in the
country. ‘

The problems resulting from a moratorium in
these watersheds go far beyond the boundaries of
the Lower Mainland. If the proponents of the
moratorium had been successful, a precedent
would have been set for all domestic watersheds.

This precedent would have had serious impacts
for the more than 200 forest-industry dependent
communities in the province. It would have been
highly detrimental to have such a precedent with-

out any evidence to suggest that logging nega-
tively affects water quality.

Claire Dansereau is IWA-CANADASs
Forest and Environment Planner.

>

————————————————
4/LUMBERWORKER/APRIL, 1992 fea oe