Four groups provided critiques on the Socio-Economic Analysis. Their comments are summarized below.
The Shuswap Environmental Action Society states that the Forest Service analysis is flawed and misleading and make the following points:
• the economic predictions are based on an out-of-date model
• the regional forestry-related employment estimate is too high and the estimates in the Socio-Economic Analysis exaggerate potential job losses
• population statistics are out-of-date and don’t provide an accurate employment picture
• the Socio-Economic Analysis doesn’t recognize Salmon Arm's increasing population and increasingly diversified economy
• social programs and their mitigating effects are not included in the impact projections
• value-added trends are not adequately discussed
• higher stumpage rates could easily offset the loss in revenue which would result from a decreased allowable annual cut
The Interior Lumber Manufacturers' Association, although pleased with the overall report, suggest it was inconsistent because it speculated on the potential for future forestry activities to create jobs, but failed to speculate on the increased wood volume those same activities would create. The association raises these additional points:
• current higher stumpage rates should be added to projected government revenue impacts
• lost federal government revenue (e.g., income tax) should be included in assessing impacts
• impacts from the loss of non-cash employee benefits (such as insurance plans) are not adequately reflected
The Interior Lumber Manufacturers' Association suggests that stand-tending and value-added employment is dependent on additional investment and that this additional investment cannot be assumed to result from reductions in timber supply. The Association emphasizes that growth in non-forestry sectors can never compensate for lost forestry jobs.
One submission concurs with a number of points raised by the Shuswap Environmental Action Society and adds that the forest sector does not generate a large net profit for the government. The submission also maintains that the overall benefits received by the government do not justify the environmental and social costs caused by the forest industry.
The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks suggests it is reasonable to assume that the forest sector has a decreasing role in the economic stability of the timber supply area; supporting an unsustainable employment level in the short term is likely to generate unwelcome economic disruption in the future.
