Employment and community impacts
Two points of view predominate in the input on this topic:
• two interest group submissions, two forest industry submissions, 767 form letters and the petition state that timber supply area communities, especially Williams Lake, are strongly dependent on the forest industry and therefore reductions in timber supply are incompatible with sustainable development of the area. Optimism is expressed that there is no need to adapt to reduced timber supplies, but that increases in volumes can be anticipated through intensive management and innovative utilization and harvesting techniques. The submissions point out that health, recreational and cultural services depend on support from the corporate forest sector and the volunteer efforts of forest sector employees
• four other interest groups maintain that the livelihoods, options and lifestyles of the 72 per cent of the timber supply area population who don’t rely on the forest industry must be protected and respected. Specific comments include:
• the Socio-Economic Analysis implies any changes in forest management will jeopardize our society. This doom-and-gloom approach is not forward-looking and only reflects the status quo. It has also been shown to be false in Revelstoke and Springfield, Oregon
• residents of small communities in the timber supply area know a simple, export-based economy is not sustainable and are trying to create diversified economies
• future generations should not pay the price for the short-term benefits the current generation has received from over harvesting and insensitive logging practices. Drastic change must begin now
• the assumption in the Socio-Economic Analysis that basic industry employment supports twice as much indirect employment as non-basic industry (such as agriculture and tourism) is questionable
The forest industry submission expresses the opinion that the contribution of the forest industry to the local and provincial economy is dramatically understated. It offers the following reasons:
• the benefits and taxes from forest sector employment are not considered
• the annual salary generated from seasonal work is not recognized when "number of person-years" is used as a measure of employment
• the inclusion of certain sectors (public sector, unemployment insurance, transfers and income assistance) in basic employment dilutes the importance of the forest sector. By excluding them, the contribution of forestry to the basic sector rises from 28 per cent to 45 per cent
• "threshold" factors are not considered; proportional reductions in timber supply can only occur to a certain point before processing plants are no longer economical to operate
• the May 1, 1994, stumpage increases should be considered in estimating future government revenues
Environmental impacts
With regard to fish and wildlife values, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks asserts that maintenance of habitat is the only certain way to protect these populations. The success of other measures proposed in the Socio-Economic Analysis (stocking, new regulations) is not assured.
This agency also expresses concern that higher harvest levels will remove older age classes more quickly and may make it difficult to maintain good age distribution and biological connectivity. In the case of dry-belt Douglas-fir, the ministry maintains that seral stage representation over time is unknown because of the difficulty in predicting productivity in selective harvesting situations. The prescription of 50 per cent removal at the first pass, followed by 30-year re-entries, will result in a loss of old-growth attributes and a volume decline over time, according to the ministry.
The forest industry submission points to considerable uncertainty around the issue of older forests. That submission says the fact that 30 per cent of the land base was removed for older forest protection has been ignored in the Timber Supply Review and constraints have been applied to the rest of the land base. Yet, the type of older forest targeted, its locations and a management strategy (or identification of the risks involved in not managing) are not specified. The association expresses a concern with lack of local input on this issue.
The industry submission also says the fact that adaptive planning and harvesting techniques can address caribou concerns is ignored in the Forest Service analysis, leading to exclusions of areas rather than appropriate management of them. Lignum Ltd. claims the withdrawals of caribou habit are overstated in the analysis. The company suggests that after the year 2008, about 30 per cent of the eastern caribou habitat is anticipated (by agreement) to be available for harvesting, and this should be reflected in the Forest Service analysis. This principle should also apply to western caribou habitat.
Non-timber resources
According to two submissions, the economic values of other resources was not satisfactorily quantified by the Socio-Economic Analysis. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks uses the example of the Horsefly sockeye run, which was not factored into the analysis because it occurs on the Coast. The other submission points to the economic benefits from tourism, trapping, guiding, recreation and retirement industries, and claims that a multiple accounts analysis is required to quantify these benefits.
One interest group submission comments extensively on the Socio-Economic Analysis, making the following points:
• population data for the Chilcotin is inaccurate and should be around 4000. This affects socio-economic forecasts substantially
• the assumption that First Nations people will want to increase their involvement in the forest sector is unsubstantiated and questionable
• full-cost accounting or a multiple accounts analysis, rather than a cost-benefit analysis, is required to truly address sustainability
• the provincial and local impact of an anticipated growth in demand for pulp was not considered
• the "jobless growth" of the forest industry means higher social costs (unemployment insurance, social assistance payments)
• maintaining the present allowable annual cut is not cost-efficient for government. Industry no longer pays its way or generates a significant portion of government revenue (only 7.5 per cent of provincial gross domestic product)
• because Williams Lake is a regional centre, indirect employment figures related solely to the Williams Lake Timber Supply Area are likely overestimated, as will be the impacts of any change in timber supply
• for Chilcotin residents, the economic vitality of the tourism and agriculture sectors is more significant than that of forestry. Some research shows tourism and recreation will benefit from reducing the allowable annual cut
