Category Archives: Opinion / EdiTOADial

David Elstone

There has been plenty written on this year’s horrendous wildfire season. It’s justified, since it has been the worst year for hectares burnt, record value of insurance claims for destroyed property, and most sadly, the lives lost by those working to fight wildfire. Merchantable timber and non-timber natural values were burnt including old growth forests, wildlife habitat and parks – the fires were non-discerning to what we value. …The evidence is abundant that the status quo on wildfire management is no longer a viable path. In many respects, we may be quickly arriving at a pivot point on forest management driven by wildfire. The BC government recently announced a task force on emergency management during wildfire, but the task force will not address what is desperately needed. … BC has a long history of fire suppression [and] much of what we need to know has all been documented by successive reviewers, and yet not much has been done.

To substantially enhance the resilience of our forested landscapes to fire, it will require substantive change by government and by industry on how to manage our forests, and just as equally, it will require changes to our traditional notions of conservation. …This suggests areas we have protected from commercial timber harvesting will still need forest management if we want such areas to endure. …The provincial government hopefully will have the funding, but the industry is key to implementation. Unfortunately, industry capacity is shrinking and will continue to do so if something is not done to address this trend. …To some it may be counter-intuitive to believe that to promote and protect both conservation and economic values of our forested landscapes, intervention through more harvesting activities (thinning etc.), not less, will be the solution. The alternative is the status quo, no change nor action; we are already bearing witness as to how that’s working out.

David Elstone

To say that the BC forest industry has seen change over the past 20 years would be an understatement. There have been several editorials and analyses done quantifying how many mills have or will close; how many trees have been killed; and how many jobs have been lost. Interestingly, few have looked where the BC forest industry might end up as timber supply continues to decline. …In 2005, the forest industry was running on all cylinders with a Crown AAC of just under 86 million m3. …In the BC Interior, there were 14 veneer plants and 82 sawmills with a combined lumber production capacity of over 16 bbf operating, …On the coast, there were 3 veneer plants and 29 sawmills with a combined lumber production capacity of over 3 bbf operated. On the residual fibre/biomass side, the province had 16 pulp mills, 8 paper plants and the beginnings of pellet and biomass power businesses. The industry was flourishing with direct employment of close to 70,000 people.

When we look out to 2035, a full 30 years after the industry peak, the picture is sobering. Using a forecast for a province-wide Crown AAC of 38 million m3, only 33 or 40% of sawmills operating in the BC Interior in 2005 will remain and lumber production capacity will fall to a mere 38% of that peak. On the coast, 14 sawmills are expected to continue operating, with 56% of the capacity of 2005. On the pulp and paper side, more closures are forecast… with pulp capacity forecast to settle at 54% of that in 2005 with paper capacity at a mere 11%. For other forest products manufacturers there may be 10 veneer production facilities, 14 shake and shingle mills and potentially just a few specialty operations remaining. …Despite the ever-present prognostications of doom and gloom there are those still willing to invest in this province. Most recently, Canfor’s new state-of-the-art 350 million board feet sawmill in Houston. …The BC government wants more investment to transition the industry, and specifically to add more mass timber manufacturing. Unless a plan can be developed to cut short the current trends, a much smaller industry is forecast by 2035. 

David Elstone

Job losses and reductions in work have been confirmed as real consequences of BC’s initiatives on old growth forest policy. Spar Tree Group’s May 2023 BC forest sector survey found three quarters of timber harvesting and road building contractors were experiencing some amount of work reduction due to old growth deferrals. Furthermore, the survey results indicated at least 1,000 jobs may have been displaced because of the deferrals in timber harvesting alone (not including forest product manufacturers nor the other segments of the forest sector’s supply chain). …After a mild rebound from the start of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, the provincial Crown timber harvest has since decreased by 16 million cubic metres or over -30%. For 2023, timber harvesting is down -23% year-to-date to August. …Staying on this path will mean more closures. …To be fair, other factors such as the now-past mountain pine beetle epidemic and ongoing wildfires have definitely contributed to these decreases.

Anti-forestry advocates are calling for more and faster action on old growth forests. Giving into to such pressure is what got us into this trouble in the first place. It is incumbent on local governments and all members of the provincial government to ask what are the potential impacts of the next steps? Perhaps some analysis should actually be done on the outstanding fourteen recommendations of the A New Future For Older Forest report. …Yes – we should improve our efforts in managing for old growth, but it is a complete myth to believe we are harvesting the last of our old growth when at least 75% of the existing old growth forests in this province are not threatened by harvesting. We need to be open to new ways of managing forests in BC that are dynamic and active to promote forest resilience instead of creating static area set asides to achieve a target which meets some environmental or political agenda. 

