|
|
|
|
||
|
BC FOREST POLICY BATTLE HEATS UP
(This article is from the Feb. 1-14/2000 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.)
THE ANNUAL TIMBER HARVEST from B.C. forests should be raised from the current 69 million cubic metres to "100 million cubic metres or beyond," says provincial Liberal leader Gordon Campbell. The proposal is just one of several controversial points in his party's new forest industry policy.
Speaking to the B.C. Truck Loggers Association on Jan. 13, Campbell promised to support a wide range of demands by the Council of Forest Industries (COFI), including more access to timber, less "red tape," and compensation for "losses" resulting from the present NDP government's land use policies.
One key change by a Liberal government would be to introduce a so-called "results-based" Forest Practices Code, aimed at producing "desired environmental results" rather than compliance with regulations. Environmental groups warn that such a shift could mean a widespread return to logging practices which damage spawning streams and other natural habitat areas.
The Liberals want a 42% increase in the allowable annual cut, which they claim can be achieved through much more intensive silviculture practices. But they also intent to eliminate the union hiring hall system for silviculture employment, opening the door to a rock-bottom wage structure for these physically demanding jobs.
Two corporate demands which remain extremely unpopular with British Columbians were not on Campbell's list: wide open exports of raw logs, and the sale of Crown lands to forest companies. There is already considerable anger in resource communities over the rise in raw log exports, at a time when many mills and other operations face a shortage of wood fibre. Any privatisation of Crown lands, an option raised by the corporations and some NDP cabinet ministers, is widely seen as the sellout of B.C.'s most vital public asset.
Jim Fulton of the David Suzuki Foundation pointed out that Campbell's speech did not even mention the word "sustainable." Calling the speech a "blast from the past," Fulton noted that the province's chief forester already says the present cut levels are too high.
A very different set of policies is being advocated by the Forest Caucus of the B.C. Environmental Network, one of the largest such coalitions in Canada. Responding to the provincial government's Forest Policy Review, the Caucus is calling for a policy based on ecological sustainability, a diverse forest sector, and healthy communities.
COFI's demands have "little to do with true competition and everything to do with maintaining control of our forests by a few big companies and reducing environmental standards," according to Lisa Matthaus, a forest policy analyst with the Sierra Club of BC, one of the Caucus member groups. "Jobs, wages and community stability will also be the casualties of this `race to the bottom' strategy. Our vision is to provide more access, opportunities and control at the local level, to benefit both communities and forests."
The Vision for Forest Policy Change issued by the Caucus includes several key points:
- a move away from volume-driven, timber-based management to ecosystem-based management, along the lines recommended by the Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel;
- redistribution of land tenure, away from the corporations and in favour of greater local control, with priority for new tenures to communities and First Nations that have developed innovative, eco-system based resource management plans;
- fair legislation to compensate corporations affected by land use changes, based on their direct investments rather than "lost future profits";
- basing future policy changes and job creation programs on genuine diversification of local economies and the expansion of value-added manufacturing, not "propping up volume-based companies."
|
|
|
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
