Employment and community impacts
Both forest industry submissions suggest that the Socio-Economic Analysis does not recognize the contribution and importance of the forest sector, and instead presents a negative picture of timber harvesting. The following specific points are made in their submissions:
• all resource-based industries, not just tourism and recreation, have growth potential if access to resources is secured
• the conflict around supply of wood to value-added manufacturers does not result from the unwillingness of larger operators to sell small, specially-sorted volumes, but from the value-added businesses’ unwillingness to pay the cost of higher value product
• continuing mechanization of the industry is simply a response to rising costs; one of the major factors is government fees and charges, which have almost quadrupled since the early 1980s
• the annual salary generated from seasonal forestry work is not recognized in the use of person-years as a measure of employment
• benefits and taxes from forest sector employment are not considered
• the inclusion of certain sectors (e.g., public sector) in basic employment estimates dilutes the importance of the forest sector; by excluding them, the contribution of forestry to the basic sector rises from 27 per cent to 40 per cent
• 1994 stumpage increases should be included in estimating future government revenues
• "threshold" factors are not considered; proportional reductions in timber supply can only occur to a certain point before processing plans are no longer economical to operate
• 60 Ministry of Forests employees should be included in estimates of forest sector employment
• over two-thirds of the tourism sector’s business comes from forest industry- generated income or visitors to forest industry families
Ainsworth Lumber Co. states their contribution to the economy is not fully recognized in the Socio-Economic Analysis, and makes the following points:
• their oriented strand board plant operated for almost half of 1994 and should have been included in the analysis
• direct employment should be 843, not 214 (including plants in 100 Mile, Chasm and Abbotsford)
• the multiplier of 1.44 for indirect employment is conservative and does not include truck and rail transport employment, employment created in the 100 Mile House Timber Supply Area by Lignum Ltd. of Williams Lake, employment created through manufacture of Ainsworth chips into pulp and paper, and other provincial remanufacturing of Ainsworth products
The Quesnel River Watershed Alliance suggests that the Socio-Economic Analysis wrongly implies that any changes in forest management will jeopardize communities in the timber supply area. Their submission says this assumption ignores trends and reflects only the status quo, and does not consider the transitions made in communities like
Revelstoke and Springfield, Oregon. The alliance notes that timber supply area residents are trying to diversify their economies; they want government to protect their options and to make choices that support diversification, rather than generating fear of change.
An individual submission suggests that innovative "new forestry" harvesting technologies and new forms of tenure may compensate for employment loss due to changing timber supplies, but notes these potential innovations are not considered in the Timber Supply Review scenarios.
Non-timber values
Ainsworth Lumber Co. says the majority of tourism in this timber supply area is centred around well-developed lake areas and does not depend on significant areas of primitive or semi-primitive country. They suggest management plans should be required for tourism and recreation activities as they are for other resource development initiatives.
The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks suggests the valuing of non-timber resources in the Socio-Economic Analysis is very uneven and doesn’t take advantage of current research. The submission also states that the socio-economic analysis did not use the results of national and provincial surveys which examine fish and wildlife value in terms of actual expenditures and willingness-to-pay estimates creates a bias toward the timber resource.
