Jump to content

  • Examples of engaging the mindustry:

    David Broadland
    The first public engagement step in a timber supply review is the licensee's submission of an "Information Package" for public consideration and comment. The Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project raised questions about the licensee's position on climate change, past promises, lack of protection of old forest, inaccurate mapping, a dubious account of the timber harvesting land base—and a glaring conflict of interest.
     
    To: Whom it may concern at TimberWest Forest Corp
    Cc: Lesley Fettes RPF, Campbell River District Manager
    Cc: Chief Ronnie Chickite, We Wai Kai First Nation
    Cc: Michelle Babchuk, MLA
     
    Our comments below are in response to an invitation to respond to the information package for TimberWest’s Management Plan #5. As this package does not meet the requirements of a draft management plan, we look forward to being able to comment on that plan at a later date.
    Our understanding is that the legal holder of the licence for TFL 47 is TimberWest Forest Corp. If the licence has been transferred to Mosaic Forest Management please let us know.
    As you know, the main purpose of establishing a new management plan is to provide a timber supply analysis in preparation for a new determination by the Chief Forester’s Office of an allowable annual cut for the Quadra Island and Bonanza Lake blocks of TFL 47. An integral part of that analysis is a land base netdown summary that estimates the size of the timber harvesting land base in the two blocks. We critique that summary later in the comments below.
    First, though, the Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project offers the following general comments about the contents of the information package and TimberWest’s current practices:
     
    Climate change
    The information package contains this comment on climate change: “TimberWest is concerned about the potential long-term implications of climate change on its forestry holdings and has dedicated time and resources to understand the issue better. However, given the current scientific understanding, it is not yet possible to make reasonable quantitative predictions about the impact of climate change on timber supply. Therefore, the base case will not include specific accounting for climate change projections.”
    This statement is hard to reconcile with the announcement by Mosaic Forest Management on March 16, 2022, that it can make more money from letting trees grow and selling carbon credits than from logging its privately owned land. At that time, Chief Forester Domenico Iannidinardo told the Globe and Mail, “We expect to make at least as much from the BigCoast initiative as we would earn from harvesting these forests.”
    The decision to sell carbon credits instead of logging TimberWest’s own land is apparently a sound business response to the climate emergency. Why would this not also be the case for the publicly owned land of TFL 47? Why couldn’t the government of BC expect to make at least as much from letting the trees grow than from licensing TimberWest to log them? If TimberWest’s chief forester thinks this is an economically sound idea, why wouldn’t BC’s chief forester, too?
    In both cases, there would be few if any manufacturing job losses since TimberWest exports—as raw logs—virtually everything it cuts in TFL 47.
    Moreover, logging is a significant contributor of carbon emissions via the accelerated release to the atmosphere of biogenic carbon. The short-rotation clearcutting practices used by TimberWest will inevitably cause a profound diminishment of the carbon sequestration capacity of the forests TimberWest is logging in TFL 47.
    In determining a new AAC for the Bonanza Lake and Quadra Island blocks of TFL 47, the expected impacts of climate change on the incidence of insect infestation, forest diseases, prolonged drought and the occurrence of extreme fire weather should all be considered—along with the more economically profitable alternative (apparently) of letting the trees grow to mitigate climate change. All of these factors point to a significantly lower AAC than is currently allowed.
     
    Clearcut logging
    In 1999 TimberWest announced that it would no longer practice clearcut logging. Back then, the CBC reported “Timberwest President Scott Folk says clearcutting is being phased out in response to marketplace demands.” TimberWest promised to phase out clearcut logging over a 4-year period. Nothing like that ever happened, but it is time for TimberWest to resurrect this promise.
    As the climate emergency and biodiversity crisis deepen, the over-sized role logging companies play in both those disasters is becoming clearer. Public pressure to end clearcut logging is building. Marketplace demands are hardening.
    The Discovery Islands are a biodiversity hotspot, a place of immense recreational and tourism potential and an area blessed with a forest type and climate in which forest fires are less likely than in most other parts of BC. Government will come under increasing pressure to conserve such areas in order to mitigate the biodiversity and climate crises and reduce forest fire hazard. Clearcut logging eliminates the existing natural advantages that are required for building and maintaining a sustainable local economy based on undisturbed nature.
    This reality, apparently clear to TimberWest in 1999, now needs to be incorporated in this AAC determination.
     
    Old forest
    In its most recent forest stewardship plan for the Quadra-Quinsam blocks of TFL 47, TimberWest states that since landscape level planning has not been completed, it will use the 2004 Order Establishing Provincial Non-Spatial Old Growth Objectives. For Quadra Island and the Bonanza Lake blocks this means the target for old forest is “>9 percent”. But both the Quadra and Bonanza blocks contain less old forest than the target level. For example, TimberWest has stated that old forest in the Special Management Zone 19 portion of TFL 47 on Quadra Island is 3.8 percent.
    The “non-spatial” part of that order should not be interpreted by TimberWest to mean that the company does not need to identify specific areas of old forest for conservation. If the amount of old forest remaining in TFL 47 was greater than 9 percent, then TimberWest could reasonably interpret “non-spatial” as meaning it did not have to commit to conserving specific areas of old forest. But TimberWest has logged itself far past that luxury.
    TimberWest needs to identify the location of remaining old forest in both blocks and commit in writing to conserving those forests. It should also nominate specific areas of older mature forest that it will commit to not log that would bring the total (recruitment+old) to at least 9 percent. The land base netdown summary needs to include at least 9 percent of the area of the Quadra Landscape Unit and at least 9 percent of the area of the Bonanza Landscape Unit as old forest reserves.
    TimberWest acknowledges the issue of old growth deferral areas but only commits to conduct a “sensitivity analysis” to “examine the impact of prohibiting harvesting in these areas.” Based on the Technical Advisory Panel’s mapping of priority deferral areas, it appears that in every block of TFL 47, the extent of remaining old forest is well below the legal target (>9 percent) established by the 2004 Order Establishing Provincial Non-Spatial Old Growth Objectives.
    Based on the TAP old forest priority deferral areas and the area of TFL 47 in each block, our calculations shows the following extent of old forest, block by block:
    Block 2 (West Cracroft Island): 0 percent
    Block 5 (Mainland): 0 percent
    Block 6 (Hardwicke Island): 8.6 percent
    Block 6 (Mainland portion): 1.3 percent
    Block 7 (Mainland): 1.3 percent
    Block 8 (West Thurlow Island): 8.4 percent
    Block 9 & 10 (East Thurlow Island): 6.3 percent
    Block 11 (Sonora Island): 4.3 percent
    Block 12 (Quadra Island): 2.1 percent
    Bonanza Lake (Block 17): 1.6 percent
    For the entire area of TFL 47, TAP identified only 2.6 percent (3309 ha) as being old forest.
    TimberWest’s position—that it will examine the “impact” of abiding by the law—is concerning. At the very least, there should be no question that it will abide by the 2004 Order Establishing Provincial Non-Spatial Old Growth Objectives, which would mean reserving all of TAP’s priority deferral areas if they are actually old forest.
    TimberWest has evaded landscape-level planning in TFL 47 since 2000 and so has not established a single legal old growth management area (OGMA) in the entire TFL. Coupled with the need to meet the target for the Provincial Non-Spatial Old Growth Objectives, there is the added impetus that arises from the fact that old forest throughout the TFL has been logged below the level considered to be high-risk for biodiversity loss (10 percent). Obviously, all remaining old forest should be identified as reserves of some form, preferably legal OGMAs. As mentioned above, the netdown summary of areas to be excluded from the timber harvesting land base (THLB) should include an area of mature recruitment forest and all existing old forest, equivalent to at least 9 percent of each landscape unit. In the proposed management plan netdown summary there is currently only a 547-hectare removal for old forest in the Bonanza Lake block. The netdown summary should include at least 9 percent of the 48,805 hectares of Block 12 and Block 17 (4392 hectares) for a minimal old-forest target.
     
    Lack of accurate timber harvesting land base mapping for TFL 47
    A TFL management plan is required, in part, to guide the Chief Forester’s Office in revising the allowable annual cut for the TFL. An essential part of that determination involves an accurate estimate of the area of productive forested land that is acceptable and economically feasible to log, which is the definition of the “timber harvesting land base”. Although many TFLs in BC have created detailed mapping of the THLB in their licence area, TimberWest has not. The timber supply analysis performed by Ecora is, therefore, based on crude, opaque estimates of the THLB that cannot be verified and are, therefore, unreliable for the purpose of determining a sustainable AAC.
     
    Quinsam FDU
    There is no mention of the Quinsam FDU in this proposed management plan, yet it was part of the Quadra-Quinsam Forest Stewardship Plan proposed in 2022. The management plan should include an explanation of what happened to the Quinsam FDU and the impact on both the netdown summary and the proposed AAC.
     
    First Nations land claims
    There are First Nations land claims throughout the area covered by TFL 47. The netdown summary does not include the likely loss of THLB that settlement of these claims would involve.
     
    Land base netdown summary specific to Quadra Island
    Ecora’s current netdown summary lumps both the Quadra Island and Bonanza Lake blocks together. Quadra Island has a significant human population which utilizes forested areas of TFL 47 for recreational, food gathering, ceremonial and tourism purposes. Use goes up in spring, summer and fall, and could provide the basis for business operations that rely on an abundant supply of relatively (compared to clearcuts) undisturbed nature. Much of the Quadra population is also concerned about the impact of logging on wildlife habitat, climate change and increasing wildfire hazard.
    TimberWest could easily present two sets of information in the land base netdown summary: one for Quadra Island and one for the Bonanza Lake block.
    Additionally, TimberWest could provide maps of where it believes logging is economically feasible.
    Ecora’s 2012 timber supply analysis for TFL 47 showed (Figure 2) that approximately 7063 hectares of productive forest land in TFL 47 on Quadra Island was in the timber harvesting land base. The definition of the THLB is forested land where logging “is considered both acceptable and economically feasible”. TimberWest is the expert on “economically feasible”. But who is the judge of where logging is “acceptable”? Certainly not TimberWest. In order to reduce tensions between those interested in logging and those interested in undisturbed nature, TimberWest could provide mapping that indicates where the approximately 3140 hectares of productive forest land in TFL 47 that TimberWest does not consider to be “economically feasible” to log are located.
    These two steps—providing a netdown summary specific to Quadra Island and acknowledging on a map of TFL 47 on Quadra where logging is not economically viable—would go a long way to resolving potential conflicts between TimberWest’s logging and other uses of the forest, including First Nations’ land claims.
     
    Land Base Netdown summary for Quadra Island/Bonanza Lake (page 14)
    This table has a number of obvious errors that call into question the reliability of all of the numbers included. Consider, for example, lines 3 and 4. Note the numbers in the “Area Removed” column. The number “1,455” appears on both line 3 and line 4. In both cases, the area removed (“1,455”) is greater than what appears in the “Total Area” column. According to the “Version Control and Revision History” table that appears on an unnumbered page of the report (third page from the beginning), this report was reviewed twice by TimberWest and once by the Ministry of Forests. Since an accurate land base netdown summary is foundational to a credible determination of the allowable annual cut, getting the numbers right in the netdown summary is essential. Yet Ecora, TimberWest and the Ministry of Forests didn’t catch these errors. Is any one actually reading these reports? Why should the public have any faith in any of the information included in the report?
    Other errors in—and questions about—the netdown summary table include:
    • The “Total Area” of Block 12 and 17 do not coincide with the areas given on the maps for TFL 47 at the MoF website. Moreover, the map for Quadra Island is incorrect since it includes District Lot 488, which was deleted from the TFL following the Forestry Revitalization Act in 2003. That lot is now part of Woodlot 2032 and Woodlot 1969. You can do the arithmetic.
    • The “Non-forest” area on line 2 is intended to cover such features as lakes and areas of rock: areas where forest does not grow. In the 2012 information package for the TSR for TFL 47, “Non forest” for the entire TFL was estimated at 6,281 hectares. Of that, 6,264 hectares were removed through the netdown process. The rate of removal then was 99.7 percent. That’s what we would expect for land that is “non forest”. Yet in the proposed management plan, the “Non-Forest” (line 2) “Total Area” for just Quadra and Bonanza is given as “7,790” hectares and the “Area Removed” is “3,735” hectares. That’s equivalent to a mere 47.9 percent removal for “Non-forest”. Why is this not closer to 100 percent, as in the 2012 analysis? And since we are now considering a smaller area than in the 2012 analysis, which looked at the entire area of TFL 47, why is there a higher starting point for “Non Forest”? Again, this kind of inconsistency calls into quetion the care with which this report has been created.
    • Presumably “Analysis Forested Land Base” should equal the TFL “Total Area” minus “Non-forest” minus “NP Site Series” minus “Roads”. It doesn’t.
    • The area removed for “Inoperable” is 67 percent of the area judged to be “Inoperable”. In the 2012 MP it was 81 percent. Why has this fraction fallen?
    • For the category Wildlife Tree Retention/ Riparian in the netdown summaries, there is a much reduced area removed for the Bonanza-Quadra blocks compared with what is shown for the entire TFL, given the relative size of each. What accounts for this difference?
    • For the entire TFL, the total forested land base removed for recreation (trail + reserve + site + recreation inventory) is 355 hectares. In the 2012 management plan netdown summary, 1,100 hectares were removed for recreation. Why is there such a large decline in the area removed for recreation? Since most of the human population within TFL 47 is on Quadra Island, this is the area where the highest need for forest-based recreation exists, both for residents and visitors. It is likely that Quadra Island alone should have a recreational reserve of at least 3000 hectares to cover current and future recreational needs in these areas: Heriot Ridge, Missing Links-Nighthawk Lake, Morte Lake, Chinese Mountain-Beech’s Mountain, Nugedzi Lake-Mount Seymour, Mount Lolo-Saltwater Lagoon, plus as-yet undeveloped recreational areas towards the north end of Area A of Block 12. All of these areas have very low timber values as a result of the prevalence of rock, lakes and steep slopes.
    • Why has no area been removed for “high-value fish habitat” in the Quadra Island/Bonanza netdown summary? Quadra Island has three important salmon spawning streams (Hyacinthe Creek, Open Bay Creek and Village Bay Creek) which locals most definitely consider “high-value fish habitat”. Much of the watersheds of all three are within TFL 47.
    • There are 1012 hectares of “no harvest” ungulate winter range (UWR) and 507.5 hectares of “conditional harvest” UWR in the Bonanza Lake block, none on Quadra Island. There are only 70.6 hectares of overlap of these areas with wildlife habitat areas. Why has UWR been netted down to 810 hectares?
    • The wildife life habitat areas in the Bonanza/Quadra netdown summary are all in the Bonanza block. What are the specific overlaps with other exclusions that result in them being netted down from 359 hectares to 194 hectares? Please provide specific information.
    • Why have no wildlife habitat areas been established in the TFL 47 portion of Quadra Island?
    • In its current forest stewardship plan, TimberWest states that it will comply with Objective A. 1. (b) of the VILUP HLPO by: “(1) Retaining wildlife trees as specified in Section 66 of the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation (FPPR)”. Section 66 of FPPR states, in part: “(1) If an agreement holder completes harvesting in one or more cutblocks during any 12 month period beginning on April 1 of any calendar year, the holder must ensure that, at the end of that 12 month period, the total area covered by wildlife tree retention areas that relate to the cutblocks is a minimum of 7% of the total area of the cutblocks.” On the SMZ 19 portion of Quadra Island, under Objective A. 1. (b) of the VILUP HLPO this 7 percent should be within the associated cutblocks. In the rest of Quadra and in the Bonanza Lake block, Section 66 also applies, albeit without the requirement of retention areas being within cutblocks. In all cases, TimberWest cannot log these Section 66 wildlife tree retention areas until the surrounding regrowth has reached maturity. Why doesn’t the netdown summary include a 7 percent reduction in the “Forested Land Base” to account for the requirements of Section 66?
    • Red-listed plant communities have been identified by the BC Conservation Data Centre on Quadra Island. Why is there no area removed for these occurrences?
    • Only 100 hectares of karst has been removed. Presumably, this is on Quadra Island, where there is a significant karst area below TFL 47. Please provide a map showing the location of the 100 hectares of karst that have been reserved.
    • The netdown summary shows that 1369 hectares of CWHvm1 old growth in the Bonanza block have been netted down to 547 hectares. What specific overlaps with other categories of removals have reulted in this reduction?
    • Why is there no area reserved for blue-listed plant communities?
    • Why is only 21 percent of the most unstable terrain (Class V) removed from the forested land base in the netdown summary?
    • Why has no area been removed to meet visual quality objectives for both Quadra Island and the Bonanza block?
     
    Conflict of interest
    TimberWest is owned by the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (BCI). BCI’s investments fund pensions for retired BC government employees, including those of the Ministry of Forests. The health of those pension funds is naturally an important part of the considerations about the future personal economic security of any BC government employee, including those who work for the Ministry of Forests.
    Therefore, when an employee of the Ministry of Forests—or any provincial government ministry or agency—makes a decision that could affect the economic position of TimberWest, they likely know they are making a decision that could influence their own long-term financial security. In that circumstance, a conflict of interest—or, at the very least, the perception of a conflict of interest—exists between the general public interest and the individual interests of BC government employees making decisions about TFL 47. An AAC determination for TFL 47 should, therefore, be conducted by an independent body or person with no possible personal interest in the outcome of the determination. That would exclude the BC chief forester or their designate, which creates a legally untenable situation: Only the chief forester is empowered by the Forest Act to undertake an AAC determination for a TFL.
    Thank you for reading. We look forward to your full response.
    Sincerely,
    The Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project
    David Broadland
    To: Jennifer Peschke RPF, TimberWest Forest Corp, jennifer.peschke@mosaicforests.com
    cc Lesley Fettes RPF, Campbell River District Manager, Lesley.Fettes@gov.bc.ca
    cc Chief Ronnie Chickite, We Wai Kai First Nation, ronnie.Chickite@WeWaiKai.com
     
    Dear Jennifer,
    In the comments below, we refer to “TimberWest” rather than “Mosaic Forest Management”. TimberWest Forest Corp appears to be the legal licence holder of TFL 47, as shown by the most recent publicly available licence (2010), management plan (2012), timber supply review (2014) and TFL boundary change (2016). Please let me know if legal ownership of TFL 47 has changed.
    The Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project offers the following comments:
     
    [1] Inaccurate mapping
    The map for Sonora Island provided in the proposed forest stewardship plan (FSP) does not acknowledge the existence of the Thurlow Special Forest Management Area. This 324-hectare area was deleted from TFL 47 in 2016. It has since been reserved for a future ecological reserve. This boundary change came after several years of lobbying by Sonora Islanders. While TimberWest’s information package includes a map of TFL 47’s boundaries on Sonora Island, that map shows the future ecological reserve as still being part of TFL 47. This error raises questions about the accuracy and completeness of all the other information TimberWest has provided.
     
    [2] The ecological sensitivity of small islands
    A significant area of the forest in the Johnstone Strait portion of TFL 47 is spread over 4 relatively small islands: Sonora, East Thurlow, West Thurlow and Hardwicke. Small islands are ecologically fragile. It has taken thousands of years for their ecosystems to develop—including discovery of and habitation by plant, animal, lichen and fungi species—and for the populations of these species to come into equilibrium. Because they are surrounded by waters rich with food, they are naturally biologically rich. At the same time, those watery boundaries make it difficult for certain species to survive events that cause rapid and large losses of habitat, such as fire and logging.
    Rapid logging of these small, ecologically fragile islands degrades and fragments habitat and many species are now in danger of local extirpation. Over the 27-year period between 1990 and 2015, for example, 3818 hectares of 8133-hectare West Thurlow Island were logged. That is equivalent to 47 percent of the entire area of the island. Most of that (3369 hectares) occurred in the 19 years between 1997 and 2015. The worst damage—by far—was caused by TimberWest.
    We invite you to watch time-lapse satellite photography of logging on Hardwicke, West Thurlow, East Thurlow and Sonora which took place 1984-2020. Keep your eye on West Thurlow Island in particular (near the centre of the screen, below), especially the two waves of logging that started first in 1997 and then again in 2011.
     
     
    It is not possible to remove 47 percent of the forested area of a small island over a 27-year period without causing local extirpation of certain species. TimberWest’s approach to logging on islands needs to be rethought to take into consideration a rate of logging that will not cause local extirpations. If TimberWest can’t evenly spread out its logging on these ecologically sensitive islands over a much longer period of time—a rotation period of 120 years would be more appropriate—then it shouldn’t be logging on these islands at all.
     
    [3] Red- and blue-listed animal species
    In its proposed FSP, TimberWest acknowledges the Great Bear Rainforest Order requirements for certain wildlife (grizzly and black bear) and red- and blue-listed plant communities and states that it will abide by those GBR objectives. TimberWest also acknowledges the Forest and Range Practices Act requirements for red- and blue-listed animal species. In the case of the Queen Charlotte Goshawk, Northern Red-Legged Frog, and Keen’s Long-Eared Myotis, however, the proposed FSP simply states that since an order has been issued establishing wildlife habitat areas (WHAs) for each of these species, “a result and strategy is not required”. But no WHAs have been established for the Northern Red-Legged Frog, Keen’s Long-Eared Myotis or any other red- or blue-listed animal (aside from the goshawk). It is a 100 percent certainty that these species have occurred in this portion of TFL 47, yet TimberWest is taking no action to protect their habitat.
     
    [4] Queen Charlotte Goshawk
    On Sonora Island, East and West Thurlow Islands and Hardwicke Island, four WHAs have been mapped, totalling 760 hectares. These WHAs have been established to protect nesting sites of the red-listed Northern Goshawk liangii subspecies. Unfortunately, a high percentage of these islands’ old and mature forest—required by goshawks for year-round foraging—has been degraded or fragmented by logging companies—mainly by TimberWest.
    For example, 3819 hectares of 8133-hectare West Thurlow Island were logged between 1989 and 2015. As mentioned above, that’s 47 percent of the entire area of the island. The Forest Practices Board has estimated that, on the coast, a pair of Northern Goshawks require up to 3700 hectares of home range for foraging. Not surprisingly, 3 goshawk nests on West Thurlow were recorded by the BC Conservation Data Centre (CDC) to be inactive in 2014.
    The CDC mapped a goshawk nest on Hardwicke Island in 2004. The area of the island is 7633 hectares, barely large enough to support one or two breeding pairs of goshawk. TimberWest began logging on Hardwicke Island in 2003. By 2005 the CDC reported the nest and nest tree had disappeared. In 2006 the area in which the nest tree stood was logged by TimberWest. In the 20 years since 2004, TimberWest has logged 2029 hectares of the island—27 percent of the entire area of the island.
    TimberWest’s proposed FSP may meet the legal requirements of a forest stewardship plan, but its actual logging practices do not meet government promises and public expectations that species at risk will be protected.
     
    [5] Red- and blue-listed plant species
    TimberWest sprays glyphosate on logged cutblocks in the Johnstone Strait portion of TFL 47. This practice ensures the eventual eradication of all red- and blue-listed plant species in those sprayed areas. Because of the extensive nature of logging in TFL 47, there has likely been a high level of local extirpation of red- and blue-listed plant species following TimberWest’s logging and subsequent glyphosate spraying. Yet there is no mention in the FSP about TimberWest’s use of glyphosate spraying. The ecological impacts of glyphosate spraying on red- and blue-listed plant species and its impact on eradicating fire-resistant deciduous trees such as red alder need to be addressed in a revised FSP.
     
    [6] Red- and blue-listed plant communities
    TimberWest states in its proposed FSP that it will “Protect each occurrence of a red-listed plant community during a primary forest activity in accordance with Schedule N”. Unfortunately, the proposed FSP contains no “Schedule N”, so we have no idea what TimberWest is actually proposing to do regarding listed plant communities. Notably, TimberWest’s logging on West Thurlow Island has overlapped all four areas that have been mapped by the CDC as containing red-listed plant communities. TimberWest’s actual logging record in areas containing listed plant communities suggests there is no “Schedule N” used to guide its operations.
     
    [7] Species at Risk
    The proposed FSP acknowledges federally-listed species at risk but provides no mapping of the critical habitat of those species, which includes the Marbled Murrelet. What mapping of critical habitat that does exist shows that TimberWest has logged into designated critical habitat on Hardwicke Island, East and West Thurlow Islands, Sonora Island and the mainland portion of TFL 47.
     
    [8] Old forest
    TimberWest’s proposed FSP, under “Objectives for old forest maintenance and recovery” contains this sentence: “(1) Maintain landscape level biodiversity as follows: (a) for each site series group in the order area, maintain a distribution of forest stand ages that will achieve the old forest representation targets listed in Column A in Schedule G by no later than 2264;”
    What’s wrong with this? First off, there is no “Schedule G” provided in the FSP. So the public has no idea of what the “targets listed in Column A” are. The only thing we know for sure, is that TimberWest has 240 years to meet that target. Talk about kicking the can down the road.
    That 240-year planning horizon is the equivalent of the colonial government of Canada establishing in the year 1784 targets for the distribution—by 2024—of British Loyalists flooding into Cape Breton as a result of the American Revolution. That would have been a strange exercise in futility then, and the inclusion of a 240-year planning horizon for old forest in this FSP in the midst of the current biodiversity and climate crises is equally strange.
    TimberWest and other logging companies have already logged old forest on the islands in Johnstone Strait to below the “high risk” level of 10 percent, a critical level set out in the Gorley-Merkel report A New Future For Old Forests. According to the current mapping of old forest priority deferral areas, the entire area of Hardwicke Island is down to 8 percent old forest, East Thurlow and West Thurlow Islands have both been reduced to 6 percent, and Sonora is down to 4 percent. Gorley and Merkel’s recommendation #6 (page 56) implied an immediate deferral on logging of old forest in the CWHxm2 biogeoclimatic zone variant in the Thurlow Landscape Unit, which covers most of the land in the Johnstone Strait portion of TFL 47. The final FSP should acknowledge the current old forest deferral areas and indicate whether or not they have been approved.
    TimberWest should state in its forest stewardship plan—just as it has done for the SMZ 19 portion of Quadra Island—that it will not log or degrade any remaining old forest or cut individual old trees on any of the islands in the Johnstone Strait portion of TFL 47. It is known that TimberWest logged old forest (age class 8 near Knox Bay on West Thurlow Island in 2014. It has also done so in other parts of the Johnstone Strait portion of TFL 47, including on Sonora Island. As a first step toward ending logging of old forest in the TFL, TimberWest should release to the public any mapping it had done of old forest in the Johnstone Strait portion of TFL 47, just as it has done for Quadra Island.
     
    [9] Climate change and rate of cut
    The proposed FSP states: “The potential effects of climate change have been considered in the development of this FSP and in particular, the development of the stocking standards.” No other details are provided. There is no other mention of climate change in the document.
    Climate change is caused mainly by the increasing level of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. The logging of old forest and conversion of areas of natural forest into permanent roads and short-rotation plantations results in a dramatic drop in the carbon sequestration capacity of once naturally-forested land in BC. At the same time, the logging industry speeds up the rate at which biogenic carbon is returned to the atmosphere. Climate change is inextricably linked to biodiversity loss, and biodiversity loss is accelerated by the reduction in area and fragmentation of forested habitats.
    Climate change is resulting in extended periods of drought, longer periods of extreme fire weather and, as a consequence, creates conditions favourable to the formation of larger forest fires. Logging creates fuel conditions (clearcuts, slash piles and young plantations) that make ignition of fires easier and make fires more difficult to initially control. Logging roads provide easy access to firewood in slash piles and therefore create a greater likelihood of human-caused fires.
    Climate change is also expected to increase the frequency and impact of insect infestations and forest-related diseases, which will negatively impact timber supply and increase the potential for forest fires. This was confirmed by Ministry of Forests scientists in 2009 and there is no credible rationale for continuing to ignore the facts 15 years later.
    Notably, the proposed forest management plan information package that includes the Johnstone Strait portion of TFL 47 states: “…given the current scientific understanding, it is not yet possible to make reasonable quantitative predictions about the impact of climate change on timber supply. Therefore, the base case will not include specific accounting for climate change projections.”
    TimberWest’s position is unrealistic and incautious.
    In 2004, then-Chief Forester Jim Snetsinger predicted (page 34) that timber supply in BC in 2024 would be approximately 73 million cubic metres per year. But the current provincial AAC has actually been lowered to 57 million cubic metres per year. In 2023, even while logging companies complained about a “shortage of fibre”, the total provincial cut was only 36 million cubic metres. This dramatic decline in timber supply and industry viability has lately been attributed by the Ministry of Forests to insect infestations and forest fires—both of which have been made worse by climate change. TimberWest’s unwillingness to reduce the rate of cut in TFL 47 as a precautionary response to the known impacts of climate change is foolish and irresponsible.
    This is especially true since TimberWest continues to export as raw logs most of what it cuts in TFL 47. TimberWest cannot argue that the need to adjust the cut downward in response to climate change must be balanced against avoiding potential “job loss”. If the company was actually concerned about getting the greatest number of jobs in BC from what is cut in TFL 47, TimberWest would end its heavy reliance on exporting raw logs.
     
    [10] Etcetera
    The problems with TimberWest’s proposed FSP don’t end at [9]. We could go on, but won’t other than to say this: The basic problem with a “forest stewardship plan”, in general, is that it is produced for public review only because that is legally required by the Forest and Range Practices Act. It is easy for a well-funded company like TimberWest to create a plan on paper that appears to cover all the bases and that meets the legal requirements for a forest stewardship plan (after all, the rules were written by the logging industry.), but actually provides little indication of the actual state of the forest in a TFL. That’s because a “forest stewardship plan” is actually a logging plan.
    There is no legal requirement whatsoever for the licensee to include details about how, over the past 5 years, its practices have degraded ecosystems, exacerbated species loss, contributed to climate change, made the landscape more susceptible to forest fires and reduced forest-related job opportunities. A real forest stewardship plan would require such an acknowledgment of the damage done, and then would inform the public in detail about the measures a logging company would take over the next 5 years to steer away from those unwanted outcomes.
    Sincerely,
    David Broadland for the Discovery Islands Forest Stewardship Project
    Michelle Connolly
    January 31, 2024
     To the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework team,
    We are a volunteer collective comprising academics, resource professionals, First Nations, forest industry workers, artists and the public. We recognize that communities of native species and their habitats have a right to coexist with humans. Employing both science and advocacy to improve government policies on land management, we promote natural habitat protection.
    BC’s Biodiversity is underpinned by primary forests (also called natural forests), which are those of any age that have never been logged [1][2]. Seventy years of industrial logging and associated road construction in primary forests have resulted in critically low levels of ecosystem health and biodiversity. Some forest ecosystems are on the brink of collapse owing to the cumulative impacts of logging, roads, and land conversion [3]. 
    We propose the following three improvements to the Draft BC Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework:
     
     1. A scientifically sound definition of ecosystem health enshrined in law.
    Over-reliance on forest professionals, whose job is to treat primary forests as sources of harvestable fiber as opposed to life-sustaining systems, has failed biodiversity and natural ecosystems. Professional forestry is about timber production not the maintenance of ecosystem health. In order to prevent discretionary decisions  harmful to natural ecosystems, a strong definition of ecosystem health is needed.
    All primary forests owe their structure and sophistication to thousands of years of complexity-building processes like fire, insects, and disease. Primary forests with recent natural disturbance histories are persecuted by forestry under the euphemism of “forest health”, causing all manner of ecological harm [4]. To address this failing, we propose the following scientifically-defensible definition of ecosystem health [5], and ask that the legislation under development incorporate this definition:
    "A healthy ecosystem has the ability to sustain a living community having species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to natural (primary) habitats within a region. An ecological system has health/integrity when its dominant ecological characteristics occur within their natural ranges of variation (accommodating climate change responses) and can withstand and recover from most perturbations imposed by natural environmental events or human disruptions."
     
    2.  A clear stipulation that no “Ecosystem-Based Management” should occur in primary forests.
    Alternative forms of logging have no place in primary forests, which represent BC’s healthiest and most resilient ecosystems. While we recognize that Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) has at times the well-intentioned goal of minimizing ecological risk while permitting industrial extraction, its core assumptions are all scientifically untenable. These assumptions are that: a) there is substitution between patterns of  forest harvest and natural disturbance, b) the age of dominant trees are an indicator of successional processes and the ecological structures they produce, and c) compensation rather than addition happens in relationships between natural disturbance and resource activities.   
    For this reason we recognize that EBM ultimately degrades ecosystems, and we oppose its use in remaining primary forests. EBM belongs only in previously  degraded (logged) plantations, where ecosystem health gains might be made as a result of human action.
    A true commitment to biodiversity and ecosystem health in BC should apply the “Half Earth” principle [6] by:
     a) setting aside all remaining primary forests (of any age) under a sincere form of protection (i.e. not FRPA) that prohibits industrial development; and
     b) removing some previously logged lands from the Timber Harvesting Land Base to allow them to recover (also known as “proforestation” [7]) to meet the Half Earth target of conserving 50% of BC’s landbase. We note that, in addition to conserving healthy functioning ecosystems by 2030, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework calls for degraded ecosystems be restored. Restoring ecosystems takes time, and restoration investments must be protected from perverse incentives to extract precisely when those systems finally begin to function in a healthy way.
     
