The provincial government is in the process of updating B.C.’s Wildfire Management Protection Program Strategy.
PFLA is engaged in this process. We thought you’d like to know, the folks at the Wildfire Management Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations are asking for input.
They’re interested in your answers to the following two questions:
1. What are the key issues the British Columbia Wildfire Management Branch must consider over the next five years that are of mutual benefit for our organizations?
2. If applicable, how can the British Columbia Wildfire Management Branch assist and/or support your organization’s goals, objectives, and strategies over the next five years?
The objective is to update the 2006 British Columbia Forest Service Protection Program Strategy to reflect changes (internal and external to government) over the past 5 years, and to continue to work towards increased effectiveness and enhancement of wildfire management in the province of BC.
For your reference, you can find the current strategy document here.
Please direct your feedback to Dave.Bodak@gov.bc.ca of the Wildfire Management Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, by November 30, 2011 (and copy PFLA on your email).
In addition, PFLA is interested to hear your questions, comments and suggestions for how we can best represent your interests on this matter.
PFLA continues to work diligently with municipal, provincial and federal levels of government to ensure the perspective of private forest landowners is represented at all levels of the public policy process.
We have one more relevant matter to add to the unprecedentedly long list of public policy issues we updated you about back in September.
The Natural Resource Road Act Project
Currently, resource roads in British Columbia are administered through a host of different laws, many of which regulate a specific industry or activity. Often, resource roads are built for a specific purpose, but then used by multiple industries, commercial operations and the public.
The B.C. government is revisiting the existing legislative framework with the intent to better serve the current and future needs of all resource roads users. The plan is to consolidate resource road legislation into a single act – the Natural Resource Road Act (NRRA).
In certain circumstances, the NRRA has the potential to affect private forest land. The PFLA is engaged in the public policy process and welcomes your feedback, questions or suggestions.
You can find out more about the process, and the framework’s principles and policies, at the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations website, or you can access the full discussion paper here .
Feedback is encouraged and accepted until December 15, 2011.
Please contact Rod Bealing if you have any questions, suggestions or concerns. Or, leave us a comment below.
The rally is scheduled for September 28, 2011. According to the Nanaimo Daily News, hundreds of loggers, and other concerned citizens, opposed to log exports will gather at the Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada (PPWC), Local 8, union hall before marching through the streets of downtown Nanaimo, B.C.
While the PFLA commends the spirit of Mr. Bercov, and his associates, we’re quite frankly a bit baffled by their opposition to log exports.
Here’s why:
1. B.C. has a surplus of timber.
That’s right, a surplus of timber. Each year, millions of cubic metres of trees go unharvested. These are trees planted, grown and approved for harvest as part of the annual allowable cut (AAC). We’ve said it before, but we’ll say it again: there is no shortage of timber in B.C.
2. B.C.’s domestic market for logs has collapsed.
Sawmills on the B.C. coast don’t have the capacity to process the available timber. Present processing capacity is 15.5 million cubic metres; available timber is 24 million cubic metres (that’s a difference of 8.5 million cubic metres per year, or approximately double the log export volume).
3. B.C. mills buy logs at prices lower than log production costs.
What it costs to plant, tend and harvest trees exceeds the log prices offered by struggling B.C. sawmills. Uncompetitive mills use the government’s surplus test policy to obtain logs at reduced domestic prices, often significantly less than their international competitors.
4. The log export business is keeping the coastal forest industry alive.
Isn’t this ironic? Without access to a better price for a portion of the harvested timber (the portion exported in the round to international markets) nobody could afford to harvest trees. If nobody goes to work in the woods there are no logs for domestic mills.
5. B.C.’s forest workers, families and communities count on getting the best price for timber.
Relying on the domestic log market is not a viable option. The woods support thousands of rural jobs, but only when log prices are high enough to cover the costs associated with planting, tending, managing, and harvesting timber.
In light of what we consider to be pretty compelling information, we encourage Mr. Bercov, and his associates, to re-evaluate rallying against log exports. Forestry in B.C. is in a state of flux, now more than ever, it’s important to consider the facts, as they are.
