Industry

Summary of Public Comments : Provincial Parks & Wilderness for the 90’s

In 1991, British Columbia Parks completed as survey of the impact of expanding protected places (parks and conservancies) on British Columbia Communities (Summary of Public Comments, pgs 70-77). The material extracted below summarizes concerns during that era about the expansion of protected places to 12% of the land by hunters and trappers.

Strong concern was expressed for the loss of employment in the mining and forestry sectors. Arguments were made that people have worked in harmony with the forest for many years, some for generations. To alter this relationship by creating new protected areas would, many people pointed out, unjustifiably affect the lifestyle of innumerable rural families. People cited not only loss of jobs and reduced standard of living, but loss of access to recreational opportunities in their “backyard.” This fear was based partly on the perception that the Lower Mainland population views the forest lands of the province as a hinterland or a playground, rather than as a source of wealth now and in the future.

• “The vast majority of our citizens now reside in either the Lower Mainland or a few interior urban centers and, as a consequence, they are losing touch with resource based economics. They no longer appreciate that healthy mining and forestry sectors are essential to maintain our standard of living, including all the wonderful social services that we quite often take for granted.”
• “Our forest land base is critical to the provision of all economic benefits in B.C. — jobs, taxes, schools, hospitals, and so on. Our province’s future wealth is severely threatened by community watershed areas, wildlife habitat reserves, areas designated as environmentally sensitive, riparian zones for fisheries protection, viewscapes, old-growth preserves, pocket wilderness areas, areas of cultural significance, ecological reserves, areas of unique environmental significance, Native Indian land claims, and others.”
• “If British Columbians are going to maintain a lifestyle we are used to, we cannot stand to lose any land base from our 27% workable forest lands.”
• “The standard of living that British Columbians enjoy comes from the wealth created by the use of the land base, to everyone’s benefit. How can we create an oversupply of parks and an undersupply of land that is available to provincial income? We must use some of the resources to keep up our ability to support our children and their children.”
• “The economic impact on the forest industry or surrounding communities has not been considered. The forest industry supports 12% of the work force directly and contributes to a further 26% of the labour force in indirect jobs. Any reduction in the forest land base will have a serious economic impact on the province.”
• “In setting aside areas from mining and logging, any practical means of access is eliminated, since it is industry which constructs and maintains roads in the backcountry.”
• “Jobs and prosperity come first; parks and recreation come somewhere down the list after health care and education.”
• “I am employed by the forest industry and if the available forest land base is eroded enough (by wilderness areas, for example) I may lose my job…. It seems to me that one has to evaluate the potential losses as well as the gains.”
• “The [perceived] loss of jobs and livelihood by forest industry workers needs to be addressed by other sectors of the government. There is, in reality, no conflict between preservation and jobs. The government needs to create initiatives in consultation with the forest industry that will produce more jobs per cubic metre cut in B.C.”
• “We need industry in this valley not parks. Our young people have nothing but $5 an hour jobs.”
• “Figures supplied to us by the B.C. Environmental Information Institute indicate that the working forest will shrink by approximately 5 million acres or 19% as a result of your department’s [Parks] proposals. We find this an unacceptable threat to our heritage and our livelihood.”
• “Understanding the extent of social and economic impacts should be a high priority before any final decisions are made.”
• “There should not be any new proposals for parks when there is just not enough land left to sustain the forest and mining industries, hunting, fishing and trapping to provide a “necessary economic base” for the local people.”
• “Wilderness parks should be considered, but they should not be situated where the economy of many communities would be adversely affected.”
• “There is a great need for wilderness areas and parks, but at the same time those employed by the forest industry feel threatened.”
• “The creation of parks in rural areas cannot consistently mean a loss of jobs. People must be aware that industry could disrupt their lifestyle as well.”

In the absence of specific information on the timber reserves potentially within a proposed study area, many people presumed that significant reductions to the Allowable Annual Cut could occur, particularly in Timber Supply Areas that currently experience a tight timber supply. Reductions to allowable cut are translated directly into lost forest sector jobs and various associated economic benefits.

