The “perfect storm” in the forest sector is creating uncertainty and stress within the industry, communities and investors.  Government needs to take action to reduce this and provide leadership in moving toward community resiliency.  Bill Bourgeois provides an opinion on how this can be done through improving the forest sector regulatory infrastructure in Addressing uncertainty and stress

Minister Donaldson identified Government’s vision for the forest sector in the Spring 2019 issue of the Truck Logger magazine. It is “a forest sector made up of successful and innovative large and small companies that can create and maintain good jobs and generate wealth from our forests to support healthy communities.” There has not been much elaboration on the type of companies. Let’s hope this includes diversification so not all companies are producing traditional commodity or solid wood products.  The indication is this could be part of the Minister’s vision.  However, it is critical for him to send this message to the forest sector and Ministry staff as not much  has been done in this regard over the last couple of years.   Maybe the recent re-organization transferring the staff with this file to the Chief Forester’s office will produce positive results.

To provide resiliency to communities we need companies that can bridge the traditional economic cycle of solid wood products mainly destined for housing. Government needs to create an environment to encourage investment in other wood products such as bio-fuels and bio-chemicals. This will require long-term access to fibre. Hopefully the Coast and Interior Forest Sector Revitalization initiatives will include achieving this critical diversification.

Chief Forester Diane Nicholls talked about adaptation in forestry to CIF-Vancouver Section members and students on March 19th. A key point was “there is no one size fits all in managing BC forests under the expected climate, social and economic projections.” Foresters need to assess the conditions and projections on each site and landscape when making forest management decisions. This is a marked change from the traditional Government desire to have policies and regulations that trend toward standardization. A breath of fresh air. She will need support and good luck in moving this forward. Foresters and concerned citizens need to show her their support.

There are critics who maintain nothing has changed relative to forest practices since the NDP formed Government while at the same time industry and Government staff continue to mention they are overwhelmed by all the Ministry initiatives.  An investigation identified Government has 10 major on-going forest related initiatives. These are identified in the attached file with associated actions taken or planned. Comments are provided regarding the process being used.

John Innes, Dean, Faculty of Forestry, UBC, says the BC forest sector “is facing a crisis” and “a clear, insightful and long-term plan needs to be developed” by the BC Government.  The call to action in dealing with the crisis is not new. It was identified in the Healthy Forest-Healthy Communities dialogue of 2011-2012 (https://www.bcforestconversation.com/restoring-bcs-forest-legacy/). Government did nothing from this point until 2017. Is Government doing enough now to deal with the situation which has become more critical?

The need for tenure reform was raised in several TLA Convention panel presentations.  Bill Bourgeois provides his argument why tenure reform is unlikely to occur in the near future  Tenure reform-Challenges

Comment-Bill Bourgeois

I identified to Minister Donaldson the need for a legally binding BC vision and goals Letter to Minister Donaldson re vision-goals Although he is supportive of a vision, goals and objectives Letter to Minister Donaldson re vision-goals-response he did not go far enough in supporting the legalization of the statements. As mention in a previous post SFM-what needs to be done to demonstrate status it is nice to have a vision and goals but if these are not reflected in the strategic plans of management units and other decisions, they are just “feel good” statements. Throughout the past three decades this has been the case, probably because the statements are not legally binding and thus not a Ministry or industry requirement to ensure the strategic plans (e.g., Forest Stewardship Plans-FSP) are measured against the statements. Consequently, the vision statements have seldom been used in operations or forest management planning decision-making. We need to continue to push for legalization of the statements as part of the SFM infrastructure.

One major shortcomings in the BC forest management infrastructure is the lack of a legally binding vision and associated goals as discussed in SFM-what needs to be done to demonstrate status.  It is encouraging the Chief Forester provided a vision statement in BC Timber Goals Objectives 2017 as a response to the Auditor General questioning the lack of timber objectives. It is also encouraging goals and objectives beyond timber are being developed.  Previous Chief Foresters have developed vision statements.  However, they have never influenced the operational or strategic decision-making.  This is because they are intended as guidance and not binding on decision-makers.  If the Minister is serious about improving long-term forest stewardship in BC with the benefit of building resilient rural communities, the vision and goal statements have to be legally binding on decision-makers.

Many of the Forest Practices Board recommendations https://tinyurl.com/ycoz59cn are supportive of the HFHC recommendations as well.

The dissatisfaction with the current forest management decision-making system has been actively discussed for over two decades, commonly in the form of tenure reform and more local/community control.  These are not of interest to the key governing bodies (Government & industry) and consequently, discounted.  A Governance model-a conceptual framework is presented as a more acceptable option within the existing system.

Local Governments CAN influence forest land management decision-making through both their mandates and access to existing instruments as the “keeper of the social license.”  A mechanism for meaningful engagement on a continuous basis within the community and with decision-makers is essential for sustainable influence.