What do you think? We look forward to your comments and suggestions.
Make yourself comfortable. There’s a lot to report.
The PFLA continues to work diligently with federal, provincial and local governments on an unprecedentedly long list of public policy developments. In fact, PFLA Regulatory Committee members can’t recall a time when the association’s been consulted (or, more accurately, insisted on being consulted) on so many policy areas at once.
The objective of PFLA’s involvement, in all cases, is to:
remind government that private land exists
demonstrate why policy distinction is necessary for private land
ensure our communication with all forms of government is consistent and ongoing
promote and advance the PFLA mission
demonstrate we are responsible stewards working to balance environment, community and commerce
To those of you participating, thank you for your diligence, persistence, questions, comments, hard work and support. To those of you interested in getting involved, we look forward to hearing from you.
Here are a few highlights from our current public policy activities:
1. Fire Prevention and Cost Sharing Agreements
The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations – Protection Branch is reviewing its operations; particularly, the financial aspects of Fire Prevention Cost Sharing Agreements with BC’s forest owners and other land managers.
The review process is in early stages and the details are unclear, but the core issue is government’s concern about spending more money than it collects from program participants.
A conversation with key stakeholders is in the works, and PFLA is involved and committed to representing the perspective of private forest owners.
2. Off Road Vehicles Act & Regulations
The government is in the process of regulating off-road vehicles in BC.
PFLA is engaged in the process with the objectives of:
increasing government’s capacity to enforce the law without eroding private property rights
You can find more information about the ORV Vehicle Management Framework here.
3. Private Managed Forest Land Act
Managed Forest (MF) owners on Galiano Island are in the bizarre, and uniquely ugly, position of owning and caring for forest land on a beautiful island where restrictive local government bylaws prevent them from living legally in their forests. Not even one dwelling per parcel, some of which exceed hundreds of acres.
PFLA has found no other example of this kind of extreme and hostile restriction in BC, Canada, or North America.
The Private Managed Forest Land (PMFL) Act is intended to foster stewardship of private forest land by providing regulatory certainty, and maintaining forest management.
This is a provincial, not local, government priority. The right to reside on MF land is a key component of the PMFL Act.
In a recent legal challenge, the judge found that the province’s intention to protect owners’ right to reside on their land is abundantly clear in the PMFL Act; however, the legislation lacks the words necessary to affirm the provincial jurisdiction over forest management in the case of Galiano Island.
The judge noted the necessity for the province to correct this problem.
Despite many years of communication from forest owners, this situation has not improved.
PFLA finds local government interference of this magnitude is extremely restrictive and a strong disincentive to responsible forest stewardship.
PFLA is working with Galiano MF owners and government. We look forward to seeing government do the right thing: change the wording to make the policy intent of the legislation undeniably clear.
The federal government was working on a model to regulate the incidental take of migratory birds: options included BMPs and various permits.
The intention was to provide all Canadian land managers, who come into contact with migratory birds, with a clear and legal process, or permit, to comply with the stated provisions of the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
In October of 2010, the federal government announced it would no longer work on regulations to permit the incidental take of migratory birds.
PFLA is working with the Canadian Private Forest Landowners Council (CPFLC), and other forest and land management groups, from across Canada, to advocate for private forest owners on this issue.
The provincial government has established a task force to make recommendations regarding the protection of species at risk in BC.
PFLA is engaged in this process and makes it a priority to help government understand the issue from a private land perspective.
We are encouraged to report that the task force recognizes private land is separate and distinct from public land, and also acknowledges the need for education and incentives.
Again, this is an ongoing policy process, and PFLA is in regular communication with government to ensure the perspective of private forest owners is represented.
The province is in the process of modernizing the Water Act: a piece of legislation with significant implications for all landowners; particularly, Managed Forest owners who conduct work in and around streams and stream crossings.
Historically, PFLA has pro-actively partnered with government to raise awareness and promote the value of responsible streamside management.
We continue to advocate strongly from the private land perspective.
PFLA is closely involved in the current legislative review process, and committed to working with government to find a balance between environment, community and commerce.
7. BC Log Export Policy Review
BC’s Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations recently initiated another review of log export policy (more details here).
