MacMillan Bloedel Parks Settlement Agreement Decision
MB has made extraordinary efforts in recent years to accommodate environmental critics of its forest practices. Through its Forest Project, MB has committed to eliminating clearcutting. In addition, it has entered into Co-management Agreements with First Nations and environmental groups and is widely seen as an industry leader in adapting forest practices so as to accommodate environmental values.
After some period of reflection, Weyerhauser has indicated that they are prepared to support the MB Forest Project initiatives.
The Achilles’ heel of the MB and Weyerhauser assurances are that they are strictly voluntary. If land is removed from under the restrictions of the Forest Practices Code, then whatever methods of forestry are used by the company can vary widely, driven by their own economic imperatives. Although private forest regulations have recently been implemented, they are much less restrictive with respect to protection of watersheds, wildlife habitat and forest cover.
An example repeatedly brought to my attention regarding the conflict between private forestry and environmental impacts is in the Beaufort Range. There is limited old growth forest on the eastern ranges of valleys in the Beaufort Range. These particular ecosystems are necessary for winter habitat for ungulates, particularly elk and black tailed deer. Much of the Beaufort area is privately owned by Timberwest and MB outside of Tree Farm License boundaries. Critics of MB and Timberwest say that this habitat is being destroyed outside of the Tree Farm License and they expressed fears that the same will happen to similar habitat currently within the Tree Farm License should the land be removed.
Specific environmental impacts on individual parcels are discussed in the Ministry of Environment document attached as Schedule A to this report. With respect to the land transfer as a whole, removal of these lands from the Forest Practices Code will result in a significantly lower level of environmental protection.
Land will no longer be managed for bio-diversity, habitat or on a landscape basis. The provisions of the Forest Practices Code with respect to watershed protection will be diluted. Elimination of allowable annual cut controls means that accelerated harvesting of entire valleys could take place given market demand for timber.
Members of the public appreciate the efforts made by MB to improve their forest practices and the assurance by Weyerhauser that these practices will continue in the future. Nonetheless, the economic value to MB of the proposed land transfers lies precisely in the elimination of government regulation. Much of this regulation is designed to manage for environmental factors. Once the regulations are removed, then economic considerations will of necessity become primary factors in forest practices. Without continuing regulatory involvement, forest practices will be determined by the needs of MB to operate on an economic basis and generate adequate return for shareholders. In any future conflict between shareholders rights and the environment, without regulation it is likely that economic needs will be paramount.
The need for continuing protection of the environment is seen as particularly acute on the east coast of Vancouver Island. This area known as the Nanaimo Lowlands is of course the site of a vast majority of the population on Vancouver Island. The area has also been heavily impacted by agriculture and forestry uses. Because there is so little Crown land in the area, few parks have been created with the result that only 2% of the Nanaimo Lowlands are currently protected. Given the Provincial goal of 12% protection of each representative ecosystem in the Province, it can be seen that this particular ecosystem is highly under-represented. Transfer of Crown lands to MB will make it significantly more difficult to increase the protection of this particular ecosystem.