Administration

Many people also questioned the wisdom of creating protected areas, given the administrative and management costs and the fact that these areas do not generate revenue for the province. Some argued that it is unrealistic to reduce resource revenue potentials, increase unemployment, and still expect to fund new parks and wilderness areas from public accounts.

• “[Any planning process] has to take into account the social impact of land withdrawal from productive forest land. IWA-Canada members have lost jobs in the past because of park additions and feel threatened by further proposals which do not provide for an overall accounting and planning process which would look at the total effect of Parks 90, Wilderness 90, and the Old-Growth Plan on employment levels in the forest industry.”

Tourism-based Employment

In past public debates comparing the merits of protected status with those of timber harvesting, British Columbians have become familiar with both the arguments favouring creation of tourism-based employment and those opposing job loss in the forest sector. Many people in resource-based communities expressed the fear that existing, high-paying forest sector jobs would be traded or lost in favour of projected future tourism jobs at lower wages.

Only a few respondents argued the case for protecting areas in light of new economic criteria or opportunities to create employment in the tourism sector. These people believe that tourism and recreational opportunities would provide long-term economic returns, while logging mature forests provides only short-term gains.

• “You cannot depend on tourism for a living in this area.”
• “Jobs in the tourism industry are usually low paying and subject to many layoffs as compared to those in the resource industry. Promises of jobs from previous wilderness areas have not materialized.”
• “Forestry and mining jobs earn 3 to 4 times higher income than tourism jobs. How much tax does someone pay who earns $200.00/week in the food or accommodation industry? Tourism has a. bright future, but only where it complements the economy, rather than substitutes a lower standard of living.”
• “The Valhalla wilderness park fell short of its prospective job creation goal creating doubts about projections of tourism jobs from park or wilderness designation.”

Mining

Proponents of mineral exploration and development often reinforced the call for comprehensive land use planning which would include economic evaluation of the mining industry’s contribution to the provincial economy. Arguments were also presented in favour of evaluating mineral potential before decisions are made to designate protected status.

The mining community opposed the creation of new large parks or wilderness areas and was concerned about the public perceptions created by study area proposals. Several examples were cited illustrating how public perception of wilderness values could lead to exclusion of mineral exploration and development, regardless of whether an area is ever designated for protection.

• “The Ministry of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources should have more input and power in decision-making involving these areas.”
• ‘Tm concerned about the effect [this program] will have on mining and exploration which is a large contributor to the wealth of the province while using a very small percent of the land base. They can’t be squeezed any further….Pm concerned about the mineral potential in all of these areas and feel it should be fully examined before any land is removed from possible exploration.”
• “The mining industry appears to have such open access to any and all areas. When plans are finalized, the Forest Service must have the power to deny mining access even for exploration to any areas where it deems such access would be detrimental.”

Forestry

The Council of Forest Industries put forward a perspective on sustainability in 2019. The following information is extracted from Smart Future : A path forward for BC’s forest products industry

The forest industry has been a cornerstone of the B.C. economy for more than 100 years.

• 140 forestry dependent communities
• 140,000+ jobs in B.C.
• 1 in 5 jobs in B.C.’s northern interior
• 40% of forestry jobs in lower mainland/ southwest
• Highest indigenous participation of any resource sector
• 9 billion contribution to B.C.’s GDP
• 4 Billion in tax revenues

We need to re-balance our milling capacity to match the lower level of sustainable harvest and companies have already started to make these difficult decisions. As we do so, workers and communities need to be supported. Then, we need to ensure that the facilities that remain have secure access to enough fibre to run consistently and efficiently.

