Two submissions express opposition to maintaining or increasing the allowable annual cut.
Two other submissions reject any increase in the allowable annual cut because long-term sustainability will not be achieved. One of these recommends the chief forester determine a cut that will conserve forest resources and maintain options for the future. The inevitability of harvest reductions should be addressed now by beginning to scale down in an organized way. The other submission states a 15.5 per cent reduction in the allowable annual cut would continue to provide for a viable timber forest industry while maintaining tourism opportunities and the ecological integrity of our forests. The author supports the view of guide-outfitters that there is a need for a deceleration in the overall rate of harvesting and related road network creation.
Another respondent recommends a reduction of 15.5 per cent, but even at that level would still have concerns about the flexibility it would leave to address other problems.
Concern is expressed in one submission about the reliability of the estimates on which the chief forester will base the allowable annual cut adjustment.
One individual contends so much forest has been harvested that the only way for every town to survive in the future is to decrease the annual cut by at least 50 per cent. Another respondent also states a reduction of around 50 per cent is needed to protect non-timber values. The submission maintains recent satellite photos of the timber supply area clearly show a quarter of the forest was logged in the last 15 years and roughly half the forest is now logged or in plantations. It contends that to suggest the allowable annual cut can be maintained at this rate is absurd, and that it can be increased is an outrage.
Another submission supports a dramatically lower allowable annual cut. It asserts this would force the forest industry to produce more value-added products and give other industries the chance to develop. A lower allowable annual cut would also resolve many other problems regarding wildlife habitat, fish and water protection and climate changes.
A forest industry submission proposes the allowable annual cut impact of government initiatives such as the land and resource management planning process, the Forest Practices Code, Protected Areas Strategy and native land claims should be limited to six per cent. This would allow the current allowable annual cut to be maintained, as the yield analysis shows a non-declining harvest level six per cent above the current cut. The submission also asserts the deciduous allowable annual cut could be increased while maintaining other resource values.
Two forest industry submissions state the Timber Supply Review provides ample background data to maintain the current harvest level. They acknowledge there are several factors that are not included in the analysis which may have some negative impact on timber supply levels, but contend that there are enough conservative elements, plus the six per cent buffer, to more than compensate for potential reductions. One submission states this approach allows for stable harvest rates in the short term while the social and environmental issues evolve toward practical land-use decisions. The other recommends consideration be given to increasing the allowable annual cut to the maximum non-declining rate indicated in the Timber Supply Analysis. It states the abundance of mature timber in the timber supply area provides a considerable safety factor for setting the harvest at the indicated maximum non-declining rate.
Another forest industry submission asserts the analysis clearly supports an increase in the allowable annual cut to the base case scenario.
One respondent writes that accelerated harvesting and prompt reforestation will create employment, increase the forest’s carbon sink and minimize blowdown and insect epidemics. For these reasons, the individual supports a 12 per cent increase to the allowable annual cut for five decades. It is suggested that with an increase in the allowable annual cut there should be more aboriginal 16.1 sales to provide potential socio-economic benefits to First Nations. Neither a 45 per cent increase (one of the alternative harvest flows modelled in the Timber Supply Analysis) nor a 15.5 per cent decrease are acceptable because of the impacts on communities.
An interest group submission supports an allowable annual cut increase of 12 per cent above the current level for the following reasons:
• the ability to mill new species
• continual improvements in tree-growing technology;
• improved productivity from managed stands
• the likelihood that the land and resource management plan table will sufficiently protect biodiversity, wildlife habitat and visual quality by protecting areas or special management zones
• the Forest Renewal program to improve forest regeneration.
It is suggested this harvest-level increase be tied to a commitment to maintain forestry-dependent communities.