Christine Gelowitz

Wildfires are part of the natural ecosystem — have been for thousands of years and will continue to be in the future. While the scale and impact of wildfire in B.C. appears to be increasing exponentially, there are more steps we could take to protect our communities and the forest, and to improve our ability to respond to and minimize the impact of wildfires. But doing so will not be easy or simple. It takes co-operation among the public, landowners, forest professionals, First Nations, firefighters, emergency responders and, most importantly, elected government representatives. …The core ingredients for a new vision and approach to wildfire is readily available in BC if governments are ready to make the investment and drive the required policy changes. Good ideas abound.

Earlier this year, the B.C. Forest Practices Board released a special report urging the provincial government to align policies and programs across all levels of government to enable landscape-level fire management. …Dr. Mike Flannigan of Thompson Rivers University, estimates that every dollar spent on prevention and mitigation saves $5 to $15 spent on fighting wildfires. The time for waiting and conducting more studies is over. In many communities, the planning is completed and solutions have been tabled. Now they need to be implemented by policy and government funding at a scale comparable with the efforts devoted to wildfire emergency response. B.C. has skilled and competent people who can help move wildfire prevention and mitigation activities forward. …We know the solutions. We have the expertise. Now we just need the will to act.

David Elstone

Past calls for power by the BC government drove the expansion of energy production by the private sector (IPPs). Many projects including pulp mill power, run-of-river and biomass projects were built over the last two decades to sell power to BC Hydro. However, a strong lobby campaign against IPPs led to dramatic policy change… and as a consequence, the government ended its standing call for power in 2020. This all occurred despite awareness of growing energy demand, and the province did not have enough capacity. . …Now with the goals to electrify the province and net zero emissions for LNG, the government has once again turned to IPPs for solutions. How does this shift in energy policy serve as a comment about forestry? 

Forest product markets may be tough now, but according to the UN FAO’s forest sector outlook to 2050, consumption of lumber, panels, and pulp will increase by 37% beyond 2020. …Unfortunately, just like the misguided end to the calls for power back in 2020… the Old Growth Strategic Review has brought about new and pending policy that will reduce our ability to manage forests for our needs. We should be expanding active forest management which would address our very Canadian reality that harvesting (and thinning) actually helps protect forests (and our communities) by reducing wildfire intensity as well as carbon emissions from forest fires. …It took three years for government to come to its senses on energy. How long will it take the government to do the same on forestry?

Bob Brash

It’s been three years since government received the Old Growth Strategic Review and promptly proceeded to accept all its recommendations. While debate continues about the overall merits of that decision, we need a reminder of the two key transition recommendations that were endorsed by government:

• Once developed, implement the new policies and strategies for the management of old forests through mandatory provincial and local transition plans that define, schedule and monitor the process.
• Support forest sector workers and communities as they adapt to changes resulting from a new forest management system.

Today, where are we at with these mandatory transition plans that support forest workers and communities as they adapt to the changes being imposed by government? Three long years later, I think it’s fair to say they remain non-existent.

Instead, the focus appears to be vaguely expressed through the future state of government’s newly proposed “paradigm shift” with all the necessary steps for a transition basically missing. And those opposed to forestry consider this “paradigm shift” to mean we stop harvesting all together. The TLA has long been on the record for recognizing and supporting change in BC’s forest sector. In fact, most of us have been transforming our sector for our whole careers. However, there are essential elements that need to be in place for any transformation to be successful. …Recently, Premier Eby challenged the forest sector to come up with “creative solutions on their own” to address current challenges. Well, we’re ready, with the caveat that it needs to be done together with government and must include effective actions to enable a successful transformation.

Alice Palmer

In a world where the only constant is change, anticipating the future helps us identify potential disruptions—and prepare for them — futurist Nikolas Badminton of Futurist.com. The BC forest industry is no stranger to change. On top of the constant ebb and flow of demand for forest products, we also have to contend with a seemingly ever-decreasing log supply. On a more positive note, emerging technologies such as global positioning systems are creating opportunities to increase automation and log more efficiently. Further, wood is increasingly being recognised as a carbon-friendly building material and is being used in a growing number of applications. …If we allowed ourselves to daydream about where we live and how we live 30 years into the future, what would we see? Will the world’s cities be full of wooden skyscrapers? Or, conversely, will society’s thoughts and beliefs about sustainable forestry lead to less forest harvesting, and ultimately, less wood usage overall? 