How will we know when we get there? We will have:

• A predictable, long-term timber supply that allows companies, contractors workers, and communities to plan for the future
• Secure and timely access to the working forest land base
• Companies able to operate through the business cycle to support stable levels of employment and secure communities
• Predictable, transparent, and effective regulatory and permitting processes
• Full utilization of fibre including residuals
• A pipeline of new skilled workers to help transition from the retiring workforce
• Meaningful benefits that flow to communities, First Nations, and the province
• Increased Indigenous participation within the B.C. forest sector
• Robust levels of industry research and development
• New high value products that serve more markets and help mitigate climate change
• Expanded global markets for all B.C. wood products and expertise
• Recognition as the centre of excellence in low-carbon green building
• New and ongoing investment in all parts of the industry

But, in addition to the values associated with conservation, forests are also valued as a source of jobs and economic opportunities for families and communities across the province, generating almost half of the natural resource revenue for the province helping to pay for essential services such as schools and hospitals.

A key choice, that would help build the confidence that draws investment into the province, would be to settle on the size of our working forest and lock it in. This will allow companies and communities to plan a future that workers can count on.

• Protect the working forest land base:
  1. Define the working forest land base. Like conservation areas, designate the area that will be available for harvesting and lock in the commitment.
  2. Implement a “no-net-loss policy” to provide certainty in the long term. Undertake a review every 5 years.
  3. Ensure policies and processes allow for timely and consistent access to the working forest land base.
• Grow the fibre resource
• Invest in forest health
• Maintain leadership in sustainable management
• Simplify rules and process
• Increase predictability and competitiveness
• Strengthen participation of indigenous peoples and partnerships with communities

Corporate Responsibility

People have ongoing conversations and have even had wars about the best strategies for creating and distributing goods and services. Free enterprise and communist governments have started to coalesce around regulated corporate enterprises and started to develop principles of corporate responsibility. There has been recognition that incentives are important, people are motivated by opportunities to benefit from their efforts.

Standards

Generally speaking, corporate law imposes a legal obligation upon directors and officers to be diligent in supervising and managing corporate affairs, exercising the care, diligence and skill a reasonably prudent individual would exercise. Due diligence requires directors to seek and take the advice of a qualified expert as needed developing protocols for complying with governance and financial management standards. This duty is commonly referred to as the ‘duty of care’ or ‘due diligence’.

Trading blocs such as the European Community set standards and require certification that companies are complying with environmental standards before goods manufactured by that company can be imported to the community.

Because sales matter, companies bring ethical and environmental standards into their business operations policies. Ethical practices centre on three basic principles:

1. sustainability
2. accountability : acknowledgment of how its actions affect the environment, and
3. transparency : reporting information on performance accurately. Many boards cultivate a corporate culture, undertaking serious discussions with management on such topics as quality, safety, honesty, environmental stewardship, and philanthropy

Such companies frequently have compliance officers with responsibility to hold senior management accountable. Identify and contact compliance officers or if there is no compliance officer, the board of directors and public relations departments or corporations about concerns.

Insurance and Investment

Insurance companies and banks are now setting insurance and lending rates that reflect environmental threats and climate risks of businesses, forcing companies to consider sustainability and biodiversity in their planning. Banks assess environmental risk factors when making loans to fossil fuel companies. As environmentally risky businesses start losing market share to environmentally sound practices, the environmentally risky businesses are losing market share. Investment in production of goods that are no longer in demand, results in financial loss because of stranded assets, assets that have been purchased but can no longer be used efficiently.

For example:

1. as society changes to purchase of electric vehicles, factories that produce gas engines are losing market share
2. manufacturing processes developed to produce non-recyclable products fall from use
3. as the use of fossil fuels is being phased out oil and gas companies will have increasing difficulty selling products
4. polluters that may face hefty fines suffer loss of profits making them riskier investments

Corporate Image

Boards of directors are becoming concerned about their corporation’s image. Companies that earn a community reputation as a bad corporate citizen, a polluter, a violator of human rights lose market share as people avoid purchasing their products. Companies that engage in fair trade practices or sustainable practices tout their performance.

Companies advertise their product as recycled. Companies that do not comply with environmental laws and standards can suffer declines in sales and a resulting drop in profit. Reputation for honesty and fair dealing are referred to as ‘corporate social responsibility’.