It is assumed in the Socio-Economic Assessment that harvest reductions will lead to proportionate losses in jobs and forest revenue. A number of respondents pointed out that value-added manufacture has the potential to change this relationship. However, forest companies pointed out that reductions below a critical threshold could result in mill closures and job losses which are far greater than would be expected under a proportional relationship.
The Interior Lumber Manufacturers' Association submitted a critique of the Socio-Economic Assessment including a number of criticisms, with particular emphasis on the following:
• direct forestry employment within the timber supply area appears to be understated by 18.5 per cent
• direct provincial forestry employment appears to be understated by 12.5 per cent
• provincial indirect employment generated by the spending of forest workers and forest companies appears to be understated by approximately 19 per cent
• total provincial employment generated by the current harvest appears to be understated by 12 per cent
• income (earnings) generated by forest industry activity appears to be understated by 12.5 per cent
• total earnings (direct and indirect) within the province related to the current harvest level appears to be understated by 12.5 per cent
• lost government revenue is significantly understated
• the ability of tourism to offset forest job losses is overstated
Two respondents suggested a 'biological allowable annual cut' should be calculated for the timber supply area showing the impact of the lost harvesting opportunity that is created by integrated resource management.
The Creston Valley Agriculture Society criticized the Socio-Economic Assessment, suggesting a thorough evaluation of the agricultural industry was not done.