In Facing Our Futures, Nikolas Badminton points out that one person’s utopia may be another’s dystopia, and this is evident when we listen to forest policy discussion in BC. Consider, for example, the idea of designating tracts of forest land for intensive timber production. Are such forests the perfect solution for carbon sequestration on a smaller land base, or are they dense, dark, “biodiversity deserts”? If society’s overall goal is to have both wood production and conservation, we will probably have to incorporate both industrial and conservation forestry into our plans. …Facing Our Futures does not say much about negotiating between clashing worldviews. However, it does describe how scenario building can be used to stimulate broader interest and participation. 

It has been two years since the BC government presented its vision to reshape the province’s forest sector. …A large part of the reason for the industry’s underwhelming response is the lack of specific direction from government on what exactly it meant by “more jobs and higher value.” …The irony is that the industry recognizes that change is needed in order to continue operating in this province. Even without policy changes, there are various pressures driving decisions to shift paths including a declining BC Interior timber supply, wildfire management and need to grow relationships with First Nations to name a few. 

Without an overall plan with goals, the forest industry is left in paralysis and has no ability to move forward with investment to drive the government’s desired change. …From a politicians’ perspective, having no explicit goals is a conservative approach as it means no accountability. Unfortunately, the industry’s frustration mounts, and capacity continues to retrench. …Problems like those facing the sector can be resolved when there is decisive and clear direction with measurable, transparent goals. A vision to be implemented and expected to bear results within a four-year election cycle (or less) is not realistic given the size and complexity of the forest sector. A good first step that would hopefully withstand political pressures and help move the necessary conversations forward is having a forest sector economic strategy supported by all that rely on British Columbia’s forests…otherwise the Recipe For Gridlock will continue as evidenced by the closures of Canfor’s Houston sawmill and subsequently Brink’s Pleasant Valley Remanufacturing.

David Elstone

The following is a summary of David Elstone’s presentation at the BC Council of Forest Industries Convention in Prince George, BC

Last January, upwards of 40% of the sawmilling capacity in British Columbia was affected by some form of curtailment or closure, which in turn affected a number of pulp and paper mills. How far will reductions in future lumber production go as the BC industry transitions? A similar path or can we change? …What do we dare to dream about for the sector in order to change its path? Indigenous forestry? Ecological regenerative forestry? Silviculture investment? New value-added products and manufacturing innovation? The vision paper, Modernizing Forest Policy In British Columbia offers many good intentions but there are large gaps in understanding how several of the initiatives can be achieved. …For the industry’s transition to a future prosperous sector, investment will be needed but current conditions lack predictability largely due to current policy initiatives. 

One solution to help further current government policy priorities while creating the specific parameters needed by industry, would be to create a strategic plan or economic strategy. An economic strategy would be coordinated with social and ecological objectives and include the following components: i) a long-term provincial vision for the sector based on regional economic strategies made in partnership with First Nations; ii)  a data-driven economic plan that reflects regional strategies, specific goals and a realistic timeline for implementation; and iii) appropriate metrics for change to help guide the changes that are occurring and need to occur. …Such a plan could help position British Columbia as a leader in value-added manufacturing, indigenous forestry and conservation management. If the oil sector can change direction, surely, a “green” renewable resource like BC forestry can change as well.

The influence of Indigenous’ interests on British Columbia’s natural resources sector is expanding at a rapid pace. …The BC government’s [2021] Modernizing Forest Policy intentions paper conveyed a goal “to increase the amount of ‘replaceable’ forest tenure held by Indigenous peoples to 20% from the current level of approximately 10%. …A March 2023 analysis by the Spar Tree Group, showed that the total amount of tenure held by First Nations organizations had decreased by 7% to 9.7 million m3, but the amount of replaceable tenure increased by 6% to 7.3 million m3. …With ongoing reductions to AAC in various regions of the province, comparing the absolute totals may not be the best way to monitor progress.