    3. Forest Landscape Planning must include and actively involve civil society, not just governments, industry, and professional foresters. 
    Many governments in BC – including Provincial and First Nations – are under some form of regulatory capture by industry. The gross imbalance in direct subsidy to the forest industry relative to its contribution to BC’s overall GDP is ample evidence of this [8]. To balance industry interests with wider societal ones, such as traditional relationships with the land, civil society groups must be included in forest landscape planning. 
    Human communities rely on primary forest for a staggering variety of ecosystem services and those communities must be involved in the spatial planning as we move towards Half Earth. Ecologists have a vital role to play in this planning process to ensure these conservation and restoration efforts meet the spatial needs of wildlife movement, climate refugia, minimum patch sizes for biodiversity, while accommodating inevitable (and necessary) natural disturbances.
    Sincerely,
    Conservation North
    info@conservationnorth.org
     
    References:
    [1] Convention on Biological Diversity definition of primary forest. www.cbd.int/forest/definitions.shtml
    [2] Remaining primary forests in BC are mapped here: https://consnorth.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d1620f43f9084a99a4921e5e8b9b98dd
    [3] DellaSala, D.A., Strittholt J.R., Degagne, R., Mackey, B., Werner, J.R., Connolly, M., Coxson, D., Couturier, A., Keith, H. 2021. Red-Listed Ecosystem Status of Interior Wetbelt and Inland Temperate Rainforest of British Columbia, Canada. Land 10:775
    [4] Lindenmayer, D. B., Burton, P.J., and Franklin, J. 2012. Salvage logging and its ecological consequences. Island Press.
    [5] Werner, J.R.  2023. In defense of lost causes. Presentation at the University of Northern British Columbia. https://video.unbc.ca/media/NRESi%20Colloquium%20-%20February%2017th%2C%202023%20-%20Dr.%20Jeff%20Werner/0_ktcrorj5/23996
    [6] Wilson, E.O. 2016. Half-Earth: our planet's fight for life. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, a division of W. W. Norton & Company.
    [7] Moomaw, W.R., Masino, S.A., and Faison, E.K. 2019. Intact forests in the United States: Proforestation mitigates climate change and serves the greatest good. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 2: 27.
    [8]  Broadland, D. Forestry definitely doesn't pay the bills, folks. December 7, 2021.
    https://www.evergreenalliance.ca/portal-the-true-cost-of-subsidies-provided-to-the-logging-industry/2/
    Yves Mayrand
    1. Executive Summary
    In its present form and content, the draft BEHF raises several significant concerns that will likely elicit comments from a wide spectrum of First Nations, local governments, resource extraction industries, NGOs, conservation advocates, the science community, and members of the public.
    The draft BEHF is yet another framework announcement by the B.C. government containing a general outline of non-binding intentions to be further elaborated through a multi-step process, pathways, and various approaches, with a view to eventually implementing future legislative action, but without a clear legislative agenda, timeline, target deadlines, or specific deliverables.
    The draft BEHF is completely silent on addressing the urgent need to change the most damaging industrial forestry practices still prevailing in British Columbia (clearcutting, timber harvesting of primary forests to produce carbon-emitting wood pellets for export, timber harvesting in high-priority at-risk old growth forest areas, and extensive industrial spraying of chemicals such as glyphosate). This fundamental issue must be addressed through legislation.
    The draft BEHF makes no mention of formally recognizing Tribal Parks, IPCAs and First Nation Guardianship in provincial legislation. The B.C. government must clearly commit to address this issue through legislation.
    The B.C. government has yet to implement the key Recommendation No.6 in the report of the Old Growth Strategic Panel (“OGSRP”) publicly released more than three years ago, and the subsequent recommendations of its own independent experts on the immediate implementation of Recommendation No.6 for the protection from logging of all the 2.6 million hectares of high-priority at-risk old growth forest areas identified, delineated, and mapped in the report of the Old Growth Technical Advisory Panel (“OGGTAP”) publicly released more than two years ago. This lingering major deficiency must be clearly addressed through legislation without further delay. An outline for such legislation is attached in the Appendix to this submission.
    The draft BEHF is silent on the amounts, sources, and timeline for funding to be devoted by the B.C. government specifically for future biodiversity and ecosystem health programs, initiatives, and actions. This deficiency needs to be addressed when the final BEHF is drafted and published after the deadline for comments of
    With respect to the first Pillar of the draft BEHF on a whole-of-government approach, it is fully expected that our elected government must demonstrate vision, leadership, and integration through the Premier, who is responsible to set the tone from the top, and the Ministers appointed by the Premier, who are responsible for their respective ministries. The Premier is responsible for setting the mandate letter for each of the appointed Ministers. The Executive Council (cabinet) is expected in the normal course of its mandate to manage decision-making, policies, processes, and legislation to be tabled at the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, examined, debated, and voted upon by the elected Members of the Legislative Assembly (“MLAs). This is at the very core of our parliamentary system of government.
    A provincial election must be called in 2024. B.C. voters have a right to be informed in this provincial election year on the legislative agenda of the incumbent government respecting biodiversity and ecosystem health. Which legislation will give effect to the intended prioritization across all sectors, and how? The draft BEHF avoids discussing these critical questions. The incumbent B.C. government must do so before calling the next provincial election later this year. All political parties and all individuals running for elected office for their respective constituencies should do so as well during the provincial election campaign.
    The whole-of society approach, the second of the three Pillars of the Framework, is facing a litmus test with the drafting of the final BEHF, the ensuing implementation plan, the legislative action that is supposed to follow, and the parallel engagement process involving amendments to the Land Act.
    With respect to the third Pillar of the draft BEHF on adopting an open and transparent process, the draft BEHF is silent on Parts 6.0 (Habitat and ecosystem conservation and protection), 7.0 (Habitat enhancement and restoration), and 8.0 (Species at risk protection and recovery) of the Tripartite Framework Agreement on Nature Conservation signed by B.C. on November 3, 2023. Many interested parties and members of the public may also be unaware that the B.C. government is currently involved in drafting amendments to the Land Act and conducting another public engagement in parallel to the draft BEHF, while no information has been provided on the scope and tenor of these draft amendments. The B.C. government should immediately correct this public information gap.
    The draft BEHF shows that the B.C. government is still delaying in practice the full and binding application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to the laws of British Columbia respecting forests, water, lands, and resource extraction activities on what is currently designated as provincial Crown land.
    The proposed Office of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health would add another bureaucratic layer to B.C.’s Public Service, with no statutory mandate or powers to cause any paradigm shift in the administration or bring about actual results through legislative action. This completely misses the mark on the governance and the oversight needed to uphold and enforce biodiversity and ecosystem health measures going forward. B.C.’s Public Service should not be placed in a position to set the priorities, interministerial coordination, and the legislative agenda on its own.
    Through the draft BEHF, the B.C. government is signaling that it plans to go it alone and remodel international, national, and inter-provincial frameworks already in place, with no actual plans, timeline, or deliverables. The B.C. government should clearly commit to endorse the Convention on Biodiversity, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the National Framework for Species at Risk Conservation, the Convention on Migratory Birds, and to adopt a provincial species at risk law.
    The Actions statement in Section 5 of the draft BEHF does not mention any potential protection or enforcement measures that are already needed, or that will be needed while the implementation of the Framework continues to be developed further.
    The B.C. government should commit in principle to tabling before the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia the following Bills within a specific timeline following the next provincial election:
    a Bill for the protection of biodiversity, ecosystem health, species at risk and their habitat under provincial law; a Bill for the immediate and permanent protection from logging of all the high-priority at-risk old growth forest areas identified, delineated, and mapped by the B.C government’s own experts in the report of the Old Growth Technical Advisory Panel publicly released on November 3, 2021, as well as the most intact watersheds for each region and ecosystem identified on Map 6 in this report; a Bill to formally recognize and give effect to Tribal Parks, Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs), and First Nation Guardianship under provincial law; a Bill to consolidate and modernize the forests statutes of British Columbia, including specifically the Forest Act1, the Forest and Range Practices Act2, and the Ministry of Forest and Range Act3; and a Bill to enact the statutory mandate of the Ministry of Water, Lands and Resource Stewardship with a duty and the necessary powers to protect biodiversity, ecosystem health and nature conservation in British Columbia. 1 (RSBC 1996), Chapter 157. 2 (SBC 2002), Chapter 69.  3 (RSBC 1996), Chapter 300.
     
    2. Introduction
    In its present form and content, the draft BEHF raises several significant concerns that will likely elicit comments from a wide spectrum of First Nations, local governments, resource extraction industries, NGOs, conservation advocates, the science community, and members of the public.
    The media release publishing the draft BEHF for comments on November 15, 2023, under the title “B.C. prioritizing ecosystem health, biodiversity”4, states that “The framework is another action the Province is taking as part of ongoing work to improve stewardship of B.C.’s lands, forests and water, to implement the recommendations of the Old Growth Strategic Review and to honour B.C.’s commitments under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act”.
    The media release further states that “The framework is expected to be finalized in early 2024, following consultation. B.C. will co-develop new or update existing legislation to achieve the vision and intent of the framework”.
    The covering message from the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship sets the general tone for the draft BEHF, with a statement that “Through this draft Framework, we are committing to a collaborative stepwise approach to prioritizing healthy ecosystems and biodiversity, and to take a holistic approach to stewarding B.C.’s land and water resources, ensuring that they are healthy and resilient for the long term” (Page ii).
    The general Statement of Intent is that “The British Columbia government commits to the conservation and management of ecosystem health and biodiversity as an overarching priority and will formalize this priority through legislation and other enabling tools that apply to, and can be accessed by, all sectors” (Page 1). There is however no mention of a timeline or target deadlines for action on legislation or “other enabling tools”.
    The stated Purpose of the Framework is to provide “... strategic direction that sets the course for changes in legislation and current practices that aligns the Province’s commitment to UNDRIP with specific goals that are intended to maintain and enhance biodiversity and ecological integrity, protect and conserve priority areas, restore degraded ecosystems, and ensure healthy communities and economies for generations to come. It sets out desired outcomes, principles, and broad directions on which we can build the next steps required to deliver legislation, detailed policies, and actions necessary - jointly with First Nations and with involvement from all British Columbians. It will facilitate short-term shifts towards transformational changes” (Page 4).
    The final paragraph of the Conclusions and Next Steps section states that “In addition, recognizing that the Framework sets out a pathways approach, the next steps will be to develop an implementation plan that identifies interim measures and the expected timelines for all measures, whether short, medium, or long term” (Page 10).
    The draft BEHF is therefore another framework announcement by the B.C. government containing a general outline of non-binding intentions to be further elaborated through a multi-step process, pathways, and various approaches, with a view to eventually implementing future legislative action, but without a clear legislative agenda, timeline, target deadlines, or specific deliverables.
    4 https://news.gov.bc.ca/29861.
     
    3. Improving Stewardship of B.C.’s Lands, Forests and Water
    The stewardship for B.C.’s lands, forests and water falls within the portfolio of the Ministry of Forests, and the separate portfolio of the more recently created Ministry of Water, Lands and Resource Stewardship, which was carved out of the former all-encompassing portfolio of the former Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development5.
    The stewardship of forests on provincial Crown land remains entrusted to private forest tenure holders under an industry professional reliance model adopted over two decades ago6, and the stewardship of forests situated on privately-owned land is entrusted to private landowners under a separate statute7. B.C.’s several forest statutes are outdated and in need of a major overhaul.
    Forest tenures granted on provincial Crown land, including the vast and most lucrative tree farm licences, are mainly controlled by a small number of non-Indigenous large integrated industry players. Widespread industrial timber harvesting through clearcutting continues to be the prevalent forestry practice in British Columbia, causing extensive and irreparable harm to biodiversity, ecosystem health, species at risk and their habitat, as well as flooding, soil stability, water quality, and natural carbon storage by the forests.
    The draft BEHF is completely silent on addressing the urgent need to change the most damaging industrial forestry practices still prevailing in British Columbia (clearcutting, timber harvesting of primary forests to produce carbon-emitting wood pellets for export, timber harvesting in high-priority at-risk old growth forest areas, and extensive industrial spraying of chemicals such as glyphosate. This fundamental issue must be addressed through legislation.
    The First Nations of British Columbia have been attempting for decades to reclaim responsibility for stewardship over their unceded traditional territories through Tribal Parks, Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (“IPCAs”), and Indigenous Guardianship on their unceded traditional territories. Tribal Parks, IPCAs and First Nation Guardianship initiatives are widely considered as the preferred approach to implement effective nature conservation and attaining the objectives set by Canada and B.C. for the protected landbase (25% by 2025 and 30% by 2030).
    The draft BEHF states that the Framework is built on the foundation of upholding and implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (“DRIPA”). However, the draft BEHF makes no mention of formally recognizing Tribal Parks, IPCAs and First Nation Guardianship in provincial legislation. The B.C. government must clearly commit to address this issue through legislation.
    5 https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document.
    6 Forest and Range Practices Act (SBC 2002), Chapter 69.
    7 Private Managed Forest Act (SBC 2003), Chapter 80.
     
    4. Implementation of the Old Growth Strategic Review
    The draft BEHF media release includes a section called “Facts about protecting old growth in B.C.” that states the following:
    “The Province is implementing all 14 recommendations of the independent Old Growth Strategic Review report, including Recommendation No. 2, which calls on the Province to declare the conservation and management of ecosystem health and biodiversity of B.C.’s forests as an overarching priority and enact legislation that legally establishes this priority for all sectors.
    In December 2022, the Province announced its commitment to protecting 30% of B.C.’s land base by 2030.
    On Oct. 26, 2023, B.C. announced a new $300-million Conservation Financing Mechanism - $150 million from the Province, matched by a commitment to raise an additional $150 million from the B.C. Parks Foundation.
    On Nov. 3,2023, the Tripartite Framework Agreement on Nature Conservation was signed by B.C., Canada and the First Nations Leadership Council:
     The agreement represents the alignment of investment of more than $1 billion over eight years.  Of the $1 billion, $500 million will be provided by the Province and the remaining $500 million       by the federal government.” The draft BEHF is therefore expressly linked to the old growth strategic review (“OGSR”).
    The “Facts about protecting old growth in B.C.” section in the media release on the draft BEHF does not even mention the OGTAP report or the 2.6 million hectares of high-priority at-risk old growth forest areas that were to be immediately protected from logging.
    The conservation funding target contemplated specifically for the protection of high- priority at-risk old growth forests is through the creation of an Old Growth Nature Fund by Canada and B.C., with matching funding of $50 million each8. B.C.’s new Conservation Financing Mechanism announced on October 26, 2023, targets a broad spectrum of other future initiatives, including for climate change and wildfire risk9. Both public funding mechanisms are tied to future fundraising from private sector donors.
    The B.C. government has yet to implement the key Recommendation No.6 in the report of the Old Growth Strategic Panel (“OGSRP”) publicly released more than three years ago, and the subsequent recommendations of its own independent experts on the immediate implementation of Recommendation No.6 for the protection from logging of all the 2.6 million hectares of high-priority at-risk old growth forest areas identified, delineated, and mapped in the report of the Old Growth Technical Advisory Panel (“OGGTAP”) publicly released more than two years ago. This lingering major deficiency must be clearly addressed through legislation without further delay. An outline for such legislation is attached in the Appendix to this submission.
    8 Section 6.4.3 of the Tripartite Framework Agreement on Nature Conservation (https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/integrated-nature-initiatives/nature- agreements/canada-british-columbia-nature-agreement.html).
    9 https://news.gov.bc.ca/29736.
     
    5. Funding to Support Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health
    The Tripartite Framework Agreement on Nature Conservation between Canada, B.C., and the First Nations Leadership Council (“Tripartite Agreement”) signed on November 3, 2023, mentions that “In the context of B.C. establishing a provincial-scale conservation funding mechanism, the Parties will seek alignment with contributions of funding flowing through this Agreement to leverage provincial and third-party investments into conservation financing” (Section 11.7). The more than $1 billion of future funding mentioned for nature conservation in British Columbia is essentially based on three-way matching requirements between the two levels of government through existing programs, and the private sector through future philanthropic donations and crowd-sourcing. The matching formula, terms and conditions, and future conservation funding agreements have yet to be determined at this time.
    The draft BEHF is silent on the amount, sources, and timeline for funding to be devoted by the B.C. government specifically for future biodiversity and ecosystem health programs, initiatives, and actions. This deficiency needs to be addressed when the final BEHF is drafted and published after the deadline for comments of January 31, 2024.
     
    6. Upholding and Implementing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA)
    DRIPA was passed unanimously by the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and came into effect on November 28, 2019, more than four years ago10. It incorporates the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into the laws of British Columbia. Section 1 (4) of DRIPA clearly states that “Nothing in this Act is to be construed as delaying the application of the Declaration to the laws of British Columbia.”
    The draft BEHF shows that the B.C. government is still delaying in practice the full and binding application of the Declaration to the laws of British Columbia respecting forests, water, lands, and resource extraction activities on what is currently designated as provincial Crown land.
    10 (SBC 2019), Chapter 44.
     
    7. Whole-of-Government Approach
    The first Pillar in the draft BEHF is “Taking a whole-of-government approach that demonstrates vision, leadership, and integration: including setting ecosystem health and biodiversity objectives and standards that apply across sectors, and integrating and aligning provincial government decision-making, policies, processes, and legislation that affect ecosystems” (Page1).
    It is fully expected that our elected government must demonstrate vision, leadership, and integration through the Premier, who is responsible to set the tone from the top, and the Ministers appointed by the Premier, who are responsible for their respective ministries. The Premier is responsible for setting the mandate letter for each of the appointed Ministers. The Executive Council (cabinet) is expected in the normal course of its mandate to manage decision-making, policies, processes, and legislation to be tabled at the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, examined, debated, and voted upon by the elected Members of the Legislative Assembly (“MLAs). This is at the very core of our parliamentary system of government.
    A provincial election must be called in 2024. B.C. voters have a right to be informed in this provincial election year on the legislative agenda of the incumbent government respecting biodiversity and ecosystem health. Which legislation will give effect to the intended prioritization across all sectors, and how? The draft BEHF avoids discussing these critical questions. The incumbent B.C. government must do so before calling the next provincial election later this year. All political parties and all individuals running for elected office for their respective constituencies should do so as well during the provincial election campaign.
     
    8. Whole-of-SocietyApproach
    The second Pillar in the draft BEHF is “Fostering and supporting a broader whole-of-society approach that facilitates actions and initiatives by individuals, organizations, private sector, governments, and communities to conserve and manage ecosystem health and biodiversity and to advance sustainable communities and economies” (page 1).
    The statement of intention on a broader whole-of-society approach is laudable. It should be noted however that the process and the future actions contemplated in the draft BEHF are essentially focused on government-to-government negotiations with the governing bodies of each individual First Nations of British Columbia. As shown by the statement in the Foundation section, “The Framework is built on the foundation of upholding and implementing the articles set out (sic) the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the requirements of the Declaration Act” (page 7).
    Biodiversity, ecosystem health and nature conservation involve a broad spectrum of interested parties and organizations at the international, national, provincial, regional, and local levels, not just the B.C. government and the governing bodies of individual First Nations of British Columbia.
    Governments at the national, regional, and local community levels, non-governmental organizations, the science community, and the general public should all be genuinely treated as interested parties in this provincial public policy process and be treated as such throughout the process. The whole-of society approach, as the second Pillar of the Framework, is now facing a litmus test with the drafting of the final BEHF, the ensuing implementation plan, and the legislative action that is supposed to follow.
     
    9. Open and Transparent Process
    The third Pillar in the draft BEHF is “Adopting an open and transparent process through evaluation, reporting, continuous collective learning, and adaptive management.” (Pages 1, 9 and 10). “Adaptive Management” is defined as “...a rigorous approach for designing and implementing management actions to maximize learning about critical uncertainties that affect recurrent decisions while simultaneously striving to meet multiple management objectives” (Page 3). One can only wonder what this means in terms of prioritizing ecosystem health and biodiversity, which is the fundamental purpose of the whole exercise, and how adaptive management will be reconciled in practice with ecosystem- based management going forward.
    The media release states that “The draft framework was developed through engagement throughout 2023 with First Nations and other parties, including industry, non-governmental organizations, local communities, municipal leaders and academia. The Province is formally consulting with First Nations Rights and Title Holders, and engaging with multiple natural resource sectors and industry, as well as local governments, and other partners on the draft framework.”
    It appears therefore that natural resource sectors and industry were engaged during the drafting process before the draft BEHF was publicly released for comments by members of the public, and that they will continue to be engaged after the public consultation closes on January 31, 2024. The open and transparent process mentioned in the third Pillar of the draft BEHF should mean first and foremost that all consultations on the BEHF framework and subsequent developments, including the interim and the more lasting implementation plan and draft legislation are public and fully transparent to all interested parties going forward.
    It should be noted that the draft BEHF, which was publicly released twelve days after the signing of the Tripartite Framework Agreement on Nature Conservation by Canada, B.C., and the First Nations Leadership Council on November 3, 2023 (“Tripartite Agreement”), does not mention the objectives set in that agreement for habitat and ecosystem conservation and protection (Part 6.0), habitat enhancement and restoration (Part 7.0), and species at risk protection and recovery (Part 7.0).
    The objectives set in the Tripartite Agreement are directly material with respect to biodiversity and ecosystem health in British Columbia. Of particular note is the stated intention of the Parties to ... help mitigate the need for regulatory orders under federal legislation (section 8.3), take “... conservation actions early that may obviate the need for listing under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) and improve the prioritization of foundational knowledge to better inform federal listing decisions” (section 8.4.1), “... work together to evolve approaches to species at risk recovery and protection actions in B.C. ...” (section 8.4.2), and “... advance species listing and recovery planning pilots to ensure that listing decisions under SARA are fully informed with respect to First Nations knowledge and perspectives and socio-economic implications, and to explore recovery approaches where species are in decline due to broad-scale cumulative impacts rather than local habitat loss” (section 8.4.3). This signals a clear intention by the B.C. government to hinder or limit the listing of species at risk, the issuance of emergency orders, and the protection of critical local habitats for species at risk under federal law (SARA) within the Province of British Columbia.
    Many interested parties and members of the public may be unaware that the B.C. government is currently involved in drafting amendments to the Land Act11 and conducting another public engagement in parallel to the draft BEHF. The media release on the draft BEHF is completely silent on this parallel engagement, and no media release was issued to announce it. While this is also directly material for biodiversity and ecosystem health in British Columbia, no particulars have been provided on these upcoming amendments, which are already in the process of being drafted by the B.C. government12.
    Members of the public cannot be reasonably engaged on public policy consultations such as the draft BEHF unless the public consultation process is fully open and transparent, with a full and comprehensive prior public disclosure of all the relevant elements in prior framework announcements and agreements, and the existence of other material processes underway, such as the upcoming amendments to the Land Act.
    11 (RSBC 1996), Chapter 245.
    12 https://engage.gov.bc.ca/govtogetherbc/engagement/land-act-amendments/. See also “Vaugn Palmer: B.C. NDP quietly consult on sweeping changes to managing public lands”, Vancouver Sun, January 26, 2024.
     
    10. Governance and Oversight
    The draft BEHF heralds the establishment of “... an Office of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health within the B.C. Public Service with the necessary powers and authorities to lead a coordinated and collaborative approach across government and in partnership with First Nations to implement the framework ...” It does not state however to what Minister this new office would be reporting to, or what human and financial resources it would have, or how and to what extent existing Ministries would be bound to contribute to its information gathering and sharing activities on the status of ecosystem health and biodiversity, the development of ecosystem and biodiversity objectives “... that can then be recognized in legislation”, or championing “... policies and approaches; and ensuring accountability...” (page 8).
    The proposed Office of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health would add another bureaucratic layer to B.C.’s Public Service, with no statutory mandate or powers to cause any paradigm shift in the administration or bring about actual results through legislative action. This completely misses the mark on the governance and the oversight needed to uphold and enforce biodiversity and ecosystem health measures going forward. B.C.’s Public Service should not be placed in a position to set the priorities, interministerial coordination and the legislative agenda on its own.
     
    11. Foundation
    The draft BEHF states that “The Framework is built on the foundation of upholding and implementing the articles set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the requirements of the Declaration Act” (Page 7). There is no doubt that the articles of the UN declaration, as incorporated in the laws of British Columbia through DRIPA, should be applied to legislation and government decisions going forward.
    Efforts to protect biodiversity and ecosystem health worldwide have spanned well over three decades, leading to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (“CBD”). Canada was the first country to ratify this landmark multilateral treaty in 1992. The CBD established the Conference of the Parties (“COP”) and the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (“SBSTTA”). At its fifteenth meeting, the COP adopted the Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework13. This elaborate framework was endorsed by Canada in spite of intense lobbying efforts by the resource extraction industries against its adoption. The draft BEHF contains only a footnote on this framework (page 15) which does not even appear in the body of the text. There are also three other footnotes that do not appear in the body of the text14.
    The draft BEHF does not discuss the effect of the 1992 COP multilateral treaty signed by Canada, or the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, nor does it state that the province, like Canada, endorses that framework and the Bonn Challenge for Landscape Restoration. It does not discuss or refer to the Canadian Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk, or why B.C. is one of the few Canadian provinces still holding out on having a provincial species at risk legislation. It does not discuss the National Framework for Species at Risk Conservation, the Pan-Canadian Approach to Transforming Species at Risk Conservation in Canada, or the 2018 report of Canada’s Federal, Provincial and Territorial Departments Responsible for Parks, Protected Areas, Conservation, Wildlife and Biodiversity15.
    Through the draft BEHF, the B.C. government is signaling that it plans to go it alone and remodel international, national, and inter-provincial frameworks already in place, with no actual plans, timeline, or deliverables. The B.C. government should clearly commit to endorse the Convention on Biodiversity, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the National Framework for Species at Risk Conservation, the Convention on Migratory Birds16, and to adopt a provincial species at risk law.
    13 CBD/COPDEC/15/4, 19 December 2022 (15 pages): https://www.cbd.int/gbf/ (footnote i).
    14 Canada’s 2030 National Biodiversity Strategy, 2023: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate- change/services/biodiversity/national -biodiversity-strategy.html (footnote ii)
    Parliament of Canada, 2023: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-5 (footnote iii)
    UBC, Biodiversity of BC: https://linnet.geog.ubc.ca/biodiversity/ (footnote iv)
    15 One with Nature: A renewed Approach to Land and Freshwater Conservation in Canada,
    16 As enacted in Canada’s Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (S.C. 1994, c.245)
     
    12. Actions
    The Actions statement in Section 5 of the draft BEHF does not mention any potential protection or enforcement measures that are already needed, or that will be needed while the implementation of the Framework continues to be developed further.
    The draft BEHF does not address the urgent necessity to change the most damaging practices of the resource extraction industries in B.C. on biodiversity, ecosystem health, and species at risk and their habitat. This problem should not be further ignored or sidestepped by the B.C. government.
     
    13. Pending Litigation
    The draft BEHF is silent on two significant pending legal actions seeking to compel Canada and B.C. to take protective and enforcement actions for species at risk listed in SARA and their habitat17, and whether the B.C. government intends to continue challenging these actions respectively before the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Federal Court of Canada while the BEHF and the implementation plan that should follow are still being developed.
    17 The Friends of Fairy Creek Society is seeking a declaratory judgement from the Supreme Court of British Columbia to confirm that Canada and B.C. are obligated to protect the natural old growth forest habitat of the Marbled Murrelet, a listed species at risk under SARA, pursuant to the Convention on Migratory Birds signed by Canada, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and the Species at Risk Act (SARA). The NGO ecojustice, representing the Wilderness Committee and Sierra Club BC, applied to the Federal Court of Canada to seek a ruling that Canada is obligated to protect the critical habitats of at-risk migratory birds across Canada under SARA, including the Marbled Murrelet in B.C.
     
    14. A Clear and Specific Legislative Agenda is Urgently Needed
    The B.C. government should commit in principle to tabling before the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia the following Bills within a specific timeline following the next provincial election:
    a Bill for the protection of biodiversity, ecosystem health, species at risk and their habitat under provincial law;
    a Bill for the immediate and permanent protection from logging of all the high- priority at-risk old growth forest areas identified, delineated, and mapped by the B.C government’s own experts in the report of the Old Growth Technical Advisory Panel publicly released on November 3, 2021, as well as the most intact watersheds for each region and ecosystem identified on Map 6 in this report;
    a Bill to formally recognize and give effect to Tribal Parks, Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs), and First Nation Guardianship under provincial law;
    a Bill to consolidate and modernize the forests statutes of British Columbia, including specifically the Forest Act18, the Forest and Range Practices Act19, and the Ministry of Forest and Range Act20; and
    a Bill to enact the statutory mandate of the Ministry of Water, Lands and Resource Stewardship with a duty and the necessary powers to protect biodiversity, ecosystem health and nature conservation in British Columbia.
    18 (RSBC 1996), Chapter 157. 19 (SBC 2002), Chapter 69.
    20 (RSBC 1996), Chapter 300.
     
    APPENDIX
    OUTLINE OF A BILL FOR THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF HIGH-PRIORITY AT-RISK OLD GROWTH FOREST AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
    BY YVES MAYRAND – JANUARY30, 2024
    Rationale
    The B.C. government is:
    still not fully implementing in fact Recommendation No.6 of the Old Growth Strategic Review Panel publicly released on September 11, 2020, and the subsequent recommendations of the Old Growth Technical Advisory Panel publicly released on November 3, 2021 on the actual and immediate implementation of Recommendation No. 6 respecting the protection from logging of 2.6 million hectares of high- priority at-risk old growth forest areas of B.C. identified, outlined, and fully mapped by the Panel; tying the actual protection of these areas from logging to a localized ad hoc new forest landscape planning scheme that will take many years to be fully implemented, while timber sales and industrial logging continue to take place in high-priority at-risk old growth forest areas; and assuming that the objectives of the province’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) and reconciliation with individual First Nations can only be achieved through its new forest landscape planning scheme with respect to old growth protection, while this process is essentially open ended and controlled in practice by the Ministry of Forests and non-Indigenous forest tenure holders. The Bill outlined below proposes an alternative approach for the permanent protection of high-priority at-risk old growth forest areas at the option of individual First Nations in consideration for access to compensation through a fully committed and budgeted Old Growth Nature Fund by the B.C. government.
    The upcoming provincial election in 2024 provides an opportunity for all political parties and all individuals running for elected office as MLAs to commit in principle to such a Bill and to state their position on how it should be drafted, tabled, discussed, and voted upon during the first session of the newly elected members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.
     
    Title
    An Act for the Permanent Protection of High-Priority Old Growth Forest Areas of British Columbia (the “Act”).
     
    Key Definitions
    High-priority at-risk old growth forest area: a big treed old growth area, ancient forest area, or remnant ecosystem area, as identified, delineated and mapped by the Old Growth Technical Advisory Panel in its report to the B.C. government dated October 2021, and incorporated in the Act by way of reference to the corresponding map data file held by the Ministry of Forests, with the Schedule of the Act listing all areas and corresponding map data files for all such areas as identified, delineated and mapped by the Panel. Protection area: a high-priority at-risk old growth forest area listed in the Schedule of the Act. First Nation: a First Nation of British Columbia holding a forest tenure, a subsisting claim, or an existing financial interest with respect to the forest resource located in whole or in part within one or more protection areas. Protection agreement: an agreement respecting one or more protection areas, entered into by His Majesty the King in Right of British Columbia, a First Nation or group of First Nations, and existing non-Indigenous forest tenure holders, for the permanent protection of such protection areas from timber harvesting under a timber licence or forest tenure agreement. Permanent protection: protection of the forest resource from timber harvesting in a protection area that is not only for a limited period of time pursuant to a logging deferral or other temporary protection measure. Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area (IPCA): a protection area managed by a First Nation, or group of First Nations.  
    Old Growth Nature Fund
    Establishment of an Old Growth Nature Fund (OGNF) with a set multi-year initial term and a minimum initial capital contribution of at least $125 million by the province of British Columbia (i.e. the $50 million B.C. target contribution mentioned in the Tripartite Agreement, and at least half of the B.C. contribution target for the B.C. Conservation Funding Mechanism announced separately before the signing of the Tripartite Agreement), the applicable statutory mandate, and statutory management, governance, reporting and independent oversight requirements for this fund, and a specified minimum allocation ratio for financial compensation from this fund to the affected First Nations in consideration for entering into, or consenting to, one or more protection agreements with respect to one or more protection areas under the Act. Designation of the OGNF as the appropriate vehicle for initial capital funding from B.C., incremental funding from Canada, and incremental funding raised from private sector sources specifically and exclusively for the permanent protection from logging of high-priority at-risk old growth forest areas.  
    Opting-In by First Nations.
    First Nations are not required to enter into protection agreements but may elect to do so through an opting-in mechanism provided in the Act in consideration of the financial compensation and other terms in a compensation agreement entered into with His Majesty the King in Right of British Columbia, through the OGNF and through other statutory funding mechanisms and government programs. First Nations may elect to formally establish a protection area covered by a protection agreement as an Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area (IPCA).  
    Other Key Provisions
    Permanent removal of protection areas covered by protection agreements from the Timber Harvesting Land Base (“THLB”) under the Forest Act No renewal of timber licences or issuance of new timber licences within protection areas covered by one or more protection agreements. Registration and publication of all protection agreements. The Act is binding on His Majesty the King in Right of British Columbia Consequential amendments to the Forest Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act to ensure their consistency and compliance with the Act. All protection areas and their permanent protection to be fully incorporated into Forest Landscape Areas and Forest Landscape Plans, and any successor plans, without further review or modification. A Schedule listing all the relevant high-priority at-risk old growth map data files.
    James Steidle
    January 27, 2024
    To: BC Provincial Government
    biodiversity.ecosystemhealth@gov.bc.ca
     
    Thank you for considering biodiversity issues in BC’s forests.
    Highlights of this letter:
    Peak plant diversity is in early forest development and broadleaf forests, aspen in particular
    It is of critical importance that we don’t end up only protecting old-growth conifer, sacrificing the rest of the landscape for conifer plantation forestry. The entire successional cycle of our forests including the broadleaf needs protection.
    “Ecosystem-Based Management” often just means management of simplified conifer plantations where broadleaf species are excluded
    BC needs a broadleaf forest conservation strategy
    Legalize broadleaf including the immediate end to forestry herbicide spraying, brushing, and the war on broadleaf, with immediate changes to free-to-grow conifer stocking standards and a shift to minimum broadleaf or conifer-free requirements in cutblocks and consideration of ungulate over-grazing.
    Herbicides including glyphosate have no place in BC forests
    I suspect the majority of your letters will be about old-growth conifer, and yes, protecting old-growth conifer is important. But it is important we do not lose sight of the critical role the younger (and older) deciduous forests in this province- the aspen, alder, birch, cottonwood, maple, and other broadleaf species- play in biodiversity. They play a massive role in this. If all we have is old-growth conifer and managed conifer plantations, a vast array of biodiversity will be absent from our forests.
    I run a group on facebook with 9300 followers called Stop the Spray BC. We also have a website www.stopthespraybc.com and have spearheaded a petition with over 137,000 signatures. Our work has been aired on the The National and has been covered in the Globe and Mail, CBC BC, and other media platforms.
     

    Lush, browse-rich aspen, birch, cottonwood forest near UNBC, Prince George, BC
     
    The point of this group is to educate the public about the biodiversity values of deciduous broadleaf forests, along with other critical values, which are so often forgotten about due to cultural, commercial, and educational biases. For example, aspen is widely thought of as a “weed” in Canadian forests, something even leading Canadian academics believe.
    It is fairly well-known that in many forest ecosystems of Western North America, peak plant diversity exists during early forest development after a disturbance. What is less known is that broadleaf forests in general and aspen forests in particular, are biodiversity hotspots in the boreal and interior forest throughout their entire life-cycle, with the exception of bryophytes. The same is true with red alder forests on the coast.
    Not only do aspen forests generally have higher biodiversity relative to conifer, their more productive and succulent ecosystem supports higher densities of wildlife, including black bears, moose, deer, elk, birds, insects, beavers, and molluscs, fungi and by two out of three measures in this study, bacteria.
     

     
    First Nations practiced burning to reduce conifer and enhance deciduous ecosystems and archaeological evidence shows that food forests were planted in Southern British Columbia of mostly deciduous species.
    The highest ungulate densities recorded in North America are in Elk Island National Park east of Edmonton. The forest there is 97% broadleaf aspen/balsam poplar.
    Despite this, there are no protections for these forests or ecosystems outside of provincial parks. Broadleaf stands are actively converted to conifer on the industrial landbase. Old-growth deferral areas lost in wild-fires lose their protection and may be salvage logged and usually converted into even-aged pine plantations and become part of the industrial forestry land-base. This is the standard outcome of treeplanting and reforestation across the Central Interior where pine is the cheapest and easiest tree to grow and deciduous are suppressed to comply with legislative requirements. This directly suppresses the high-biodiversity values of early successional forests and the broadleaf/aspen forests that dominate parts of these burns in the decades thereafter.
    Therefore it is of critical importance that we protect not just old-growth, but the entire successional cycle of our forests, including the deciduous broadleaf stage. The biodiversity value of an old-growth conifer is not lost when it burns. In fact it can create the conditions for an explosion of life with burnt out snags offering habitat, shade, and nutrients along with the proliferation of deciduous species that can often follow.
    Things get particularly biodiverse when aspen roots send forth a new cohort to dominate the former conifer forest. For aspen, this only really happens where aspen is already established. Following this ancient pattern of succession, the aspen or broadleaf dominated stage of a boreal forest might last for over 100-200 years as late successional species like spruce, sub-alpine fir, and douglas fir slowly regain domination. During this time the aspen provide exponentially more food for cattle and wildlife, build soil carbon at record rates, hold off wildfire, and set the stage for a healthy old-growth spruce forest with leaf litter and fungal associations. In many cases, the aspen exists indefinitely as a stable climax forest.
    Due to their clonal, practically immortal root system, an aspen forest in Utah, called Pando is as old as 14,000 years old. With many of our aspen forests possibly as old as the retreat of the last ice sheet, aspen may be the oldest tree in British Columbia, if you count the roots.
    With some exceptions, aspen/broadleaf conservation is ignored in Canada, probably because we think of aspen as a prolific, self-generating weed. It is easy to forget aspen is in sharp decline across it’s southern range and in parts of Canada. It is also easy to forget prolific clonal aspen regeneration is part of their life cycle requirement. Aspen have weak seed and depend on clonal reproduction but also suffer high mortality on account of many species feeding directly on them (tent caterpillars, moose, beaver, elk, deer, porcupine, bear, ruffed grouse, aphids, ants etc). Many hundreds or thousands of stems are required to maintain a single old-growth aspen that persists in the climax conifer forest. A stand of 80% aspen in year 10 after a disturbance may be necessary to support a stand of 10% aspen at year 120. Eliminating the aspen at year 10 likely threatens long-term root energy levels, their health, and undermines their continual presence in the forest. Millions of hectares of aspen clones have been permanently lost or are in decline in the United States and there is no reason to believe these treatments in BC do not entail potentially irreversible or difficult to reverse ecocidal implications (see picture 2) with impacts on genetic diversity and forest adaptation potential.
     

