MacMillan Bloedel Parks Settlement Agreement Decision
The public land base in British Columbia is subject to dozens of overlapping tenures and traditional uses. Although all of the lands under consideration are part of the working forest, nevertheless this has been compatible with multiple economic and recreational uses which many members of the public believe are threatened if the land is privatized. Attempts to protect multiple uses through tools such as covenants have in the past proved to be ineffective. A covenant requires, first of all, sufficient staff support to monitor any potential breaches and if necessary, willingness to use the Courts to enforce provisions of the covenant. Given the myriad of different uses of public forest land, it is hard to envisage a practical covenant system that would protect those uses while at the same time granting MB fee simple ownership of the land.
Another difficulty with the covenant system of protecting multiple uses is that the effect of the covenant could effectively reduce the economic value to MB of the proposed tranfers. For example, in the Queen Charlotte Islands, Schedule A land has been proposed for removal from the Tree Farm License in the area of the Tlell River. MB has agreed to grant a 300 meter buffer along either side of the Tlell River in the event that the land is removed from the Tree Farm License. Members of the public and local municipalities have suggested that in fact the buffers should be one kilometer on either side of the river. Obviously such a buffer, supported by a covenant over the land, would significantly reduce the active forest base of the lands proposed for transfer. This would in turn reduce the economic value of the Tree Farm License removal and could require the Province to transfer a greater amount of land in order to make up for the diminished value.
A brief discussion of the multiple uses and tenures of the land follows. Because of the potential impact of privatization of the land, it is recommended that more detailed discussions take place with local municipalities and planning groups before any of the proposed lands be transferred.
WATER SUPPLY:
Portions of the land in question form the majority of the water supply for Port Alberni and parts of the water supply for Ladysmith and Chemainus. In Port Alberni the current practice is for the local municipality to be consulted before cutting plans are approved in areas that can affect community water sheds. As a result, logging prescriptions can be designed so as to minimize siltation or pollution of community water sheds through logging practices. If Schedule A lands are removed from the Tree Farm License, the local municipality would no longer have the opportunity to consult with respect to logging practices and as a result water quality could potentially be negatively impacted.
RESOURCE TENURES:
I was approached by several individuals who hold trap lines over Schedule A lands. No attempt was made to do a comprehensive review of other trap lines that may exist. Trap lines could not exist without adequate habitat for fur bearing animals, and under the Forest Practices Code, it is possible to manage and protect that habitat. It is difficult to conceive of sufficient protection for a trap line if the land is transferred to MB. This may well create an obligation on the Crown to compensate current holders of trap lines.
In addition, there are multiple mineral claims over much of the proposed land to be transferred. Although land transferred to MB would remain subject to any existing resource claims, such as a mineral tenure, difficulties arise as to potential access to the land, both for exploration purposes or for actual construction of working mines. Again no attempt has been made to comprehensively catalog existing mineral claims on the affected lands.
FOREST TENURES:
Overlapping the MB Tree Farm Licenses is another Forest License granted to a private company for harvesting alder. In order to protect this license, it will be necessary for the Crown to facilitate protection for this license should the land be transferred to MB. The change in ownership raises complex questions as to insuring access to the land for the alder license holder, who would enforce requirements for reforesting the logged areas, and how to calculate stumpage payable by the alder license holder to the new landowner, MB. If the interests of this license holder are not adequately protected through a new contractual relationship with MB, then again this could create an obligation on the Crown to compensate the alder license holder.
Most of the active logging which is taking place on VIP lands is part of the Small Business Enterprise Program. This is a system whereby rights to cut are awarded by auction to small companies. Dozens of small contractors are potentially affected if Crown land is transferred to MB. MB has agreed to protect the Small Business Enterprise Program for a limited number of years. However, the eventual outcome is that after a period of 10 years the Small Business Enterprise Program will be eliminated on these Crown lands.
There is a potential secondary effect from reducing the Small Business Enterprise Program. Independent mills rely on market purchases of logs from small business contractors who have obtained timber from Crown lands. If the Small Business Enterprise Program is limited in time or becomes subject to the direction of a private forest company, concern has been expressed to me that the flow of timber from Crown land may be redirected to MB controlled mills. This would obviously prove devastating to smaller independent mills who currently rely on this timber supply.