Over the last year and half there have been two significant developments in regard to industry agreeing to sell or dispose of tenure to First Nations. The first is Canfor’s announced intentions to sell its Mackenzie area tenure to two local First Nations. The second is due to Interfor’s potential tenure transactions with several First Nations. …If those pending tenure dispositions occur, it would mean that industry is moving ahead with tenure diversification without government intervention… and the estimate of replaceable tenure held by First Nations increases to 15.4%. …While the government’s vision for Indigenous held replaceable tenure has still to be fully achieved, it is apparent that the rising influence of First Nations extends well beyond that objective. As I have written many times before, if your business does not have a relationship with local First Nations, you may want to change that, because without such a relationship, your business’ supply chain may be at risk.

Over the last few months, the BC forest sector has increasingly been the beneficiary of broad proclamations by many who work outside of the sector about an upcoming “paradigm shift” and “transformative future” in the management of BC’s forests. For some, these are apparently new and wise revelations worthy of our everlasting gratitude. The reality is that many of us have been around long enough to know that for decades, these terms have been bandied around repeatedly when each generation believes they have found the grand solution to the forestry issues of the day. These many decades have also seen the ebb and flow of the lobbying influence each faction in the debates can harness for their agendas dependent upon the government’s leanings in any particular election cycle. Today, many would say the pendulum is weighted towards environmental influences, while others will argue the industry’s influences were dominant in previous times. There is probably merit on both sides of the argument.

When was the last time all of those with a stake in our province’s forests collaborated on the development of a true vision for the future of BC’s forests? …Perhaps Pearse’s Royal Commission qualifies, but that was 47 years ago. I think it’s fair to say things have changed a bit since then. …What would those broader discussions and the development of a collaborative vision entail? …The question is whether all of those involved want to work on that solution to the broader benefit of all of us collectively or continue the current course of trying to outgun each other with lobbyists to Victoria.

David Elstone

I read with concern a recent editorial by Ted Clarke with perspectives by Ben Parfitt, from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives [Business in Vancouver, Feb 23]. To correct Mr. Parfitt, infestations did not begin in 2009. …In the late 1990’s and early 2000s these outbreaks expanded into an epidemic with the amount of pine being killed each year reaching a peak in 2005. …Faced with such a catastrophe, the government had two options. Option 1. Do nothing and let the dead timber decay, and possibly burn in wildfires. Option 2. Encourage the industry to use as much of the decaying timber as possible by temporarily increasing the harvest before it rotted. …Yes, harvesting, and lumber production rose to levels well above historical averages, but it was done with intention – this was no secret! 

Parfitt said the province would have been better off to give secondary value-added forest companies access to timber supplies the pellet industry is now using”. …A recent study found that 85% of the BC pellet industry’s fibre supply comes from by-products of sawmills and allied industries, and the remaining 15% is supplied from the forest including low-quality logs not suitable for lumber production and post-harvest residue. Perhaps there may be an innovator that could use some of this fibre, but not likely at the same scale of the pellet industry. …The article is correct in providing the message that “there’s every reason to believe that we’re going to see further mill closures”, but this is not news to anybody in the industry and mill closures cannot be blamed on the incorrect notions that the industry was overharvesting (dead timber) or the rise of the pellet industry.

Last week’s announcement by Canfor to restructure its BC operations to better align its manufacturing capacity with the available long-term fibre supply represents a major turning point for the BC forest industry. Canfor’s announcement was part of a long series of government and industry announcements over the last two weeks. Such announcements also included $146 million for various government initiatives. Collectively, these announcements have provided insight into the current and future state of the BC forest industry. … starting in chronological order:

• New jobs fund will support employment, resilient economics – Jan 17
• Province, Blueberry River First Nations reach agreement – Jan 18
• BC provides funding to expand use of fibre and support workers – Jan 19
• Crofton mill gets workers back on the job with government funding –Jan 20
• BC, Treaty 8 First Nations build path forward together – Jan 20
• BC, Treaty 8 First Nations build path forward together – Jan 20
• Update on Tolko’s BC Facilities – Jan 23
• New forestry program will expand manufacturing, create jobs – Jan 24
• New conservancy protects rare ecosystems in Incomappleux Valley – Jan 25
• Canfor Restructuring BC Operations to Create Sustainable Footprint –Jan 25
• Working Group to Explore Solutions for Western’s Alberni Division –Jan 26

…Canfor’s restructuring is symbolic as it signals the resounding end to the mountain pine beetle era for the BC interior and heralds the start of the so-called ‘paradigm shift’ – for better or for worse. Expect more capacity reductions to come.

