Forest practices code
has new board appointed

B.C. forestry has taken another step
forward.

The Forest Practices Code is now in
effect, and Canada’s first Forest Prac-
tices Board, established under the
Forest Practices Code of British Co-
lumbia Act, is at work.

The board serves British
Columbians by supporting the spirit
of the code and working to achieve its
intent through a clearly defined man-
date.

“We are an independent agency
dedicated to the code’s fair and effec-
tive application,” said Keith Moore,
chair.

How will the board’s work affect
members of J.W.A. Canada?

The answer lies in the board’s man-
date. Across the province, the board’s
responsibilities are in four areas.

Moore called these areas “the four
P’s’-planning, practices, protection,
and penalties:

-operational planning, including
plans, planning requirements, and
plan notices and evaluations;

- forest practices, including roads,
harvesting, silviculture, and range ac-
tivities;

The new board will
be a pro-active
agency that will
look for higher
performance
standards

- protection of forest resources, in-
cluding fire use and control, trespass-
ing, harvesting of botanical forest
products, and recreation; and,

- government compliance and en-
forcement, including inspections, for-
feitures, administrative remedies, and
offenses and court orders,

“We help ensure forest management
decisions in these areas are fair, and
that practices are consistent with the
code’s requirements and intent” said
Moore.

Within its areas of responsibility,
the board is required to handle public
complaints; undertake independent
audits; and, report conclusions and
make recommendations.

The board may also: initiate special
investigations; request reviews of de-
cisions; appeal review decisions to the
Forest Appeals Commission; and, re-

lease special reports on matters of
public interest.

The board focuses on the actions
and decisions of government min-
istries and agreement holders (includ-
ing forest companies), not individual
employees.

“We can make recommendations,
seek to have decisions overturned or
penalties changed by the Forest Ap-
peals Commission, and make reports
to the ministers and the public,” said
Moore.

_ “We cannot make or overturn deci-
Sions, stop work, lay charges, or levy
penalties.”

Moore emphasized that the board is
a pro-active agency, looking for per-
formance above the code’s minimum
standards.

“In responding to complaints, we
take a non-bureaucratic, problem-
solving approach,” said Moore. “One
of the things we look for is achieve-
ment of the code’s intent - sustainable
forest use,” he said.

As outlined in the Act, sustainable
use includes: managing forests to
meet present and future needs; pro-
viding stewardship of forests; balanc-
ing the values of the forest to meet the
needs of people and communities, in-
cluding First Nations; conserving for-
est resources; and, restoring damaged
ecologies.

“To achieve these goals, we look for
proper forest planning and practices,”
Moore said.

Moore comes to the board with a
wide range of experience. He.is a reg-
istered forester with a background in
forestry, fisheries, and wildlife re-
source interactions.

The other board members are:

Gordon Baskerville, the University
of British Columbia's forest resource
management department head;

Cathy Mumford, an agrologist with
a background in range management
and resource planning;

Cindy Pearce, a forestry consultant
with experience in silviculture and
forest resource education and plan-
ming;

Clay Perry, a consultant who has
represented forestry workers at the
provincial, national and international
levels; and,

Jack Toovey, a forester who has
held executive positions in the private
sector.

“The board is not a stakeholder
group,” said Moore, “but our range of
collective experience allows us to
provide balanced and objective infor-
mation and recommendations”.

With the co-operation of industry,
government, and the public, the board
members are working to fulfill their
mandate under the code.

Duty threat

Continued from page two

sales of newly built and existing
homes have improved. Turnover of
existing units is particularly important
to new housing starts. At the same
time, mortgage rates are now a bar-
gain, having dropped by roughly 2 per-
cent since December, 1994. These de-
velopments should stimulate
single-family starts between August
and October.

Given the current trends in the U.S.
economy and the fact that 1996 is a
major election year in that country the
prospects for the softwood lumber
market should improve substantially.
In the meantime, however, lumber
output will continue to exceed supply
for a short time. In every major pro-
ducing region in Canada and the Unit-
ed States a significant volume of
“chip-driven” production has been
generated by the pulp and paper in-

dustry, not the lumber market. Be-
cause the pulp and paper market has
been booming sawmills have been op-
erated at full capacity in order to sat-
isfy the almost insatiable demand for
residual chips. Until that market set-
tles down to a more normal pace it is
likely that U.S. demand for lumber
will continue to be oversupplied.

