David Elstone

Five years after the Modernizing Forest Policy in BC paper signalled the province’s intention to address the “disparity” in stumpage rates among Community Forest Agreements (CFAs), Woodlot Licences (WLs), and First Nations Woodland Licences (FNWLs), the issue remains unresolved. The question should not simply be whether all these tenure types should use tabular rates; but rather how BC should fund transformational change in forest management. …In 2025, CFAs and WLs paid substantially lower stumpage on harvested timber than FNWLs, whose rates were more comparable to major tenures such as Tree Farm Licences and Forest Licences. …While CFAs and WLs use tabular rates, stumpage for FNWLs is determined using the appraisal approach and revenue sharing. All three tenure types are area-based and, at least in principle, are meant to support a more locally intense form of forest stewardship than typical industrial forestry.

That distinction matters. If lower stumpage is simply treated as a revenue loss to government, the debate will remain stuck. If it is treated as a policy tool to secure measurable stewardship, wildfire resilience, and community stability, the discussion becomes far more productive. …The better approach is to stop treating equity reform in rates as a narrow revenue problem and start treating it as a performance bargain. If tenure holders want access to tabular rates instead of higher appraisal-based rates, they should be prepared to commit to measurable stewardship outcomes. …That is the trade-off those at the policy table should be debating. Tabular rates should not be viewed as a giveaway, nor should they be dismissed as a loss of revenue. They should be designed as a trade-off: more flexible administration of pricing and potentially lower rates in exchange for measurable stewardship gains, wildfire resilience, and community benefits.