Ian MacNeill

If you got all your news about forestry in BC from the mainstream media and social media websites, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the majority of British Columbians do not approve of the way the province’s forests are being managed. A recent Leger survey tells a far different story. The first finding is that while some British Columbians are indeed polarized on the issue, only one in five is actively opposed to current management practices. …[However] at the other end of the spectrum, only one in five approve of the way in which our working forests are being managed. …Which means that more than half of British Columbians are neutral on the subject. …This isn’t to say they do not care about our forests, they most certainly do, but it also means they haven’t bought into the sky-is-falling fear mongering.

In other words, the war is no longer in the woods, at least not the part of it that really counts, it’s in the hearts and minds of the nearly 60% that simply wants to be assured that the business is being run sustainably. The survey results came as a relief to many industry and association leaders. More good news comes from the fact that four in five British Columbians believe that forests can and should play a significant role in combatting climate change, and… most see timber as a renewable resource that provides economic prosperity as well as one of nature’s most adaptive and beautiful building materials. …“This information tells us that there remains substantial support for our sector,” says TLA Executive Director Bob Brash. “But there are substantial opportunities to better inform the public about our forestry practices. To some extent, it’s about winning, or perhaps in some cases, gaining more trust.”

David Elstone

The Quesnel Cariboo Observer published a short and perhaps low-key article on September 29,2022, “16-day curtailment planned at Cariboo Pulp and Paper.” …However, rarely do pulp mills shut down temporarily – an action typically to be avoided at all costs as it takes multiple days to take down and bring up a pulp mill to full production in a safe and efficient manner. All the more concerning [are] the reasons for this curtailment …”Infestation, wildfire, forest policy decisions and other considerations have resulted in fewer logs being processed in Interior sawmills, and therefore fewer wood chips and pulp logs are available as feedstock for BC pulp mills.” …Cariboo Pulp & Paper and Crofton are the latest canaries in the coal mine – while their announced status is currently described as “temporary”, if something is not done to address their fibre supply issues, it would be fair to conclude that their respective status could change for the worst.

Fortunately, there are some options available to help ease the fibre supply problem. Millions of hectares of forest lands have been burnt in this province over the last seven years including the record burn years of 2017 and 2018. …Pulp mills don’t need the same quality of log that a sawmill requires to make lumber. …Another option that could help is to target harvesting waste, an issue that has gained notoriety with the images of huge slash piles in the media. Typically, the result of offcuts not suitable for lumber production in sawmills, such slash piles might be used by fibre consumers like pulp mills and pellet mills. The BC Pulp and Paper Coalition estimates that recovering logging waste could help close the fibre supply gaps on the coast and interior with upwards of 1.2 million cubic metres deemed as economic and accessible. …Despite being aware of this situation, so far, the provincial government hasn’t taken expedient actions to avert this crisis.

An increased level of uncertainty in the BC forest industry has become the norm over the past few years with a plethora of changes being made that have cumulatively eroded the confidence of some for the future of the industry. Uncertainty equates to risk when it comes to investment, and raises many questions: What will the eventual outcome of the old-growth deferrals be? Will the changes to the Forest & Range Practices Act and the Forest Act lead to more or fewer opportunities? How will recommendations on the transfer of timber rights influence management and value of tenures? All these issues must also be measured within the framework of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and growing First Nations participation in the BC forest industry.

…Despite the potential risks from government’s policy direction, current and future prospective tenure holders have options to mitigate their risk. In many respects, Bill 28 was enacted to motivate industry to change itself. Potential tenure purchasers are well advised to fully consider local First Nations or community desires for the AAC prior to purchasing tenures. Exploring how the status quo might change through the forging of new relationships may go a long way to removing government from the equation. …Although there are many risks to owning tenure, if there is continued wood products manufacturing at an industrial scale in BC, securing fibre supply through tenure will be a necessary component of many forest products companies’ strategy. …Despite the short-term uncertainty in the industry today, many see the longer-term prospects for sustainable forest products in BC as positive. 

Alice Palmer

BC launched its Mass Timber Action Plan, partly on the premise that building with wood has a lower carbon footprint than construction alternatives such concrete and steel. Meanwhile, environmental groups continue to protest against old growth logging, in part based on claims about logging’s carbon footprint. Puzzled by this apparent contradiction in climate claims, I took a deeper look at the science underlying the carbon impacts of forestry and wood use. …Indeed, studies have shown buildings made with mass timber, emit 30 to 40 per cent less carbon from their construction than their concrete and steel counterparts. …Old growth forests contain stores of carbon absorbed from the atmosphere. Given that fact, can BC forest products, including mass timber, actually be considered carbon-friendly?