PFLA is engaged in this process and consistently lobbies, both federal and provincial governments, for the right of private forest owners to obtain fair value for our logs.
Log export restrictions impact the value of our land and our trees. The trees we invest considerable time and resources in to plant, grow and harvest.
PFLA also strives to add balanced and factual information to public discussion and media coverage surrounding this issue (for example: response to Ben Parfitt; balanced Nanaimo Daily News article).
Thank you for taking the time to read through the PFLA public policy highlights.
While this is an exceptionally busy time for the PFLA Regulatory Committee, we’re happy to be engaged with elected officials, ministry staff, managed forest operators, and community members on so many levels.
Please let us know if you have any questions, comments or concerns. We continue to work hard to ensure the perspective of private forest landowners is represented, understood, and promoted throughout the policy process.
As always, we welcome, encourage, appreciate, and need your input: leave us a message below, send us an email, or give us a call.
There will also be plenty of opportunity for discussion at local PFLA community meetings: October/November 2011.
More details to follow soon, but tentatively, meetings are scheduled for:
• Victoria
• Nanaimo
• Courtney
• Vancouver
• Castlegar
• Kelowna
Ben Parfitt’s article How to Create Green Jobs in BC’s Forests appeared in the August 15, 2011 online edition of the Tyee (link to full article).
In a nutshell, Mr. Parfitt criticizes the BC forest industry for exporting raw logs to China. He argues that diversifying markets and value-added products are the vehicles we need to move this province, its forests and its communities forward to a better place.
We’re just as interested in improving the situation for BC forests and communities. In fact, we strive for the same worthy objectives as Mr. Parfitt: a sustainable forest industry and healthy sustainable forests.
To that end, we’ve taken the time to address some flawed logic, bad comparisons and misinformation Mr. Parfitt stumbled over on the way to a better place.
“We’re Shipping Primarily Non-processed Commodities to China” and Here’s Why
Economic realities dictate how markets work. The products Chinese markets want are logs and lumber. That’s why BC (and our competitors like the US, New Zealand and Australia) sell logs and lumber to China.
Fibre costs and fibre availability are not the limiting factors for value-adding in BC. Conversion costs are. Western Canada has some of the lowest log prices on planet earth. It also has the highest sawmill wages and the highest conversion costs on planet earth.
This is the same reason BC doesn’t export mobile phones and children’s toys to China. A high-cost jurisdiction cannot compete on value-added forest products into the Chinese market, or any market where the costs to manufacture goods are considerably cheaper.
Moving up the Value Chain: Why Comparing BC to Ontario and Quebec Doesn’t Work
Comparing Ontario and Quebec to BC is a bit like comparing an ocean to a lake. Sure, they’re both water, but they’re fundamentally different and exist in distinct environments.
BC’s eastern counterpartes operate with a different species mix (a greater proportion of whitewoods and temperate hardwoods) and a different product mix (newsprint, fine papers, value-added hardwood products).
Interestingly, eastern Canadian provinces are often net importers of logs from the U.S. In Quebec and Ontario there are no log export restrictions on private forest lands. This means, logs flow to the mills on either side of the border that add the most value, and can therefore offer the highest log prices.
This is the opposite of what’s going on in BC. Here, log export restrictions create artificially low log prices – the lowest on the planet. When domestic log prices are competitive there is no incentive to export logs.
Open competition for fibre compels innovation, efficiency, investment, improved utilisation, and ultimatley, increases the economic return to the forest.
“You can’t make forest products if you don’t have healthy numbers of healthy trees.”
BC has loads of healthy trees. Let us say it one more time for emphasis. There is no shortage of healthy trees in BC.
Yes, the harvest of lodgepole pine was accelerated to capture residual value in millions of trees killed by the mountain pine beetle epidemic. However, 100 million cubic meters of timber still went uncut.
That’s right, of the province’s annual allowable cut 100 million cubic metres of timber didn’t get harvested. That’s a lot of trees.
Currently, BC’s coastal timber harvest exceeds its annual coastal timber processing capacity by 8 million cubic metres.