    Silviculture impacts showing log-term impact on aspen and, therefore, biodiversity in sprayed and brushed cutblocks south of Bobtail Lake.
     
    This misunderstanding is evident with “Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM).” The practical assumption of EBM is to ‘maintain the natural ecological range of variation.” Usually this means aspen regeneration on a formerly coniferous forest could be falsely construed as an aberration. This can be parlayed into the argument that a forest dominated by native conifers should be forcefully recreated with the same species composition as the climax forest, even if there was aspen in the original forest. In this way EBM can justify spraying aspen with herbicides or cutting them down with brush saws, denying the critical stage of biodiversity in managed forests and potentially impacting long-term aspen stability.
    The irony of this is that EBM, in failing to understand or have the patience for how aspen fit in a forest’s regeneration, undermines the commercial aims of this concept to begin with. To mitigate climate change and build maximum fire-resistance in our forests we need the maximum number of pure aspen stands possible. Pure aspen forests are exponentially more fire-resistant than all conifer species. This is on account of the absence of pitch, minimal ladder fuels, thick fire-resistant bark, and a forest architecture that allows much more rainfall and snowpack accumulation that not only contributes to moister understories but also higher stream flows. By eliminating the aspen stage we dry out the landscape and increase the likelihood of fire.
     

    Pine forests burn 840% more than aspen forests over 35 years (Alberta study)
     
    Not only that, systematically eliminating the deciduous component as is currently practiced, undermines landscape carbon sequestration, reduces landscape albedo, reduces landscape watershed function, in addition to reducing biodiversity. Recent research has shown that aspen can sequester up to 5 times the carbon in the same amount of time as black spruce, and by virtue of being fire-resistant, can store that carbon more reliably. In a study done in Europe, converting deciduous forests to conifer in that continent alone has darkened the earth’s surface (conifer are much darker than deciduous and so absorb more heat) to the point it has created as much global warming as the burning of 6% of all fossil fuels up until 2017.
    It is therefore critical that any definition of Ecosystem-Based Management or Sustainable Yield Forest Management must respect broadleaf and aspen forests from the perspective of our own self-preservation
    There is an overall absence of a conservation strategy around broadleaf and aspen forests. Aggressive conifer plantation policies, from the planting of high-density conifer seedlings to brushing and spraying, even misplaced conservation, are not the only threats to aspen, birch, cottonwood, and alder. Over-grazing is also a major factor reducing aspen throughout the Southern Interior and Eastern Kootenays. Over-grazing from both cattle and wild ungulates is a major factor in the alarming decline of aspen throughout the American West.
     

    All manually brushed and chemically sprayed cutblocks, 1980s to 2021.
     
    The United States has active decades-long aspen conservation research programs and strategies, including logging and burning conifer with the express goal of regenerating aspen. Long-term monitoring is routine. Wolves were re-introduced to Yellowstone primarily to reverse the sharp decline in aspen forests in that ecosystem due to over-grazing. Pando, the ancient aspen forest in Utah, has been partially fenced off to protect it from the over-grazing that has been killing it.
     

    Study by Robert Gray showing no young aspen growing on unfenced side of a study area near Cranbrook, BC.
     
    In sharp contrast, such concern is mostly unheard of in British Columbia. To the contrary, we expend considerable energy waging war on aspen, having brushed and sprayed close to 1.5 million hectares of broadleaf forest in this province (annual brushing statistics are no longer published by the Ministry of Forests). It is in fact 100% legal to spray and brush 100% of every single aspen and broadleaf tree and shrub growing in every single cutblock under every major Forest Stewardship Plan across the entire Central Interior. There are no legal requirements to maintain any aspen or deciduous broadleaf in any cutblock across the entire Central Interior whatsoever. The provincial government not only pays for the spraying and brushing of our deciduous species and legally requires their suppression, they tolerate wasteful and excessive suppression above and beyond what is legally necessary if need be, an abuse of public money that the Ministry ensures is done in secret with no public oversight. While there is no minimum level of conservation, the maximum size of an aspen or broadleaf forest is 5% of a cutblock, and no more. This requirement is the product of 46.11 of the Forest and Range Practices Regulation. There must be a place in landscape management to legally protect early seral and juvenile forest types dominated by aspen, birch and cottonwood.

    Glyphosate spraying of aspen in a former mixed forest near Chilako River in 2013, Punchaw, BC.
     
    British Columbia also urgently needs a broadleaf forest conservation strategy. This should include better monitoring and assessment of aspen health and disease, better education around aspen and how their lifecycle requirements work, and an immediate end to forestry herbicide spraying, brushing, and the war on broadleaf.
     

    Natural undiagnosed aspen disease and decline south of Williams Lake.
     
    Any policy change on biodiversity in our province’s forests must begin with immediate changes to free-to-grow conifer stocking standards and a shift to minimum broadleaf/conifer-free requirements in cutblocks.
    Finally, to close off this letter, glyphosate and other herbicides like the poorly studied aminopyralids now being used in Alberta, have no role in our forest ecosystems.
    Glyphosate, we’ve recently discovered, contaminates forests for over 10 years. It remains in forest plant tissues of vegetation it has injured but has not killed. In fact 26% of raspberries had levels higher than the legal allowable limit for fruit and vegetables sold in stores, and some vegetation had levels 40x higher than the legal limit. Long-term contamination of aspen is evident as the photo below shows.
    Furthermore, it was recently discovered it can cause infertility in wild flowers. In a recent EPA study in the United States, glyphosate impacts 93% of the species on the endangered species list.
     

    Stunted, half-dead aspen 13 years after being sprayed, showing no growth and about to be out-shaded by the pine plantation.
     
    In summary, we must incorporate a herbicide-free pro-broadleaf perspective in BC Forests. This will protect not just biodiversity, but forest health, resilience, climate change mitigation, and other social values.
    James Steidle and Herb Martin
    Stop the Spray BC
     
    Herb Hammond
    January 26, 2004
    Hon Nathan Cullen Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship PO Box 9012 Stn Prov. Govt. Victoria, BC V8M 9L6
    Via e-mail: biodiversity.ecosystemhealth@gov.bc.ca
    Dear Nathan Cullen,
     
    re: Draft BC Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework
    This letter forms my response to the Draft Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework, November 2023.
    My comments are provided in two categories: General Comments and Specific Comments.
    General Comments address major issues inherent in the Draft Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework (the Framework). Dealing with these issues underpins the success or failure of the Framework.
    Specific Comments are directed to the text of the Framework. Addressing these comments will improve the Framework, but not necessarily ensure its success in the absence of addressing the issues described in General Comments.
    General Comments
    The British Columbia government as represented by the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship is to be complemented for the forward-thinking Statement of Intent that begins the Framework:
    The British Columbia government commits to the conservation and management of ecosystem health and biodiversity as an overarching priority and will formalize this priority through legislation and other enabling tools that apply to, and can be accessed by, all sectors.
    The Framework is built on the foundation of upholding and enabling the articles set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the requirements of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (Declaration Act). This foundation supports three pillars:
    Taking a whole-of-government approach that demonstrates vision, leadership, and integration: including setting ecosystem health and biodiversity objectives and standards that apply across sectors, and integrating and aligning provincial government decision- making, policies, processes, and legislation that affect ecosystems.
    Fostering and supporting a broader whole-of-society approach that facilitates actions and initiatives by individuals, organizations, private sector, governments, and communities to conserve and manage ecosystem health and biodiversity and to advance sustainable communities and economies.
    Adopting an open and transparent process through evaluation, reporting, continuous collective learning, and adaptive management.
    The core drivers of success are working together to maintain and enhance biodiversity, ecological integrity, and their overall resilience to ensure the coexistence of healthy ecosystems and human communities and economies in B.C. for current and future generations.
    This is the first time in BC history that objectives for protection of ecosystem health and biodiversity have been put ahead of objectives for resource exploitation and extraction. In that way, this is the first time in BC that a path to ecological and cultural sustainability has been adopted.
    This is an excellent start towards a responsible, reciprocal relationship with Nature — the foundation for ecological and cultural sustainability. However, implementation of this new relationship is a complex undertaking that reverses an approach to natural ecosystems designed to exploit their resources and redesign their character to suit short-term human desires. Throughout the history of British Columbia, legislation, education, and research, indeed the overall modus operandi for most of society, have and continue to support this short-term approach of exploitation and extraction of “natural resources” found in ecosystems.
    Thus, “taking a whole-of-government approach” and “fostering and supporting a broader whole-of- society approach” pose many challenges that could derail the implementation of the Framework. Most of these challenges are not described in the Framework, and I encourage the BC government to incorporate them in the Framework, and to give these challenges priority in both revising and implementing the Framework.
     
    Challenges and Solutions
    1. Control of Ecosystems and Resources — Tenure
    Under current BC legislation, regulations, and policy the management and conservation of ecosystems, outside of parks and other protected areas, is controlled by private entities, primarily industrial resource extraction corporations. These corporations function under legislation that grants them virtually sole control over the resources furnished by the ecosystems within their tenure area. This control is strengthened by the policy of professional reliance whereby the way that corporations relate to biodiversity and ecosystem health is determined by “qualified professionals” in the employ of the corporation. While this arrangement is a clear conflict of interest, professional reliance suits both the aims of resource extraction corporations and the BC government.
    To effectively implement the Framework, tenure rights for industrial corporations need to be abolished. In their place, an accountable public agency needs to be established to implement precautionary, ecosystem-based standards for protection and conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem health. This public agency would be established and co- managed by representatives of Indigenous governments and the Provincial government. The “Office of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health” proposed in the Framework would play the role of this accountable public agency. However, their work would only be effective if tenure held by industrial corporations and the policy of professional reliance are abolished.

    2. Urgency to Protect Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health — Legislation Ahead of Revision of Framework
    Due to decades of extraction of natural resources from ecosystems across British Columbia, loss of biodiversity continues to grow, as ecosystem health declines. Thus, there is an urgency to implement the objectives and structures outlined in the draft Framework. The points raised in the Framework indicate that we know enough to change. Therefore, rather than revising the Framework before implementing legislation to protect biodiversity and ecosystem health, we need to enact appropriate legislation now.
    Development of legislation with the requirement for protection of biodiversity and ecosystem health across all government ministries and sectors of society needs to be the next step in development of the goals and objectives of the Framework. Important aspects of this legislation include:
    scientifically based, peer-reviewed definitions of biological diversity and ecosystem health. These definitions are readily available in scientific literature.
    precautionary definitions of biological diversity and ecosystem health. There is a need to incorporate a precautionary approach to err on the side of protection of the integrity of ecosystems, as opposed to exploitation.
    definition of ecosystem-based management. The legislation will specify ecosystem- based management as the primary tool to protect biodiversity and ecosystem health during human activities. Like the definitions above, the definition of ecosystem-based management will incorporate a precautionary approach. (see Addendum 1)
    protection for threatened and endangered species and their habitat, including old growth forests and other primary forests.
    establish the Office of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health to administer the requirements of this legislation. This agency would be co-developed and co-managed by representatives of Indigenous governments and the BC government.
    I wish to emphasize the importance of establishing the legislation described above, as opposed to continuing to revise the Framework through ongoing public consultation. Such consultation will be much better served by the development of clear, comprehensive, precautionary legislation designed to protect biodiversity and ecosystem health. This is what a “whole of society” approach to implementing an “overarching priority for ecosystem health and biodiversity” looks like in action. Following this approach of legislation, rather than continued consultation on the Framework will also provide for important education of the civil service and the public in the requirements for protection of biodiversity and ecosystem health.
     
    3. Interim Protection
    While new legislation is developed, and changes to existing legislation are put in place, there is a need to protect threatened and endangered species and their habitat, old growth forests, and other primary forests, as well as the ecological integrity of ecosystems across BC. In addition, interim protection needs to replace activities that severely degrade ecosystem health, like clear-cut logging and fracking for oil and gas, with activities that provide for protection of ecosystem health. Activities aimed at restoring ecosystem health may accompany activities that protect ecosystem health, particularly in areas where ecosystem health has been significantly degraded.
    Interim protection measures may be seen as a way to evaluate various aspects of protection of biodiversity and ecosystem health being developed for incorporation in overarching legislation.
     
    Specific Comments
    Specific Comments are referenced by page number in the Framework. These comments need to be incorporated into BC legislation and policy to achieve protection of biodiversity and ecosystem health.
    Climate change resiliency, indeed ecological resilience in general requires the maintenance of natural character, i.e. natural ecosystem composition, structure, and function. This needs to be clearly stated, as it forms the basis for protection of biodiversity and ecosystem health. (pg ii)
    “A holistic approach to stewarding BCs land and water resources, ensuring that they are healthy and resilient for the long term” requires application of an important hierarchal relationship between ecosystems, cultures, and economies. Stated simply, economies are part of human cultures and human cultures are part of ecosystems. Given this relationship, protection of the natural character of ecosystems provides for healthy, resilient human cultures that include diverse economies focused on people’s needs. This vital hierarchal relationship needs to be clearly stated in the Framework. (pg ii)
    “The Framework promotes an inclusive, partnership-based approach...through networks, governance structures...planning tables, forums, agreements and co-operation.” Under today’s legislation and policies that govern land management activities, structures like planning tables and cooperative planning initiatives ignore the reality that people involved in these types of collaboration have significantly different levels of political and legal power. For the framework to work the legal and political power of participants needs to be balanced. How does the BC government intend to provide for this balance? (pg iii)
    The Framework proposes to develop ways to protect biodiversity and ecosystem health “that is [are] adaptable to diverse ecosystems, cultures, and ways of approaching stewardship across the province.” While that is a laudable objective, it needs to be achieved in ways that do not compromise protection of biodiversity and ecosystem health in order to achieve the goals of local stewardship initiatives. (pg iii)
    The “whole-of-society approach” is the second pillar under the “foundation of upholding and enabling the articles set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the requirements of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (Declaration Act)” for the Framework. The whole-of-society approach needs to recognize the hierarchy explained in 2 above, particularly as it relates to “sustainable communities and economies”. (pg 1)
    Under the heading, Ecosystem Health and Biodiversity in BC, the Framework states, “The health of an ecosystem can be evaluated by the degree to which it maintains biodiversity and other ecosystem benefits.” This statement would be more in line with scientific descriptions of biodiversity and ecosystem health if it stated, “The health of an ecosystem can be evaluated by the degree to which it maintains indigenous biodiversity and natural ecosystem composition, structure, and function.” (pg 2)
    Key terms are defined in the Framework. There are a few additions to these definitions which would improve their meaning for protection of biodiversity and ecosystem health.
    a)  Ecological Integrity: add to the definition “natural ecosystem composition, structure, and
    function are the foundation for ecological integrity.”
    b)  Ecological Resilience: specify “maintaining natural or inherent ecosystem composition,
    structures, functions, and processes.”
    c) Adaptive Management: need to specify that adaptive management may be either active or passive. The definition needs to briefly explain the difference between these two methods of adaptive management. (pg 3)
    The Famework states: “Ecosystem-based management (EBM) will be an important management approach to achieve this which looks to concurrently manage for ecological integrity and human well-being... there will continue to be areas of more intensive development to accommodate population growth and increasing demands for food, fiber, and energy.”
    This definition of EBM looks a lot like current management practices that are degrading biodiversity and ecosystem health. “Areas of more intensive development” end up being sacrifice zones for biodiversity and ecosystem health. These “sacrifice zones,” where biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystem health are accepted ways of management, ignore that these areas are connected to, and interdependent with the landscapes around them. Sacrifice zones cause the landscapes around them to suffer loss of biodiversity and ecosystem health. If the Framework is to provide for protection of biodiversity and ecosystem health on a “whole landscape, whole ecosystem” basis sacrifice zones need to be excluded and a precautionary definition of EBM needs to be provided.
    Addendum 1 to this letter describes Nature-Directed Stewardship (NDS), which is an approach to our relationship with ecosystems that truly places protection of biodiversity and ecosystem health ahead of exploitation and extraction of “natural resources.” Sacrifice zones are not included in NDS.
    A key aspect of a principled, ecosystem-centric approach to our relationship with ecosystems includes the establishment of networks of ecological reserves at multiple spatial scales. Step 3 in the description of Nature-Directed Stewardship (Addendum 1) identifies establishment of ecological reserves at multiple spatial scales as an important part of NDS.
    To be effective in the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem health EBM needs to be defined in the Framework, legislation, and policy using the philosophy, principles, and process for Nature- Directed Stewardship provided in Addendum 1. (pg 4)
    The Framework calls for a shift from “managing commodities” to “enhanced production potential for ecosystem goods and services.”
    Ecosystems function to maintain the integrity and resilience of the whole ecosystem, and do not focus on the production of any one aspect of ecosystem benefits, i.e. “goods and services.” Therefore, the idea of “enhancing” ecosystem “production” is a false concept.
    Attempting to “enhance” ecosystems often leads to loss of biodiversity and ecosystem health. Methods used in enhancement of ecosystems remove essential composition, structure, and/or function that are necessary to maintain resilient ecosystems. Therefore, the concept of “enhancing ecosystems” needs to be removed from the Framework. (pg 5)
    Under the section entitled Desired Outcomes the Framework suggests that “Advances [to] reconciliation” includes the “right to harvest.” The concept of right to harvest needs to be defined so that it does not include status quo timber management, like that practised in many joint ventures between First Nations, timber companies, and the Province. (pg 5)
    “Resilient communities and economies” are a desired outcome by applying the Framework. “Diverse and ecologically sustainable local, regional, and provincial economies” are the desired outcome. There is a need for the Framework to define what an ecologically sustainable economy means. Such an economy is based on the protection and maintenance, and where necessary, the restoration of natural ecosystem composition, structure, and function. Applying this definition of an ecologically sustainable economy will provide for the development of economies that protect biodiversity and ecosystem health. (pg 6)
    As specified in the Framework, Pillar 2: Fostering and supporting a broader whole-of-society approach includes “supporting sustainable and stable natural resource sectors that continue to be a source of good jobs and economic security for communities” as a way to provide for “economic security for communities.” Currently, this objective of Pillar 2 does not exist, and will not occur under the current forest tenure system. The tenure system needs to be abolished to achieve this objective. (see General Comment 1, above) (pg 9)
    To achieve the goals of the Framework through an Open and Transparent Process (Pillar 3), there is a need to establish a “State of Ecosystems” inventory that documents the current condition of ecosystems across BC. The inventory needs to be field-based, and accurately represent the current condition of biological diversity and ecosystem health across the Province. The inventory will provide a baseline measurement from which future conditions of biological diversity and ecosystem health may be compared to the current situation. If protection of biological diversity and ecosystem health is to fulfil the goal of a new paradigm for relating to ecosystems in BC, regular inventories will need to be required as part of legislation and policy to enable evaluation of how well biological diversity and ecosystem health is being protected. These inventories will form the basis for public reporting “on the state of ecosystem health and biodiversity and progress in implementing the Framework.” (pg10)
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the “Draft BC Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework.” I look forward to hearing how my comments will be incorporated in future legislation and policy, and/or iterations of the Framework.
    As a show of good faith, I encourage you to move directly to development of legislation and policy for the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem health, rather than continuing to revise the Framework. Following this path will ensure the public that the BC government will implement the Framework, as opposed to the Framework becoming a “talking point,” while biodiversity and ecosystem health continue to decline.
    Sincerely,
    Herb Hammond

     

     
    General Description Nature-Directed Stewardship Plans
    Herb Hammond October 28, 2022
     
    Foundation of Nature-Directed Stewardship:
    Nature-Directed Stewardship (“NDS”) is a system of ecosystem protection, maintenance, restoration, and human use. Through networks of ecological reserves, ecosystem integrity and biodiversity are protected at multiple spatial scales, while providing for kincentric, Earth-centred human use of ecosystems. The priority in NDS is to maintain (or restore) natural ecological integrity — including biological diversity — across the full range of spatial (from very large to very small areas) and temporal (from short to long periods of time) scales. The second priority is to provide for balanced human and non-human uses across spatial and temporal scales. Within human culture, NDS facilitates the development of ecologically based, diverse, steady state community economies.
    Nature-Directed Stewardship (NDS) envisions people living as a respectful part of the ecosystems that sustain us and practicing reciprocity with those ecosystems. NDS plans and actions are inclusive of the needs of all beings, all our relations. In this vision, ecosystems are seen as identities to be respected, not objects to be dominated—wisdom passed down by Indigenous elders and knowledge holders across Canada and elsewhere in the world. What people acquire from a kincentric relationship are clean air, pure water, climate moderation, healthy food and shelter, meaningful work, and respectful relationships with each other and Earth. NDS provides for well-being, while asking little from the ecosystems that provide for well-being. Ecosystems are selfless—an important lesson for our species.
     
    General Process for Nature-Directed Stewardship Plans
    This description of the process proceeds in the order of the steps below. However, as the process develops there are iterative relationships between the steps to improve understanding and interpretations.
    Step 1
    Describe Character of Ecosystem: how the natural system works by describing the composition, structure, and function. Character includes modifications to ecosystems by Indigenous management systems but does not include development activities by industrial societies.
    Describe Condition of Ecosystems: how the activities of industrial societies have impacted the natural character of ecosystems. This step highlights areas for protection and identifies areas for ecological restoration.
    Step 2
    Define Ecosystem Patterns and Processes: identifies ecological limits and identifies the boundaries and constraints for ecologically sustainable human activities.
    Step 3
    Design What to Leave: networks of ecological reserves and networks of ecological restoration at multiple spatial scales. Ecological reserves include progressively finer networks of protected ecosystems. Protected Areas and linkages are the broadest scale network of reserves, followed by Protected Landscape Networks at the medium and small watershed scale, while the finest scale of reserves is Protected Ecosystem Networks at the site or patch scale.

    Step 4
    Determine What to Use and How to Use It: Amongst the networks of ecological reserves and networks of ecological restoration, Human Use Areas are designated that respect the reserve networks and activities are designed within ecological limits. Restoration Areas constitute a type of human use area. Together, human use areas and restoration areas provide the foundation for diverse, community-based economies that function within the natural limits of Nature.
    Interpretive maps are developed for each step based upon Indigenous knowledge and appropriate Western science. Interpretive maps provide a practical, user-friendly way to reach the goals of each step. The interpretive maps developed for the four steps above provide a Nature-Directed Stewardship Plan map set, which is the core of a Nature-Directed Stewardship Plan. Interpretive maps are unique to each community and ecological landscape where plans are developed.
     
    Thor Henrich
    To: Hon. Nathan Cullen, Minister of Water, Land, and Resource Stewardship, British Columbia, Canada From: Thor Henrich, retired teacher and naturalist; Victoria Secular Humanist Association.
    January 15, 2023
    Re: Critique of The Framework (‘Draft B.C. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework’)
    This letter critiques the ‘Draft B.C. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework’, arguing that it prioritizes economic growth over ecological integrity. The letter points out false premises in the Framework, such as the assumption of unlimited growth on a finite planet, and highlights ominous omissions such as the need for water stewardship, the urgent reduction of carbon emissions in the province, and the immediate protection of old-growth forest and endangered and keystone species. The letter also raises concerns about the Framework's failure to address past environmental damage, its impact on First Nations, and its insufficient conservation measures.
    In summary, the critique in this letter deems the Framework inadequate for the task of urgently protecting BC’s climate (as part of the global climate), its natural biodiversity and its few remaining intact ecosystems.
    This letter therefore calls for a scientifically-grounded approach to urgently address the many well-documented environmental and climate change issues in British Columbia.
    It also calls for additional time – until March 29th , 2024 instead of January 31st – to allow for more responses from individuals, conservation organizations and other civil society groups.
    The Framework was written in response to Recommendation 2 of the Old Growth Strategic Review: “Declare the conservation and management of ecosystem health and biodiversity of British Columbia’s forests as an overarching priority and enact legislation that legally establishes this priority for all sectors.”
    In response to Recommendation 2, the Framework is presented as addressing the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem health in British Columbia. Its stated Purpose is to: “provide strategic direction that sets the course for changes in legislation and current practices that aligns the Province’s commitment to UNDRIP” (the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) “with specific goals that are intended to maintain and enhance biodiversity and ecological integrity, communities and economies for generations to come”. It is an attempt to address these issues with substantial, transformative new policies, laws, schemes of use and management.
    However, the Victoria Secular Humanist Association is highly sceptical about these measures. In reality, they will not conserve and protect what remains of natural, self-sustaining ecosystems, but instead will continue and increase the extraction and exploitation of provincial resources, wherever they are, as the primary driver for provincial growth and wealth. An examination of the Framework reveals several flaws in logic, and in critical and rational thinking, and the prioritizing of economic ideology over ecological integrity. The Framework has fatal flaws, which we describe under the following headings: False Premises, and Ominous Omissions.
    If this flawed Framework does become the basis for new laws, regulations, policies and programs, and the foundation for the way we relate to our environment, the province will experience tragic consequences which will destroy the biodiversity and ecology of British Columbia as we know it.
    This critique suggests that the Framework is inoperative and needs to be abandoned at the earliest moment. A new Framework with a scientific basis, one not motivated by politics, ideology or the resource extraction economy, is desperately needed and necessary at this critical time.
     
    Brief historical background of resource exploitation in BC
    The first European explorers and exploiters in British Columbia began with a lucrative trade in furs (beaver, mink, sea otter) and, later, metals (gold, silver, copper), fish (salmon, herring), forests (fir, pine, cedar, hemlock) and fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, methane), displacing First Nations (‘Guns, Germs, and Steel’). Colonial extractive systems have continued unabated to the present. Small towns and villages, once islands in the wilderness, have become (in just a few decades) rapidly-growing cities surrounding shrinking natural areas. Past and present governments have not been kind to the environment. ‘Use’ and ‘management’ continue as central themes. More pipelines, dam-building (Site C) and breaches (Mount Polley), clearcut logging, fracking and mining operations, etc., have run roughshod over natural landscapes in which indigenous peoples have lived for thousands of years. One hundred and fifty years of colonialism have left much of British Columbia in a degraded state. The Framework makes no reference to deleterious/destructive activities, past and present, or why they must to come to an end.
    The following are some of the reasons why the Framework will not succeed in implementing the BC Government’s stated commitment: “To prioritize the conservation and management of ecosystem health and biodiversity, including the conservation and recovery of species at risk....”
     
    False Premises:
    The most important of these false premises is the paradigm of unlimited growth on a finite planet. As Donnell Meadows (Club of Rome) wrote in The Limits to Growth (1972), the global system of nature in which we all live cannot support the present rates of economic growth. She accurately forecast that the scenario of ‘business as usual’ would lead to serious ecological crises by the early 21st century. Yet the Framework assumes that BC’s environment can continue to support economic growth in perpetuity.
    A second false premise is that there is still a lot of time to fix things before a true emergency intervenes. The recent COP28 is a perfect example of procrastination. After more than thirty years of denial, the petrostates have finally admitted the obvious scientific fact that anthropogenic global heating is caused by combustion of fossil fuels. Bypassing the Paris Agreement of 2015, COP28 agreed to ’transition’ (not 'phase down' or 'phase out’) the use of fossil fuels for energy by ‘mid-century’ (2050), but to continue indefinitely the manufacture of thousands of petrochemicals of which many are highly toxic, not only to humans, but also to species and whole ecosystems. Rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane have resulted in record high temperatures in 2023, a year of record global temperatures, the highest in an estimated 125 thousand years, with drought, wildfires, flooding, on massive scales. In Canada all 10 provinces and 3 territories had major burns, losses of infrastructure and wildlife, at a cost of billions of dollars, with fully 5% of the country burnt up in wildfires, mostly in forests. There has been no accounting of the effects on the flora and fauna in BC after these tragic events.
    Lytton, British Columbia recorded the highest-ever temperature in Canada of 49.6 C on June 29, 2021, then burned to the ground, displacing an entire community. We no longer have the luxury to wait while various planning committees come up with more ways to accommodate more extractive activities on BC lands. The Framework as outlined will take decades to implement, time we just don’t have any longer. We are in an emergency polycrisis now.
     
    Ominous Omissions: 1. Too Little Protection
    On November 3rd, 2023, the governments of Canada, British Columbia and BC First Nations signed an agreement to protect 30% of lands in BC by 2030. The 30 x 30 goal must be reached within the next six years, yet there is no mention of this urgent and critical goal in the Framework.
    At present, only 15.5% of lands in BC are protected, mainly as parks and ecological reserves, leaving 84.5% unprotected. BC Parks have been subjected to heavy human impacts, from recreation, camping, hiking, trails and roadways, wood gathering, pollution and wastes, etc., so they are far from 'pristine’. A strong argument can be made that BC, as the province richest in biodiversity, is an ecological hot spot, and should therefore have at least 50% (ref: EO Wilson) of nature set aside as the actual target for conservation and preservation. BC was the first province to promote the idea of Ecological Reserves, in 1971, whereby areas especially rich in biodiversity and/or landscape features would be left inviolate, with no trails, recreational or resource uses permitted, in perpetuity, and as essential benchmarks for future reference to identify any changes over time. It was initially suggested that at least 1% of the province be set aside for this purpose. Yet to date only 0.17% of BC has been set aside, in 148 Ecological Reserves, with under-funding and inattention towards care and conservation over the 50+ year history of the program. Does the Framework recognize that reserving less than 0.17% of BC’s biodiversity and ecosystem in a pristine state and leaving 99.83% open for future economic developments is no solution?
     
    2. Too Little Public Consultation
    The Framework was developed in consultation with First Nations, local governments, interest groups and industry, but it was sprung upon the wider public without its consultation or input, a serious omission, and the public has had only until January 31st to respond to this important document. We suggest that in fairness, and due to the size and scope of the Framework, that March 29th, 2024 would be a more reasonable deadline for submissions.
     
    3. BC’s Fossil Fuel Emissions
    To avoid the worst of predicted outcomes, global carbon emissions must be cut in half by 2030, and reduced to zero by 2050. This requires an annual reduction rate of 7%, yet, to date, no country has achieved a reduction rate of more than 1.5%. British Columbia is in the business of producing all three carbon-emitting fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, and methane), which all contribute to increased levels of carbon dioxide and methane, and to the global warming caused by humans. But the Framework makes no mention of alternative sources of energy or of how BC will mitigate the deleterious effects of burning fossil fuels while at the same time protecting biodiversity and ecosystems.
     
    4. Protecting Individual Species
    Thousands of species of plants, animals, fungi and microbiota make up the dynamic natural ecosystems in BC and its unique biodiversity, yet the Framework contains only one statement concerning individual species. A small table on page 5 describes a Shift from “Individual Species" to "Continue to advance holistic multi-species/ecosystems and threats-based approach*”, below which is this interesting statement (our underlining): * “While managing for vulnerable individual species may always be needed, shifting to a multi-species/ecosystems focused approach can result in greater benefits across multiple species and reduce overall costs and effort on single species management.” This statement seems to demonstrate one of the real intents of the Framework – to reduce the funds that are needed to save vulnerable individual species. It ignores any scientific rationale about why certain native species and their complex interactions in the natural environment need conservation, protection, and care.
    The Framework has no stated plans for individual species, such as the marbled murrelet, an at-risk marine bird, under federal and provincial protection, and which makes its nests, lays its eggs, and raises its young in the canopies of old growth forests, in sites which are still being clear-cut logged, despite being supposedly ‘deferred'. Caribou herds are still shrinking as road construction for mining access continues through their lands. The shooting of wolves that use these roads is not working to protect caribou. As well, there is no stated understanding that lichens are an essential dietary source for many ungulates such as caribou, moose, elk, bison, deer, as well as several smaller rodents. Hummingbirds use lichens and spider webs to make their tiny nests in trees, yet there is no statement recognizing them or the more than 2,000 lichen species living in intact natural forests. There is no mention of the essential roles of mycorrhyzal fungi/tree root nutrient exchanges as essential for the biodiversity and health of forest ecosystems. The Province played its hand when it suggested that the 2017 Provincial ban on trophy hunting of grizzly bears should be modified so that individual communities would be able to make that decision on the basis of economic benefits.
     
    5. Stewardship of Water
    Water stewardship is part of the mandate of the Minister of Water, Land, and Resource Stewardship, yet there is barely any mention of this valuable and essential-for-life molecule. Glaciers and snow ice packs grow in winter and normally slowly melt in summer, supplying lowland rivers and streams for breeding salmon, water for forest ecosystems and their inhabitants, recharging aquifers and wells, and human uses in agriculture and other industries.
    The record temperatures, drought, and drying of rivers and stunted growth of vegetation last summer resulted in young fish dying in overheated shrinking pools of rivers and streams, and thirsty and hungry bears and cougars coming into human habitations, resulting in their being shot or relocated to other areas similarly impacted by poor conditions for life in the forest. The impacts of human fouling waterways, streams, lakes, bays, and ocean waters with pollution from industry, from microplastics and thousands of petroleum-based toxic chemicals need attention as worthy and essential goals in the Framework.
    Climate change is resulting in more unpredictable variations in precipitation, from drought to flooding, a significant impact on the resilience and ecological limits of species found in the various ecosystems. Life on land ecosystems interacts with life in marine ecosystems in dynamic and interlocking ways. The Framework needs to explain the importance of the water cycle for both natural and human survival, and its approach to ensuring the continuing availability of clean water in an era of global heating and increased droughts.
     
    6. Benchmarks Ignored
    The Framework’s Key Terms do not define such words as ‘species’ or ‘ecology’, which are at the heart of conservation strategies. Also missing is any discussion of the differences past and present of intact versus degraded/destroyed ecosystems. For example there is no mention of the difference between an old-growth forest with thousands of different species performing various roles of autotrophs (plants, algae, lichens), heterotrophs (animals, mycorrhizal fungi), and decomposers (fungi, microbial invertebrates, bacteria and viruses) versus a 'managed forest’ of a single species of conifer, that under present conditions of clear-cutting, will not be allowed to regenerate into an old-growth forest. 150 years of human impacts (trapping, mining, logging, over-fishing, soil degradation, pollution, fossil fuel extractions) have left much of the province in a damaged state. The Framework needs to explain that we are not starting with a ‘fresh slate’, that benchmarks generally start with each new human generation (with narrowing perspectives), and that we need to develop benchmarks based on scientific data gathered from intact ecosystems such as found in ecological reserves (ERs), and not from ideological belief systems. Such data need to be based as closely as possible on the natural state of each intact ecosystem.
    The Framework needs to also explain how and why we need to stop destroying what little remains of intact nature in BC.
     
    7. Funding Costs
    Given the size and scope to achieve the goals and aims of the Framework, the funding proposed so far is totally inadequate. The $500 million from the federal government, over the life of the Framework, to match commitments from the Government of British Columbia, plus $104 million from the 2 Billion Trees program towards restoration of species-at-risk habitat, wildfire mitigation and recovery, and watershed health is sorely lacking for the task at hand. How all this can be accomplished in the next six years, if at all, with the proposed funding, is suggestive of magical thinking. There is not one statement in the Framework which specifically addresses the costs involved to conserve and protect old-growth forest ecosystems and their biodiversity, which would now come under the rules of “adaptive management”.
     
    8. Impacts of Resource Extraction Growth
    Minister Cullen, in addition to his role as steward of land and water, is also responsible for stewardship of resources, yet resources are given only passing mention in the Framework, despite very large increases in exports. Energy products made up a remarkable 37% of BC’s export goods in 2022, compared to 17% in 2015. Metallurgic anthracite coal is BC’s largest export, combined with natural gas and petroleum: $23.89 billion in 2022, compared with $5.19 billion in pre-Covid 2015. Exports of other resources have also grown significantly, as the following statistics indicate, showing BC’s export income in year 2022, compared with 2015 (in parentheses). Wood products $11.11 B ($8.41 B). Pulp/paper products $4.44 B ($4.37 B). Metallic minerals $6.26 B ($4.43 B). Chemicals $1.43 B ($1.09 B). Plastics and plastic products $1.00 B ($0.43 B). And so on, with total merchandise exports of $64.46 billion dollars in 2022 compared with $35.50 billion dollars in 2015. Three-quarters of these exports go to the US (53.0%), China (16.6%), and Japan (10.2%), with lesser amounts to South Korea (5.1%), India (1.8%), Taiwan (1.6%), and other countries.
    Many of these exports are toxic, for example plastics, chemicals and the impurities in coal. Or they contribute to increasing levels of human-caused CO2 in the atmosphere. But their impacts on human health and climate change are not mentioned in the Framework. And the document completely ignores the dangerous and deleterious effects of resource extractions and exports on biodiversity and ecosystem health. The massive increase of these BC exports over the short period of eight years is certain to enlarge BC’s ecological footprint several times over, hastening the date of ecological collapse.
     
    9. Impossible Timelines
    To achieve the goals by 2030, as stated in the 30 x 30 Agreement, any plans which support biodiversity and (natural) ecosystems may clash with extractive industries such as clear-cut logging, mining and fracking, the building of damaging infrastructure, etc. How will the Framework operate to achieve consensus by 2030, if there is such an impasse?
     
    10. “Adaptive Management”
    The Framework abandons the actual preservation and conservation of species and natural ecosystems presently being negatively impacted by commodification, resource extraction, destruction, pollution, and extirpation/extinction. The BC Conservation Data Centre (CDC) lists the biota (flora, fauna, fungi) of BC, and the conservation status of species which are at risk, red and blue listed, of special concern, endangered or threatened. The Framework is mute concerning how and when the data from the CDC will be used, if ever. In place of existing policies, rules, and laws concerning individual species, communities of species, and natural ecosystems, the Framework has substituted the vague terms of ‘adaptive management’, ‘use’, and ‘collaboration', which suggests that the Province would abandon actual Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health in favour of 'Business-as-Usual, Accelerated’.
     
    11. Old-Growth Logging Deferrals
    The Framework is mute on the subject of deferrals - “a system meant to prevent irreversible biodiversity loss as long-term protection plans were to be developed, provided First Nations agreed with government proposals” (Nov. 21, 2021). There are several instances of clear-cut logging which are still occurring in old-growth forests designated for deferral. The Framework has no information on how deferrals will stop the ongoing clear-cut logging in old-growth forests, or on what will happen if and after deferrals come to an end.
     
    12. The Rights of Nature
    To be effective, the Framework must have legal teeth. Attempts to use legal arguments to conserve species, natural communities, and ecosystems in BC have so far failed (see D. R. Boyd, The Rights of Nature: A legal Revolution that could save the World (2017); P. W. Taylor, Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics (1986). The author of this critique has published a paper titled Can using 'Rights of Nature' Protect BC’s Old Growth Forests? (2022), noting that the Rights of Nature are used to protect species, natural communities and ecosystems in several jurisdictions around the world.
    If the British Columbia Government is serious about its commitment to conservation, protection, and care for BC’s Biodiversity and (natural) Ecosystem Health, it must enshrine the Rights of Nature to Exist, so that Nature can exist untrammelled, and in as close to natural biological and physical conditions as possible. Just as democracy enshrines the rights of its citizens, it should also enshrine the Rights of Nature.
     
    Conclusions:
    To be effective and accepted as a new norm, a Framework must be seen as a legitimate way forward, taking into account the many variables under the wise overview of government while making sure that the overarching priority – “the conservation and management of ecosystem health and biodiversity” – is now understood to be essential for maintaining life in British Columbia, as part of this evolving planet.
    It is imperative that the BC Government appropriately fund, properly account for, and take responsibility to ensure that the Framework will bring an end to ‘business-as-usual', and save all remaining natural areas, such as old-growth forests. Downloading costs and risks onto local communities can lead to unforeseen problems and new issues. We must also realize that we can’t continue to grow without limit, that there are cogent reasons to save, care for, and protect what is left of intact nature, not the least of which is the mitigation of climate change, and we must bring the current exploitative economic agenda to a quick end.
    British Columbia, if it is to survive as a healthy democracy, must prioritize biodiversity and natural ecosystems over resource extraction, by protecting all its species, especially those presently at risk, and by educating the public about the need to protect biodiversity at all levels.
    This is a moral and ethical imperative which requires our humility, respect, and awe for the natural world.
    Thor Henrich. Victoria Secular Humanist Association
     
    Thor Henrich is a retired teacher of many topics in the biological sciences. He taught for 50 years at the secondary, prison, college and university levels, and holds degrees in Zoology (Bachelors, UC Berkeley; Masters in Zoology, with thesis, University of South Dakota.) Thor is a long-time member of the Victoria Secular Humanist Association (VSHA) and its Eco-Humanism Committee.
    Endorsed by the Victoria Secular Humanist Association (VSHA). VSHA is a home for the secular community and recognizes that the environmental crisis, specifically climate change, is a major existential threat to humanity as part of the natural world.
    Len Vanderstar
    Re: Draft B.C. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework
    In this time of a global and regional climate and biodiversity crisis, this initiative has been a long time in coming but welcomed just the same. However, the track record of the provincial NDP led government and its predecessors has been, frankly dismal, and has generated far more pessimism than optimism among the public concerned about a sustainable future.
    This is not the first time we have heard the phrases, in one fashion or another, that:
    • the “B.C. government is committed to protecting and conserving the province’s biodiversity and ecosystem health”;
    • the provincial government is committed “to prioritize the conservation and management of ecosystem health and biodiversity, including the conservation and recovery of species at risk”;
    • “Canada has committed to halt and reverse biodiversity loss and formally recognizes that every Canadian has a right to a healthy environment.”

    Yet and repeatedly so, we have seen the opposite in the sense of putting one-foot forward, then taking two steps backward. Some examples follow:
    Not implementing and government distortion of habitat conservation direction of established strategic land-use plans throughout the province.
    The non-implementation of conservation (wildlife and habitat) legislative provisions of the Forest & Range Practices Act (FRPA) and the Wildlife Act, and the abolishment of its predecessor the Forest Practices Act (FPA).
    The creation of loop hole policies to circumvent the conservation intent of legislative provisions of FRPA and its predecessor FPA.
    The promise of a provincial species @ risk act since the Rio de Janeiro Convention on Biodiversity back in June of 1992; that is nearly 32 years ago!
    Continued logging of critical habitat in many areas that continue to lead to species extirpation such as the northern goshawks, spotted owls, marbled murrelets, caribou, among others.
    The promise for effective access management to reduce predator movement across the landscape, but with minimal progress to date while more of the land-base becomes heavily roaded as a result of forest development expansion.
    The talk about the 30 x 30 protected areas initiative while we witnessed the cancellation of approximately 545,000 ha of non-administered conservations lands within the Skeena Region, some of which were in process for transfer of authority from the Land Act to the Wildlife Act for long-term conservation (administered conservation lands) designation.
    Non-implementation of developed Decision Support Tools that effectively guide the intensity and duration of forest development in any given watershed at various spatial scales to ensure the maintenance of watershed hydrological integrity, all the while government has been continuing to talk about its goal to “consider cumulative effects & address the potential impacts of timber harvesting activities.”
    Treating old-growth deferral areas as business as usual logging without considering the voice of the major constituents of B.C., namely non-First Nation people. How is this going to result in adequate old-growth forest conservation when the majority of deferral areas, at least in central and northern B.C. that I am familiar with, continue to be dwindled down through forest harvesting because of provincial government’s policy to discount the deferral areas when there is no current endorsement by respective FNs, in part because they wish to have higher levels of discussion with respect to their constitutional rights?
    The provincial government needs to demonstrate intent to gain back some level of public trust, and not wait years of Framework development before implementation. It is time to show government’s intent by immediately:
    Cease all logging in big treed old growth.
    Abandon clear-cut logging, single or two-pass approaches; this abandonment includes clear cuts with “reserves” since they still set hydrological recovery to zero.
    Institute “canopy retention” forest practices within conducive biogeoclimatic zones such as Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICH), Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH), Engelmann Spruce- Subalpine Fir (ESSF), Mountain Hemlock (MH), Montane Spruce (MS), Coastal Douglas Fir (CDF), and within multi-species stands that have a component of shade tolerant tree species that exist in the Sub-boreal Spruce (SBS) for example.
    Curtail all public subsidies to the bioenergy/wood pellet industry such as the grade 4 credit system and Forest Enhancement Society, of which are exacerbating the climate and biodiversity crisis.
    Annual accounting for carbon in our forests that include forest practices, and losses due to wildfires, insects and diseases, to effectively and truthfully report on carbon capture and release.
    Implement science-based decision support tools, some of which are already in existence, that support a cumulative impact framework with respect to watershed hydrological integrity at a multi-scale approach.
    Ensure that there is sufficient public representation on all of the planning tables that are working towards revisions to forest management direction.
    A Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework is not required to implement the actions cited above.
    The government speaks to a “collaborative stewardship approach”, but the roll-out of the Forest Landscape Planning initiative is not collaborative when public strategic plan over-sight bodies such as the Bulkley Valley Community Resources and the Kalum Plan Implementation Committee are not given a seat at the table that is strictly comprised of government, industry & First Nations (FNs). This appears to be more of a top-down approach than a bottom up collaborative approach, and from my perspective, is a path to failure.
    I and many others, have been lobbying for the transformation of forest practices in B.C. for many years, and the Framework’s language is most welcomed: “The Framework sets the stage for the desired transformational shift from a land management system that prioritizes resource extraction (subject to constraints) to a future that is proactive, prioritizes the conservation and management of ecosystem health and biodiversity...” However, based on my many decades of forest management and conservation in B.C., this transformative change initiative is destined to fall off the rails if the root of the issues is not effectively addressed. Simply targeting the symptoms will not achieve the desired outcome.
    Clearly a few things have to happen to truly make the necessary paradigm shift to create the template from which to build on:
    Take forest management out of the hands of the timber manufacturing industry; i.e. tenures not tied to wood processing facilities, and use management approaches such as the Alqonquin Forestry Authority & Community Forests. Foresters are clearly in a conflict of interest working for the wood processing facilities since their primary focus is on tree farming and not ecosystem-based management.
    Re-vamp the stumpage appraisal to create incentives and not disincentives to canopy retention forestry.
    Re-vamp the Timber Supply Review process to proactively consider best management practices for watershed, ecosystem and biodiversity health/integrity, inclusive of meaningful climate change considerations.
    Ensure that the proposed Office of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health within the B.C. Public Service has strong cabinet support and appoints a Chief Ecologist that has precedented powers and authorities over the extractive resource agencies such as the Ministry of Forests (MOF) and B.C. Timber Sales (BCTS). The organizational bias of the MOF & BCTS has and continues to be a major hinderance to meaningful forestry transformation.
    Have a level playing field with respect to government lobbying since companies can right off lobbing costs as part of business expenses in terms of taxation, but ENGOs that hold charitable status are severely hampered in terms of what they can spend in political lobbying under present Federal legislation. The lobby power of the of the forest industry seems to surpasses that of the constituents of British Columbia.
    Education and awareness are critical for initiative support. Given that both government agencies (MOF and even the Ministry of Water, Land & Resource Stewardship), and the forest industry have and are continuing to contribute to misinformation to hold the status quo, and thus contributing to social injustice, it is imperative that such misinformation is immediately challenged and corrected to be factful and truthful. This is becoming ever more challenging given the development and thus tendency of misuse of social media algorithms where the reader is subjected to material feed that further justifies their in-grained belief or cynicism, and erodes a critical thinking approach.
    Yours in conservation for a sustainable future,
    Len Vanderstar, R.P.Bio, RCGS Fellow
    David Broadland
    BC’s “exhausted forests” may be about to undergo a generational shift in management paradigm. We hope so. But based on its recent poor record of settling First Nations’ land claims, applying ecosystem-based management and conserving biodiversity, it’s just as likely that government is taking us into a new phase of “talk and log”.
     

    Clearcut logging of old forest near the Mahatta River on Vancouver Island in the territory of Quatsino First Nation. The NDP government’s recent record of forest management in BC has been so controversial that it may be trying to change its spots. Should the proposed Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework initiative be taken seriously? (Photo by TJ Watt)
     
    JANUARY 31 is the deadline for public comment on the BC government’s proposed “Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework”. My intention here is not to provide you with a summary of that document, which you can read for yourself. Instead, I offer a number of criticisms of the framework based on the current government’s recent record on three of the central propositions of the framework: One, that the provincial government is serious about conserving biodiversity; second, that a declaration of “ecosystem-based management” will slow or stop biodiversity loss; and, third, that the current government is genuinely interested in reconciling with First Nations over land claims. We always need to hold government accountable for what it has done, not so much for what it says it will do.
    The draft Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework doesn’t even mention the Tripartite Framework Agreement on Nature Conservation (the Nature Agreement) recently signed with the federal government, but the objectives of the two initiatives dovetail closely with each other: both are intended to conserve biodiversity and both call for First Nations to play a leadership role in the process of establishing that protection.
    The Nature Agreement commits the Province to have 30 percent of BC’s land and water under some form of conservation status by 2030 and creates a $1.2 billion fund to accomplish that. That the relationship between the two initiatives has not been spelled out in the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework is puzzling. What happens if the Liberal government is defeated in the next federal election and Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives defund the Nature Agreement? Is that possibility the reason the connection is left unclear?
    As well, in October 2023, Premier David Eby announced a $300 million “Conservation Funding Mechanism” to “fund new conservation measures that are led or supported by First Nations, lasting environmental protection measures, capacity building for First Nations, stewardship and guardian programs, and support for low-carbon economic opportunities.” Would that money support the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework? Is that $300 million different money than the $600 million BC would contribute under the Nature Agreement?
    Without actually saying it, the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework is poised to establish what forest “conservation” would mean in BC. But forest conservation is not an abstraction. Unless it takes place on the land, it isn’t happening. The Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework, then, although it says nothing yet about which places would be conserved, would eventually have to define where—geographically—conservation would take place. And we can’t talk about “where” without considering the Nature Agreement, which says that 30 percent of the province needs to be in some form of a conservation area. So the comments below intertwine the two initiatives.
     
    This government has been good at protecting rock and ice. That won't conserve biodiversity.
    The primary objective of the federal-provincial Nature Agreement is to protect biodiversity—the myriad forms of life that live here. To do that will require shifting more of BC’s terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems into some form of conservation status. Right now, approximately 14.4 percent of BC is in some form of conservancy, ecological reserve or protected area. To bring that to 30 percent, another 14.74 million hectares of the province will need to be shifted into some form of conserved area or protected area by 2030. There is, of course, a growing global movement—“Half for Nature”—supporting conservation of 50 percent of the world’s terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems. But first we have to try for 30 percent.
    The most recent example in BC of the government saying they are making this necessary shift was the establishment of the Incomappleux Conservancy in 2023. The on-the-ground details of that conservancy are worthy of our close attention. They show why the Incomappleux Conservancy—if it was used as a model for conservation in the rest of BC—would severely constrain the conservation of actual biodiversity. But the details also point in the direction of how to get BC on the right track.
    Before the declaration of the Incomappleaux Conservancy, the immediately controllable threat to biodiversity there was the harm that would be done by logging in the remaining old forests of Block 2 of TFL 23. The licence to log that area was held by Interfor. In the agreement to establish a conservancy, Interfor gave up the right to log in the valley in exchange for $3.75 million, according to the Valhalla Wilderness Society.
    (Note: By “old forest”, I mean primary forest. However, not all primary forest is “old”. If that’s confusing, see this definition of “primary forest”.)
    Here’s part of the problem: The vast majority of the area of the new conservancy consists of biodiversity-scarce ice and rock, which, obviously, were not directly threatened by logging. Only a small fraction of the conservancy consists of old forests containing high levels of biodiversity that were threatened by logging.
    The areal extent of the Incomappleaux Valley that’s now in the conservancy that was considered suitable for logging—see Interfor’s map of its timber harvesting land base in blue in the image below—was only 3600 hectares. To “protect” the biodiversity that remained in that area the provincial government established a 58,000-hectare conservancy. So for each hectare of land in the conservancy that once supported a high level of biodiversity and could be or had already been logged, over 15 hectares of unthreatened, low-biodiversity rock and ice were included in the conservancy.
     

    The light green area over this satellite image shows the extent of the Incomappleux Conservancy. The light blue areas show Interfor’s mapping of the area it considered suitable for logging (the THLB) before the conservancy was declared.
     
    If that 15 to 1 ratio of unthreatened rock and ice to threatened forest area in the Incomappleux Valley Conservancy is used as a model for “protecting” the rest of the province, then instead of protecting 14 million hectares of threatened biodiversity, the Nature Agreement would protect less than 1 million hectares of land that is actually threatened by logging. That tendency of government to “protect” ice and rock in BC is one aspect of the problem. But in terms of protecting existing pools of high biodiversity in the conservancy area, the creation of the conservancy provides an even smaller benefit.
    Of those 3600 hectares that were threatened by future logging—much of which had already been logged once—little of that area still contains high levels of biodiversity: a mere 273 hectares. That’s the area of old forest, as mapped by the Old Growth Strategic Review’s Technical Advisory Panel (shown in dark green in the image below) that overlaps with Interfor’s mapped timber harvesting land base.
     

    Interfor’s mapping of areas suitable for logging (blue) in part of the Incomappleux Conservancy. TAP’s mapping of priority deferral areas are shown in dark green. Areas where the blue overlaps the dark green were the only remaining areas of old forest that were still threatened by logging.
     
    So to protect 273 hectares of highly biologically productive old forest, the BC government has created a conservancy that’s 58,000 hectares in size. At that rate, 14.74 million hectares of new protected areas and conservancies would only conserve 70,000 hectares of the most biologically productive land in BC that hasn’t already been logged. That outcome would be an utter failure to meet the Nature Agreement’s primary objective of conserving biodiversity.
    The government and industry may argue that since “restoration” or “rehabilitation” of logged land is possible, it’s okay to include clearcuts in conservancies and protected areas. But in BC’s forested ecosystems, only old forests contain high levels of biodiversity. The great amount of time and money that would be needed to restore clearcuts to old forest put such an approach far outside both the budget and the limited timeframe we have left to prevent irreversible biodiversity loss.
    By the way, the Incomappleaux Conservancy is not protected from mining or private development of recreational infrastructure, which are permitted in a provincial “conservancy”. All of the existing mineral claims in the conservancy have been left intact. And although climate change threatens to bring change to the entire conservancy, labelling an area as a “conservancy” or a “protected area” will have no affect on how climate change degrades ecosystems there.
    That, then, is the most recent record of the current NDP government at creating a conservation area to protect biodiversity. While the draft Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework promises a paradigm shift in managing for biodiversity in BC, the government’s record suggests that promise could be just a more sophisticated form of talk and log.
     
    A non-business-as-usual approach to conservation is possible
    There are, however, a couple of aspects of the Incomappleaux Conservancy that suggest a direction that could lead to greater success. To understand where hope may lie, we first need to consider the budgetary restraints of the Nature Agreement.
    The Nature Agreement commits the federal government to contribute about $600 million to finance conservation and requires BC to contribute a matching $600 million, for a total of $1.2 billion. That’s the budget.
    As mentioned above, the Valhalla Wilderness Society estimates Interfor was paid $3.75 million for giving up its right to log in the Incomappleaux River watershed—most of which, as mentioned above, has already been logged.
    According to government records, that compensation required Interfor to give up—in perpetuity—the right to log 36,300 cubic metres of wood each year from Block 2 of TFL 23 forests. Using Valhalla’s estimate of what Interfor was paid—$3.75 million—that works out to $103 for each cubic metre of allowable annual cut taken back by the province. This number allows us to estimate how much biodiversity-threatening logging could be permanently reduced across BC using the $1.2 billion budget of the Nature Agreement: 11.7 million cubic metres per year, in perpetuity.
    Is that a lot or a little? In 2023, logging on public land in BC removed 36 million cubic metres. So the $1.2 billion Nature Agreement budget could finance reduction of logging across the province by about 33 percent (relative to 2023), in perpetuity. But who should be compensated for that reduction? The logging companies whose allowable annual cut is reduced? Or the actual owners of the land? I will come back to this question later.
    To do this would require convincing political decision-makers that spending scarce public resources on “protecting” or “conserving” rock and ice is nonsensical if the objective is to conserve biodiversity. BC’s vast expanses of rock and ice are under little or no threat from development and contain minimal biodiversity.
    Common sense, then, should dictate that all of the Nature Agreement’s budget should go to protecting land that is actually under imminent threat from logging or other forms of large-scale, biodiversity-threatening industrial development, like large mineral mines and natural gas and oil fields. Except in the northeastern corner of BC, the only controllable, widespread threat to biodiversity is logging, including road-building. So we know where the emphasis for conservation needs to occur: in forests, particularly old forests.
    But how should government decide which old forests that are threatened by logging should be protected?
     
    What should be protected?
    The draft Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework initiative flows out of the recommendations of the Old Growth Strategic Review conducted by Gary Merkel and Al Gorley, both professional foresters. Recommendation #2 of their report was to “Declare the conservation and management of ecosystem health and biodiversity of British Columbia’s forests as an overarching priority and enact legislation that legally established this priority for all sectors.”
    Note the emphasis on “forests”. Gorley and Merkel were not recommending conservation of rock and ice. The details for recommendation number #2 make it clear that it applied “particularly” to “old forest” rather than, say, managed plantations. Following release of the review’s report in 2020, a technical advisory panel (TAP) was constituted and that group identified 2.6 million hectares of “priority areas for deferral” around the province. TAP was responding to Gorley and Merkel’s recommendation #6, which was: “Until a new strategy is implemented, defer development in old forests where ecosystems are at very high and near-term risk of irreversible biodiversity loss.”
    While TAP’s mapping of “old forest” wasn’t always accurate (as it had predicted), it established that, except in a few cases, remaining highly productive old forest generally occurred in relatively small areas spread thinly around the province, a condition that is almost entirely the result of the relentless logging of primary forests in BC since the late nineteenth century. In many cases, the areal extent of old forest remaining in a given biogeoclimatic zone had fallen below the critical level of 30 percent of the area of the zone. TAP called these “high-risk forests”.
    There should be no question, then, that those “priority areas for deferral” must be included in conservation and protected areas nominated for the Nature Agreement, just as Merkel and Gorley recommended. Yet the draft Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework doesn’t even mention “old forest”, except when referring to the name of Gorley and Merkel’s report.
    While protecting old forest needs to be at the centre of any framework intended to address biodiversity loss in BC, the remaining patches of the most biologically productive old forest are small and wouldn’t necessarily make viable “protected areas” all on their own. There are literally thousands of these small patches and turning them all into “protected areas” could make for a difficult-to-administer protected areas system.
    One possible solution to this dilemma would be to not conserve small areas of old forest as formal protected areas or conservancies. Instead, forest-related legislation could be amended to simply make it illegal to log old forest in these areas, including a suitable buffer of surrounding recruitment forest in those biogeoclimatic zones where old forest has fallen below 30 percent.
    Even though there is no specific mention in the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health framework of how old forest would be conserved, by highlighting “ecosystem-based management”, the authors seem to be pointing to that as the approach government would use to resolve the contentious old forest issue in BC.
     
    Would ecosystem-based management provide protection for what needs to be protected?
    The draft Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework seems to depend heavily on the hope that an “ecosystem-based” forest management paradigm would result in conservation of the old forest identified by TAP. What is ecosystem-based management? The draft framework offers few specifics. It defines it as “an adaptive approach to managing human activities that seeks to ensure the coexistence of healthy, fully functioning ecosystems and human communities. The intent is to maintain those spatial and temporal characteristics of ecosystems such that component species and ecological processes can be sustained, and human well-being supported and improved.”
    The draft Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework promises that “ecosystem-based management” (EBM) will be applied across British Columbia, but will this promise—by itself—result in the conservation of old forest identified by TAP? The framework states that “Implementation of EBM will look different across BC (spatially and temporally)…”. The framework also states “It is expected that there will continue to be areas of more intensive development to accommodate population growth and increasing demands for food, fiber, and energy…”.
    I take the term “intensive development” to include logging as well as oil and gas development.
    In other words, the framework recognizes that ecosystem-based management could create a result anywhere between slightly restrained clearcut logging and a protected area.
    The concept of EBM was developed in BC beginning around 2000. By 2004 an EBM Planning Handbook had been created along with much supporting science and a management framework. There are examples where EBM had been implemented in 2007, and based on that record, there’s little evidence that simply introducing EBM to an area made any difference over business-as-usual forest management.
    For example, in the Thurlow Landscape Unit portion of TimberWest’s TFL 47, where EBM was supposed to be practiced as a result of the 2007 South Central Coast Order, we see that EBM—at least in the hands of TimberWest—looks very much like logging does under the slight constraints of the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation.
     

    TimberWest’s EBM logging in the Thurlow Landscape Unit, part of the Great Bear Rainforest (Photo by Tavish Campbell)
     
    A 2015 investigation conducted by the Forest Practices Board regarding a complaint by Sonora Islanders about logging in the Thurlow Landscape Unit found that “TimberWest did not manage the forests consistent with the spirit and intent of EBM.” Seen from space, EBM clearcuts on the northern Discovery Islands look exactly like anywhere else in the timber harvesting land base of BC, even though old forest in the area has fallen to critically low levels.
     

    Left to right: Hardwicke Island, West Thurlow Island and East Thurlow Island, all supposedly managed under “ecosystem-based management.”
     
    So it remains doubtful that further implementation of EBM—coupled with the existing regime of professional reliance in which the foresters employed by a profit-driven logging company are expected to restrain the company from profiting too much at the expense of nature—can be counted on to conserve remaining old forest, even in an area where it has fallen below 10 percent.
     
    What would be needed for ecosystem-based management to conserve old forest?
    The short answer here is: A prohibition of logging in old forest. But that’s not a complete answer.
    The fundamental weakness of ecosystem-based management is that, in practice, it blends the science of ecological risk with the politics of human need (and greed). But politics has a history of thwarting the adoption of science in forest management in BC.
    For example, the Coast Information Team—and others—told government 20 years ago that natural disturbance return intervals in many BC forested ecosystems were much greater than had been previously understood. That meant that, naturally, much more of BC would be covered by old forest than the forest management regime in BC was allowing for in its policies and practices. In turn, that meant there would be a higher risk of irreversible biodiversity loss under that management regime. That 20-year-old science has just recently resurfaced in the Interim Assessment Protocol for Forest Biodiversity in British Columbia (2020). BC’s Old Growth Forest: A Last Stand for Biodiversity (2020) provided a graphic illustration of this risk relationship. None of this knowledge is currently being applied by government or logging companies in forest management practices.
     

    Risk to ecological function, biodiversity and resilience based on the amount of an ecosystem remaining relative to natural amounts. (From BC’s Old Growth Forest: A Last Stand for Biodiversity )
     
    Instead, the forest management paradigm in operation throughout BC has been based on an imposed political condition that forest conservation measures should not impact timber supply for human use by more than 6 percent, province-wide. Why “6 percent”? This was an arbitrary choice that reflected a political priority in 2003. The government of the day thought it could attract more investment to BC’s struggling logging industry by making it a reliable player in the export of wood products to the global market. Now 80 to 90 percent of the forests cut in BC are exported as wood products and raw logs. There was never a non-economic understanding backing that 6 percent “balance”. It was purely political.
    As a result, in those 20 years, millions of hectares of old forest were logged that wouldn’t have been if science had been the priority instead of politics. Many of the forests logged were a thousand or more years in the making. They can’t be “restored” as long as the human need for timber supply is being artificially “balanced” against the needs of nature, especially when that balance has been set at 94 for timber and 6 for nature. It’s not for nothing that Premier Eby has described BC forests as “exhausted”.
     

    Photo by TJ Watt
     
    For ecosystem-based management to have any chance of conserving old forest—or even recruitment forest for future old forest—the “balance” in the timber harvesting land base of BC needs to be based on the most current scientific consensus regarding natural disturbance interval and the ecological risk of deviating from the long-term natural occurrence of old forest. And, of course, the development of a society-wide consciousness that only a low risk of biodiversity loss is acceptable. After all, nature is the most essential life support system we have, supplying us with habitat for wildlife, clean water, oxygen, flood control, spiritual sustenance, fire hazard management, carbon storage for climate stability, and so forth.
    Does anybody think such a transformation could happen by 2030?
     
    The best insurance against high-risk politicians is protected areas
    The best—if not the only—insurance against the tendency of governments to accept a higher level of risk of irreversible biodiversity loss for political reasons is to create hard protective boundaries around areas of old forest, boundaries that are resistant to changes in government. But, as the record on creating the Incomappleaux Conservancy shows, government is prone to shooting us in the foot by puffing up such protected areas with large amounts of land that are under no imminent threat.
    To protect 30 percent of the most biologically productive terrestrial areas of BC means protecting 30 percent of its most biologically productive forests. Where should those protected areas be located?
    BC began developing a “Protected Areas Strategy” in the early 1990s when there was a push to raise protection of special areas of land from 6 to 12 percent. A system of ecosystem classification has been under development since 1985, and that system identifies how much of each of the 139 terrestrial and marine ecosections in BC have been protected. Ecosections are “areas with minor physiographic and macroclimatic or oceanographic variations”. Each is slightly different, biodiversity-wise, from its neighbour ecosections.
    To see how much of the ecosection you live in is protected, or to learn which ecosection you live in, go to this page. Twenty-four ecosections already have 30 percent or more of their area protected. But 57 have less than 6 percent protected. A good guide to where additional protected areas ought to go could be based on the goal of protecting 30 percent of each ecosection across the province.
    Mapping of TAP’s priority old-growth deferral areas along with existing protected areas and conservancies on top of ecosections allows for quick identification of ecosections where there is old forest but little existing protection.
     

    Old growth Douglas fir are protected in Elk Falls Provincial Park (Photo: David Broadland)
     
    First Nations Leadership
    The draft Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework doesn’t provide anything of substance regarding First Nations beyond these good intentions: “The Framework promotes an inclusive, partnership-based approach—founded on upholding Title and Rights of First Nations and advancing reconciliation.”
    The Tripartite Framework Agreement on Nature Conservation (the Nature Agreement) signed with the federal government, states: “The Framework Agreement includes a shared commitment to work toward true and lasting reconciliation with First Nations. This work is based on recognition and respect for shared stewardship responsibilities, the benefits of healthy ecosystems, and the inherent right of First Nations to self-determination and self-government within their territories. Canada and BC recognize that First Nations have been caretakers of the lands and waters in what is now called BC since time immemorial and are leaders in stewarding lands and waters.”
    This all sounds fine, until you consider the actual record of the governments of Canada and BC at signing treaties with BC First Nations. Since the BC Treaty Commission started the process of treaty-making with first Nations in 1992, only six treaties have been completed by the Commission. Those treaties returned a total of 39,778 hectares of land to BC First Nations, an area that is considerably smaller than the Incomappleux Conservancy (the Nisga’a Treaty was negotiated outside of the BC Treaty Commission process).
    Based on the BC government’s account of the population of First Nations who have signed those six treaties, the treaties have returned an average of 8 hectares per Indigenous person to the rightful owners. At that rate, signing treaties that cover the 200,000 members of all BC First Nations would see approximately 1.6 million hectares returned—or 1.7 percent of the area of BC.
    Compare that 8 hectares per person to the area controlled for the economic benefit of the 46,000 people in BC who are directly employed in the logging-forestry-saw-milling-pulp-and-paper complex (2023). In 2024, logging companies have long-term exclusive access to forest resources on about 21 million hectares of the most biologically productive unceded traditional territories of First Nations. That works out to 456 hectares per industry worker.
    Treaties are returning land to First Nations at the rate of 8 hectares per person, but the logging industry has access to 456 hectares per worker. How does this historically disempowering imbalance advance reconciliation?
    The current provincial government continues to fight First Nations who try to use the courts to get some of their traditional territory returned. For example, the province has fought vigorously against Nuchatlaht First Nation’s claim to 200 square kilometres on the north end of Nootka Island—lands that the BC Ministry of Forests has allowed Western Forest Products to decimate with clearcut logging.
    Thirty years of expensive legal negotiations for return of their land—through both the BC Treaty Commission and BC courts—has impoverished many First Nations. Their desperate need for any economic development has pushed many of them into signing “Forest and Range Consultation and Revenue Sharing Agreements” with the BC government. These provide a First Nation with about 3 percent of the stumpage collected by the province from logging on its traditional territory. That works out to between one-half of one percent and 1 percent of the value of the logs before they are milled.
    The province’s commitment to fully consult with First Nations on resource issues is also questionable. The NDP government did pass the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in 2019 as a framework for reconciliation with First Nations. But this has provided no comfort to those hereditary chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation who are resisting construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline. They did not consent to its construction. As well, the province has recently been taken to court by the Gitxaała Nation. The Nation has challenged the ease with which a mining company, using BC’s Mineral Tenure Act, was able to apply for a claim on the Nation’s territory—without consultation. The specifics of these cases and others strongly suggest a soft commitment on the part of the BC government for consultation with First Nations about what resource development can occur on their traditional territories.
    Given the province’s dismal record on completing treaties, its miserly compensation to First Nations for forestry agreements and its willingness to further impoverish First Nations by fighting in court against their land claims and the requirement for consultation, why would anyone believe the province is serious about First Nations being equal partners—let alone leaders—in an initiative to conserve more of BC’s old forest?
    In the absence of progress on the completion of just treaties, some First Nations have already seized the leadership from government on conservation in their territories by declaring Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs). To date there are at least 17 such declarations that involve nearly 8.7 million hectares of unceded lands. At this point, those IPCAs would cover more than half of the additional land that would be required to bring BC up to 30 percent protected/conserved. There are likely more to come.
    But IPCAs also raise some questions. One declared IPCA is an initiative of the Kaska Dena who have proposed the immense 4-million-hectare (40,000 square kilometres) Kaska IPCA in northern BC. The area has few roads and doesn’t appear to have either loggers or gas frackers knocking on its mainly ice and rock doors. If it is not under imminent threat—unlike so much of southern BC—is there a pressing need for it to be protected? Will the government use these declarations to avoid protecting the more contentious areas that contain priority deferral areas that logging companies want to log in southern BC? The Flathead Valley in southeastern BC, for example, has many old forest priority deferral areas, zero protected areas and a significant level of logging activity. In the short term, the Flathead is far more threatened than the Kaska IPCA. Which should have priority in terms of conserving biodiversity?
    Another potential issue with IPCAs is that the 18 First Nations that have declared them are, in fact, a small subset of the over 200 First Nations in BC. Many First Nations—pushed into economic impoverishment by loss of access to their traditional lands and resources—may be more interested at this time in getting a slice of the logging happening in their territories than they are in conservation. How will the provincial government ensure that the most biodiversity-rich areas of those territories also get protected?
     
    Who should be compensated?
    Who should be compensated for the land taken out of the timber harvesting land base for the purpose of conserving biodiversity?
    In the case of the Incomappleux Valley Conservancy, the only “compensation” mentioned was paid to the logging company Interfor. It might come as a surprise to some people that Interfor was compensated at all. Ever since passage of Bill 28 (the Forest Amendment Act) in 2021, the forest industry and its proxies have been claiming that government could now take back tenure with no compensation. For example, Susan Yurkovich, president of the Council of Forest Industries, told Business in Vancouver in 2021, “People have bought assets over time, including tenure, and Bill 28 now says that you can effectively have an asset removed with no compensation, and that has a chilling effect on investment”.
    But the companies never paid government for those “assets”. They may have paid annual rentals, renewal fees and stumpage to the BC government for the rights to log forests in their tenure or licence on publicly-owned land, but the government always had the legal right to reduce the volume that could be harvested on those tenures.
    So a risk of reduction has long existed. In spite of that risk, logging companies willingly participated with other logging companies in buying and selling their rights to log on publicly owned land in a market that only required government approval of such transfers.
    The fact that logging companies created a market in which tenures were bought and sold does not now mean that the public should compensate these companies if the government decides it needs to reduce the allowable annual cut on that publicly-owned land so that it can be used for some other public interest: Like conservation of biodiversity or providing First Nations with greater access to their own resources.
    Logging companies that also own mills—which are privately-owned assets—have long known of the risk that the volume of logs available to those mills could be reduced by government, and that such a reduction could lower the value of their mills.
    Why, then, should the $1.2 billion budget of the Nature Agreement go toward compensating logging companies for the reduction in allowable annual cut that is necessary for conservation of biodiversity?
    Why not, instead, allocate this budget to the actual owners of the land—BC’s First Nations? For those that are willing to conserve identified areas of old forest in their territories, put them on the list for Nature Agreement compensation. Wouldn’t that foster reconciliation?
     
    Tell the government what you think
    Obviously, I am skeptical about the NDP government’s intention with this initiative. Given the way in which this is being tied to consultation with and agreement by First Nations, and given that a new “Forest Landscape Planning” process has been undertaken that would displace the started-but-never-completed Landscape Level Planning process, I can see this all taking another 20 years before it, too, is replaced with some other initiative. During that time, much more old forest will disappear.
    Independent forest ecologist Rachel Holt—who has been a key player on the technical advisory panel—is not skeptical. She has a different take on the initiative and you will benefit from the information she provides in the powerpoint presentation below.
    You have until January 31 to send in your own comment: biodiversity.ecosystemhealth@gov.bc.ca
     
     
    david shipway
    Overview map of the Sunshine Coast Timber Supply Area
     
    To: Jillian Tougas, RPF, Resource Manager—Sunshine Coast Natural Resource District, and Forest Analysis Branch Office—Vancouver Forest Region

    By sheer luck, a friend told me last week he had discovered there was a Timber Supply Analysis ongoing in this Forest District, leading to a revised AAC, and with a Public Comment period ending on May 1st. This isn’t common local knowledge, almost a well-kept secret, so I spent some time finding more information about this important review, and have sifted through the two PDF documents available on the SCTSA webpage before writing this response. While there are some laudable conservation goals now in place for a small number of endangered species across this magnificent coastal landscape, and some progress in recognition of aboriginal rights and title, nothing that I read has changed my woodworker’s perspective that our public “working forests” are still in relatively rapid decline due to an adherence to unscientific Timber Management policy. 
    I have lived within the SCFD for the last 50 years, mostly on Cortes Island. In the 70s I worked with MacMillan Bloedel on survey crews, and later spent a few years in treeplanting all over the province. These jobs were both a heart-rending education in what gets compromised to maintain the excessive flow of timber in BC, with more cubic metres exported per job than anywhere else in the world . Since the early 80s I’ve been exploring this whole beautiful coastal region by boat, but mostly making a living building houses in the Discovery Islands, and doing a wide variety of professional woodwork. It is from experience gained in all of these activities that I make the following response to this timber supply review:
    1. The current methods of public notification and engagement with communities within the SCFD are inadequate. Printed papers are going extinct, and most people now get their information through digital means. Most communities now have websites where anyone, including government agents, can post notices and information, so residents are kept informed of policy matters that are of a more local concern. I suggest that the District and Regional staff responsible for public involvement must shift to a more modern and direct electronic notification of all communities within the SCFD, otherwise very few will know what’s happening. The wide spectrum of public feedback that you seek to guide policy will be tilted towards only those who are notified by the licensees with a direct economic interest in timber supply.
    Furthermore, the public really needs to see ALL the good ecosystem mapping of the SCFD in order to make informed comment in any public review, but the only map provided in this TSR is a tiny low-info map showing the boundary of this forest district, and even that mapped boundary is incorrect, since Lasqueti Island has migrated over to the Arrowsmith FD. Ecosystem mapping will show the public that the majority of land in the SCFD is composed of extremely steep slopes, bedrock and retreating glaciers. Good productive forest land in the SCFD is actually quite rare.
    2. As economically accessible old-growth in the THLB disappears, and further OG deferrals are implemented, there will be even more political pressure to harvest immature stands to maintain an overly optimistic AAC. I am already shocked by the young age of many current harvest areas, and would like to point out why this trend is an extremely bad idea.
    First, young trees of most coniferous species in this THLB are by volume nearly half sapwood. Sapwood has no longevity in wood products, as the sugars within it attract fungi and boring insects. I have noticed that fir plywood mills on the coast ignore this and use the sapwood to make veneers anyway. Considering that plywood is now very expensive, and is often the primary material holding buildings upright, it is rather disconcerting when the plywood erupts in black fungus before the building can be finished and protected. This does not bode well for the durability of modern wood-based housing, or for the forests that must then resupply replacement buildings sooner in the future. This is a classic Feedback Spiral of Diminishing Returns, and totally unsustainable and counter-productive to the propaganda of long term carbon sequestration in durable wood products.
    Second, the more frequent site disturbances created by shortened rotations also have a negative impact on biodiversity and carbon sequestration in forest soils. Many key nutrient inputs associated with older stands, such as arboreal lichens, do not have enough time to develop, so the soils and fertility within the THLB will become impoverished and tree growth will decline. This is another classic Feedback Spiral of Diminishing Returns, and totally unsustainable and counter-productive to timber supply, as well as the urgent need for all forests to perform as effective carbon sinks.
    3. The solution to the serious problems described in #2 is quite simple—let the second growth trees grow to genuine maturity!
    The productive land that I am fortunate to own has a stand of co-dominant Fir and Cedar that is now nearing 120 years of age. When I do harvest trees, usually one or two at a time, I count the rings and do a volume calculation on recent growth rates. To my amazement, I have discovered some trees have put on as much volume of wood in the last 40 years as they had in their first 80 years of life! And what is also important is that a lot of this doubling in volume is in the form of clear wood that has a much higher potential and monetary value in woodworking. There is more heartwood and less sapwood, and so more of the tree will endure for longer as human artifacts. This higher quality heartwood can become doors and windows, fine furniture or traditional boats. This lucrative potential would have been squandered if the whole stand had been clearcut at 80 years of age, when the immature trees had more sapwood and the heartwood full of large knots.
    So when I see that young stands are often harvested now at the age of 60, I just shake my head in despair—doesn’t anyone realize what has been stolen from their childrens’ future? The world has envied our historical bounty of structural Douglas Fir timber. We can do far better now than grind it all down into mere cubic metres of low quality fibre. But patience is required, as any good farmer or woodworker knows. Second growth stands will also start to acquire many old growth attributes by the age of 120, and thus contribute more viable habitat to replace what has been lost with the hasty liquidation of the low-elevation old growth forests on this coast.
    4. In my readings of fire risks described by Blackwell & Associates in recent Community Wildfire Prevention Plans, young homogenous plantation stands pose a higher fire risk than older more mature stands with less ladder fuels and greater structural diversity. It seems obvious that reducing the overall percentage area of contiguous young forest stands is a very positive wildfire mitigation strategy. Solution: reduce the rate of cut and focus on Quality, by growing more mature forests!
    I do hope you can agree that the very limited Timber Harvest Land Base in the Sunshine Coast Forest District must contribute to and maximize long term viable solutions to mitigate climate change, and at the same time support the threatened survival of a multi-generational regional value-added woodworking economy using high quality wood. This must be the future we aim for, and can only be accomplished by allowing the second and third growth forests to fully mature before harvest. Please therefore calculate a conservation-based AAC with these critical long range goals, duties and obligations in mind.
    Sincerely,

    David Shipway
    Windjammer Woodworking & Design
     
    Send your comment to: Jillian Tougas at engagesunshinecoastforestdistrict@gov.bc.ca
    and copy the Forest Analysis Branch at Forests.ForestAnalysisBranchOffice@gov.bc.ca
    David Broadland
    Had the land on the northeast side of Granite Bay on Quadra Island—logged by TimberWest in 2018-2020—been previously deleted from TFL 47?
     
    Lesley Fettes, District Manager
    Campbell River Natural Resources District
     
    Dear Ms Fettes,
    I am submitting this letter on behalf of the Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project in response to your invitation for public comment on a proposed change to the visual quality objective for the area of District Lots 319 and 318 and adjacent Crown land on the east side of Granite Bay (referred to as “the area at issue” below).
    I have reviewed the background material your office provided, including the letter from the Forest Practices Board. Thank you for providing this material.
    I had earlier contacted your office about the lack of certainty regarding the status of the land at issue. I note that the Forest Practices Board stated in its letter that some land in the general area had been removed from the TFL to establish Small Inlet Marine Park, but government maps incorrectly showed the area of the complaint as part of the park.
    Based on our research, the Forest Practices Board is correct in stating that the area at issue is not in the park. But there is good reason to believe this area was deleted from TFL 47 by an Order in Council or by some other instrument. The Forest Practices Board does not provide a chain of custody history for the land at issue, and other documents show the land as having been deleted from the TFL.
    These documents include a map of areas deleted from TFL 47 in TimberWest’s 2012 Management plan #4. The map (below) from that document shows areas deleted in brown. It shows the area at issue had been deleted from the TFL previous to 2012. Management Plan #4 mentions several examples of deletions from the TFL over a period of more than a decade.
     

     
    Keep in mind, this is TimberWest’s own mapping of the TFL and it is difficult to fathom how or why the company would erroneously delete land from its TFL in its Management Plan.
    We also have obtained a map that was created by TimberWest that shows the area at issue as not in TFL 47. The map below shows TimberWest’s version of its timber harvesting land base (blue-grey areas), and the land at issue is not in the TFL. Again, it is hard to understand how TimberWest could make such a mistake. The map is correct in every other respect.
     

     
    In going through the record of deletions from TFL 47 from 1992 to 2010—as shown in the Ministry of Forests’ archive of TFL 47 management plans #1, #2, #3 and #4—it is evident that aproximately 8999 hectares were deleted, as enumerated below:
    1992: Instrument 9 (“takeback area”): 2980 hectares 1996: OIC 589 according to TimberWest MP #4: 3345 hectares* 2003: Forest Revitalization Act removal: 1236 hectares 2003: Instrument 16: 1438 hectares Total for these 4 deletions: 8999 hectares.
    (* For OIC 589, we used the numbers from the order except for Surge Narrows Provincial Park, for which we estimated 44 hectares are on Quadra Island.)
    To what category of Crown land were these deletions transferred? Four provincial parks absorbed 3345 hectares and eleven Woodlot Licence tenures were given 5469.5 hectares.
    The total for these two categories was 8814.5 hectares.
    So, of the 8999 hectares of deletions, we can only account for 8814.5 hectares.
    Where did the remaining 184.5 hectares go? We believe this is the land on the northeast side of Granite Bay. Note the nearly exact match of the areal extent of the land at issue compared to the missing 184.5 hectares.
    The small island to the west of Lot 319: 15.3 hectares Lot 319: 33.63 hectares Lot 318: 42.11 hectares Crown land between Lot 318 and the north-south boundary of Small Inlet Park: 92 hectares  Total for these 4 areas: about 183 hectares.
    Keep in mind that each of these areas is shown as being deleted from TFL 47 in TimberWest’s maps.
    We are aware of no other forest-based tenure on Quadra Island that has been created during this period (1996-2003) that could account for the missing 184.5 hectares.
    TimberWest’s maps that show the area at issue had been deleted from the TFL, plus our accounting of the area of the deletions, and the areas of the new tenures created by those deletions, create serious doubt in our minds that the area at issue is still in TFL 47.
    Since the area at issue is not within the current legal boundaries of Small Inlet Park, it would appear this land should be classified as vacant Crown land. It likely was intended as a protected area, but fell through the cracks. In 2001, TimberWest expected to give up 751 hectares to Small Inlet Park. In the end, only 487 hectares of TFL were shifted to the park (see page 20 of this document). This would explain why the area was mapped in the 2007 GAR order as being a park or protected area.
    I asked Cody Gold in your office if he would look into this issue; Cody wrote back and stated, “I’ve conducted a brief review of our records and unfortunately, I was unable to find an explanation regarding the TimberWest Management Plan. I would encourage you to reach out to TimberWest/Mosaic to see if they can assist. If Mosaic are unable find an explanation in their records, there is also the option to submit an FOI request.”
    Since there was no possibility of obtaining records through an FOI by the March 31 deadline for comments, I asked TimberWest for their input.
    In particular, I asked TimberWest’s Operations Planner Gary Lawson for an explanation for why his company’s own maps showed the area at issue had been deleted from the TFL, yet it was now logging in that area. Management Plan #4 states that it was prepared for Lawson, so he seemed the best person to provide insight about why the maps in that plan showed the area at issue had been deleted from the TFL.
     

    TimberWest has logged in the area at issue almost to the boundary of Small Inlet Provincial Park
     
    Lawson responded to my query with the following explanation: “The area you mentioned is part of TFL 47. An area had been removed from the TFL to make the Small Inlet Park in the late 1990’s. At the time of the writing of the TFL Management Plan #4 it was mistakenly assumed that this area had been included in the removal from the TFL and added to the park. It had not. This area continues to be managed as part of TFL 47. The official maps of TFL, attached, clearly shows this.”
    Lawson included a map which showed the area in question as not being in TFL 47. However the map also showed several areas that are definitely not in TFL 47 as also being in TFL 47. This included several parcels of private property along Granite Bay Road and also District Lot 488. The latter has been in Woodlot 2032 and Woodlot 1969 for over a decade, yet Lawson’s “official” map of TFL 47  did not show this change—or the private property.
    Lawson did not respond to a request for legal, documentary evidence about the status of the land at issue. 
    I understand that all you really want from the public are comments on the designation of a visual quality objective of “retention” for this area. Given the murky circumstances outlined above, however, I would suggest this area should continue having a “preservation” status. Until such time as the ministry can explain the issues raised here, we suggest that the small island to the west of Lot 319 also be given “preservation” status, not “partial retention” as it now stands. This island lies at the entrance to a provincial marine park and should not be logged.
    Any plans TimberWest might have to damage this area further should not be approved by the Ministry of Forests until such time as a definitive explanation is provided to the public regarding TimberWest’s map of deletions. Also, the ministry needs to provide a credible explanation for why the area of the deletions from TFL 47 do not match the area of the new and expanded woodlots and provincial parks. Lastly, the ministry needs to provide an exact timeline for the deletions and how that land was redistributed.
    With Premier Eby’s announcement of expanding protected areas to 30 percent of land and water in BC by 2030, this area would be ideal for a protected area expansion, subject to First Nations’ approval.
     
    The land at issue includes the small island in the centre of the image below and the land behind it.

    David Broadland
    Submitted by the Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project April 4, 2023
     

    Logging of a rare stand of old forest at Hummingbird Lake on Quadra Island. The top photo was taken during logging in 2019; the bottom photo was taken from the same point in 2020.
     
    Summary
    1. Old forest on Quadra Island has reached a critically low level (~4 percent).
    2. The Vancouver Island Land Use Plan created Special Management Zone 19 (SMZ 19) in 2000 to ensure conservation of biodiversity associated with old and mature forest on Quadra Island.
    3. The failure to complete landscape level planning has left Quadra Island without any spatially-designated old growth management areas, putting all remaining old forest at greater risk of being logged or degraded.
    4. Establishing 11 woodlot tenures in SMZ 19 after it had been created effectively undid the land use planning provisions related to conservation of old forest on 5470 hectares in the zone.
    5. TimberWest is degrading small patches of old forest in its TFL 47 on Quadra Island, both inside and outside SMZ 19.
    6. TimberWest has no effective strategy for meeting the old seral stage targets implied by the VILUP Higher Level Plan Order. If those targets were included in TimberWest’s planning, it would have very little room left to log on Quadra Island.
    7. TimberWest is not abiding by the strategies recommended by the Vancouver Island Summary Land Use Plan for managing concentrations of veteran trees in its tenure.
    8. TimberWest’s strategy for sustaining forest ecosystem structure and function within cutblocks is ineffective because it doesn’t retain forest within cutblocks.
    9. Woodlot 2031 is logging old forest despite stating in its woodlot plan that it would retain existing old forest, even “scattered small patches of old forest”.
    10. Woodlot 2032 is logging old forest for roads and degrading old forest by removing trees 250 years of age and younger. Substantive changes made to its woodlot plan in 2019 illustrate how old forest reserves in a woodlot can be changed without any notice being given to the ministry or the public.
    11. We respectfully request that the Forest Practices Board investigate these matters.
     
    The lay of the land: 11 woodlot licence tenures and a TFL crammed into a special management zone on a small island

     
    TimberWest/Mosaic map of SMZ 19 (pink boundary) and age classes of forest cover on Quadra Island

     
    Introduction
    The failure to implement landscape level planning on Quadra Island after the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan established Special Management Zone 19 in 2000, coupled with the awarding or expansion of 11 woodlots inside the special management zone, has left rare stands and small patches of old forest open to logging. Since the area of old forest on Quadra Island is now down to about 4 percent of the Crown forested land base, risk of biodiversity loss is extremely high and getting worse. Urgent action by government is necessary to conserve all remaining old forest to protect biodiversity and other values.
     
    The problem
    [1] In July 2022, the Forest Practices Board released its investigation report, “Government Enforcement of Old Tree Harvesting on a Quadra Woodlot.” The report contained factual errors about how many trees were removed and why they were removed. The Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project reported on those errors.
    [2] After we published our report, Forest Practices Board Director of Investigations Chris Oman wrote to us and suggested, “If you have concerns about whether the harvesting of other trees complied with [Forest and Range Practices Act], you are welcome to file a complaint with the Board.”
    [3] This submission is, in part, our project’s response to that suggestion. But rather than focussing our complaint on just the question of whether or not the Compliance & Enforcement Branch and Forest Practices Board had failed to thoroughly investigate the logging of old forest that had occurred at Hummingbird Lake on Quadra Island—that logging being just a symptom of a larger problem—we provide below a detailed description of the underlying circumstances that have allowed continued logging of old forest on Quadra Island, including at Hummingbird Lake.
    [4] The Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project is conducting ongoing surveys of old forest on each island in the Discovery Islands group. On Quadra Island we have so far identified approximately 176 widely dispersed fragments of old forest that in area total 655 hectares. As mentioned above, that amounts to approximately 4 percent of the current Crown forested land base.
    [5] The low level of old forest on Quadra Island has been blamed on fires that occurred in 1919, 1921, 1922, 1924 and 1925. But this is only partly true. Logging began in the 1880s and by 1925 much of Quadra’s old forest had been logged. That history in no way excuses continued logging of the remaining old forest. Instead, the critically low level of old forest should have guided the Ministry of Forests to more urgently consider the need to protect all that remains.
    [6] Unfortunately, the cutting of productive old forest continues. This loss is occurring for two main reasons:
    [7] First, because of the absence of landscape level planning—promised 23 years ago but never delivered—no legal old growth management areas (OGMAs) have been established on the approximately 11,000-hectare Quadra Island portion of TFL 47.
    [8] Second, 11 different woodlot licences were located on Quadra Island on 5,470 hectares of Special Management Zone 19 ( (SMZ 19) after the zone had been established by the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan (VILUP) in 2000. Since the Forest and Range Practices Act does not require woodlot licensees to meet the seral stage objectives established by the VILUP, old forest can be legally logged within those 5,470 hectares unless a licensee’s woodlot plan stipulates that it won’t log old forest.
    [9] One of the errors made in the report mentioned above at [1] reflects an assumption made by Forest Practices Board investigators that Quadra Island had undergone landscape level planning, and that management of old forest on the island was governed by a landscape level plan.
    [10] The Board’s report included a map of the “Quadra Landscape Unit” and this statement: “For the Quadra landscape unit (Figure 1), which covers the woodlot licence and tree farm licence 47, this means that the holder of the tree farm licence addresses the legal requirements to manage old-growth forests under their forest stewardship plan. Again, the woodlot licensee is exempt from following government’s objectives for the retention of old-growth forests.”
    [11] The assumption by the Forest Practices Board that landscape level planning had occurred is understandable. Landscape level planning for Quadra Island was given “high priority” in 2000 when the VILUP designated approximately 15,800 hectares of the island as SMZ 19. But, for unknown reasons, that planning never occurred. The “Quadra Landscape Unit” exists only as a line drawn around the island on a map.
    [12] We would also note that the Forest Practices Board, in carrying out its investigation, may have been under the impression that Quadra Island hosted only one Woodlot Licence tenure. The report mentioned only one. But, as noted above, there are 11, each of which, as the Board put it, “is exempt from following government’s objectives for the retention of old-growth forests.”
    [13] Although woodlots are required to reserve 8 percent of their area as “wildlife tree retention areas”, in practice this requirement produces little certainty that remaining areas of old forest will be protected, as we will show below.
    [14] Moreover, in the absence of landscape level planning, TimberWest, the tenure holder of TFL 47, has defaulted to the position that old forest in its portion of SMZ 19 is subject only to the 2004 Order Establishing Provincial Non-Spatial Old Growth Objectives. That order puts the old forest retention target for the CWH biogeoclimatic zone, natural disturbance interval type 2 (Quadra Island) at “>9 percent”. TimberWest handles remaining concentrations of old trees by leaving trees older than 250 years of age but logging all the younger trees between them (more on this later).
    [15] When the result in [13] is combined with the result in [14], a very different outcome for SMZ 19 than was intended by the VILUP has been produced. Based on aerial and ground surveys of old forest conducted by the Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project over the past five years, we estimate the current extent of old forest to be at about 4 percent of the Crown forested area, and falling. This is highly problematic for conservation of biodiversity on Quadra Island and represents a failure of government to abide by its own land use planning.
    [16] In a 2021 Forest Practices Board investigation of a complaint about logging in Special Management Zone 13 in the Nahmint Valley, the Board criticized BC Timber Sales for failing to meet the obligations imposed by the VILUP. In that case, the Board stated: “The public needs to be confident that objectives established in land use plans will actually be carried through and implemented in forestry operations.”
    [17] Below, we will first outline what the intended outcome for old forest in SMZ 19 was. We will then address the question of whether TimberWest has advanced a credible strategy for old forest management in SMZ 19 and whether it is carrying through with that strategy. Finally, we will provide detailed examples of how old forest loss is occurring in both Block 12 of TFL 47 and two of the woodlots in SMZ 19.
     
    What outcome was intended for seral stage distribution in SMZ 19?
    [18] First, the intended management objective for distribution of old seral stage forest was to be at least 9 percent of the SMZ’s “contributing area”. The Vancouver Island Summary Land Use Plan defined that as the “timber harvesting land base” (THLB). To the extent that there wasn’t enough old forest to meet that target, mature forest suitable for old forest recruitment would need to be identified. Second, the intended objective for mature seral stage distribution in SMZ 19 was for at least 25 percent of the zone’s “contributing area” (again, defined as the “timber harvesting land base”) to be “mature”.
    [19] How were these intentions to be carried out in practice? First, the VILUP was to be followed by landscape level planning. As you know, landscape level planning was designed to establish spatially-designated old growth management areas (legal OGMAs) and non-legal OGMAs that could be located in protected areas. The provincial government created legal OGMAs for the purpose of conserving the biological diversity associated with old forests.
    [20] If landscape level planning had been conducted for Quadra Island, legal OGMAs and non-legal OGMAs would have been established for the entire Crown forested land base on the island. We estimate there would be approximately 1280 hectares of legal OGMAs associated with SMZ 19, and about 160 hectares of legal OGMAs associated with the area of Crown forest not in SMZ 19. Instead, no legal OGMAs have been created and all remaining old forest and concentrations of veteran trees not in protected areas are at risk of being logged or being exposed to logging.
    [21] It should be noted that the 8 to 9 percent targets for old forest mentioned throughout this submission are from 1990s-era forest management understanding. Those targets should be much higher now given the new science-based understanding about stand-replacing disturbance intervals for Quadra Island. In 2000, that interval was thought to be about 200 years. It is now estimated to be about 700 years. To keep the risk of biodiversity loss due to logging at a “low” level, at least 49 percent of the Crown forest base on Quadra Island should be old forest. So the 8 to 9 percent old forest targets mentioned throughout this submission are wholly inadequate to keep the risk of biodiversity loss to a manageable level.
     
    How will the seral stage targets for SMZ 19 be met?
    [22] In this section we will examine the question of whether TimberWest has responsibility for meeting the seral stage targets for all of SMZ 19. We include targets for both old and mature forest in this discussion since the VILUP implied targets for both of these seral stages in SMZ 19.
    [23] For clarity, we will note that the Vancouver Island Summary Land Use Plan described SMZ 19 as the land that “comprises all provincial Crown forest on Quadra Island outside of protected areas, excluding the northern portion (north of Small Inlet), as well as the southern, mostly private portion” (emphasis added).
    [24] Clearly, it was the intention of the planners that the protected areas on Quadra Island could not be used to meet the seral stage objectives for SMZ 19. Let’s briefly review what those objectives were, and where they came from.
    [25] The biodiversity emphasis option chosen for SMZ 19 by the Vancouver Island Summary Land Use Plan was “Intermediate.” According to the provincial Biodiversity Guidebook current at the time VILUP was ordered, the recommended target for distribution of seral stages for the “Intermediate” biodiversity emphasis option in Natural Disturbance Type 2 areas (Quadra Island) was as follows: Mature + old: >34 percent; Old: >9 percent; Mature: >25 percent.
    [26] When SMZ 19 was created in 2000, approximately 15,800 hectares of Quadra Island were in the zone and subject to the seral stage targets described above. The areal extent of the zone has not changed.
    [27] Did locating eleven woodlots in SMZ 19 mean that the targets for old and mature forest are no longer applicable? If that was the case, years of careful land use planning would have been undone by the ministry’s own ill-considered action of establishing woodlots in SMZ 19 before completing landscape level planning. We don’t believe anyone should settle for that outcome. Instead, we believe the responsibility for meeting the overall targets for the 15,800-hectare SMZ 19 has shifted, or should be shifted, to that portion of TimberWest’s TFL 47 that’s in the SMZ.
    [28] As noted above at [10], the Forest Practices Board found that “the holder of the tree farm licence addresses the legal requirements to manage old-growth forests under their forest stewardship plan.” The Board seemed to be implying that TimberWest had the sole responsibility for meeting the seral stage objectives set for SMZ 19 (and, indeed, the entire “Quadra landscape unit”).
    [29] Even if the Board did not mean that TimberWest has such a legal responsibility, Section 9 (Proportional Objectives) of the Forest and Range Practices Act gives the Minister of Forests the power to “establish targets, in specified proportions between or among the holders of forest stewardship plans, for sharing the responsibility to obtain results consistent with objectives set by government.”
    [30] In this case, to ensure the overall objectives for seral stage distribution in SMZ 19 are met, TimberWest should be given 100 percent of the share of “responsibility to obtain results consistent with objectives set by government.”
    [31] Such an approach would ensure the intentions of land use planning were carried through by government, and would satisfy the public interest highlighted by the Board in the Nahmint SMZ 13 case, namely that: “The public needs to be confident that objectives established in land use plans will actually be carried through and implemented in forestry operations.”
    [32] This would have important implications for TimberWest’s operations in SMZ 19. The table below summarizes TimberWest’s own assessment of the current age class distribution in its portion of SMZ 19. Note that the total for the centre column is 7084 hectares.
    [33] Since old plus mature forest needs to cover at least 34 percent of the forested area of TFL 47’s portion of SMZ 19, about 2408 hectares needs to be older than 80 years of age. By TimberWest’s own estimate, 3060 hectares currently meet that requirement. That leaves TimberWest with a buffer of 652 hectares within which it can log.
     

     
    [34] If TimberWest is responsible for meeting the full SMZ 19 target for old forest, however, it must also incorporate a reserve to cover at least 9 percent of the 5470 hectares covered by woodlot tenures, which are not required to meet seral stage objectives. That would add an additional 492 hectares to TimberWest’s old forest responsibilities, and would further reduce the area within which TimberWest could log to 160 hectares.
    [35] The strategies for meeting seral stage objectives that TimberWest has included in its successive forest stewardship plans suggest that it is aware of its responsibility to cover the full seral stage distribution obligations that arise from objectives 1.A and 1.B set by the VILUP Higher Level Plan Order for SMZ 19.
    [36] For example, in its 2022 forest stewardship plan, TimberWest’s stated strategy for objective 1.A was: “In concert with other harvesting licence holders operating in the Special Management Zone, the holder of this FSP will ensure that planned development and harvesting activities will not result in the proportion of mature forest area dropping below 25% in the FDU [forest development unit].”
    [37] Why would TimberWest’s strategy for meeting its own mature seral stage target involve looking outside of its own TFL boundaries for help to ensure its “harvesting activities will not result in the proportion of mature forest area dropping below 25% in the FDU”?
    [38] Although the language seems a bit jumbled, the principle at work is clear enough. TimberWest is responsible for ensuring that the overall target for the mature seral stage in SMZ 19 does not fall below 25 percent. Therefore it can count the area of mature forest in the woodlots to meet its legal requirement.
    [39] But this same principle must also apply to the >9 percent old seral stage target for SMZ 19. And since old forest covers only about 4 percent of SMZ 19—well below the target of at least 9 percent—TimberWest is responsible for managing for the missing 5 percent of old seral stage forest, too.
    [40] This is, however, a moving target. If additional old forest is logged in the woodlots, TimberWest would be required to set aside even more of TFL 47 to manage for the old seral stage target.
    [41] The Forest Practices Board seems to agree with this premise. In an investigation about logging of old forest in a woodlot on Quadra Island, as noted above at [8], the Forest Practices Board found that “the holder of the tree farm licence addresses the legal requirements to manage old-growth forests under their forest stewardship plan.”
    [42] As in the case of acting “in concert with other harvesting licence holders operating in the Special Management Zone” with regards to mature seral stage targets, TimberWest should be acting in concert with the woodlots regarding meeting SMZ 19 targets for old forest.
    [43] There is no evidence in the current woodlot plans of the 11 woodlot licensees that there is any planning “in concert” with TimberWest. And, as we will show below, at least two of the woodlots are logging old forest. Both of these circumstances suggest that TimberWest is not following through with its limited strategy to meet the seral stage distribution objectives that flow from the VILUP.
     
    TimberWest is not following the recommended strategy for managing old forest set out in the VILUP
    [44] Although TimberWest has committed in its forest stewardship plans to not log old forest in its portion of SMZ 19, it has logged small patches of old forest. In those cases it leaves the trees that are greater than 250 years of age but cuts away all younger trees between the old trees. This is not the strategy outlined for SMZ 19 by the VILUP.
    [45] The recommended strategy for protecting old forest on Quadra Island, as stated in the Vancouver Island Summary Land Use Plan was this:
    Objective: General Biodiversity Conservation Management
    Strategies: to the extent that old seral forest retention will be required within the contributing land base portions of the landscape unit, such retention should be concentrated within the SMZ-portion of the landscape unit; maintain existing old forest in the zone, as well as second growth with high portion of veteran trees; manage to replace old forest in the long term (>150 years) in accordance with old seral targets for intermediate BEO; focus old seral replacement in CWHxm2, concentrated along riparian areas and, where possible, adjacent to existing old seral forest; recruit old seral habitat blocks with higher priority on forest interior conditions than on old seral connectors; maintain harvest opportunity in second growth by identifying some old growth recruitment areas in early seral forest; recruit mature forest in the mid (>50 years) term, building gradually towards a mature seral target of 25%; actively create mature and old seral forest attributes through suitable management strategies, such as variable density thinning or partial cutting silvicultural systems.
    [46] We interpret the stated strategy—“maintain existing old forest in the zone, as well as second growth with high portion of veteran trees”—as meaning that concentrations of veteran trees should be left undisturbed.
    [47] However, TimberWest is not abiding by that strategy. Below are photographs of three such instances in TFL 47 in the special management zone.
    [48] We have been advised by forest ecologist Rachel Holt and forester Herb Hammond that such a practice does little to conserve the biodiversity associated with old forest, which is the basis for the above recommended strategy outlined in VILUP for SMZ 19.
    Three photos below: TimberWest leaves trees older than 250 years but logs everything around them.

     

     

     
    TimberWest’s strategy regarding Objective A.1.(b) is ineffective
    [49] Objective A. 1. (b) of the VILUP Higher Level Plan Order (HLPO) states: “Sustain forest ecosystem structure and function in SMZs, by… retaining within cutblocks, structural forest attributes and elements with important biodiversity functions…”
    [50] In its current forest stewardship plan, TimberWest states that it will comply with Objective A. 1. (b) of the VILUP HLPO by: “(1) Retaining wildlife trees as specified in Section 66 of the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation (FPPR)”.
    [51] Section 66 of FPPR states, in part: “(1) If an agreement holder completes harvesting in one or more cutblocks during any 12 month period beginning on April 1 of any calendar year, the holder must ensure that, at the end of that 12 month period, the total area covered by wildlife tree retention areas that relate to the cutblocks is a minimum of 7% of the total area of the cutblocks.”
    [52] TimberWest’s strategy for “retaining within cutblocks, structural forest attributes and elements with important biodiversity functions…” utilizes a “group retention” approach whereby the full annual 7 percent retention area is accounted for as an area, or areas, of unlogged forest somewhere on Quadra Island. This has two problems.
    [53] First, this approach defeats the intention of Objective A. 1. (b) of the VILUP HLPO. The order specifically uses the language “retaining within cutblocks…” and a footnote elaborates : “Within cutblocks: generally means non-contiguous with cutblock boundaries”. We take that to mean that retention areas should be like “islands” within cutblocks. Yet none of TimberWest’s wildlife tree retention areas occur within cutblocks.
    [54] Second, mapping of these retention areas on Quadra Island shows that they often end up being logged later or do not contain mature trees (see image below). Or inoperable areas where logging wouldn’t have occurred in any case are designated as stand-in wildlife tree retention areas. Neither of these approaches helps to “sustain forest ecosystem structure and function…within cutblocks…”
     

    Some of TimberWest’s mapped “wildlife tree retention areas” on Quadra Island (areas outlined in green with oblique lines through them) are areas that have been clearcut or do not contain mature trees (marked above with red dots). See more wildlife tree retention areas on Quadra here.
     
    [55] Moreover, Section 67 of FPPR states: “An agreement holder must not harvest timber from a wildlife tree retention area unless the trees on the net area to be reforested of the cutblock to which the wildlife tree retention area relates have developed attributes that are consistent with a mature seral condition.”
    [56] As noted above, in those cases where TimberWest leaves veteran Douglas fir trees as wildlife trees, it immediately removes the younger trees around them from the potential wildlife tree retention area, contrary to Section 67 of FPPR. The photos below are typical of TimberWest cutblocks on Quadra. All three are in the Long Lake area.
     

     

     

     
    Logging of old forest in the woodlots
    [57] Between 2003 and 2011, after SMZ 19 had been created, nine new woodlots were established on Quadra Island in the special management zone, and the two pre-existing woodlots were expanded into the zone.
    [58] The rational course of events, after the establishment of SMZ 19, would have been to conduct landscape level planning, establish legal OGMAs—and only then establish Woodlot Licences.
    [59] Because of the differences in requirements for old forest retention in legal OGMAs as compared with Woodlot Licence tenures, there was a dramatic decline in the level of protection of remaining old forest in the area occupied by the woodlots.
    [60] While 18 percent of Quadra Island is in provincial parks, only a fraction of the remaining old forest is in those protected areas. And since no legal OGMAs have been created, much of the remaining old forest—which is mostly in TFL 47 and four of the 11 woodlots—is at risk. This worsens an already high risk of biodiversity loss.
    [61] One consequence of the Ministry of Forests’ lack of coordinated planning for old forest on Quadra Island is that it is still being logged. The Forest Practices Board’s 2022 investigation report involving Woodlot 2031 illustrates how and why this is happening: Ministry of Forests personnel have too few resources to be able to assess what’s on the ground, plan for conservation and then monitor the state of old forest on Quadra, and some woodlot tenure holders are taking advantage of that lack of attention.
    [62] In the text below, we will address the particulars of two different cases in which old forest has being logged on Quadra Island in spite of the high risk of biodiversity loss. Each case helps to illustrate the problems that have arisen due to the lack of implementation of landscape level planning.
     
    Logging of old forest in Woodlot 2031
    [63] With little or no resources for the Ministry of Forests to monitor what is being logged on woodlots, some Quadra Island woodlot tenure-holders are taking advantage of the situation and are logging old forest. Woodlot 2031 was established in 2011 and lies entirely within SMZ 19. The tenure is held by Okisollo Resources Ltd. Below is our account of logging of old forest in 2019 in Woodlot 2031:
    [64] The Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project visited Hummingbird Lake with a drone in July 2018, one year before the logging took place. We returned again in July 2019 while the logging was taking place and a third time in June of 2020, after logging had been completed.
     

    Hummingbird Lake and surrounding forest in July 2018, as seen from a drone flying east.
     

    This photo taken in 2018 shows the approximate area of old forest (left side of photo) north of Hummingbird Lake that was logged in 2019.
     
    [65] On each visit, we photographed the area, both on the ground and using a drone for aerial views of the forest and lake. Over the past five years the Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project has been surveying forests at dozens of locations on Quadra Island where it seems possible or likely that old-growth forest could be logged before it has been properly identified and reserved.
    [66] On our 2018 visit, we could find no stumps or other evidence that would indicate the forest on the north side of Hummingbird Lake had ever been logged. The BC government’s record of road building in the province shows the north side of Hummingbird Lake had never been roaded before Okisollo Resources began logging in 2014. A forest fire in 1925 had lightly burned through the area, leaving the old trees intact. About 5 years after that fire, hemlock began to grow back—naturally—in the shade of the remaining big trees.
    [67] All the evidence suggested that the north side of Hummingbird Lake was rare primary forest with big, old trees growing at a density that was at least equal to any other old forest we have surveyed on Quadra Island.
    [68] When we visited the logging operation in July 2019, roads had been built. There was a completed cutblock near the southwest corner of the lake where four old-growth Douglas firs still stood. Ten full-length tree trunks were lying beside the road into the second cutblock—all old-growth Douglas firs that had been removed to make way for the road.
     

    The new logging road built along the north side of Hummingbird Lake in July 2019.
     
    [69] In a second cutblock on the north side of the lake, smaller-diameter hemlock and fir were in the process of being machine-felled (photo below). There were numerous large, old-growth Douglas firs and a few old cedars standing amongst the younger trees. It was unclear whether the dozens of old firs would be left standing or be felled. We had never seen so many big trees in the middle of a Quadra Island logging operation.
     

     
    Above: Okisollo Resources’ logging of old forest north of Hummingbird Lake in July 2019.
    Below: The same view in 2020.
     

     
    [70] The project revisited the area in June 2020. Logging had been completed in the cutblock on the north side of Hummingbird Lake. Most of the old trees had been felled in both cutblocks. Along an edge of the northern cutblock, about 15 old vets still stood, testimony to the density of the grove that had just been cut.
     

    In 2020, a line of old-growth Douglas fir vets was left along the edge of Okisollo Resource’s clearcut on the north side of Hummingbird Lake.
     
    [71] We photographed the northern block where several large-diameter logs had been left beside the road. The growth rings of a recently live tree showed it had been 370 years old when it was cut. Several dead snags had also been cut and were stacked or scattered across the cutblock.
     

     
    Above: This Douglas fir had 370 annual growth rings.
    Below: A stump showed approximately 380 years of growth.
     

     
    [72] To determine how many old firs had been logged in the northern cutblock, the project searched for satellite images taken in mid-August 2019. The image below shows logging in progress in the second cutblock on August 15, 2019. At least 50 old-growth trees remained standing on this day. The smaller-diameter hemlock had all been cut, stacked and were being removed.
     

     
    [73] The satellite image below was taken a few weeks later. Of the 50 old-growth trees that had been standing in the cutblock (see photo above), only 15 remained.
     

     
    [74] The project’s photographs and notes, when combined with the satellite images, show that of approximately 64 old trees in the two cutblocks and the road, at least 49 were cut. The 3-hectare cutblock north of the lake had contained at least 55 live, old-growth trees and an unknown number of standing snags.
    [75] In 2021 a Quadra Island resident filed a complaint about this logging with the Compliance & Enforcement Branch. A complaint was then filed with the Forest Practices Board. The Forest Practices Board found that 10 old trees had been cut and “the old trees were not set aside from logging. The licensee removed the trees to build a road and for safety reasons.”
    [76] In response to questions sent by this project to Chantal Blumel, a registered professional forester and a principal of Okisollo Resources, Ms Blumel stated: “We removed some of the old trees during the harvest of the second growth stands, for safety and access purposes.”
    [77] There is no dispute that some old trees were removed for building logging roads. Above, we estimated that at least 10 had been removed because they were in the way of the road. But was “safety” actually an issue for the other 35-40 old trees that were logged? The Occupational Health and Safety Regulation of BC’s Workers Compensation Act states: “If work in a forestry operation will expose a worker to a dangerous tree, the tree must be removed.”
    [78] At the cutblock north of Hummingbird Lake, all of the younger, smaller-diameter trees had already been removed several days before approximately 35 larger old-growth Douglas firs were felled. That can be seen in the satellite images. Those old trees did not have to be logged for either “safety” or “access” purposes.
    [79] The original complaint by a Quadra Island resident was based on the belief that the 2001 Vancouver Island Land Use Plan prohibited logging of old forest in SMZ 19 on Quadra Island. In fact, it had been, until Woodlot 2031 was established in 2011.
    [80] Although section 52 (1) c of the Woodlot Planning and Practices Regulation requires woodlot license tenures to designate, in their woodlot plans, 8 percent of the area of the woodlot as “wildlife tree retention areas”, this designation does not have to be applied to actual areas of old forest. But in the case of Woodlot 2031, which contains several areas of old forest and concentrations of veteran trees, the licensee made written promises in its woodlot plan to retain existing old-growth stands.
    [81] The wording in the licensee’s woodlot plan regarding existing old forest had apparently made a strong impression on Forest Practices Board investigators.
    [82] The Board’s report stated: “In their [woodlot plan], they committed to setting aside all of the existing old-growth stands by designating them as wildlife tree retention areas.” In another section, the report stated, “the licensee chose to set aside the existing old-growth stands to provide wildlife habitat and conserve biodiversity even though it did not have to. The licensee did this in consideration of the community’s desire to protect old-growth forests on Quadra Island.” In the “Conclusions” section, the report stated “the woodlot licensee chose to set aside all of the existing old-growth forests because they recognized the community’s desire to protect the remaining old-growth forests on Quadra Island.”
    [83] The Board could have been referring to the section in the licensee’s legally binding woodlot plan on “Wildlife Tree Retention Strategy”, which stated: “The wildlife tree retention strategy for woodlot licence W2031 involves: retaining the existing old growth stands (>250 years) and recruiting around them to enlarge existing and future old growth forests…”
    [84] Or the Board might have been referring to the section in the legally binding woodlot plan that addressed “Areas where timber harvesting will be avoided”. That section contained this statement: “Retaining the existing old growth forests is key to maintaining the biodiversity values of forests in the CWHxm biogeoclimatic subzone. Maintaining these reserves, and recruiting around them to enlarge existing and future old growth forests is one of the strategies to meet the biodiversity objectives set out in the VILUP for SMZ 19.”
    [85] Whichever part, or parts, of Okisollo Resource’s woodlot plan the Board was referring to, it is clear that the strategy specified in the woodlot plan to retain existing old growth stands, and the stated strategy on how the licensee would conserve biodiversity, convinced the Board that Okisollo Resources “committed to setting aside all of the existing old-growth stands by designating them as wildlife tree retention areas.”
    [86] We believe the Board understood the plain meaning of the statements made in Okisollo Resources’ legally-binding 2011 woodlot plan, and that this meaning was also communicated to the approving authority and the local community when Okisollo Resources’ plan was put out for public comment in 2011.
    [87] Section 21(1) of the Forest and Range Practices Act states: “The holder of a forest stewardship plan or a woodlot licence plan must ensure that the intended results specified in the plan are achieved and the strategies described in the plan are carried out.”
    [88] The possibility that the owners of Okisollo Resources were not fully aware of where old-growth forest in the woodlot existed when they created their legally binding 2011 woodlot plan cannot be allowed to undo the commitments they made in writing to retain existing old forest. In any case, the licensee stated that even “scattered small patches of existing old forest” not specifically identified in the plan would be retained. We believe this commitment would apply to the area of old forest logged in 2019.
    [89] We are asking the Forest Practices Board to investigate Woodlot 2031’s logging of old forest in 2019, as described above, and to explain why that logging did not contravene the results and strategies stipulated in the tenure’s legally binding woodlot plan.
     
    Logging of old forest in Woodlot 2032
    [90] Woodlot 2032 was established in 2011 and lies entirely within SMZ 19. The tenure is held by Younger Brothers Holdings.
    [91] In 2019, Younger Brothers Holdings built logging roads through two areas of old forest the company had mapped in its 2011 woodlot plan as “old-growth” reserves. This logging would have been prohibited without a properly made amendment to the plan. The approximate boundaries of the reserves are shown in the image below:
     

     
    [92] To ascertain whether the Ministry of Forests had determined whether such an amendment to the legally binding 2011 woodlot plan had been properly made, an FOI was filed in late 2021 by the Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project. The FOI requested all communications between the Ministry of Forests and the principals of Woodlot 2032—including the woodlot’s registered professional forester—back to the beginning of January 2017. The records released to us suggested—by the absence of any records relating to an amendment of the woodlot plan—that there had been no written communication between the woodlot tenure holders and the ministry about a major amendment of the woodlot plan.
    [93] Asked directly about this change, Younger Brothers’ forester provided the Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project with a letter he told us was sent to the Campbell River District Manager in February 2019. The letter described changes to the 2011 plan that involved removing reserves of old forest above Discovery Passage (the areas outlined in green in the image above) and replacing those areas with an area of younger, sparser forest running up to the top of Darkwater Mountain (the area outlined in green in the image below). In the amendment, the replacement area and a pre-existing logging road were named the “Manzanita Mountain Recreation Area” and an old logging road was named the “Manzanita Mountain Trail.”
     

     
    [94] The letter stated that the new reserve area was “created to provide recreational opportunities (hiking trail established) and to provide protection for the rare Manzanita plant (arctostaphylos columbiana) which is observed in the area.”
    [95] Access to Darkwater Mountain (the name for the mountain used by Cape Mudge Forestry, which is operated by We Wai Kai First Nation) by old logging roads predates development of Woodlot 2032. Hairy Manzanita is not “rare.” It can be found in many high areas on Quadra Island and is NOT on the BC Red Blue List.
    [96] As mentioned above, the letter provided to us by Younger Brothers’ forester was not included by the Campbell River office of the Ministry of Forests in the record of communications between the Ministry of Forests and Younger Brothers that were obtained by FOI. Recently, the Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project asked the Campbell River District Manager for an explanation for why the amendment letter had not been included in the FOI release. Subsequently, the District Stewardship Forester indicated to us that this letter could not be found at the District office and there was no record of a response from the District office to Younger Brother’s letter of amendment. Later, District Manager Lesley Fettes sent us an email which stated, in part: “I encourage you to report your concerns by making a ‘Report of Natural Resource Violation’ using the online form. This is government’s process to have potential non-compliances investigated.”
    [97] When we asked Younger Brothers’ forester for a copy of the email to the District notifying them of the 2019 amendment, the forester explained, “As this amendment was 3 years ago, I no longer have the email.”
    [98] When asked about the switching of reserves from an area of old forest to an area of younger trees, Younger Brothers’ forester stated that “Minor revisions to retention strategies are acceptable providing the total area under reserve is not reduced.”
    [99] But the Woodlot Licence Planning and Practices Regulation states that an amendment is only considered “minor” if it does not “decrease the nature or quality of wildlife trees or wildlife tree retention areas.” In this case, the amendment replaced areas of old forest containing some large trees with an area of mostly younger, sparser forest at the top of a rocky, dry hill where Hairy Manzanita was growing. We contend that this change constituted a decrease in the nature and quality of both individual wildlife trees and the wildlife retention area as a whole. Yet there is no record in the Campbell River District office that Younger Brothers’ forester even sought approval for this amendment. In other words, the amendment appears to be “wrongly made”.
     

    A view of the forest in one of the two 2011 wildlife tree retention areas that had roads built through them in 2019. This photo was taken from the road.
     
    [100] Under Section 22 (“Minor amendments wrongly made”) of the Woodlot Licence Planning and Practices Regulation, the forests minister may “declare the amendment to be without effect” and may “require the holder to suspend operations that are not authorized in the absence of the amendment”.
    [101] This is a serious matter. Under Section 52 (2) (“Wildlife tree retention”) of the Woodlot Licence Planning and Practices Regulation, “A woodlot licence holder must not cut, damage or remove wildlife trees or trees within a wildlife tree retention area except in accordance with the wildlife tree retention strategy prepared under section 11”.
    [102] Under Section 11 (c) (d) (e) (“Wildlife tree retention strategy required”) of the Woodlot Licence Planning and Practices Regulation, the strategy must include “the conditions under which individual wildlife trees may be removed” and “the conditions under which trees may be removed from within a wildlife tree retention area” and “how trees removed…will be replaced.” None of Woodlot 2032’s woodlot plans have included these required elements for its wildlife tree retention strategy.
    [103] Younger Brothers Holdings, by building roads through two wildlife tree retention areas that it had mapped in its approved 2011 woodlot plan (as mentioned above in [91]), has cut and damaged trees in what had been wildlife tree retention areas. Did the swapping of the areas of old forest with an area that Younger Brothers had not previously mapped as old forest constitute a “wrongly made” amendment?
    [104] Again, this is a serious matter. Under Section 90 (“Offences”) of the Woodlot Licence Planning and Practices Regulation, contravening Section 52 is “an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding $500,000 or to imprisonment for not more than 2 years or to both”.
    [105] These circumstances illustrate how, over time, a woodlot tenure holder can unilaterally “amend” their woodlot plan and remove areas that they had previously established as an “old-growth reserve”. Without a motivated watchdog looking out for the public interest, no questions would be asked and stands of old forest—which are commercially more valuable—would be logged or degraded.
    [106] As per the district manager’s suggestion, the Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project has filed a complaint with the Compliance and Enforcement Branch.
    [107] This woodlot contains one of the largest areas (16.5 hectares) of primary forest remaining on Quadra Island, including one of the old-forest reserves the tenure holder’s 2019 amendment removed from its wildlife tree retention reserve. According to the licensee’s draft plan, logging in this area is imminent (see photo on next page).
    [108] The tenure holder of Woodlot 2032 has committed to not cut any trees older than 250 years of age, as has become the practice on Quadra Island, but all other trees between those older trees can be logged. As mentioned above, we have been advised by a forest ecologist and a forester that this practice does not protect biodiversity.
    [109] Moreover, the Woodlot Planning and Practices Regulation does not allow any logging to occur in wildlife tree patches, so asserting that these patches only need trees that are 250 years and older to be viable at supporting species associated with old forest is not supported by the legislation applicable to woodlots.
     

    Foreground: Part of the area of old, mainly primary forest southwest of Darkwater Lake, which contains large, old trees—now a very rare ecosystem on Quadra Island. The small reserves in this area that the 2011 plan created have now been moved to the top of Darkwater Mountain (in background).
     
    [110] We request that the Forest Practices Board investigate whether Woodlot 2032’s amendment was properly made or not (we have filed a complaint with Compliance and Enforcement but have not heard from them as of April 4, 2023). We are also providing these details to assist the Board in understanding the ways by which remaining old forest on Quadra Island, already at a critically low level, will continue to disappear unless changes are made. Without change, antagonism in the community over this issue will continue to grow. As you know, land use planning and creation of SMZ 19 was intended to end such conflict.
    [111] If TimberWest does have the sole responsibility to ensure the full targets for old forest in SMZ 19 are met, perhaps a more effective arrangement for conserving old forest on Quadra Island would be for TimberWest to cooperate with the woodlots on a commercial basis that compensates the woodlots with work or wood in exchange for conserving old forest on their woodlots. If that’s not possible, what other solutions does the Board recommend?
     
    Conclusion
    [112] The extent of old forest on Quadra Island is currently at about 4 percent. TimberWest puts that number at 3.8 percent for that part of its tenure that is in SMZ 19. This situation poses what forest ecologists Dr. Karen Price and Dr. Rachel Holt and others have termed “high risk” for loss of ecological function, biodiversity and resilience.
    [113] The Old Growth Strategic Review Panel has called for an immediate pause to logging of old forest in landscape units with less than 10 percent of old forest remaining. (Although the “Quadra Landscape Unit” has no plan, its areal extent has been defined.)
    [114] Throughout BC, mapping of old-growth deferral areas has depended on the use of the Ministry of Forests’ Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI). That mapping is notoriously inaccurate for locating actual old forest, and those deferrals on Quadra Island that have been mapped by the Technical Advisory Panel do not accurately reflect where old forest is on Quadra Island.
    [115] The Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project has identified 176 fragments of old forest and concentrations of veteran trees that amount to approximately 655 hectares in areal extent. We are in the final stages of confirming these on the ground, and our mapping is ongoing
    [116] Given the circumstances outlined in this submission, we request that the Forest Practices Board determine the most practical approach to conserving the remaining old forest on Quadra Island given the existing legislation, regulations and land use planning.
     
    The Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project is conducting its research on the unceded traditional territories of the Wei Wai Kai First Nation, Kwiakah First Nation, Homalco First Nation, Klahoose First Nation, the K’ómoks First Nation and the traditional territory of the Tla’amin Nation. It is our intention to work with these nations to increase the general level of settler knowledge about the land and our connection to it.
     
    Yves Mayrand
    Dear Premier Eby:
    I am a permanent resident and taxpayer of British Columbia living on the traditional territory of the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations (Esquimalt-Metchosin constituency). Your taking office as the new premier of our province on November 18, 2022, was hosted by The Musqueam Indian Band, the first-ever swearing-in hosted by a First Nation in British Columbia. You promised swift action on the most pressing issues facing British Columbians, and to do all the work in close cooperation with Indigenous Peoples, as well as federal and municipal governments (https://news.gov.ca/2714).
    I was aghast after coming across a story by The Canadian Press published by The Globe and Mail and other media on March 5, 2023, entitled “B.C. logging firm wants to avoid cutting old growth, but province says it must pay”. This story comes a mere two weeks after government’s announcement of new measures on old growth (https://news.gov.bc.ca/28240), and only a week after the large rally “United for Old Growth” took place in front of the Parliament Buildings calling for immediate and permanent old growth protection on the 2.6 million hectares of priority high-risk old-growth stands in our province.
    As for any other institution, the tone for government action must come from the top. It must also be transparent, credible, and trustworthy. British Columbia Timber Sales (BCTS) is a government program managed by the Ministry of Forests under the responsibility of the minister of Forests, and ultimately the Executive Council of our province, of which you are the head. It is neither transparent, nor credible or trustworthy, for government to pursue a line of action, or to fail to exercise its powers and responsibilities, in a way that is clearly incompatible with government’s own stated official goals on the protection of priority high-risk old-growth stands in our province.
    In this specific case of two government cutblock permits issued under a BCTS timber sales licence, it appears that government is shirking its own duties and responsibilities and passing them off to its constituents, whether First Nations or forest agreement holders, or both, with more irreparable harm ensuing for the environment and irreplaceable old growth ecosystems of this province. Government is not only the de facto trustee for this key irreplaceable public asset on so-called Crown land, which as you know is comprised essentially of unceded First Nation traditional territories, it is also expected to uphold the public interest, rather than prioritizing the maximization of short-term proceeds from stumpage fees through BCTS timber sales licence terms and conditions and failing to match old-growth protection funding with the over 18-month old standing government of Canada commitment of $50 million for an old-growth protection fund.
    The BCTS timber sales licence holder, Downie Timber Ltd. and its owner Gorman Bros. Lumber Ltd., as well as the First Nations on whose unceded territories the two cutblocks are located, all support extended protection for the old growth stands in the areas already mapped by government’s own Technical Advisory Panel (TAP), which were published over 16 months ago on November 2, 2021.
    It is my understanding that government has in the circumstances the necessary power and authority to immediately protect from logging the priority high-risk already-mapped old-growth areas located on the BCTS timber sales licence area and the two related cutblock permits of Downie Timber Ltd. through Executive Council and/or ministerial action under sections 169 and 170 of the Forest Act, thus suspending logging of these old growth stands until the licence agreement and cutblock permits expire. It is as well my understanding that government also has in the circumstances the necessary power and authority to redetermine or vary stumpage fees payable by the licence agreement and cutblock permit holder Downie Timber Ltd. under sections 105, 105.1 and 105.2 of the Forest Act.
    More months or years of bureaucratic procrastination and obfuscation in the circumstances are unjustifiable and will only further undermine government’s credibility and trust with First Nations and their members, as well as with bona fide forest agreement holders and all British Columbians. Actual government deeds are necessary and urgently needed in this specific case, and you can send the right signal as the new leader of your majority government. I and many other British Columbians hope for your leadership to make a real difference.
    I take the liberty to attach a more detailed commentary that I have written to show where government really stands at this juncture on old growth protection, and advocating for the tabling of a government Bill in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia for the permanent protection of the 2.6 million hectares of priority high-risk old growth stands in our province fully mapped by the TAP over 16 months ago.
    I send this letter and its attached commentary in the spirit of participatory democracy, hoping that it will receive due consideration by you and your colleagues.
    Yours truly,
    Yves Mayrand
    Attachment: 
    Commentary on the Current Status of Unprotected Old Growth in the Forest Statutory Framework of British Columbia - YM - March 9, 2023.pdf
    Or read the commentary on this page. 
    Bryce Casavant
    An open letter to Premier David Eby and Forests Minister Bruce Ralston regarding a draft Land Act order & public consultation for Special Management Zone 13 (Nahmint Valley).
     
    Preamble
    27 January 2023
    [1].  This open letter is in response to a Ministry of Forests (“MoF”) public consultation in the Port Alberni area.1 The MoF public consultation seeks to acquire feedback on a draft ministerial order which seeks to legalize certain areas for old growth protection, and subsequently maintain non-legalized areas for continued industrial logging.2
    [2].  Both the public consultation and draft ministerial order are reliant upon a backgrounder document titled Nahmint Landscape Unit Plan, produced by British Columbia Timber Sales (BCTS).3 Of immediate concern is the general framing of this backgrounder. The BCTS program area that produced the document had previously been subjected to multiple investigations regarding forestry management data within the area applicable to the order. The same investigations, which included third-party ecological re-planning documents and reports, had questioned BCTS’s forestry planning methods. The results of these investigations, as well as recommendations made to government (2021) by the Forest Practices Board (FPB), were not disclosed to the public in any of the information presented for public consultation.
    [3].  For the reasons discussed herein, the undersigned author generally opposes the current consultation process on the grounds of transparency in ministerial decision making. Further, it is recommended the Province of B.C. does not approve the draft order proposed by BCTS staff as the documentation provided for consultation is not only lacking transparency but accurate history.
    [4].  This open letter focuses broadly on three key areas of forestry management practices within Special Management Zone (SMZ) 13, also known as Nahmint. These are:
    historical SMZ 13 matters;
    general methodologies of B.C. Timber Sales (BCTS) within SMZ 13; and,
    the current public consultation process.
     
    A. History of SMZ 13
    [5].  The Vancouver Island Land Use Plan (VILUP)4 and the Higher Level Plan Order5 (HLPO) form the backdrop to the current consultation process. These documents provide a benchmark that currently underpins the regulation and management of forests on Vancouver Island.6 They are structural documents that were (and are) meant to be adhered to by both the logging industry and provincial government staff.
    [6].  In the current public consultation, a Nahmint Landscape Unit Plan is provided to the public as an authority for resource management. However, the Higher Level Plan Order pursuant to VILUP provides legal conservation objectives and historical conservation and biodiversity intent, not the documents currently presented to the public as part of this consultation. The Nahmint Land Use Plan therefore creates confusion for the public. Although it is addressed in the text of the backgrounder itself, the main role of the Higher Level Plan Order pursuant to VILUP should be more clear on the government’s website.
    [7].  Creating a new ministerial order without a general historical understanding of SMZ 13 undermines Indigenous reconciliation, public consultation, and the conservation of rare ecosystems within our forests. The current Nahmint Landscape Unit Plan, which purports to suggest a new ministerial order, does not accurately reflect the recent history of Nahmint planning and timber harvesting issues.
    [8].  Substantial ecological studies were carried out in the 1990s during the development of the VILUP. The cursory findings of ecological and bioclimatic variants identified certain areas of Vancouver Island that were special as they contained underrepresented and rare ecosystems. Within these special areas were additional extra-special areas of concern, to which additional protections were granted under VILUP. Located by a large lake with productive, low-elevation old growth forests, and boasting lush green valleys with rich biodiversity and ancient rainforest floors and canopies, Nahmint (or SMZ 13) was designated an extra special place with extra conditions to be considered prior to and during any logging activities.
    [9].  As part of the ministerial protections granted to SMZ 13 under VILUP-HLPO (2000), various conservation targets were mandated and certain percentages of the forest and various tree species were to be managed with additional caution. Little bubbles of protection were drawn across the Nahmint landscape that identified rare rainforest ecosystems. These bubbles became what is known as Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs). In theory, they were pockets of fully protected old growth forest stands that would interconnect with other OGMA pockets to form a sort of conservation bubble wall across SMZ 13. In practice, they became the most sought-after areas for industrial logging. In a simplistic way, you can think of an OGMA as a box of Smarties, and rare forest ecosystems as the red Smarties within that box. There are many trees and ecosystems in the OGMA box but some colours and types are rare (highlighted further in a metaphor below).
    [10].  As the Province of B.C. shifted from government regulation to industry reliance during the late 1990s and early 2000s, the responsibility for management and conservation of SMZ 13 was increasingly downloaded to the logging industry. Logging companies through the years successfully obtained approvals for various Forest Stewardship Plans (FSPs), the precursor document that grants a company permission to log an area over several years. Some of these FSPs allowed encroachments into the OGMAs in exchange for the logging industry protecting other areas of SMZ 13 (i.e., a bait and switch). As highly valued areas were felled, SMZ 13 became an industrial race to the proverbial last red Smartie. Leading the race was B.C. Timber Sales.
    [11]. As the VILUP required percentages for ecosystem protection dwindled across SMZ 13, a new “shifting baseline” approach to planning was adopted by both government and industry. In essence, industry planning and new interpretations advanced an argument that VILUP retention percentages were much lower than the required values that were identified in the 1990s and HLPO (2000). In practice, the shifting baseline approach resulted in various increases to logging (approximately 13% in some areas). All of these increases were within already sensitive ecosystems experiencing high industrial impacts (usually low elevation, moderate-high productive old growth forests).
     
    Shifting baseline metaphor
    [12].  The ultimate impact of shifting baseline approaches in the Nahmint is shown by continuing the Smartie metaphor. Imagine that you have a box of Smarties (i.e., your OGMA). You may eat them in accordance with these rules:
    The overarching objective is to conserve 50% of the red Smarties. You must only eat 50% of the red Smarties at a time. You may manage and eat all the other colours as you wish, but Mom and Dad must approve your eating plan. [13].  There are six red Smarties in your box and Mom and Dad have approved your eating plan for the next several days. You immediately eat two of the red Smarties and half of the other remaining colours before putting the box away for tomorrow. When you open it the next day, there are now four red Smarties. You eat another two red Smarties and half of the rest before putting the box away again. When you come back the next day, Mom catches you as you are about to eat another red Smartie. “Stop that!” she says, “You should have three red Smarties left, but you have already eaten four.” You shove the Smartie in your mouth anyway and tell Mom that you are following the plan by eating less than 50% of the red Smarties left in the box. To confuse her, you add that Dad said it was ok because there is another box with more red Smarties in the cupboard, so the red Smarties in this box are just part of a larger pile of red Smarties the family hasn’t counted yet. Mom goes to confirm with Dad. This takes a full day.
    [14].  You eye the box and make a quick calculation. Either Dad doesn’t remember if he said that you are allowed to eat 50% of the remaining red Smarties in the box each day (which he didn't) and you are about to get away with it, or Mom is coming back with a wooden spoon. Either way, your best course of action is to double down and pop 50% of your remaining Smarties down the hatch to show how much you really believed you were right. You leave one red Smartie to prove you are not greedy and further justify your actions by telling yourself that Mom never said to stop, she just left the room to check with Dad. There is now only one red Smartie left.
    [15].  Mom comes back and is hopping mad. Out comes the spoon, but you avoid a whacking by explaining to Dad that you just made an honest mistake. Mom demands you open all the Smartie boxes and pile up the reds for a proper counting. Turns out, you opened a few of the boxes at your last birthday party and now there are only two boxes left. You ask your friends, but nobody can remember how many red Smarties they ate at your party. You realize that there is probably not a secret stash of red Smarties in the unopened boxes. Together with your parents, you open the remaining boxes. There are no red Smarties in the first box, and only one in the second box. You call Nestlé, but they tell you it is going to take another 200–500 years to get some more red smarties manufactured. In a panic, you take all the other colours and add some water, hoping a red one rises to the surface. Your Smarties are now just a muddy mess that don’t make much sense or resemble what was originally in the box. Welcome to SMZ 13.
    [16].  The OGMAs are the boxes of Smarties. There are many colours, some are rare, some are not. The Smarties are the trees. The red Smarties are the old growth trees comprising sensitive and rare ecosystems. The other colours matter too, just not as much. Mom is the compliance team. Dad is the one doing the final sign off on your eating plan (i.e., your FSP).
    [17].  Read strictly, your actual obligations under the eating rules allowed you to do what you did. The objective was to leave some red Smarties, but it did not say you must leave 50% of the six red Smarties that you started with—just that you could only eat 50% of the Smarties at one time. What simplistically played out in this Smartie metaphor is known as maximum yield strategy, or more colloquially “nibble theory.” Under a maximum yield strategy, there is no operational benefit to meeting conservation objectives as the risk of harsh punishment is low and the chance of immediate reward high. (The risk is further mitigated if you quietly slip a few Smarties to Dad and argue a couple were a little more “orange” than a proper red). Broadly speaking, and recognizing the many complex nuances not mentioned here, it is this methodology that currently underpins SMZ 13 management approaches by the Province of B.C.: maximum yield through shifting baselines.
    [18].  SMZ 13 conservation objectives lack strict enforceability. Another ministerial order will not address this structural problem. Due to the presence of rare, underrepresented, and sensitive ecosystems in SMZ 13, an unenforceable conservation objective is not appropriate. The current draft order should not be actioned any further as it relies on flawed interpretations of VILUO-HLPO (discussed again below). A structural fix requires statutory authority to immediately revoke harvesting permissions in the event that false, misleading, or inaccurate data is discovered. Further, adequate enforcement is required. Enforcement staff must be allowed to stop all works if reasonable grounds exist to believe that a harvest will exceed or otherwise not substantially comply with the Higher Level Plan Order (i.e., precautionary and preventive enforcement powers). Legalizing an OGMA, which may be in non-compliance with the Higher Level Plan Order from the outset, is reprehensible—and this was the previous concern of the FPB with BCTS’s shifting baseline interpretations.
     
    B. General methodologies of B.C. Timber Sales in SMZ 13
    [19].  This section addresses certain matters not presented to the public in the current consultation process.
    [20].  The undersigned author was previously a lead provincial forestry officer during a complex compliance investigation involving SMZ 13. Of particular interest to the investigator were the FSP approval processes and forestry data sets located at the Port Alberni field office.
    [21].  The investigation covered an extensive review of OGMA delineations and old growth retention values (the Smartie boxes and the red ones inside) and found what appeared to be cumulative effects and serious ecological impacts of FSPs being approved in error over many years (all the red Smarties were disappearing too fast as the boxes were opened). Looking ahead at the FSP years left (the length of the eating plan), there were concerns that deficit harvesting would occur. The undersigned author, as lead investigator, warned BCTS of these issues through a Compliance Notice.7
    [22].  BCTS submitted a written reply to the Advisory Letter suggesting that the lead investigator did not have authority to review or investigate FSP approval processes. Further, BCTS claimed (and later further argued) that once an FSP was approved, even if it was approved in error, it could not be rescinded or challenged.8
    [23].  Simultaneous to this investigation, the lead investigator commissioned a blind ecological review for SMZ 13 to re-confirm OGMA delineations and retention values.9 This review also found significant concerns with the way retention values and OGMA delineations were being shown on paper. The math appeared to favour industry and BCTS interests, not conservation objectives or proper legal order interpretations. An Advisory Letter (a step above a notice) was then issued to BCTS showing the government to be in non-compliance with overarching conservation objectives.10
    [24].  Like the kid in the aforementioned Smartie metaphor, BCTS maintained internally within government that the logging was approved and non-investigable. BCTS argued they were strictly following the “nibble” rules. The lead investigator highlighted for various government officials and BCTS staff that providing misinformation to a responsible official in order to acquire logging authorization (lying to get your eating plan approved by your parents), constituted a statutory offence that could be investigated. In essence, regardless of the existing FSP and enforcement authority over its approval, it would be in the best interests of BCTS to immediately correct their behaviour. The alternative could be further investigation in providing false and/or misleading information to a forestry official.
    [25].  During this time, the provincial government cancelled all of its funding for the RCMP Forest Crimes Unit, which was subsequently disbanded (although still exists in other parts of Canada). This left the lead investigator as the only field-level enforcement authority willing to pursue the matter (police oversight became an impossibility).
    [26].  It was suggested by the FSP approval authority (i.e., Dad) that the investigator should close the investigation and not make any written findings . Ultimately, multiple complaints were filed against the lead investigator at the ADM level by BCTS and their staff. Provincial executives in Victoria (who oversaw both BCTS and the investigators chain of command) then made attempts to retract investigation findings without the investigator’s knowledge. During this time, the investigator was also contacted by the Forest Practices Board (FPB) about a public complaint involving the potential over harvesting of timber in Nahmint. The investigator refused to shut down the investigation and instead turned over all documentation to the Forest Practices Board.
    [27].  An important factor during this investigation were the attempts being made by BCTS at the time to legalize OGMAs under ministerial order. In simple terms, while being notified that the logging practices were questionable and needing review in SMZ 13, the response by BCTS was to approach the minister and attempt to have a ministerial order rushed through that would essentially legalize and/or disregard what had taken place over the previous twenty years, thereby allowing maximum yield without strict adherence to conservation objectives within the Higher Level Plan Order. This was directly countered by the lead investigator at the time and BCTS was advised in writing to voluntarily cease that legalization process.
    [28].  The Forest Practices Board conducted an audit of the investigation and ecological review, which confirmed multiple issues.11
    [29].  On September 21 (2021), the Ministry of Forests responded to the Forest Practices Board and agreed with all recommendations. It stopped short of committing to addressing the issue of FSP correction once approved. The responsible ADM also paused to note:
    I also want to share that while the ministry agrees with the Board’s recommendations, we do not agree with the Board’s methodology. This methodology that resulted in a finding of 10 site series deficits did not use nor fully examine the best available information. The ministry believes that the current state of old and mature forests in the Nahmint Landscape Unit, including within these ten site series, all but one exceed the requirements of the HLPO.12
     
    C. The current public consultation process
    [30].  Between 2021 and 2022 (i.e., during COVID restrictions) the Province of B.C. produced the documents associated with the current public consultation. These documents are based on their September 21, 2021, response to the Forest Practices Board, which continues to carry forward significant data interpretation issues.
    [31].  Again, the current consultation process purports to legalise OGMAs. While OGMAs are often thought of as legalised protections, they are not absolute. Once legalised, the converse result of an OGMA is that all non-legalised areas may be open for industrial logging. Further, various provisions allow for encroachments and other old growth removals. They are a poor tool for enforcement of broader conservation objectives and often misrepresent SMZ values and intended VILUP-HLPO restrictions. OGMAs are a lower level of protection than often thought.
    [32].  Considering the September 21 (2021), response to the Forest Practices Board, the Province of B.C. appears to adopt interpretations of maximum-yield nibble theory which do not substantively address the HLPO protective restrictions on harvesting in SMZ 13. There are significant concerns of future shifting baselines if SMZ 13 OGMAs are legalised.
     
    Technical responses to the public consultation draft documents
    [33].  The new OGMA plan attempts to address the legal objectives missing from previous 2007 and 2012 draft OGMAs by looking at deeper representation (known as site series). However, errors within the earlier 2007 and 2012 OGMA drafts (also the subject of the aforementioned investigations) are simply carried forward again in this current iteration. It is noteworthy there appears to be a lack of consideration and/or weighting given to the current science on disturbance regimes and ecological risk. The mythology underpinning the draft order is older scientific findings that lacks modern scientific knowledge.
    [34].  It appears the draft order is premised on the wrong definition of “mature seral.” It is clear from the text and tables in the Biodiversity Guidebook that mature seral was never intended to include old growth. The legal requirement for 25-33% mature forest is in addition to old forest. The practical result of proper HLPO interpretation (i.e., meeting the legal intent) would increase the targets across Nahmint Valley Watershed and within SMZ 13 specifically.
    [35].  The proposed OGMA design to be legalised appears to be larger and to protect more conservation areas than previous drafts. In fact, it is simply including areas that were never threatened by harvest in the first place. The draft order protections are artificially inflated. There are also questions concerning the double- counting of protected areas. Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs), for example, are already protected and do not need to be reclassified. Additional concerns regarding a lack of analysis on old growth deferral areas remain.
    [36].  Common site series values and underrepresentation of rare ecosystems remain a concern.
    [37].  OMGAs in SMZ 13 should not be legalized at this time and no further non-Indigenous FSPs should be approved until there has been significant consultation and review regarding the manner in which the Province is interpreting the Higher Level Plan Order and retention percentages. Due to differences in Higher Level Plan Order interpretations, it is necessary that BCTS and FSP holders are provided further clarification by regulation and that such regulations consider the historical context of impacts to Nahmint and original VILUP design and conservation intent, as well as, modern Indigenous consultation obligations (now ratified).
     
    Summary remarks
    The rainforests of Nahmint are extra special places for Indigenous peoples, the citizens of B.C., and all future generations. This area requires careful handling in well-considered processes that take into account the history of industrial activities and place Indigenous and community values front and centre. If VILUP-HLPO were to be strictly applied and properly interpreted, it is highly likely there would only be allowances for Indigenous logging. It is unlikely BCTS would be able to continue selling timber in SMZ 13 in its current manner. BCTS is only able to achieve ministerial authorizations for “business as usual” through the process of OGMA legalisation, which purports to adopt its own interpretations of VILUP-HLPO. BCTS erodes impartiality in the decision-making process by playing a dual role of the holder of an FSP and an authority capable of drafting a ministerial order on behalf of the government and launching public consultations.
    The current approach in Nahmint runs counter to general transparency and impartiality in government decision making. Pushing Nahmint farther towards the brink of irreparable harm by adopting nibble theory is the epitome of maximum yield strategies, which place government finances and timber supply ahead of biodiversity protections, Indigenous reconciliation, and the overall resilience of our forests.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Bryce J. Casavant, Director of Conservation Intelligence
    Per, Pacific Wild Alliance, Canada
    pacificwild.org

    Notes
    1 Nahmint Engagement Summary (19 October 2022). [Province of B.C. web log]
    2 Order of the Minister of Forests (10 September 2022 – DRAFT) pursuant to Land Act 93.4 [web log] 
    3 Nahmint Landscape Unit Plan (22 August 2022). [PDF plan file] 
    4 Later updated to Vancouver Island Summary Land Use Plan (February 2000).
    5 VILUP – Higher Level Plan Order (1 December 2000) [ministerial order] 
    6 Historical commentary 
    7 Appendix 1: Compliance Notice - Inspection Findings (SMZ 13) [18 June 2018].
    8 Appendix 2: BCTS Reply to Compliance Notice - Inspection Findings (SMZ 13) [9 August 2019].
    9 Nahmint SMZ 13: Consistency of Forest Stewardship with Management Intent and Legal objectives (22 October 2018) [enclosed by-email as PDF attachment to this consultation submission].
    10 Appendix 3: Advisory Letter - Nahmint (SMZ 13) [ 22 October 2018].
    11 Compliance with Biodiversity Requirements in the Nahmint Watershed. Complaint Investigation #18047 (May 2021). Forest Practices Board [investigation report].
    12 Ref: 267201 (21 September 2021) [ministry response to Forest Practices Board, no title]
    Fred Marshall
    The atmospheric river of November 2021 in BC caused at least $6 billion in damage. Over-exploitation of BC forests amplified this climate-change-induced effect. Will BC’s new chief forester ignore the threat over-logging presents in this new era of climate instability? Or reduce the cut?
     

    An intense low pressure area off the coast of California was pumping an atmospheric river toward the state on January 4, 2023.
     
    Good morning Shane:
    The entire world, including British Columbia, has been and continues to be, subject to climatic events that cause millions to billions of dollars of damage and the tragic loss of an ever increasing number of human lives.
    It is irresponsible for anyone, especially a high-ranking government official such as yourself, who has significant say and control over how BC’s forests are managed, to refuse to make appropriate allowances for both past and future events.
    Such measures/allowances should include a judicious mix of the following:
    Prescribing various silviculture measures such as limiting the size and extent of cut-blocks across the landscape.
    Reducing the extent of roads present on the landscape by properly deactivating old ones and limiting the extent of new ones.
    Reducing the allowable annual cut (AAC) in BC to truly sustainable levels including all associated values such as fish, wildlife, water, soil, aesthetics, old growth so all are appropriately protected and any and all species at risk can be and are managed so they are removed from the “At Risk” list in a timely manner. No more should ever be added to it.
    Appropriately considering the cumulative impacts upon the landscape which have significantly changed the natural makeup and nature of the landscapes across BC and reduced its natural resistance to climatic events.
    Making judicious use of the Precautionary Principle in the timber supply review AAC determination process so that all values present on the landscape are well protected with a reasonable margin of reserve set aside as a form of natural insurance that strengthens the inherent ability of the forested landscape of BC to adequately absorb and/or mitigate the negative impacts of both human incursions and naturally-occurring events on BC’s landscape.
    This is logical because BC’s forests, if well and properly managed, have the inherent ability to significantly mitigate the impacts of all climatic events including heavy rainfall events, extremes in temperatures—either high or low, drought and/or high winds. BC has recently experienced all of these events, albeit relatively locally although over different geographic areas.
    We personally use the Precautionary Principle in our everyday lives so that we can and do experience safe, healthy, wholesome and happy lives. We do this by reducing the several risks to which we are exposed as we go about our daily tasks. To fail to live by this principle would be irresponsible and foolhardy.
    In recent timber supply review AAC determinations the previous chief forester refused to consider any of the above factors in her AAC determinations. Many believe these adamant refusals were not in the public interest.
    We therefore request that you appropriately consider all of them in your pending and future AAC Determinations. By doing so you will be proactively demonstrating respectful regard not only for the inherent values of our forests but also for the interests of the people of BC.
    Evergreen Alliance Staff
    If anything is going wrong in our forests, it’s not the fault of the professional association of BC foresters, according to its CEO Christine Gelowitz. Foresters Herb Hammond and Fred Marshall disagree.
     
    WHEN FORESTER HERB HAMMOND RESIGNED IN DISGUST from the Association of BC Forest Professionals (ABCFP) in late November, his letter of resignation received a lot of attention.
    In response to Hammond’s letter, the ABCFP’s CEO Christine Gelowitz sent a letter to The Tyee explaining what Hammond got wrong, in her opinion. Below are Gelowitz’s letter, subsequent letters sent by forester Fred Marshall to Gelowitz and to the Office of the Superintendent of Professional Governance, and the latter’s response to Marshall. And, finally, Hammond’s response to Gelowitz.
    The matters discussed below are central to the role the ABCFP plays—or doesn’t play—in protecting the public interest from the ravages of BC’s logging industry. 
     
    Nov 24, 2022: Response to Herb Hammond’s resignation letter from Christine Gelowitz, RPF, CEO of the Association of BC Forest Professionals
    The letter written by Herb Hammond, a retired professional forester, and published on the Evergreen Alliance website and in Focus on Victoria, unfortunately demonstrates a misunderstanding of the mandate of the Association of BC Forest Professionals (ABCFP) and misconstrues it with the role and authority of the Provincial Government.
     

    Christine Gelowitz, RPF, CEO of ABCFP
     
    By provincial law, the ABCFP’s duty is to regulate the people who practise professional forestry. The work of the ABCFP as a professional regulator entails setting education standards for professionals to enter the profession; setting professional service practice standards, competency standards, and a code of conduct; and holding its registrants to account for following professional standards via a public complaint and discipline process.
    Neither the ABCFP, nor its registrants, have been assigned the duty or authority to set forest management objectives, rates of forest harvest, or other forest management policy concerns raised in Mr. Hammond’s letter. That accountability is held by the Province of BC or the landowner.
    In this regard, the ABCFP functions in the same manner as other professional regulators. For example, the College of Physicians and Surgeons does not make health care policy or health spending decisions; Engineers Geoscientists BC does not set mining policy or building codes. In all respect, policy decisions in these areas are the role of government and elected officials, just as it is in forestry.
    Misinformation is a problem for the public’s understanding forest management in BC. This in part is why the ABCFP has standards of competence and knowledge for practising forest professionals and requirements for them to maintain their competence and knowledge via ongoing professional development. These same requirements do not apply to retired forest professionals. Retired forest professionals are free to share their opinions but they are not allowed to provide advice or services that constitute the practice of forestry. Again, this is common among all regulated professions. A retired physician cannot provide medical treatment and would be unlikely to share advice, given that their knowledge is no longer current and they may not be protected from liability as a result.
    We recognize that Mr. Hammond and others may want different forest policy choices made and different objectives set for forests and forest management in BC. One of the strengths of the ABCFP is the diversity of views within our population of registered forest professionals. ABCFP registrants are free to express their opinions about forest and land stewardship, as individuals or in groups that share a common message. As a professional regulator however, the ABCFP does not pick sides or lobby for particular forest policies or outcomes as this would put the organization at odds with the regulatory model chosen by the people of BC.
    The reality remains that in BC, policies and decisions on how our forest land base is used are made by the landowner, in this case the Province of BC, via the provincial legislature and the government composed of those elected by the voters of British Columbia.
    Christine Gelowitz
     
    November 30, 2022: Response to Christine Gelowitz from retired professional forester Fred Marshall
    As the senior employee for the ABCFP, you are inherently bound to speak out on its behalf and uphold its principles to the best of your ability. However, it appears that you believe that the ABCFP and its members are above reproach and NOT responsible for the state of BC’s forests. Rather, you state that this is the sole responsibility of government. I disagree.
     

    Forester Fred Marshall
     
    For example, in your letter to Herb you stated that: “Neither the ABCFP, nor its registrants, have been assigned the duty or authority to set forest management objectives, rates of forest harvest, or other forest management policy concerns raised in Mr. Hammond’s letter. That accountability is held by the Province of BC or the landowner.”
    This statement is not only misleading but also incorrect.
    While it is the responsibility of the Province of BC—the landowner—to develop, pass and enforce both policy and legislation governing how BC’s resources are managed, they do this after considering the advice of all resource professionals in BC, including—and very largely so, when related to forests—the members (registrants) of the ABCFP.
    A specific example relates to determining the “rates of forest harvest” for BC. The timber supply review processes and subsequent AAC determinations set the stage for the entire focus and purpose of managing BC’s forest. This inherently includes all of nature, which is relegated to “resources” living in and/or related to the forests—fish, wildlife, water, aesthetics and the ecosystem services upon which all life depends.
    Contrary to your statement that no ABCFP members have the duty or authority to set or determine these “rates of harvest,” this responsibility has been assigned to and placed with the Chief Forester pf BC, whose decisions cannot by fettered by the government. All Chief Foresters have been members (Registrants) of the ABCFP, as is the current one.
    In your closing statement you note: “The reality remains that in BC, policies and decisions on how our forest land base is used are made by the landowner, in this case the Province of BC, via the provincial legislature and the government composed of those elected by the voters of British Columbia.”
    This statement also conveys the message that the state of BC’s forests is solely the responsibility of the government and NOT, in any respect, that of the ABCFP or it’s members. I again disagree. All professional resource managers—especially the members of the ABCFP—share fully in this responsibility. These resource professionals have been given, via legislation, this responsibility—exclusively.
    It is these registrants who must learn, interpret, understand and apply various forest practices that reflect the relevant policies and legislation upon the landscape. Unfortunately, what we see upon the landscape is not a pretty picture. A picture that, in many respects, reflects the signature of the ABCFP and its registrants upon the landscape.
    Two renowned resource managers portray this axiom very well:
    Thad Box, a retired professor of range management in the US commented about the “Worth of Our Work”. He described the resource professional’s stature and the reflection or “signature” of their work on the landscape as per the following:
    “A prosperous tomorrow depends on good land health. It is essential for us to keep options open for future generations. Finding a way to help land stewards live the good life while maintaining sustainability is a job that fits the principle of Granddad’s recipe for curing ham. It reminds us that quality is seldom determined by a single act. It is the outcome of a process. The worth of our work is in the effect of people who husband the land we serve.”
    Aldo Leopold, in Sand County Almanac, stated this paradigm in a somewhat different way. He said:
    “I have read many definitions of what is a conservationist, and written not a few myself, but I suspect that the best one is written not with a pen, but with an axe. It is a matter of what a man thinks about while chopping, or while deciding what to chop. A conservationist is one who is humbly aware that with each stroke he is writing his signature upon the face of his land. Signatures of course differ, whether written with axe or pen, and this is as it should be.”
    The ABCFP is made up of thousands of individuals who, collectively, represent the Association in both word and deed with the latter being their “signature” upon the face of the land. 
    The signature on the land of forest professionals is often one of destruction and degradation. Thus, the essential ingredient of a conservation ethic is starkly lacking in the work of the ABCFP and many of its members. This harsh signature is reflected in the deplorable condition of BC’s forest landscape, and certainly does not comprise excellent resource management; although it certainly should. Instead, we view degraded landscapes covered with extensive roads and clearcuts, many of which disrupt and/or destroy biodiversity and render the people and communities located down-slope of them at unduly high risks of flood damage. We recently witnessed such damage—across the landscape—in Grand Forks, Merritt, Princeton, the Fraser valley and in other areas of BC.
    I have read several Forest Stewardship plans and several TFL Management Plans prepared by forest professionals. The statements contained in these documents are often so vague and/or inconsistent that one cannot tell what kind of “signature” is intended to be portrayed on the “face of the land” that is entrusted to the licensees to manage.
    The Chief Forester—a high-profile member of the ABCFP and hence a reflection of its stature and integrity—has repeatedly refused to acknowledge climate change, cumulative effects on the landscape and/or to apply the precautionary principle when engaging in the TSR /AAC determination process across BC. Such dogmatic denial of factors that have huge negative impacts on the AAC is not in the public interest; yet the Association ignores such behavior. Such denial results in the determination of unsustainable levels of AAC, yet such is supported by the ABCFP.  Incredible, but true. Also extremely disappointing.
    How could the ABCFP ignore such blatant disregard for the public interest which all members of all resource-related professions in BC are bound through their codes of ethical practice to hold paramount in their personal and professional lives?
    Yet they, and many ABCFP members, do this and beat their chests and pat themselves on the back by making statements such as you just did regarding Herb Hammond’s resignation. One only has to evaluate the deteriorating health of BC’s forested landscapes and the reduced level of biodiversity represented by the steep decline in the number and diversity of wildlife species present to realize that these indicators reflect a very low and unacceptable level of management that has been applied to them by members of the ABCFP. A level of management that these people, individually and collectively, supported by the ABCFP, have and are writing their signatures upon the face of the land. 
    Unfortunately, the signatures on the land often fail to protect that land and the public interest.
    Fred Marshall
     
    December 2, 2022: Fred Marshall’s letter to Office of the Superintendent of Professional Governance
    I believe that the ABCFP has breached the intent of the Professional Governance Act by acting in a manner and by making false statements that support both it’s activities and those of its members.  These activities do not conform to the Professional Governance Act and do not serve the public interest as they are bound to do as per the following Professional Governance Act requirement:
    It is the general duty of a regulatory body at all times to serve and protect the public interest with respect to the exercise of a profession, professional governance and the conduct of registrants;
    The ABCFP Code of Ethics, as do all of those of other professions involved with the management of natural resources, require that the public interest be held paramount over and above the demands of employment.
    And the Professional Governance Act also requires that all of the professional associations are responsible to ensure that they and all of their members ensure that this principle is both honored and upheld.  
    However, the ABCFP, as per Christine Gelowitz’s letter and its other related actions continue to fail to best serve the public interest.
    For example: The process of timber supply reviews and allowable annual cut determinations by the Chief Forester have inordinate impacts not only on BC’s forests but all associated natural resources. This is therefore an extremely important process, likely the most important one related to the health and well-being of all natural resources in BC.
    While the Chief Foresters have unfettered freedom to carry out this process, the various forest ministers, nonetheless, have sent them guidance letters containing various aspects that they would like the Chief Foresters to consider as they carry out this process.  
    However, the ABCFP has never sent such a letter to the Chief Forester, asking them to consider aspects, especially regarding upholding the public interest, in this process.
    By failing or even refusing to do this they have, inherently, given their full support to the Chief Foresters to do whatever they feel appropriate and endorsing same.
    Additionally, they recently formally recognized former Chief Forester Diane Nicholl’s work in these endeavors by bestowing upon her the highest ABCFP award available—the Distinguished Forester Award.   
    I believe that Diane Nicholls, acting as the Chief Forester of BC, has failed to uphold the public interest in these processes.  And, the ABCFP, by giving her this award, has indirectly condoned her actions which tend to keep the AAC as high as possible for as long as possible. In most instances this has not been in the best public interest. The state of BC’s forests is far from being good, let alone excellent, and it is deteriorating daily, exacerbated by the over-harvesting of BC’s forests. Our forests no longer have the inherent capacity to absorb and tolerate the climatic and man-made changes they are experiencing today.  Rather, they are rapidly declining—at an ever increasing rate.
    I therefore request that your office investigate this matter to determine whether the ABCFP has properly executed its duties as required under the PGA.
     Fred Marshall

    December 6, 2022: Office of the Superintendent of Professional Governance responds to Fred Marshall
    Under the professional reliance model, government sets the natural resource management objectives or results to be achieved; professionals hired by proponents decide how those objectives or results will be met; and government checks to ensure objectives have been achieved through compliance and enforcement. While government, professional foresters, and ABCFP all operate directly or indirectly within the natural environment, they nonetheless have distinct responsibilities that are important to be aware of.
     

    The response from the Office of the Superintendent of Professional Governance was unsigned
     
    Regulatory bodies such as ABCFP are tasked with regulating professional foresters within a defined scope of practice, and in the best interests of the public. While neither ABCFP nor the forest professionals create forest policy, they must nonetheless operate within this legislative scope.
    Government ministries such as the Ministry of Forests create policies, which must be adhered to by professionals who work within the scope of practice related to those policies. While some government statutory decision makers hold a professional designation, such as Registered Professional Forester (RPF), these statutory decision makers undertake their work and make decisions as government employees, and not as registrants of a regulatory body.
    It is important to note that while the Office of the Superintendent of Professional Governance (OSPG) currently oversees the governance of regulatory bodies such as ABCFP, individual ministries are still responsible for determining where and how professional reliance is appropriate according to the needs of individual business areas. 
    While the OSPG is keen to learn of concerns related to regulatory bodies that may suggest a systemic issue, these concerns and systemic issues must nonetheless be related to the scope of responsibility of the regulatory body and not issues pertaining to legislative issues. If you have concerns regarding forest policy, I urge you to connect with the Ministry of Forests directly.
    I also encourage you to browse the OSPG website to learn more about the role of the OSPG. I would like to thank you again for bringing these matters to our attention. 
    Office of the Superintendent of Professional Governance
     
    December 7, 2022: Fred Marshall responds to OSPG
    Thank you for your response.  However, if your office does NOT believe that government employees who are “registrants”  have to act as professional registrants because they are government employees, then we certainly don’t need your office for anything. Ditto the ABCFP and other professional associations. 
    It appears that the OSPG is solely focused on and only interested in the administrative aspects of ensuring all professional associations have the following in place and that all meet the specifications of the Professional Governance Act:
    1. Adequate qualification requirements for its members/registrants (education and training)
    2. Require that all members/registrants complete their PD records as per the stated format and on time.
    3. Abide by the applicable Code of Ethics.
     4.  And, as stated by Christine Gelowitz: “By provincial law, the ABCFP’s duty is to regulate the people who practice professional forestry. The work of the ABCFP as a professional regulator entails setting education standards for professionals to enter the profession; setting professional service practice standards, competency standards, and a code of conduct; and holding its registrants to account for following professional standards via a public complaint and discipline process.”
    However, according to Christine Gelowitz’s and your supporting rationale, they (professional registrants) can do whatever their employer tells them to do—especially government employees—even though, as illustrated by my examples, the work they do is not in the best public interest.  
    How could you possibly arrive at this conclusion?  
    Christine Gelowitz also stated: “As a professional regulator however, the ABCFP does not pick sides or lobby for particular forest policies or outcomes as this would put the organization at odds with the regulatory model chosen by the people of BC.”  
    How then can the ABCFP publicly honour (by awarding them as a Distinguished Forester) one of their registrants, i.e. the Chief Forester, when that person has made timber supply review allowable annual cut determinations that are not in the public interest. This is “picking sides and lobbying for particular forest outcomes”, i.e. cut levels that are unsustainable. 
    Again, how could you possibly view this behaviour as NOT promoting and rewarding the work of the Chief Forester—even though she was, at the time, a government employee.  
    Your position appears to state that any registrant can do whatever their employer tells them to do—especially government employees—and they cannot and will not be held personally or professionally responsible for their actions.
    Christine Gelowitz also stated: “The reality remains that in BC, policies and decisions on how our forest land base is used are made by the landowner, in this case the Province of BC, via the provincial legislature and the government composed of those elected by the voters of British Columbia.”
    NOT true. Most all operating policies and decisions made in BC regarding how BC’s forest land base and many private forest holdings are managed, by law, and made by appropriately qualified resource professionals—i.e. registrants. Registrants who, collectively, make up the various professional associations.
    And, even though Christine attempts to distance and absolve the ABCFP for any decisions made on the landscape and the results of such decisions and actions taken by its members, the ABCFP is ultimately responsible for the actions and performance of its members. 
    Yet you seem to agree with Christine’s claim that this is not true. How so?
    What will it take to get the Office of the Superintendent of Professional Governance to take some meaningful action in guiding (yea, even disciplining) the ABCFP and any other professional associations that operate under the OSPG when they are—either directly or indirectly—supporting actions that are not in the public interest?
    Needless to say,  my hopes and expectations that the PGA would ensure that the resources of BC were being well managed via their oversight over the professional associations charged with doing this have been dashed. 
    Hence, the poor management of BC’s natural resources continues, not only unabated but inherently supported by the PGA.
     Fred Marshall
     
    December 7, 2022: Herb Hammond to Fred Marshall
    The reply from the OSPG is beyond disgusting. They could have simply replied: “If you don’t like the current state of forests and forestry, then elect a different government.”  If that is the case then, as you point out, we do not need the OSPG or professional associations for anything. They are just window dressing to give the illusion that well-educated, ethical “professionals” are taking good care of the forest, while in reality the forests are controlled and managed by corporate timber companies.  Professionals just do what they are told by their employer.
     

    Herb Hammond
     
    The disconnect that the OSPG and the ABCFP display between the exclusive rights of their members to practice forestry, and the responsibility of their members and licensing bodies to evaluate whether that practice protects the public interest is striking.
    I am glad to no longer be associated with this gong show that is clearly constructed to obfuscate who really controls forests and what the actual condition of public forests is.
    Thanks for your persistence in following up on the clear failures of the OSPG and ABCFP to do their jobs.
    Herb Hammond
     
    December 16, 2022: Herb Hammond’s response to Christine Gelowitz et al
    This letter responds to Christine Gelowitz’s response to my November 24, 2022 letter of resignation from the Association of BC Forest Professionals (ABCFP).
    Ms. Gelowitz asserts that my letter “demonstrates a misunderstanding of the mandate of the Association of BC Forest Professionals (ABCFP) and misconstrues it with the role and authority of the Provincial Government.” To the contrary, I have a clear understanding of the ABCFP’s mandate. The source of our differences lies in the breadth through which the mandate is interpreted.
    1) Disconnecting “Regulation of Profession” from Policy and Practice; and Protection of the Public Interest
    Ms. Gelowitz explains that the work of the ABCFP “entails setting education standards for professionals to enter the profession; setting professional service practice standards, competency standards, and a code of conduct; and holding its registrants to account for following professional standards via a public complaint and discipline process.”
    However, she seems to assert that these duties have nothing to do with policies, processes, and standards affecting the practice of forestry, including setting forest management standards, rates of forest harvest, and other forest management policy concerns. Instead, Ms. Gelowitz asserts that those responsibilities rest entirely with the provincial government.
    This position lacks logic and contradicts both the ABCFP’s Code of Ethical and Professional Conduct (code of ethics) and the way that forestry is practiced in the forest across BC.
    Disconnecting education standards, practice standards, and competency standards from how forestry is practiced, including plans and operations, is illogical. All these roles of the ABCFP have demonstrative effects on how forestry is practiced.
    For example, government sets policies and regulates forestry practice based to a significant degree on the advice of forest professionals in the employ of the government. Major universities in the province with forestry programs and/or forest-related research employ forest professionals that influence government legislation and policy. Prominent lobby groups, like the Council of Forest Industries and the Truck Loggers Association also employ forest professionals that influence how government sets policy and regulates forestry.
    Thus, the ABCFP, through their duties to regulate their membership, has a widespread and strong influence on how forestry is practiced in BC, including government legislation, regulations, and policy; and planning processes like allowable annual cut determinations and land use plans.
    Ms. Gelowitz asserts that “in BC, policies and decisions on how our forest land base is used are made by the landowner, in this case the Province of BC, via the provincial legislature and the government composed of those elected by the voters of British Columbia.”
    In other words, the government of BC defines and protects the public interest in forests through the provincial legislature. Given this situation, the ABCFP cannot continue to state that they protect the public interest in forests and forest management across BC. According to the ABCFP, that is the government’s job.
    However, this approach contradicts the ABCFP code of ethics, which specifies that registered professionals are charged with the responsibility of protection of the public interest. The code of ethics states, in part:
    “Independence...Registrants must uphold the public interest and professional principles above the demands of employment or personal gain; Forest Stewardship...Registrants work to improve practices and policies affecting forest stewardship. Registrants must uphold forest stewardship and practice the responsible use of forest resources based on the application of an ecological understanding at the stand, forest, and landscape levels, which maintains and protects ecosystem function, integrity, and resilience.”
    There are other aspects of the code of ethics that support that registered professionals are charged with protection of the public interest. However, protection of the public interest is not possible without having influence on legislation, regulations, and policies that affect how forestry is planned and practiced. Yet Ms. Gelowitz asserts that the “landlord” is responsible for “policies and decisions on how our forest land base is used,” thereby protecting the public interest.
    Thus, when it comes to the public interest, the ABCFP cannot have their cake and eat it too. If the ABCFP and registered members are not involved in policies and decisions on how our forest land base is used, then they need to remove all aspects of this responsibility from their code of ethics. The two statements above are examples of wording that should be removed from the code of ethics, since—according to Ms. Gelowitz—those are responsibilities of the provincial government.
    As articulated by Ms. Gelowitz, the duties of the ABCFP could largely be replaced by well-informed clerks, who license professionals to follow the dictates of government. And, since governments are largely directed by corporate lobbies, that means that the use of forests and related ecosystems of BC will be largely oriented to the needs of extractive, exploitive industrial objectives. In this situation, licensed professionals will reassure us that tree farms provide most, if not all the benefits of intact natural forests. Thus, with the limited role of the ABCFP as put forth by the Association, there is little need to have a staff of registered professionals.
    2) Precautionary Decisions and the Practice of Forestry
    If Earth, including humans, is to survive the growing crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, management of public forests must increasingly focus on protection and restoration, not extraction and tree farms. Forests are our largest terrestrial carbon sink, sources of irreplaceable biodiversity, and provide the most effective water storage and filtration system in nature. Forests need to be protected, restored, planned, and managed in open and transparent ways based on a combination of Indigenous knowledge and sound Western science. Decisions need to be precautionary, erring on protection and maintenance of ecosystem integrity and social well-being. However, it is naïve to think that such responsibilities may be vested in ephemeral governments, where objectives for forests change with the goals of the party in power. Similarly, such responsibilities are inappropriate for organizations whose primary responsibility is short-term monetary profits, justified by professionals working for those organizations, or in self-regulating professional bodies that lack definitive standards for planning and management, and a rigorous process of oversight by independent experts.
    In professions other than forestry, there is a very strong emphasis on precautionary decisions and actions to protect the public interest:
    • Doctors work to prevent serious illness and death.
    • Engineers design buildings and bridges that don’t fall down, and airplanes that stay in the sky.
    • Lawyers defend people’s rights to avoid unjustifiable incrimination.
    • Architects design buildings that don’t fall down.
    Such precautionary decisions do not characterize forestry, calling into question its status as a true profession. Foresters routinely work to minimize logging and road costs, and high-grade remaining timber supplies, while presenting their actions as “in the public interest,” when in fact their main focus is to protect their employer’s interest.
    With the lack of a precautionary ethic as part of the code that foresters adhere to by their membership in the ABCFP, industrial forestry is more like mining than the professions of medicine, engineering, law, and architecture.
    3) Standards: Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge and Leading Science to Address Issues in the Practice of Forestry
    The ABCFP code of ethics begins with the following statements:
    “Registrants are responsible to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public and the protection of the environment.
    “The practice of professional forestry is undertaken in a manner that protects the public interest by ensuring the multiple values society has assigned to BC’s forests are balanced and considered.”
    The code of ethics concludes with a section titled, “REPORTING”, which requires registered professionals to report instances where “the continued practice of professional forestry by another registrant, or by another person, including a firm or employer, might pose a risk of significant harm to the environment or to the health or safety of the public or a group of people.”
    To fulfill the expectations created by these parts of the code of ethics, registered professionals need to be directed by, and adhere to precautionary standards that are based on Indigenous knowledge and leading scientific understandings. These standards need to address the issues that confront forestry.
    To suggest as Ms Gelowitz does in her letter that “The reality remains that in BC, policies and decisions on how our forest land base is used are made by the landowner, in this case the Province of BC...” ignores the extensive technical information that needs to be assimilated and applied to practice forestry that protects the public interest. This position also ignores the responsibility of the ABCFP and its registrants to protect the environment, as well as the health and safety of the public.
    Problems with the ABCFP’s lack of involvement in the many critical issues that surround forestry are becoming increasingly more evident. Due to the onslaught of industrial clearcut/tree plantation forestry, the last vestiges of primary forests are disappearing from the forest land base designated for forestry. With the disappearance of primary forests, including old-growth forests, the ecological integrity and resilience of remaining forests also declines.
    Non-sustainable rates of cut and the dominant use of clearcuts to log forests are two of the primary causes for forest degradation being on the increase across BC. Such forest degradation, which is considered deforestation by many knowledgeable scientists and practitioners, has resulted in forestry being the single largest source of greenhouse gases in BC, the leading cause of biodiversity loss, the largest source of water degradation, a major cause of floods and droughts, and a major contributor to disasters, like the flooding, landslides and road washouts that occurred in the November 2021 “atmospheric river” event. I would be happy to provide citations from the scientific literature that explain these problems with forestry, as well as problems referred to in other parts of this letter.
    The ABCFP’s silence on these issues casts a large shadow on its effectiveness as a regulator of the profession of forestry. To suggest that the government is the body that sets standards for the practice of forestry ignores the extensive technical information and understandings that underlie development of standards that sustain ecosystems and protect the public interest. Furthermore, forest professionals and the ABCFP have a professional responsibility to act when the practice of forestry is creating problems for forests and society.
    In contrast, the decisions of government are political decisions and reflect the bias of a particular political party. Problems with the practice of forestry are seen through the lens of a political ideology and are not often science-based. Thus, these “standards” are not “professional”, but political. If the ABCFP and their members blindly accept such standards, they are stepping away from the due diligence and protection of the broad public interest that is asserted by registered professionals.
    One cannot imagine a doctor blindly accepting a procedure set by government that puts a patient at risk. That is why medical practitioners develop precautionary standards that are focused on protection of a patient’s health. However, the ABCFP and its members, by defaulting to “standards” set by government, constantly put the complex functions and processes of forests in harm’s way. In this regard, it calls into question whether forestry is conducted in a professional manner.
    If the ABCFP and their members continue to put forth the idea that the management of forests is directed by the government of the day, the practice of forestry defaults to the methods and rationale of the timber industry. That approach has led us from healthy, intact forests to timber farms that have changed forests from carbon sinks to carbon sources, exacerbated climate change, steadily decreased biological diversity, and provided fewer and fewer benefits to forest workers and forest communities.
    The time is past for the ABCFP and its members to acknowledge that protection of the public good requires that they take active responsibility for the restoration and protection of forests across the landscape of BC. The future of BC depends in no small way on the health of forests. What that future looks like is being shaped by the way forestry is practiced across the province.
    Herb Hammond
    Robert Hart
    An open Letter to Premier David Eby
     