Existing contractors working with MB and members of MB's workforce have also expressed concern about the impact of privatization of land on their current employment. Removal of land from the Tree Farm Licenses could result in a reduction in the allowable annual cut on the remainder of the Tree Farm License which in turn could reduce the timber supply. This would not only impact loggers and contractors but could eventually impact workers in the MB owned mills, which rely on their appurtenancy to Tree Farm Licenses 39 and 44.
MB has committed to contractors that they will be given access to the same timber supply on the remaining portion of the Tree Farm License. This assurance is welcome, but as it cannot be enforced by way of regulation or contract, it is possible that changing economic priorities of MB or a new owner could result in reduced activity for contractors, loggers and mill workers.
MB has already indicated that logging on its private land is significantly more profitable than logging on Crown lands. Given this economic incentive, any expansion of the private land base could well mean loss of protected employment associated with Tree Farm Licenses and an expansion of activity on privately held land.
NON_TIMBER USES:
All of the candidate lands are currently open to members of the public for recreation, hunting and fishing. There are limited restrictions on the use of logging roads in some areas for purposes of safety. For example, in the Powell River area, the main logging road access to the Lois Lakes chain is closed during weekdays because the access road is not wide enough to allow safe passage for private vehicles.
Many speakers noted the apparently increasing practice of gating off logging roads on privately owned land. This is of particular concern on Vancouver Island because as already noted a very high proportion of land south of Courtenay is owned by private logging companies. Access is restricted for reasons such as preventing fires, preventing the spread of gypsy moths or because of traffic interfering with logging trucks. From the perspective of logging companies, there is good justification for limiting access. Nonetheless, because there has traditionally been easy access to Crown land and Tree Farm License land by members of the public, it is deeply resented when this access is restricted or denied.
In the Powell River area, this lack of access has been identified as a barrier to development of tourism and recreation in the Lois Lakes area. There have been local attempts made to encourage use of a circle canoe route through Lois Lake but residents of Powell River have indicated that it has been difficult to develop this tourism resource because of limited access to the area through MB roads. It is feared that should the area become fee simple land owned by MB, then these access problems would be exacerbated.
Access is also important for non-timber resource extraction such as salal picking, mushroom picking, hunting and fishing. Estimates of the economic value of this activity range widely. Given that much of it is part of an underground economy, it is difficult to compare the economic impact of, for example, salal extraction with the value of timber. Proponents of this non-timber economy expressed concerns that through lack of access or through unregulated forestry practices, their burgeoning industry could be dealt a setback on the affected lands. A striking example of the potential impact of private ownership of land on alternate uses was provided to me by residents of the Qualicum Beach area. An historic trail to Cameron Lake and Mount Arrowsmith passed through Timberwest land. Within the past year the trail site has been logged over which has deprived the local community of this treasured resource. This is a small example of the types of multiple uses which are attempted to be accommodated under Forest Practices Code prescriptions but which may no longer be considered when land is held in fee simple.
TENURE REFORM:
The idea of multiple uses of the land or alternate methods of forestry resulted in many hundreds of submissions that the Province should be engaging in a process of tenure reform. This was urged not only by members of the public but by environmental groups and MB itself. For a variety of reasons it is argued that the current system of Tree Farm Licenses and timber supply areas does not encourage a diversity of forest practices, either market oriented or which attempt to integrate multiple uses.
Proponents of greater numbers of wood lots, community forests, market sales of timber and management of forests for non-timber resources all combine to urge a broader discussion of tenure reform. The current proposed transfer of lands to MB was widely criticized as a regressive form of tenure reform taking place on a piecemeal basis.
There was virtually unanimous opposition from all presenters against privatization of Crown lands as an option for tenure reform. In fact, this was not supported by MB itself. Rather a variety of forms of tenure which could in some cases increase economic activity, result in greater local control of resources and forestry practices or accommodate multiple uses of forest resources were all identified as goals of tenure reform that would not be satisfied by wide-spread privatization of Crown land.
This topic has been the subject of many in-depth studies throughout the history of British Columbia and is currently under review within the Ministry of Forests. Without making any recommendations in this area, I simply note that there appears to be a widespread hunger for discussion of alternate tenure, both within and outside the forest industry.