_1L.W.A. study indicates no economic
benefit with new creation of parks

There is no economic benefit to creating new parks,
says I.W.A. CANADA. The forest workers’ union
warned in a brief presented on December 2 to the
B.C. Parks Legacy Project that although there might
be environmental or social reasons to designate parks
in areas currently in the working forest, “parks can-
not replace the economic value of the forest sector on
the same area of land.”

Using information from B.C. government reports;
I.W.A. CANADA estimates that parks created under
the B.C. Protected Areas Strategy have already cost
some 650 direct jobs.

The union urges the provincial government to keep
the lid on its 12 percent target for new parks creation
by the year 2000.

“Beyond 12 percent, conservation goals must be
reached within the existing park system or through
swaps of existing park land back into the working
forest,” the union urges.

The I.W.A. brief points out the vast difference in
employment, income and revenue between sustain-
able forestry and parks on the same area of ground.
Specifically:

° forestry creates 17.4 times as many direct jobs;

° forestry creates 29.6 times as many direct plus

indirect jobs;

° forestry contributes 17.8 times as much to our

gross provincial product; and

¢ forestry contributes 19.4 times as much to gov-

ernment revenues.

“We can’t keep on squandering jobs, wealth and
future opportunities for our kids,” warns I.W.A.
National Fourth Vice President Harvey Arcand. “The
12 percent target must be adhered to and we must
understand the‘huge price-tag that parks carry.”

The union also warns that it is crucial that low ele-
vation sites be maintained for timber harvesting.
These are the best growing sites and harvesting on
these areas consumes less fossil fuel, requires less
road building and is safer for workers. Already one-
third of new protected areas under the Protected
Area Strategy have been “low elevation sites,” accord-
ing to a 1996 B.C. government report.

industry activities contribute over 17 times as many jobs as do
and at a higher average wage.

PARKS IN BALANCE:
[.W.A. CANADA SUBMISSION TO THE
PARKS LEGACY PROJECT

November, 1997

I.W.A. CANADA represents work-
ing people throughout B.C., primar-
ily working men and women proudly
employed in the forest industry.

As a result, we have a vital inter-
est in programs and policies that
affect timber supply, that is, the
availability of timber to our
province’s forest industry. The for-
est sector continues to be the main
economic engine driving our
province’s economy and will likely
so remain for many years to come.

At the same time, I.W.A. CANADA
continues to support B.C. govern-
ment initiatives aimed at long-term
sustainability for the forest indus-
try. This includes the Protected
Area Strategy target of protecting
12 percent of the provincial land
mass by the year 2000. It also
includes such measures as the Tim-
ber Supply Review, various regional
and local Jland-use-planning
processes, the Forest Practices Code
and Forest Renewal B.C.

We believe government, industry
and the public must strive to find a
balance between our social, eco-
nomic and environmental concerns.
Indeed, many British Columbians
join us in our view that we have
now achieved many of our environ-
mental goals and that we should
now give top priority to job creation
in forest-based communities and
the forest sector. From the time of
the controversy over South Moresby,
through the Carmanah, Valhalla
Wilderness, Clayoquot Sound and
successive land-use plans, I.W.A.
CANADA has made this plea.

This concern is all the more cru-
cial in the face of a serious down-
turn that is currently squeezing
industry and causing widespread
plant shutdowns in B.C. A major
contributor to this cost-price squeeze
is the rapid increase in costs related
to environmental programs,
stumpage rises and other govern-
ment initiatives.

Increasingly, the forest industry
is being asked to simultaneously
finance quality services to people,
such as medicare and education
spending; support an array of envi-
ronmental protection, conservation
and recreation initiatives and reduce
its impact on the province’s ecosys-
tems. Obviously, there are limits to
our sector’s ability to meet these
escalating and contradictory
demands and still remain competi-
tive in increasingly competitive
international markets.

It is also important to recognize
that should we not remain interna-
tionally competitive, the cost in
terms of earthly environmental bur-
den will not cease. The world’s
demand for timber increases annu-
ally by an amount roughly equal to
B.C.’s annual allowable cut; this
demand would simply be shifted to
places elsewhere in the world, places
where standards are not as high as
ours and where inefficient harvest-
ing and production ensure that even
more land must be used to support
an equal amount of production.
Those who see environmental salva-
tion in reduced timber harvesting
here would do well to study the cur-
rent situation in the Russian Far
East, Indonesia, Malaysia or the
Philippines.

In our view, Canadians cannot
afford to sit back and say “let us
protect our pristine areas and let
others bring their resources and
products to us.” We would pay for
that attitude in the form of lost
employment opportunities, lost
export earnings, lost government
revenue and a reduced standard of
living.

Nor would this be morally respon-
sible. In our view, it is wrong for
one area of the globe to live off the
resources and labour of others. We
believe every region should con-
tribute at least the equivalent of the

Continued on page thirty-four

LUMBERWORKER/DECEMBER 1997/33