TL.W.A. Parks Submission
Continued from page thirty-three

physical goods it consumes and con-
tribute from its renewable resources
its fair share of the common wealth
of the earth. For British Columbia
and Canada, this means we should
produce timber, paper and building
piatenials as sustainably as possi-
le,

It is also important to recognize
that forest products are a renewable
source of building materials, unlike
many of the potential substitutes
for wood. In construction, for
instance, wood is more “environ-
mentally friendly” than such alter-
natives as aluminum, steel and
other metals; plastic; concrete; brick
and other non-renewable sub-
stances, all of which require more
energy at every stage from produc-
tion through recycling. Sustainable
forestry is a “green” industry.

This is all highly relevant to the
B.C. Protected Area Strategy and
the Parks Legacy Project. There is a
continuing demand for recreational
areas, wildlife preserves, wilderness
areas and other protected areas,
many of which require removal of
timber from the working forest.
Nearly not a week goes by without
either creation of a new park or new
demands for park designation of
some portion of the province’s work-
ing forest land base. Recently a park
the size of Switzerland was created
in the Northern Rockies, for
instance.

Indeed, according to the provin-
cial Land-use Coordinating Office,
since the beginning of the Protected
Area Strategy, 281 new parks have
been created, totalling 4.1 million
hectares. This brings the total area
of provincial parks in which timber
harvesting is not permitted to 10.1
million hectares. That brings the
provincial total to 10.6 percent of
the land base of B.C.; we are rapidly
approaching the PAS target of 12
percent.

We often hear that a large pro-
portion of the areas protected are
“rock and ice” and as such, of little
use to the forest industry. That is
untrue. According to a 1996 analy-
sis, also by LUCO, while about 2.8
million of the then total 8.8 million
in protected areas was designated
as “high elevation.” another 2.7 mil-
lion was “low elevation.” It is here
that the impact on employment
opportunities is most discernable.
Indeed, nearly one third — 32.2 per-
cent — of the “new” protected areas
designated under the PAS consist of
“low elevation” forests.

This can be seen clearly in the
Vancouver Island Land-use Plan.
There 78,000 hectares of new park
were created. Of these, according to
the Ministry of Environment, Lands
and Parks, over 27,000 hectares
included land described as “very
high productivity” or “high\moder-
ate productivity,” making them
excellent, harvestable stands that
will no longer be available to the
forest sector.

In fact, according to a report pre-
pared by Cortex Consultants Inc.
for the Ministry of Forests in June
1996, land-use changes reduced the
provincial timber supply base by 7
percent between January, 1993 and
June, 1996. This constituted the
largest single source of timber sup-
ply reductions, out of the combined
11 percent impact of the impact of
the timber supply review, forest
practices code and land-use changes.
We calculate that this reduction
would have eliminated almost 650
direct jobs.

It’s no wonder then that there are
problems in terms of timber supply
in a number of regions of the
province. Those reductions in tim-

er supply translate into lost jobs
for the current forest-sector work-
force; they also translate into lost
jobs for future generations, particu-
larly future generations living in

forest-based communities in B.C. (A
1993 federal government analysis
concluded that 69 B.C. communities
depend on the forest sector for over
50 percent of total basic income. Of
55 communities studied by the B.C.
Ministry of Finance, over half earn
at least 30 percent of basic income
from the forest sector.) Indeed, as
the Provincial Health officer has
repeatedly shown, one of the essen-
tial indicators of the health of future
generations is the economic welfare
of current generations. As has hap-
pened in the U.S. Pacific Nortne
west, when you undermine the local
economy, you run a large risk of
undermining the health and wellbe-
ing of young people, who typically
either leave the area to face uncer-
tain prospects elsewhere or remain
to face seriously reduced prospects
and stressful circumstances.

We have heard much about the
economic benefits of parks and of
the tourist sector that depends in
part on the existence of parks. We
believe there has been much exag-

gross provincial product and 19.4
times as much to government rey-
enues. (see article below)

Statistics on parks visits should
also be scrutinized carefully. Two-
thirds of all park visitors in B.C. are
in fact from B.C. Assuming that
about 20 percent of employment is
forest-generated, that is consisting
of direct or indirect forest employ-
ment, then at least 13 percent of
forest visitors are those who work
in the industry or those whose jobs
depend on the forest industry or
their families. Visits directly attrib-
utable to the forest sector, then,
amount on their own to a third as
much as out-of-province visitors.

Let’s look at a specific example.
In 1995 the area known as Pinecone
Lake-Burke Mountain north of Port
Coquitlam was designated as a class
“A” provincial park. This area had
supported widespread recreational,
conservation and other environmen-
tal values for many years, as well as
providing important economic val-
ues as a source of timber, especially

outside.

FORESTRY AND PARKS:
A COMPARISON OF THEIR

ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION TO B.C.

Park visitors: Twice as many park visitors are from within B.C. as from

° if 1/3 are from out province, 2/3 must be from within the province.
Assuming that about 20 percent of provincial employment’ is forest-
derived, that means that at least 13 percent of par!

visitors are forest

workers and their families, thus currently contributing on their own
over a 1/3 as much as “foreign” visitors.