We repeat: there are plently of healthy trees in BC. Trees that were planted and grown for the purpose of harvesting.
Some Raw Facts of Our Own:
• The current market price for lumber destined to China is $248 per thousand board feet. The price for logs (TO THE SAME MARKET) is $630 per thousand board feet.
• The cost of log production on the BC coast is between $400 and $630 per thousand board feet. You do the math.
• Banning log exports and limiting competition for fibre is the opposite of diversification.
• If a forest product is used in a manner that substitutes a high-carbon product like coal, oil, gas, steel, concrete, plastic or aluminum, the outcome is carbon-friendly.
• People don’t burn money. They don’t burn usable logs either. People burn logs to manage forests because current market conditions don’t make it economically viable to use them other ways.
What do you think? We look forward to your comments and suggestions.
As mentioned at the meeting, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations is happy to receive written submissions, suggestions, and input.
If you have any other questions, or want more information, leave us a comment below – we’ll get back to you.
Or, contact Rod Bealing: rod.bealing@pfla.bc.ca
Another success! PFLA organizers were delighted by the turnout and participation at the 2011 Private Forestry Forum.
Held June 16th, 2011, at the Prestige Conference Centre in beautiful Sooke, BC, a series of engaging presentations sparked interesting debates, encouraged thoughtful questions, and provided an opportunity to connect with forest landowners (large and small, coastal and interior); government representatives; industry experts; communication specialists; and international presenters.
For those of you who missed it, here are some of the highlights:
Tom Niemann, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations: Wood Market Update & Outlook presentation.
Highlight: Amazingly detailed, colourful and comprehensive graphs and charts depicting the forest sector’s business cycle over the past 10 years.
Key point: This is not a regular business cycle – both the product mix and the markets have changed. Tom advises policy makers, foresters, and landowners to think creatively about adjusting product mixes to match market demands.
Matt Walsh, New Zealand Carbon Farming: International developments in forest carbon trading.
Highlight: An international demand for carbon credits (created by voters and consumers pressuring governments and corporations to off-set negative environmental impacts) means “sinking” a forest, and selling carbon credits rather than logs, may prove as, if not more, lucrative.
Key point: International examples from New Zealand and California indicate the carbon credit industry is developing quickly. By 2012, we’ll see open trading in carbon credits in order for companies to meet their Kyoto Protocols. The Darkwoods carbon pilot project (June 2011) marks the first carbon sink deal in BC (Using the Trees to Save the Forest).
Mike Brooks: Detailed scan of B.C.’s political landscape.
Highlight: Continued political uncertainty puts two of PFLA’s key issues – maintaining policy distinction for private managed forestlands and positive change on log export policy – at risk.
Key point: There’s hope. We’re harvesting well under the average allowable cut, each year, in this province. This is a new concept for citizens. Undercutting public lands reframes the debate about log exports in a new light. It’s important to find a way to communicate this new message to the public.
Laura Coward, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, spoke briefly about recent shifts in government ministries. Laura reaffirmed the government’s commitment to work with the PFLA to ensure that government remains alert to the perspective of private managed forest owners.
Ron Davis, Private Managed Forest Land Council also provided a brief update on the council’s activities over the past year.
Did we miss anything? Want to know more? Leave us a comment and let us know what you think.
The BC provincial government is in the process of regulating off-road vehicles (ORVs). Vera Vukelich gave a detailed presentation of the ORV Management Framework at the PFLA’s 2011 Private Forestry Forum.
Under the ORV Management Framework, vehicle registration is mandatory for ORVs operated on crown land: this applies to current and new owners, and includes safety regulations. A compliance and enforcement strategy is in the works, and the implementation process is expected to take about 2 years – this gives ICBC the time necessary to upgrade their systems.
In her presentation, Vera Vukelich was sincerely sensitive to the unique position of private forest landowners. The province is prepared to include or exclude private managed forestlands, from the legislation, based on input from the PFLA. One way or the other, ORV legislation will affect private forest landowners.
The question before the PFLA is how to respond? This is an opportunity for managed forest owners to influence policy development. The best course of action is for the PFLA to respond to government by the end of August with a solid PFLA position – a clear statement on whether we welcome the regulation of ORVs on private managed forestlands, or whether we oppose it. What do you think?