The argument against old growth logging is that the disruption caused by harvesting mature forests could release more carbon than would be absorbed by the younger trees that will grow in their place. …Researchers at Oregon State University and the US-based CORRIM consortium …found that clearcut forests initially become a carbon source. However, after about 12 years the young saplings catch up in their carbon absorption capabilities, bringing that forest to carbon-neutral.  At about 30 years trees start to add a lot of volume and…turn the forest into a net carbon sink. …The verdict? It is best to have a mix of both old and young forests. …The challenge lies in pacing the rate of logging so that the area of very young forests emitting more carbon than they sequester is balanced by a larger area of carbon-hungry teenage-to-middle-aged forests. …In a nutshell, the models suggest that harvesting old growth can be carbon friendly, especially if it is used in products like mass timber.

There are many times when I’ve been frustrated by the headlines sensationalizing protests about forest management in BC. The relentlessness of the attacks on our forest sector becomes, right or wrong, numbing. …I’m not talking about the legal and passionate protests and dialogue about the future of forest management in BC. This is about those that flout the law, discourage real discussion, discourage democracy, and have a new brand of colonialism. One protest group dumped a pile of manure at the front door of Premier Horgan’s constituency office. Wow, that is really mature. Next, Minister Conroy’s home phone number was published online and both she and her family members received threatening messages. Wow, what kind of person does that?

The TLA has attempted to present some facts on the debate including three billboards on Vancouver Island, which have been vandalized or destroyed on three separate occasions. I guess facts, dialogue, and democracy are unwelcomed in some circles. …In all the debate I’ve heard from preservationists, I have yet to hear a real option for how construction of new homes and buildings will be built, or what the substitutes are for the myriad of products originating from wood fibre. …Additionally, from a purely pragmatic perspective, the forest sector needs more than a few months to transition to the utopian vision many would have for our sector. Over the past decades of sustainably managing our forests, we can take pride in our ability to innovate and change with society’s expectations. But new products cannot be created overnight, retooling and recapitalizing cannot be done overnight, and new customers for new products cannot be found overnight.

Recent announcements have reinforced the status of First Nations as the alpha driver of forest land use policies in British Columbia. The trend has been evolving for years. It was formalized in 2019 when the provincial NDP government aligned BC’s forest land policies to the guiding principles of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). …For years, individual forest companies have read the signs and developed working relationships with First Nation groups across the province. Forest companies get an additional timber source, much-needed in the post-mountain pine beetle era. First Nations gain a meaningful say in what happens on their traditional territories, work experience for their members and funds for band improvement projects. 

Looking back, a recurring pattern emerges in B.C. politics: a dominant group or industry has more influence with government more of the time. For years, the forest industry played that role. Those days have gone. Since then, the public has demanded and received more from the provincial forests. Environmental awareness in several forms became imprinted on the forest landscape. New parks, reserves and protected areas resulted. …But it is the future of log harvesting in ‘old growth’ forests that is the touchstone issue in BC early in 2022—and the role of First Nations is at its heart. …The provincial government has responded in effect that it will be the First Nations which will decide if and where logging is permitted and under what levels of restriction. …Under the present government formula, consultation with other groups affected by the old growth harvesting decision—including the forest industry—will only come after the fact.

David Elstone

There is no going backwards on the old growth deferral process in British Columbia. For that matter, there is no going backwards on First Nations relations. These paths are intertwined, and they have only one direction – forward. It is easy to be drawn into the mire of the BC government’s old growth deferral process. To criticize this process has been natural when the future of so many people’s livelihoods, businesses and communities have been set on a course for abrupt change. I find it hard to leave this issue alone; nonetheless, looking backwards will not take the conversation forwards….From what I have observed, First Nations are overwriting deferral areas using their own local knowledge and values – and rightly so.

From a high level, the discussion on old growth management was never only going to be about biodiversity and protecting large trees, but rather it was the door opener on land use discussions through a First Nations’ lens. The Province’s enactment of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (“DRIPA”) made certain this would happen at some point in the future. As such, to make lemonade from lemons, this old growth deferral initiative is accelerating an eventuality in land use discussions – the sooner that such planning processes are completed the more certainty there will be on the land base with which businesses can operate. …The forest industry needs more certainty than it has today. The best way to improve that under the circumstances is to strengthen investments in First Nations partnerships… and industry is well positioned to help.