Direct Employment: Forestry Accounts for 17.4 times as many direct jobs
as parks

parks: 5,300 jobs;

e forestry: 92,200 jobs;

Total Employment: Forestry Accounts for 29.6 times as many direct plus
induced jobs as parks

° parks: 9,300 jobs;

° forestry: 276,000 jobs;

Contribution to Gross Domestic Product: Forestry Contributes 17.75 times as
much to Gross Domestic Product as do Parks

° parks: $400 million to GDP;

e forestry: $7.1 billion to GDP;

Forestry generates shipments of $20.6 billion and a positive balance of
trade of over $9 billion.

Contribution to Government Revenues: Forestry contributes 19.4 times as
much revenue to the provincial and federal governments as do parks
° parks: $160 million to government;

° forestry: $3.1 billion to government.

In short, there is just no comparison between the economic value of
parks, compared to the forest industry. Just one specific example is
enough to show how futile it is to expect that parks can ever replace the
potential wealth that forestry generates. In the Lower Mainland, the
provincial government has created a park in the Pinecone Lake-Burke
Mountain region, north of Port Coquitlam.

According to the government’s own estimates, here are the comparative
economic values of continued forestry operations versus a park:

Employment

° 86 direct forest jobs and 128 indirect jobs dependent on forestry;

° in a park, eight potential jobs, with possible growth to between 44 and
58 over the next 41 years.

Direct Employment Income

° forestry: $3.68 million;

° parks: $230,000;

Again, there is absolutely no economic justification for the creation of a
park. In fact, the only way the minister can make the case that he makes
in this report is to completely disregard any alternative uses for the
land. Parks are great in the abstract, but they can’t be justified on eco-
nomic grounds.

~ Kim Pollock, Director of Environment and Land-Use Department

geration on this subject. The impor-
tant question is “compared to what.”
All things being equal, the forest
sector currently generates vastly
more economic benefit than do parks.
We calculate that forestry con-
tributes 17.4 times as many direct
jobs and 29.6 percent times as many
direct plus indirect jobs as do parks,
based on statistics from Coopers
Lybrand, the Ministry of Environ-
ment, Lands and Parks and Price
Waterhouse. Forestry also con-
tributes 17.8 percent as much to our

for mills in the very nearby Lower
Mainland.

The existing timber harvesting
operations created 86 direct and
128 indirect jobs, with direct income
of $3.8 million annually, according
to a study by B.C. Parks. By con-
trast, the same study showed that
even in an area so near the province's
largest population centre, a park
was estimated to likely support
eight jobs paying $230,000.

In short, then, regardless of other
benefits parks might provide, parks

cannot replace the economic value
of the forest sector on the same area
of land.

In fact, creation of parks in areas
corr enuy part of the provincial
working forest represent a double
cost. As productive forest land sub-
ject to the Forest Practices Code,
those lands represent a perpetual
source of employment income; gov~
ernment revenue; corporate returns,
a portion of which should be rein-
vested in future employment and
revenue; export earnings and other
values to forest-based communities
and the provincial economy.

As parks, they not only cease to
generate anything but a fraction of
their former value: they also become
a large and growing cost to govern-
ment and taxpayers. In 1993, parks
operations cost over $43 million; as
the parks system expands, all things
being equal, .it will consume a grow-
ing share of a shrinking revenue
base — shrinking because of reduced
forest sector activity.

In light of these observations,
I.W.A. CANADA makes the follow-
ing recommendations to your com-
mittee:

- the Protected Area Strategy tar-
get must remain 12 percent. Beyond
12 percent, conservation goals must
be reached within the existing parks
system or through “swaps” of exist-
ing park land back into the working
forest;

- future changes in conservation
requirements should be met from
existing protected areas or from
currently inoperable or inaccessible
areas. In cases where areas cur-
rently within the provincial work-
ing forest are required to meet a
demonstrated conservation emer-
gency, an equal and equivalent
amount of timber should be removed
from existing protected areas in the
same region;

- future park creation must be
justified as essential to the biologi-
cal well-being of the forests and new
parks must be shown to be better
candidate areas than those that
require disruption of the forest sec-
tor. Proposals supported only b
aesthetic, cosmetic or other consid-
erations that lack scientific basis
should be rejected; :

- low-elevation, flat and fertile
lands are often best suited to forestry
since they are often the best grow-
ing sites and forest operations on
those sites are safest, require less
road construction and use up less
energy. This should be taken into
account in all future parks designa-
tions;

- the provincial government should
develop a clear, comprehensive
analysis of the economic costs of the
province’s existing parks system,
especially those designated under
the Protected Area Strategy. This
should include the loss of annual
allowable cut; projections of lost
jobs and employment opportunities,
both direct and indirect; foregone
export revenues, government rey-
enues and economic activity; and
the relative value of removed lands
as either parks or working forest.
This analysis should help guide and
inform future parks designation
decisions;

- since it is unfair for small groups
of workers, their families and their
communities to bear by themselves
the costs of measures allegedly
designed to benefit all of society,
when parks are designated that dis-
rupt the forest sector and eliminate
jobs, the provincial government
should join any non-governmental
proponents of the park in designing
a transitional strategy aimed at
ensuring there is no net job loss as
a result of the parks proposal. The
transitional measures, which might
include mitigation of park impacts
through removal of timber from
existing parks, must be acceptable
to the impacted workers ad their
community and be put in place prior
to designation of the proposed park.

—-Kim Pollock

SS
34/LUMBERWORKER/DECEMBER, 1997