We’re managing private forests so they work for all of us.®
Action: WFPA Summer Intern Jennifer Arnold researched the forest tax statutes and the legislative record leading to those statutes. She further researched other states timberland tax treatment, and their requirements for public access.
Background: Increasing population has placed greater demand for public access to private forest lands. With this increased pressure, the nature of public recreation and access on private forest lands has changed. Some landowners have responded by restricting vehicular access at certain times of the year. This has angered those who have traditionally recreated on private forest land such as hunters and fishers. They have contacted their legislators asking that something be done to force private landowners to grant vehicular access year round. For property tax purposes, private timberland is valued according to its current use, which is the growing and harvesting of trees, rather than its highest and best use which could include development potential. This current use value is then taxed at the same rate as all other property in the taxing district. This change was made in order to promote forest sustainability. If timberland were to be taxed using development values, then the landowner would be forced to develop in order to pay the property tax.
Result: These conclusions were presented in testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee earlier this Fall.
Nowhere in the timber tax statutes or the legislative record is there a requirement for private forest landowners to provide public access, nor a discussion of any such requirement.
The issue may be confused by the intent language which discusses why it is a good idea to promote forest sustainability. A list of the public benefits of private forest land includes, among others, enhancing water supply, minimizing soil erosion, providing raw materials, and scenic and recreational
There may be confusion between the Open Space (RCW Chapter 84.34) and Designated Timberland (RCW Chapter 84.33). Open Space at one time did require public access, and in some instances, still does. Designated Timberland never did.
Every other state with timber production has some form of current use tax treatment.
Only four states have any requirements for public access. The requirements are very limited, none require providing vehicular access.
Some legislators have wondered if the tax treatment of private forest lands requires public access.
For more information, contact: John Ehrenreich, Director of Forest Tax & Economics, jehrenreich@wfpa.org
A government program in Oregon intended to preserve private working forest land by various means, including compensating owners for not converting the land into more lucrative types of land uses. Perhaps some alternative approaches to downzoning and imposition of restrictions without compensation? -
Coordinated and Strategic Investment of USDA Forest Service State and Private Forestry Programs
STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY PROGRAM ELEMENTS
Forest Legacy Program
Scope – Oregon’s Forest Legacy Program addresses privately owned forestlands that face threats to
conversion to non-forest use by urbanization, rural residential development, parcelization and other development pressures. Forest Legacy provides funds for the purchase of development rights to eligible private forestlands through either conservation easement or fee-title acquisition into public ownership. The goal of the program is to maintain working forests that conserve important commodity as well as non-commodity forest resources and conservation values including water flows and quality; fish and wildlife habitat (especially for threatened and endangered species); stores of carbon; and biodiversity. In addition, the Forest Legacy Program promotes stewardship and sustainable management of private forest lands. All properties entered into Oregon’s Forest Legacy Program – either through conservation easement, fee acquisition or donation – have their forest resources and conservation values protected and managed in accordance with a State Forester approved Forest Stewardship Plan. The program operates in areas where forests may be lost to nonforest uses and seeks projects that strengthen local communities through state, local and private partnerships in conservation. Landowner participation in the Forest Legacy Program is voluntary. Oregon entered the Forest Legacy Program in 2001 with approval of Oregon’s Assessment of Need by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. However, due to political concerns about the government facilitating the acquisition of interests or fee title of private forestlands, Oregon did not receive State legislative authority to implement the program fully until 2007. Oregon’s 2001 Assessment of Need was based on the following key factors:
Oregon’s statewide land use planning laws effectively protect commercial forestlands – especially large tracts of industrial private forestlands – from non-forest conversion. Under Oregon’s land use planning laws, development pressures consist mostly of expanding urban and existing rural-residential areas, and an increase in the number of structures placed on lands still in forest use. Mostly non-commercial forest types are threatened by development: oak woodlands and savannas, bottomland gallery riparian forests, and ponderosa pine woodlands. Since that time, the key factors have changed due to the following:
