Employment and community impacts
One respondent disputes the statement in the Socio-Economic Analysis that "the major concerns relate to forest management methods...rather than the harvest level itself." While there are major concerns regarding forest management methods, there is a huge public concern about harvest levels. Furthermore, the respondent states there is an awareness that the current harvest level is unsustainable in the long term. The input includes a summary of the 1990 campaign by locals to retain the existing harvest level, rather than allow an increase for a temporary licence. It indicates that when the licences expire the allowable annual cut should revert to 500,000 cubic metres.
One submission asserts there was no discussion of the advantages of the various harvest flow scenarios to factors like tourism, health, agriculture, biodiversity etc.
Another respondent suggests that people are moving to the valley for the lifestyle and environment it offers and that this has improved the economy. The submission states there are fewer people making their living in logging than before, so maintaining the present allowable annual cut may not preserve jobs.
One submission states that since only 33 per cent of the workforce in the Robson Valley Timber Supply Area depend on the forest industry, and 67 per cent of the workforce does not, this indicates opportunities outside of the forest industry are not limited.
A submission from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks maintains the Socio-Economic Analysis does not accurately describe the impacts of decreases in allowable annual cut because it is based on an allowable harvest level that has not been achieved over the last few years. The assumed workforce and revenue to the Crown described in the report have not developed so cannot be lost.
An interest group submission states the Socio-Economic Analysis does not accurately represent the economy within the valley and makes the following comments:
• the use of person-years underestimates employment. The majority of forest harvesters in the valley don’t work year-round but forestry is still their only source of income. These workers should be counted as one job and one full person-year, not a partial one. The system used by the Socio-Economic Analysis has probably cut the labour force by half, which has, in turn, also reduced the spin-off economy estimates. The Socio-Economic Analysis also reduced the person-years at the mills since part of wood manufactured was obtained outside the timber supply area. It does not matter where the wood comes from; the economy generated from its manufacturing is largely spent within the timber supply area. The workers associated with the 16 person-years the study has netted out still live here, spend wages here, and use local facilities
• a reduction in the allowable annual cut will immediately affect everyone employed in the valley, including managers, logging company owners and clerical staff
• no interviews were carried out with the forest and mill workers
• people will not remain within the valley and depend on unemployment insurance or social assistance until they can find another job
The following points were included in the above interest group submission and were also mentioned in industry input.
• a significant portion of the public sector is employed by the Forest Service, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Acknowledgement should be made of their part in the forest sector since reductions in cut levels must eventually impact public service staff. One submission suggests that a large portion of the other public sector jobs should also be attributed to the forest sector. Another estimates that the dependence of the communities on forestry is closer to 40 per cent than 33 per cent
• a substantial amount of the labour force included in the tourism sector is directly dependent on workers visiting the area on forest-related business. Other submissions suggest that most of the highways through the Robson Valley are not a destination for tourists, but rather a travel corridor
• several respondents question whether the Socio-Economic Analysis accounted for the fact that the majority of farms within the Robson Valley supplement their income with work in the forest industry
• one submission suggests that the forest industry is, in large part, responsible for any tourism industry in the Robson Valley. Forest roads are used to access the mountains where most of the recreational tourism occurs
One forest industry submission comments that the urban centres where most of the forestry workers probably live experienced less population decline than other areas.
One respondent says that many people in the forest industry are also involved in agriculture and therefore could not replace the lost income by doing silviculture work during summer months.
One industry submission notes the Socio-Economic Analysis did not mention that the shipping of waste products from a local mill to other value-added manufacturing facilities in the province contributes to the provincial economy.
Another industry submission states the current harvest from the timber supply area is utilized and needed by the licensees. Normal quota wood has been unavailable lately due to Protected Areas Strategy deferrals and Forest Practices Code changes that have delayed cutting permit approvals. The submission also comments that capital investments have been made based on current allowable annual cut levels.
An industry submission contends that the Socio-Economic Analysis does not reliably portray the economic situation in the Robson Valley Timber Supply Area. As a major employer in the area, the respondent was not contacted or acknowledged as existing in the Socio-Economic Analysis. The report lacked facts, relying instead on "pseudo-environmental theory." The respondent questions the timber values used and suggests they may be 50 per cent too low.
Another industry submission questions the average annual stumpage fee of $9.44 per cubic metre used. It notes a stumpage rate for the seven months ending May 31, 1995, of $26.34 per cubic metre. This casts in doubt the accuracy of the $5.6 million in 1994 stumpage revenues reported in the Socio-Economic Analysis.
A community submission expresses concern with the impact estimates of harvest level reductions on the people of Valemount being based on past experience when local mills were not fully operating. Social problems such as family violence and alcohol and substance abuse increased, many businesses closed, commercial buildings were vacant, and real estate properties were sold at far below replacement value. The respondent suggests that the provincial ramifications of these sorts of problems must be considered. They place a heavy burden on the health and welfare system at a time when the provincial business and personal tax revenues are reduced, and school, hospital and local government property tax revenues decrease.
One submission points out that there was no indication of the cost of forestry to the tax-paying public—administration, aid to industry, wear and tear on the roads, effects on health from chemicals, smoke, the hazards of logging, unemployment insurance, etc.
Environmental impacts
A Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks submission states that the Socio-Economic Analysis lists the amount of reserved caribou habitat as 4.2 per cent; however, that has recently been reduced to about 3.5 per cent. Also, it notes that about three-quarters of the productive forest base included in this total is in the upper parts of the Engelmann Spruce–Subalpine Fir biogeoclimatic zone and is a very slow-growing forest. It, therefore, contributes to a relatively lower degree to the long-term wood supply in the district.
The same submission states that much of the wide variation in resident hunter-days from year to year, as reported in the Socio-Economic Analysis, is due to small sample sizes rather than major changes in real numbers. There has probably been a real increase in hunter-days for white-tailed deer as the population has increased. There has been a major decrease in hunter-days for grizzly bears as a result of a significant change in hunting regulations.
Corrections
One submission points out that the Discussion Paper (page 4) mentions that 2 per cent of the allowable annual cut is unallocated, whereas in the Socio-Economic Analysis (page 32) it is only 0.2 per cent.
An industry submission offers a correction to the statement on page 33 of the Socio-Economic Analysis that a reduction of 27,000 cubic metres in harvest volume would shut the Zeidler Forest Industries Ltd. mill down for one month. In fact, the mill would shut down for 30 operating days (5 operating days per week). Therefore, the correct statement is six weeks or one and a half months. In all likelihood salaried mill and woodlands staff would not be reduced (i.e., fixed labour component), but hourly employees would be laid off for six weeks. In addition, another 70–80 workers employed by logging, hauling and silviculture contractors, would not be paid for six weeks.