As a result, the movement by the
U.S. Coalition to launch another coun-
tervailing duty case against British
Columbia and Canadian softwood
lumber imports will continue to pose
a serious threat. At this monient the
Coalition is in a serious phase of orga-
nizing membership support and build-
ing a war chest in order to finance
their campaign. Given the ramifica-
tions to the Canadian industry, it is
not a threat that can be taken lightly.
Although in the long run the United
States will be more dependent on im-
ports of Canadian softwood lumber, it
is important that a full defense be
mounted against the current attack.

Each phase of logging will now be done under regulation of the Forest Prac-
tices Code in British Columbia.

Workers’ concerns forgotten
in recent Clayoquot decision

The British Columbia government
has missed a golden opportunity to
balance economic and ecological con-
cerns in Clayoquot Sound, says I.W.A.
CANADA.

The recently adopted report of the
Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel will
severely reduce timber harvesting in
the controversial region, affecting
jobs in Vancouver Island forest-based
communities like Port Alberni, Tofino
and Ucluelet.

“The scientific panel’s report had
no regard for where jobs fit into the
picture,” said I.W.A. national presi-
dent Gerry Stoney, adding that the
provincial government “has not done
much better to correct the situation.”

Stoney pointed out that the
province indicated as recently as its
April, 1993, Clayoquot Sound Land
Use Decision, that the area’s annual
allowable cut would be 600,000 cubic
metres. Already down from a 1991 ac-
tual harvest of over 777,000.

However, at the urging of Commis-
sion on Resources and Environment
head Stephen Owen, the government
later appointed the scientific panel,
headed by University of British Co-
lumbia forest biologist Fred Bunnell.

The panel, made up of scientists
and aboriginal representatives, was
charged with looking into biology,
ecology and sustainable harvest prac-
tices for the west-coast-Vancouver Is-
land region. It’s mandate did not in-
clude social or economic con-
siderations.

As a result of the panel’s recom-
mendations, the cut is being pegged at
closer than 250,000 cubic meters and
may fall as low as 150,000, even
though at the time the panel reported,
forest minister Andrew Petter conced-
ed that many of its proposals are “un-
tried” and that it had not considered
the impacts of its ideas on employ-
ment or the local communities.

The panel's major recommendation
was to implement a “variable reten-
tion’ harvest system. Under such a

system, between 15 to 70 percent of
the timber on each site is left unhar-
vested, depending on ecological sensi-
tivity and values other than timber.

The panel suggests that small open-
ings, under about four hectares,
should be interspersed with wildlife
tree areas, riparian leave-strips and
other standing timber.

These changes will have a heavy im-
pact on jobs: Local 1-85 of I.W.A.
Canada expect losses of between 120
and 150 direct jobs, with resulting ad-
ditional loss of indirect employment
in the region.

“Sooner or later the government
must realize that it takes real jobs to
run the programs people need in this
province,” says Local 1-85 president
Dave Haggard.

“Unless there are long-term jobs
that make economic sense, we all
know that neither industry or govern-
ment can sustain their activities.”

LW.A. CANADA has agreed to take
part in an “adjustment committee”
that includes representatives of gov-
ernment, industry and labour. But the
provincial government will be con-
stantly reminded of its earlier cut
commitments and its pledge to ensure
that workers will find jobs in the for-
est industry, says Haggard.

As well, Stoney says that MacBlo
must also accept responsibility for the
fate of workers affected by its deci-
sion to accept the panel's recommen-
dations.

“Up to this point, MB has been slow
to participate significantly in any for-
est renewal strategy,” the union presi-
dent noted.” The situation will have to
change and we will be meeting with
the company as soon as possible to
ensure that a workable job plan, tied
to Forest Renewal B.C., is in place.”

In its recent review of the panel’s
recommendations, MB addresses is-
sues such as new operating systems,
new technology, transport systems and
safety, but is silent on job creation.

- Kim Pollock

I  ]

LUMBERWORKER/AUGUST, 1995/3