GUEST COLUMN

Control of forests in too few hands

by Dan Miller

MASSIVE and almost invisible trans-

formation is taking place in B.C.’s forest

\ industry affecting thousands of employ-

_\ees, the forest management policies of \the provincial government and where the

profits go from the use of our public timber resource.

This transformation has taken the form of increasing corporate concentration. Over the past decade, it has meant that fewer and fewer compa- nies hold a larger and larger portion of the rights to cut publicly-owned timber in this province.

Three years ago a thesis written at the University of Victoria confirmed what many peo- ple had suspected. At that time the five largest corporate groups in the province owned 68% of the provincial allowable cut in TSAs and 82% of the cut in TFLs. Only ten years earlier the largest four corporate groups had held 27% of the TSA cut. Since that thesis was written, the arrival of Fletcher Challenge Canada and other corporate moves have only increased the level of concentra- tion.

The effects of this increasing concentration are clear, and over the past decade they have only been made worse by the alliance formed between large forest companies and a friendly provincial

government — a government that has never demanded adequate levels of investment and employment as a price of doing business in our province. Forest industry workers were the first to feel the effects, and they are feeling them still.

Let’s look at some hard statistics for the 10-year period from 1979 to 1988: |

(a) forest companies cut 10.5 million more cubic | metres of logs; |

(b) the value of all forest products increased by $4 billion;

(c) lumber production increased by 6.5 billion board feet; ne) 22,500 forest industry workers lost their jobs.

There’s no doubt that world economic condi- tions have to take their share of blame for layoffs in the early 1980s, but since then the impact of corporate concentration and integration of forest companies have had a much greater effect.

Having relatively few large-scale companies doing everything from logging to marketing their products has meant that these corporations can produce whatever will make the most profit for

them in the short term, wherever and however is the cheapest way to do it.

The management of TFL #46 is a good ex- ample. The owners cut as much high quality, cheaply available timber as possible when the price was high, and reduced production and employment when tim- ber ran out, rather than operating at a harvest level that would sustain their yield as well as the jobs of their workers.

On the manufacturing side, the production of dimension lumber and, lately, pulp using the most highly automated means possible, is another direct result of the increasing concentration of the industry. In both of these cases, it’s clear that for

pane bas aes) Caan | bereits: on the igher profits available Ip production have led to cancellation of intensive silviculture programs that could have provided steady “whose days in BLC., the publ the govern

ese days in B.C., the public an - ment are forced to rely on indu: for such basic information as inventory levels. en Fletcher Challenge Canada was applying for a Tree Farm Licence near Mackenzie in 1988, it was the com- pany, not the forest service that offered to inven- tory the timber involved — after the TFL was awarded, of course.

Finally, the domination of our forest industry by large corporations, most of which have their head offices in the east or in another country, diverts money away from local workers, busi- nesses and communities.

Corporate managers in eastern Canada or off- shore do not necessarily make decisions that are in the best interest of B.C. workers and communities.

the corporations it’s bet- ter to lose jobs than profits.

The provincial gov- ernment has stood by while thousands of for- est industry jobs have been lost. They have accepted the corpora- tions’ explanation that

The tenure system must be reviewed to see if we are getting maximum

mmvestment and job creation

It has been shown that companies with head offices outside Canada do not spend very much money on research and development, and re- search and development creates more jobs. They can move their profits back and forth within

it was all in the name of good business practices. A more subtle change has been happening at the same time — as the forest corporations have grown in size and power, they have managed to take over management responsibilities for our forests.

In 1983, COFI submitted a brief to the provin- cial government that included four forest policy recommendations. Three of those four recommen- dations have now been implemented. They are: a decentralized, smaller Ministry of Forests, dele- gation of management responsibilities to licencees, and privatized log scaling, timber cruis- ing and forest nursery programs.

What has been the result of allowing the forest

| giants to “tend their own fields”? One example

can be found in the audit of MacMillan Bloedel’s TFL #39, which found the company had left more than twice the allowable waste behind after logging.

The report also found that two other TF Ls in the same area had left similar levels of waste behind after logging, and that staff shortages in the Ministry of Forests office made it impossible to accurately check waste figures submitted by licencees, or increase on site inspections.

A report on TFL #46 makes the same point. “District monitoring of waste seems to have relied almost entirely on the company submissions with- out any significant level of field checking of work to verify accuracy, completeness or adherence to plans.”

Waste is only one example of how corporations have managed to take over the management of our

their corporation and spend them on whichever project needs funds — often on the other side of the country or the world.

The profits from the forests of B.C. may well end up being used for a takeover in Brazil or a mill in New Guinea, rather than a silviculture project in Kamloops.

The combination of increasing corporate con- centration and a ‘free enterprize’ provincial gov- ernment has left us with a series of problems in the forest industry, ranging from poor logging prac- tices to pulp mill pollution violations.

It’s clear that we have to take a hard second look at the forest management and economic policy decisions that have been made to get us in this position.

The tenure system, which has worked to the advantage of the large integrated companies, must be reviewed to see if we are getting the maximum obtainable in investment and job creation.

The time is right to regain control of our timber resources and to use them wisely for the benefit of all British Columbians.

Dan Miller is the Forestry Critic for the New Democratic Party of British Columbia. He is a member of the provincial legislature (North Coast) and is a millwright who is on leave of absence from Skeena Cellulose’s pulp mill in Prince Rupert. Mr. Miller has agreed to provide the Lumberworker with a series of articles related to the forest indus- try in BC.

Winter School °90

© More than 60 [WA-CANADA members from Western Canada were in attendance at this year's B.C. Federation of Labour-CLC Winter School in Harrison, B.C. Below are Local 1-357’s Bruce Barkley (1) and instructor Joe LeClair presenting course certificates to Bharbara Klassen (1) of CUPE Local 523 and Peggy Hoffman of the Alberta Union of Public Employees. Above right: ['WA-CANA DA's Education Director Frank Wall (second from left) joins a rehearsal for the traditional choir contest, and below, IWA's Legal Counsel Suzan Beattie co-instructs a course in labour law.

16/LUMBERWORKER/MARCH, 1990