    December 7, 2022
    Rt. Hon. David Eby, Premier premier@gov.bc.ca
    Dear Premier Eby,
    Re: the cost of clearcutting ecosystems
    I am writing to you to request a clear statement on what your Ministries are prepared to do to prevent the extirpation of Caribou in southern and central BC. The South Purcell herd is gone. The Central Selkirks herd is down to 28 individuals and while the Columbia North herd has enough numbers to rebuild, 622 ha of their critical habitat have approved plans for clearcutting. These cutblocks overlap deferral areas that were announced over a year ago when your government promised a paradigm shift in policy. If BC Timber Sales and the Ministry of Forests are allowed to continue to approve cutblocks in required habitats and construct logging roads into them, we will also lose the Columbia North herd within the next couple of decades.
    Caribou, though iconic, are only the tip of the iceberg. The health and basic functionality of the environment, and we along with it, is imperilled by this approach to resource extraction. We once had 1.3 million hectares of rich Inland Temperate Forest and we are now down to less than 5 percent of that. Our present approach to timber harvesting involves removing a working ecology and replacing it with a second growth plantation. That in itself creates immense damage but having no plans to ever rebuild towards intact forests is essentially a plan to continually degrade the landscape over time.
    Ecosystems are designed through time to be viable, resilient, stable and abundant. Biodiversity is both a product and a key driver to that evolutionary process. The wholesale removal of an ecosystem that has evolved through millions of years is called ecocide and I cannot think of a greater offence. It is appalling to contemplate because it is catastrophic in consequence. Those words are not too strong. We do not have any science that says we can reproduce ecosystems once we remove them.
    We do have science that says we are losing our building blocks. The Wilderness Committee and Sierra Club BC have just released Species at Risk Recovery in BC that starts out by noting that we have 1900 species at risk in British Columbia. On this issue alone we should be immediately halting the clear cutting of the intact forests we have left and especially the richest, most biologically diverse ones like our rare Inland Temperate Rainforests.
    Science is also telling us that while our forests used to be a massive carbon sink, they are now a carbon emitter on a scale equal to fossil fuel emissions. As you know, that warming is driving increased insect outbreaks, increased numbers and severities of forest fires and breakdowns in the forest’s ability to manage water, in addition to driving the biggest loss in biodiversity humankind has ever witnessed. So the need for the promised paradigm shift in forestry towards ecosystem health appears greater every year. Your Ministries delays for over two years in addressing this ballooning emergency is both puzzling and urgently concerning. Of the 14 recommendation from the Merkel/Gorley report, your government has actively responded to only one, logging deferrals in critical habitat, and that poorly. Your Technical Advisory Panel identified 4 million critical hectares and you have deferred only 2.6.
    Conserving all of the little remaining of our old growth forests is critical to our success in protecting as much of our biodiversity as we can and building back toward true sustainability as quickly as we can. The current management approach of clearcutting intact forests for timber harvest has brought us to this point. To attempt to change while allowing clearcuts simply exacerbates a long-standing and growing problem. We need to come out of the deferral period with a new harvest approach that, through relying on highly selective cutting, leaves the forests intact and the integrity of their ecosystems functioning and vital.
    We have a choice. We can continue to clearcut until all our old growth forests are gone, (except for memorial parks to house the species that have survived). We can accept species loss, accelerating climate change, forest fires, the breakdown of water regimes and least-value forestry with fewer mills, less manufacturing, fewer jobs and a steadily degrading landscape. Or we can use what we have left to begin the centuries-long job of building back intact forests that store carbon better, are more resilient to forest fires, manage water better, preserve the greatest biodiversity possible and support a truly sustainable, community-based forestry. “It becomes even more important to maximize the number of jobs and the economic benefits from every cubic metre of wood harvested,” Taylor Bachrach, MP for Skeena-Bulkley, said in parliament on November 28. Clearcutting our forests will not do that.
    You have the resources to shift the paradigm toward forest and community resilience. Forestry was once our iconic industry and you continue to subsidize it to the tune of over a million dollars a day, this to large international forestry players who increasingly invest more of their BC generated profits out of the country. Despite that support, forestry has fallen to a few percent of our GDP. The old model has failed both environmentally and economically. If you diverted even half of that support to working with community forests and Indigenous-based forestry, you would get a better return for our money. Communities need help to repair their ecologies and develop appropriately scaled harvesting, manufacturing and marketing models that work for them but do not erode the environmental capital that surrounds them. They need new policy that supports the development of social infrastructure, everything from models of community financing to doing the research necessary to inform the move back to forest and community health.
    Your government has shown strong social leadership in beginning to move BC laws and policies to align with the principles of the UNDRIP and reconciliation with Indigenous people. Your government announced a watershed security fund two years ago. On October 6 the First Nations Leadership Council called for a Watershed Security Fund by 2023. The federal government has offered an initial $50 million towards saving old growth and is trying to protect 30 percent of our land base by 2030, (rather than the present 14 percent). The 15th global Convention on Biological Diversity is meeting in Montreal to try to save as much as we can. Surely our stars have aligned. The time has come. We are ready to proceed.
    We, especially those of us who live in forest communities, need this shift to include a new partnership with all local governments. Work with us and we will move to a higher standard of forest practice, one that is focussed on assessing what the land surrounding us needs to continue to support the life around us and our livelihood here. In a good ways. We don’t want to only find caribou on the back of a quarter. Thank you for your attention to this and for your work for us.
    Robert Hart, Terrace
    Herb Hammond
    Dear President Mierau and Council Members, Association of BC Forest Professionals (ABCFP):
    By way of this letter, I resign my membership in the ABCFP.
    I no longer wish to be part of an organization that alleges to “care for BC’s forest and forest lands,” while remaining silent about the degradation and frequent destruction of natural forest integrity and resilience perpetrated by the vast majority of forestry activities. I will provide examples of these endemic problems below.
    The ABCFP spends more time worrying about what title people involved in forest management do or do not use than providing standards and oversight of activities to protect forest integrity and resilience. The constant reminder, under threat of fines and potential incarceration, to retired forest professionals that they are not permitted to practice forestry, even to provide advice, is a specific example of this problem. In many aspects of societies retired people are viewed as sources of wisdom to be consulted and listened to as a way of reaching sound conclusions that protect the public interest and the ecosystems that sustain them.
    In the absence of definition and oversight of forest management in BC by the ABCFP, the organization has contributed significantly to the many endemic problems that plague the profession. Here are a few examples:
    (1) A plethora of scientific articles urge the protection of primary forests and remaining intact forests to mitigate climate change and reduce loss of biodiversity. Incorporation of this knowledge into new ways of forest protection and use that maintain forests as carbon sinks, and sources of high levels of biodiversity are professional obligations to protect the public interest. Instead, the ABCFP promotes, often by their silence, “business as usual” forest management that exacerbates climate change and biodiversity loss, and shifts forests from carbon sinks to carbon sources.
    (2) The determination of the allowable annual cut (AAC), along with where and how the AAC is extracted have major impacts on the integrity of forests and the well-being of forest-based human communities. However, the AAC is based on questionable (or no) science. Together with a strong lobby from the timber industry to keep the cut as high as possible for as long as possible, the structure used to calculate timber available results in non-sustainable AACs. This problem has become increasingly obvious as industrial forest tenure holders are unable to find trees to cut to meet their AACs and/or resort to logging of younger and younger trees to reach their AAC.
    The ABCFP has an obligation to provide scientifically sound and precautionary models, inventory standards, and forestry methods that protect the broad public interest. This obligation has been shirked to the point that the ABCFP may be viewed as more of an industry lobby group than a professional association that stands up for the well being of the public. The actions and inaction of the ABCFP may be interpreted as being in support of keeping the level of cut as high as possible for as long as possible.
    (3) Pure water is a vital ecological benefit produced by forests at no cost, as long as the natural integrity of forests are maintained. However, with the exception of some small non-industrial forestry operations, industrial forestry degrades water quality, quantity, and timing of flow. The degradation of water starts as soon as roads and the first logging occur in a watershed. As more roads and logging occur in a watershed the degradation of water grows.
    The type of logging and its location within a watershed influence how large and long lasting the negative impacts of forestry on water are. The work of Younes Alila, UBC forest hydrologist, and his graduate students has been seminal in urging big changes to forest management to protect water. The public has also been very vocal (and right) about the many negative impacts of forestry to water. Science supports that old growth forests provide the best water with the most reliable flows. Climate scientists reminds us that with the loss of intact, natural forest cover, water problems will increase as climate change progresses, leading to more floods, droughts, and water shortages. However, the ABCFP has been silent about the wide ranging impacts of forestry on water, including floods and drought. This silence certainly looks like the ABCFP is captured by the timber industry and not acting in the public interest.
    (4) Professional reliance, which was put in place by a provincial government that desired to privatize public forests has been entrenched in forestry practices as the modus operandi. This approach permits no disclosure of information to the public by timber companies about the standards and specific forest data on which timber management operations are based. Thus, we have private entities preparing plans and carrying out timber extraction on public lands with no effective accountability to the public. The ABCFP support for professional reliance is a direct conflict with their stated intention to protect the public interest. If that intention was real, the ABCFP would support the abolition of professional reliance and support the development and enforcement of clear, precautionary standards for forest management. The public interest is not protected by turning forests over to the discretion of the timber industry. The public interest is protected by ensuring that all forest activities maintain the natural ecological integrity and biodiversity that provide the ecological benefits that the public depends upon.
    (5) Clearcutting has been thoroughly discredited for its wide ranging negative impacts on carbon sequestration and storage; biodiversity; water quality, quantity, and timing of flow; and non-timber forest uses. Climate scientists have been vocal in their opposition to clearcutting, because it exacerbates climate change and fuels biodiversity loss. Yet, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, clearcutting remains the system of choice for most timber management in BC. This is another place where the ABCFP silence is in direct opposition to the public interest. Even if short-term employment is the only aspect of the public interest considered, clearcuts still fail to deliver as much employment as ecologically responsible partial cuts.
    (6) In the world’s rush to commit to less carbon intensive forms of energy, BC forests have now become a target for the wood pellet industry that supplies wood pellets to burn for the production of electricity in the United Kingdom, Japan, and elsewhere. Burning wood pellets to produce electricity emits significantly more greenhouse gas emissions per unit of electricity produced than burning coal. At best, burning wood pellets is a misguided attempt to lower greenhouse gas emissions. At worst, it is blatant greenwashing.
    As another place to market timber, the timber industry in BC has eagerly joined the chorus promoting the development of the wood pellet industry in BC. Allegedly, the wood for these pellets comes from waste from logging and sawmilling operations. This situation has been rationalized by the declaration by forest professionals that portions of trees that are not merchantable logs are “waste” that is burned after logging is finished. In reality, no tree parts are waste. The “waste” that is now burned needs to be left on the ground, because it is an important part of forest composition that functions to replenish soil nutrients, conserve water, and provide habitat for a variety of organisms essential to forest functioning.
    To add to the problems created by wood pellets, there is abundant, credible evidence that intact BC forests, including old-growth forests, are being logged to produce and export wood pellets. Protection of these intact forests, particularly old-growth and other primary forests, is extremely important to mitigate climate change and slow biodiversity loss
    The ABCFP is silent about the problems created by the wood pellet industry, despite the fact that creation of wood pellets is not in the best interest of the public, particularly since it increases greenhouse gas production. Apparently, the ABCFP maintains that what is good for the timber industry is good for the public interest.
    Another aspect of this issue is that the former chief forester of BC, Diane Nicholls, is now the Drax vice president of sustainability. Drax, located in the UK, is the world’s largest user of wood pellets to generate electricity. The switch from senior government official to senior industry manager was made after Nicholls facilitated the development of the wood pellet industry in BC.
    Nicholls is a prominent member of the ABCFP. Despite her unethical actions around facilitation of the expansion of the wood pellet industry and then leaving government to join Drax, the ABCFP has not initiated a review of Nicholls behaviour vis a vis the Code of Ethics. The likely reason to be cited by the ABCFP is that disciplinary proceedings need to be initiated by an individual, either a member of the ABCFP or the general public. This raises another example of the ABCFP practicing a culture of silence on prominent issues they need to speak out about in order to protect the public interest and the overall credibility of forest professionals.
    (7) In her role as Chief Forester, Diane Nicholls established the “Chief Foresters Leadership Team,” to provide her with advice about how to manage the forests of BC. The Leadership Team consists of the chief foresters of all the major timber companies throughout BC. Such a “team” skews the advice to recommendations that support timber extraction and away from advice that supports protection of forest integrity and the broad public interest. This is yet another example of the silence of the ABCFP in issues critical to the conservation and sustainable management of the public forests of BC. The ABCFP has the opportunity to support development of a Chief Forester’s Leadership Team that is inclusive of experts on the diverse issues affected by forest management, from climate change and biodiversity loss to non-timber enterprises and Indigenous reconciliation. Such a leadership team would also include representatives of the general public, who are familiar with the current practices of forest management. The failure of the ABCFP to suggest a more appropriate leadership team than that appointed by the chief forester appears to be another example of the systemic timber bias of the organization.
     
    FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE FOREST and all life that depends on healthy, intact forests, the success (or failure) of a forest professional is measured by their footprints in the forest. Good forest management leaves few footprints and fully functioning forests. Unfortunately, most of the forestry done in BC leaves many large footprints and degraded forests. The ABCFP’s role in the large footprints of forestry is a measure of their hypocrisy when one compares their code of ethics and other public documents with what actually happens in the forest.
    All one needs to do is fly across the province to see the dire state of forest management. From there it requires little analysis to understand the large negative impacts that forestry has on all aspects of ecological integrity and biological diversity. The ecological benefits from pure water to carbon storage have been seriously degraded by industrial forestry. This has resulted in forestry being the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in BC. Industrial forestry exacerbates climate change and biodiversity loss, thereby contributing globally to the climate and biodiversity crises. Industrial forestry is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
    The forests are in trouble. Earth’s climate is collapsing. The ABCFP and many of its members are complicit in this trouble.
    Transformational change in how we define and practice forestry is needed. However, the ABCFP seems to have chosen to ignore increasingly loud and dire warnings from climate and ecological scientists that intact natural forests need protection to mitigate climate disruption and reduce biodiversity loss. Instead of supporting needed change to forestry/forest management, the ABCFP and most of its members have chosen to support continued logging of intact natural forests across BC. That approach leads to a dead end that will not only harm forests, but also human society.
    I no longer wish to be part of an organization that is unable to see the forest for the timber.
    Yours truly,
    Herb Hammond
    david shipway
    “Mature” hemlock and Douglas fir typical of second-growth being harvested on the Discovery Islands
     
    Attn: Colin Koszman/ Land Use Forester, Molly Hudson/ Director of Sustainability
     
    I STARTED OUT IN MY WORKING LIFE in the late ’60s, surveying cutblocks and new roads with MacMillan Bloedel on many of the lands now being managed by Mosaic—up in the headwaters of the Oyster, the Quinsam, the Campbell, the Eve and the Salmon. I witnessed the last of the valley bottom old growth being logged, magnificent cedar groves that would now be considered a national treasure, and saw the montaine plateaus of Mountain Hemlock, Yellow Cedar and Western Yew before anyone had touched them. 

    Since then, I’ve watched pretty much everything on the private managed forest land of Vancouver Island get mowed down, even where regeneration is poor, and especially in the second growth stands that were nowhere near reaching maturity. And now in an act of insanity even the third growth “pecker poles”. It’s no secret to anyone paying attention that our overcut forests are in ecological decline. It’s an easy concession now for your industry to set aside some token old growth remnants, since these areas are just the hard to reach “guts and feathers” of the great forests that once existed all over this part of the coast. But the greater crime of liquidation is now happening in immature forests. We have gone from that heroic age of the Tall Timber Jamboree to an age of weasely politicians promoting chopstick factories, in less than one human lifetime. 

    I’ve spent the last 40 years woodworking and homebuilding here on Cortes, and have watched the quality of native wood species plummet as its price keeps climbing. I’ve watched the sapwood in anything made just rot away, since it’s sugar content quickly attracts fungi and insects. I’ve noticed powder worms find their way into the widely spaced grain of second growth fir and cedar heartwood, whereas the tighter grain of resinous old growth was impervious.

    What shocks me most about the simultaneous decline of professional forestry on the coast is this complete ignorance about wood quality. Foresters seem to be operating on the obsolete myth that an 80 year old Douglas Fir or Red Cedar is a “mature” tree, when it is really just an adolescent. At the “culmination age” of mean annual increment, these trees may be growing volume at their fastest rate, but that also means that the sapwood layer is also at it’s maximum volume in the tree.  In other words, trees harvested at this age may be up to 50 percent sapwood that has no endurance, no longevity in wood products. Even the heartwood is unstable and full of knots. What an incredible waste of potential. What a sad lack of patience!
     

    Just under half of the volume of this 95-year-old tree was low-value, non-durable sapwood (lighter coloured wood on left) around the time it was harvested

    In an age of accelerating climate change, the best terrestrial carbon sinks that we must take care of are our native forests. Here on the coast, where the risk of fire is less than in the Interior, the capacity to store a huge amount of carbon at landscape levels is more achievable, and must be seen as the highest priority and professional responsibility among coastal foresters.

    I’m not saying we need to stop harvesting trees, but that we must let them grow a lot older before doing so. We need to adopt a holistic forest management regime that aims for three crucial goals at once—high carbon capture in a biodiverse ecosystem with many old growth attributes, high carbon storage in mature durable wood products and high quality artifacts, and the economic perpetuation of good honest forestry and our inherited multitude of traditional woodworking crafts.

    What professional foresters must not continue to do is steal the young forests and future forest livelihoods from all our grandchildren, just to keep adults in luxury, while simultaneously spouting the deceptive language of sustainability. The current rapid liquidation of the immature second and third growth forests on the BC coast is just that, a trans-generational crime of grand theft that I hope will not go unpunished.

    Sincerely,
    David Shipway
    Martin Watts
    Comments submitted to Chief Forester Diane Nicholls by Martin Watts RPF, March 4, 2022
     
    It is unfortunate that Teal-Jones chose not to respond to 8 questions asked on February 18, 2022 (see questions below) to clarify some items in Management Plan #5. It is more than a bit disconcerting that some of the issues related to the questions asked had not already been identified by Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (“Ministry”) staff during the draft base case scenario review.
    1. In the last Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) determination for TFL 46, one of the harvest flow objectives was to harvest at least 200,000 cubic metres per year from second-growth stands. In Management Plan #5 this objective has been changed to harvesting a maximum of 180,000 cubic metres per year from old- growth stands.
    Based on the current and proposed AAC of 380,000 cubic metres per year, the difference between the harvest flow objectives is meaningless. Where it could have meaning is if the Chief Forester reduces the AAC. For illustrative purposes, suppose the Chief Forester reduced the AAC to 250,000 cubic metres per year. The previous harvest flow objective would only allow 50,000 cubic metres per year of old-growth stands to be harvested, whereas the proposed harvest flow objective would allow 180,000 cubic metres per year to be harvested from old-growth stands.
    More importantly, the change in the harvest flow objective signals Teal-Jones’ intent to liquidate the old-growth stands as quickly as possible, before the government has finalized its plans on old-growth. Figure 4.3 on page 12 of the Timber Supply Analysis Technical Report (Appendix C) indicates most of the old-growth available for harvest will be harvested within the first 15 years.
    Given that there appears to be sufficient second growth to harvest over the first few years of the period covered by this AAC determination, it seems reasonable to simply delay the harvest of old-growth stands that have not already been deferred from harvesting until the government has completed its work with First Nations and finalized plans on old-growth.
    2. Section 9.2.5 (Fisheries-Sensitive Watersheds) of the Information Package sets maximum clearcut equivalent areas (ECAs) for fisheries-sensitive watersheds (Hatton Creek—42%; Hemmingsen Creek—25%; Gordon River—30%).
    There is no mention of a watershed assessment in the documentation provided by Teal- Jones. I ask the Chief Forester to review how the maximum ECA limits were determined for the fisheries-sensitive watersheds. If a hydrological assessment was used, whether the assessment follows the new guidelines for Watershed Assessment and Management of Hydrologic and Geomorphic Risk in the Forest Sector.
    The timber supply analysis has used a stand height of 9.0 m for full hydrological recovery (zero percent of the area contributing to ECA). Current coastal hydrological recovery curves have a stand height of 36.0 m for full hydrological recovery.
    The current hydrological recovery curves for the coast indicate a stand height of 9.0 m represents 33.7 percent hydrological recovery, with 66.3% of the area contributing to the ECA and not zero as used in the analysis.
    Given that Teal-Jones would not provide a response, I ask the Chief Forester to review whether maximum ECA limits are exceeded in fisheries-sensitive watersheds when the correct hydrological recovery curves are used and if so, to make any necessary adjustments in the AAC determination.
    3. The timber supply analysis defines existing managed stands as stands 65 years of age or younger as of 2020. Stands older than this are defined as existing natural stands. Yields for managed stands are derived using TIPSY and yields for natural stands are derived using VDYP7.
    Section 4.2.1 (Phase II Statistical Adjustment) of the Information Package provides the statistical adjustment ratios used in the analysis. Appendix B of the Information Package provides the 2013 VRI Phase II Statistical Adjustment Report that Section 4.2.1 is based on.
    Based on Appendix B, the adjustment ratios for new merchantable volume in Section 4.2.1 are the adjustment ratios for site index and not net merchantable volume. I ask the Chief Forester to confirm that the correct adjustments were made to net merchantable volume for the timber supply analysis.
    Appendix B indicates that immature are stands less than 81 years old and mature are stands 81 or older. The adjustment ratios for VDYP7 are based on this classification. The classification is different from the definition of existing managed stands (65 years old or younger) with yield curves derived using TIPSY and existing natural stands (older than 65 years) with yield curves derived using VDYP7. I ask the Chief Forester to confirm that the application of adjustments to VDYP7 yields is statistically valid.
    4. Section 7.1 (Site Index Adjustments) of the Information Package indicates SIBEC was used for site indices for existing and future managed stands.
    Section 4.1 (Spatial Data Input) of the Information Package indicates the 1995 Teal Cedar Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) and the 2020 Provincial Site Productivity Layer (PSPL) were used in the analysis.
    It is unclear whether the TEM was used in conjunction with SIBEC or the PSPL was used to obtain the site indices used for existing and future managed stands.
    Based on Appendix B of the PSPL documentation3, the TEM (BAPID 5627) is not approved for site index estimation in the timber supply analysis. It has been superseded by the TFL 46 – South Vancouver Island TEM (BAPID 180).
    I ask that the Chief Forester confirm that an approved method was used to obtain the site indices for existing and future managed stands.
    5. Currently, just under 80% of the timber harvesting land base (THLB) is classified as existing managed stands and will have yield curves derived with TIPSY. The remaining 20% of the THLB will have yield curves derived with TIPSY once it is harvested.
    There is no analysis validating TIPSY current yields or future yield projections with measured ground data.
    The VRI Phase II Statistical Adjustment Report (Appendix B) used VDYP7 to estimate yields for the immature stands.
    Appendix A indicates 92 – 11.28 m radius plots were established in stands 30 to 120 years old for a site index adjustment project. It is most likely that these plots were part of a monitoring program and could be used to validate the TIPSY yields.
    It appears that TIPSY yields could have been validated using the VRI and monitoring plots 65 years or younger.
    Section 5 (Timber Supply Analysis) of the Proposed Management Plan #5 and Section 6.6 (Minimum Harvest Age) of the Timber Supply Analysis indicate that both the short-term and long-term harvest levels are sensitive to an increase in minimum harvest age:
    Increasing the minimum harvest age by 10 years reduces the short-term harvest level by 5.2 percent and reduces the long-term harvest level by 4.5%
    Increasing the minimum harvest age by 20 years reduces the short-term harvest level by 25.5 percent and reduces the long-term harvest level by 13.4%
    Given the effect of minimum harvest age on the AAC and minimum harvest age mainly affects TIPSY yields, not validating managed stand yield adds a great deal of uncertainty to the AAC determination.
    I ask that the Chief Forester request a validation of the managed stand yields using available data and a statistically valid methodology.
    6. Section 7.9 (Silviculture History) of the Information Package indicates summaries of well-spaced stems were used to initialize TIPSY simulations.
    The current methodology used by the Ministry for the TSR for Timber Supply Areas (TSAs) uses total stems from the RESULTS data.
    Given the effect of managed stand yields on the AAC, I ask that the Chief Forest review the use of TIPSY in relation to how TIPSY is used in the TSAs.
    7. Section 6.4 (Future Stand Yield) of the Timber Supply Analysis is a sensitivity analysis that increases the managed stand yield by 10% and decreases the managed stand yield by 10% to examine the uncertainty associated with managed stand yields.
    No rationale is given for the ±10% sensitivity levels and there is no validation of the managed stand yields to base a sensitivity level on.
    I ask that the Chief Forester request a validation of the managed stand yields using available data and a statistically valid methodology that will provide a sensitivity level based on the data available, such as analysis of equivalence.
    8. Appendix A of the Information Report provides a site index adjustment from 2000. Section 6.8 (Site Index Adjustment) of the Timber Supply Analysis provides a sensitivity analysis using the site index adjustment report estimates of site index for managed stand yield curves instead of the SIBEC site indices.
    This leads to an initial harvest that is 14% higher than the base case and a long-term harvest that is 36% higher than the base case.
    Site index adjustments such as this are no longer accepted in the TSR for TSAs and should also not be accepted for TFLs.
    If the Chief Forester wants to consider this sensitivity, I ask that a table like the one in Section 7.1 (Site Index Assignments) of the Information Package be prepared and compared. A cursory comparison of the site indices from the report to those in Section 7.1 do not seem to support the magnitude of difference shown in the sensitivity analysis, but they are difficult to compare as the site index adjustment report is by species and BEC and Section 7.1 is just by BEC.
    Martin Watts MScF, RPF FORCOMP Forestry Consulting Ltd
     
    Questions sent via email from Watts to Teal Cedar Products Ltd that remain unanswered:
    I will be submitting some comments on Management Plan #5, but would like to clarify a few items first:
    1. In the 2011 AAC determination, it indicates one of the harvest flow objectives was to harvest at least 180,000 m3/year from second-growth stands (age 55-249).
    In the current timber supply review, it indicates one of the harvest flow objectives is to limit harvest to 180,000 m3/year from old-growth stands (age 250+).
    Are these harvest flow objectives:
    a) Voluntary (set by the licensee),
    b) A soft partition recommended by the Chief Forester, or c) Something else?
    2. The Site Index Adjustment Report (Appendix A of the Information Package) indicates 86- 11.28 metre radius plots were established in 1995 to obtain site index information for stands 21-120 years old.
    I assume that these were intended as monitoring plots and include tree measurements that can be used to validate managed stand yield projections. Is this correct?
    Have these plots been re-measured since 1995?
    3. The VRI Phase II Adjustment Report (Appendix B of the Information Package) indicates volumes from immature (age 30-80 years) plots were compared to VDYP7 estimates.
    Section 7.6 (Yield Table Development) of the Information Package indicates TIPSY was used to generate yield curves for managed stands (stands established since 1955).
    Is there an analysis available that compared the immature VRI plot volumes to TIPSY estimates and if so, can it be provided?
    Is there an analysis available that compares the volumes of the plots established for the site index adjustment to TIPSY estimates and if so, can it be provided?
    4. What is the rationale behind using ±10 percent as a sensitivity analysis for managed stand yields?
    The VRI statistical analysis indicates managed stand volumes are over-estimated by far more than 10 percent.
    5. Section 9.2.5 (Fisheries Sensitive Watersheds) of the Information Package indicates a stand height of 9.0 metres is used for full hydrological recovery (ECA is zero percent).
    This appears to be from out-of-date hydrological recovery curves. Current coastal hydrological recovery curves have a stand height of greater than 36.0 metres for full hydrological recovery.
    The current hydrological recovery curves for the coast indicate a stand height of 9.0 metres is only 33.7 percent hydrological recovery.
    If current hydrological recovery curves for the coast are used, is the maximum ECA in the fisheries sensitive watersheds exceeded in the base case scenario?
    6. Table 4.1 of the Information Package indicates TEM is based on a 1995 project conducted by Teal Jones, but also listed the 2020 Provincial Site Productivity Layer (PSPL).
    Section 7.1 (Site Index Assignments) of the Information Package indicates SIBEC was used to estimate site index for managed stands (stands that regenerated after 1955).
    Was the PSPL or the 1995 TEM and SIBEC tables used to assign the managed stand site indices?
    If the 1995 PEM and SIBEC tables were used, are there significant differences in BEC estimation between the PSPL and 1995 PEM?
    7. Table 7.1 (Analysis Unit Site Index) of the Information Package lists the area-weighted site indices for the analysis units (the BEC assignment for analysis units is a bit different from that given in table 6.2).
    Is there a similar table for the site indices from the site index adjustment project?
    The differences in managed stand yields, depending on the source of managed stand site indices, seems high based on a cursory comparison of the differences in SIBEC versus site index adjustment site indices.
    8. Section 7.9 (Silviculture History) of the Information Package indicates summaries of well- spaced stems were used to initialize TIPSY simulations.
    The current methodology used by FLNRO for the TSR uses total stems from the RESULTS data.
    What is the rationale for using well-spaced stems?
    Yves Mayrand
    This is the executive summary of a 42-page submission:
    Teal Cedar Products Ltd. (Teal-Jones) is the holder of Tree Farm Licence 46 (TFL 46), which it acquired from Timber West in 2004. TFL 46 is located on the west side of South Vancouver Island near Port Renfrew, on provincial Crown land covering unceded First Nations traditional territories. Its 10-year Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) is currently subject to a timber supply review (TSR) by the Chief Forester as mandated by the Forest Act (BC). The TSR process requires a public comment period on Teal-Jones’ management plan that includes a Timber Supply Technical Analysis Report stating the licensee’s proposal to the Chief Forester for a new AAC determination for TFL 46.
    There are significant and unexplained issues with Teal-Jones’ conduct during this TSR process, which has extended well beyond the expiry date of the latest 10-year AAC determination for TFL 46, while Teal-Jones continued its timber harvesting activities within TFL 46 and will likely continue to do so until a new AAC determination is made. There are also several significant deficiencies in the information provided by Teal-Jones for public review and comment.
    The information provided by Teal-Jones does however clearly show that the timber resource in TFL 46 has been over-harvested by Teal-Jones during its tenure. Teal-Jones formally acknowledges the “precarious nature of the timber supply situation” in TFL 46. Yet, Teal-Jones proposes a new AAC with a higher annual volume of timber harvesting for TFL 46 for the next 10-year period. In the circumstances, the proposal of Teal-Jones to the Chief Forester will also prove to be unsustainable.
    Furthermore, Teal-Jones clearly intends to clearcut all the available old growth tree stands still remaining within TFL 46 essentially in the next ten years without regard for old growth logging deferrals and without regard for the resulting adverse consequences, particularly with respect to the required protection of the natural old growth habitat for the Marbled Murrelet, a bird species protected under the authority of the Species at Risk Act (Canada), as well as an order and notice respectively issued under the authority of the Land Act (BC) and the Forest and Range Practices Act (BC). At-risk old growth forest ecosystems with very large and healthy old trees having several centuries of age, and even more than 1,000 years of age, are directly threatened by Teal-Jones’ proposed management plan for TFL 46.
    For these reasons, the new AAC determination for TFL 46 to be made by the Chief Forester (or Deputy Chief Forester) should: 1) be set for a period that is shorter than the maximum 10-year period permitted by the Forest Act (BC); 2) be set at a significantly lower annual volume level than the annual volume set in the previous AAC determination and the annual volume proposed by Teal-Jones; 3) include a partition setting separately the allowable timber harvesting volume for areas of second growth and areas of old growth within TFL 46 for the duration of the shorter AAC period; and 4) specifically exclude from the Teal-Jones timber harvesting land base (THLB) and the AAC for TFL 46 the old growth areas on provincial Crown land that are: (a) already subject to logging deferrals under the authority of the Forest Act (BC); (b) subject to further logging deferrals pending consultations with First Nations; and (c) necessary to effectively protect the natural habitat of the Marbled Murrelet pursuant to federal and provincial law.
     
    Full submission: Comments on the TSR Information Package and Forest Stewardship Plan of Teal Cedar Products Ltd. - Yves Mayrand - Corrected March 1, 2022.pdf
     
    Chief Forester Diane Nicholls’ response: Chief Forester Reply to Submission on TSR for TFL 46 - March 22, 2022.pdf
    Roger Wiles
    ...including Teal Cedar's response.
     
    TEAL CEDAR PRODUCTS LIMITED is seeking public consent for the continued liquidation of primary forests within Tree Farm Licence 46 lands. Public interest demands that the BC Government deny them permission to execute these cutting rights. The public interest is not served by the terms of this arrangement for diverse reasons: economic, environmental, and societal. Indeed, the greater public interest is irreparably and profoundly harmed by the terms of this licence tenure.
    Tree Farm Licences are an archaic vestige of a time when government resource policy attempted to cultivate a mutually beneficial alignment of private corporate interests with what was seen to advance the public welfare. In the case of TFL 46, this meant building mill capacity, creating employment, strengthening rural communities, and cooperatively blending forest management on the extensive private forest land base of Vancouver Island in conjunction with adjacent Crown lands. Of course this extension of colonial “enclosure” was politically promoted in the guise of pushing back the frontier to forge a modern industrial society. This social engineering project was conducted while completely ignoring Indigenous cultural land rights. The lands were quite simply confiscated. We are now more than ever keenly conscious of this injustice since the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
    The TFL 46 landscape has changed over the last 70 years. Its legal boundaries have been added to and subtracted from—mostly subtracted because of private land relinquishment and take-back policy. The contractual conditions have been greatly altered to the advantage and convenience of a very few corporate players and the simultaneous disadvantage of the public interest. The biophysical condition of the TFL 46 land base has markedly declined as a result of roading, clearcutting, and monocultural planting. These extensive alterations have undermined landscape hydrology, ecosystem integrity, and viewscapes. Indeed, over the decades, the health of TFL 46 land has been degraded to such an extent that its ultimate remediation and ecological survival is problematic.
    The accompanying socio-economic exactions have wrought destruction on rural communities. As a former forest industry worker, I am but one collateral casualty among hundreds and understand how wrenching the trauma can be.
    As government policy shifted away from overseeing the TFL framework, it relinquished such requirements as “appurtenancy”—links that connected the forests and local manufacturing. TFL 46 fibre, formerly committed to the Youbou Lumbermill, was suddenly and mysteriously extinguished at the stroke of a Forests Minister’s pen. (Minister Zirnhelt later sheepishly admitted on the steps of the legislature that it was an unwitting blunder. 1)
    The loss of appurtenancy was but one example of the government retreating from its fiduciary responsibility to the public interest. Over time, an increasingly compliant (or complicit—think R.E. Sommers) government buckled to the pressures, blandishments, and/or enticements of industry. The government’s modus operandi was politely termed “sympathetic administration” and later “professional reliance.” This was an apparent naive trusting that the good folks in the forest industry would treat the public domain honourably and pay their fair share of stumpage into the roadside honesty box.
    Government abnegation from TFL responsibilities was matched by forest industry consolidation, employment contraction, and escalating log exports. Along the way, the forest economy has spiralled down to a ghostly remnant. Forest district office closures and staff reductions mean that local oversight or compliance enforcement is nonexistent. Manufacturing jobs have disappeared and communities have been hollowed out or abandoned entirely. It is estimated that at least 80 manufacturing plants have closed in BC since 2000.
    The Youbou Lumbermill was shuttered in January 2001 and that helped ease the way for TimberWest Forests to freely auction off TFL 46 without public consideration in 2004. Teal Jones was the successful bidder. It seems that their $18 million dollar investment has proven most rewarding though their actual profitability is hidden behind a private company veil.
    Economically, the wage base supported by TFL 46 is now miniscule. Distributed benefits that once accrued to rural communities are no more. Between 2000 and 2020, direct forest industry employment in BC dropped by 50 percent. Recent research definitively shows that the forest industry’s oft-repeated claim that “forestry pays the bills” in this province is a fiction. Not only did forest industry revenue not even cover the cost of forest management, but the public has actually subsidized the industry to the tune of $3.44 billion between 2010 and 2019.
    This economic withering of the forest sector—and its impact on employment and communities—shows that it is time for the government to rethink provincial forest policy. Specifically, in the case of TFL 46, cutting rights held by Teal Cedar should be suspended pending careful reconsideration of the allowable annual cut (ACC). Arguably, a case could be made for allowing a reduced ACC based on existing volumes from second-growth plantations; however, this requires closer examination. Some of these plantation lands may be better utilized for old-growth recruitment. Ecosystem services, biodiversity, landscape connectivity, and carbon storage are far more valuable to the public purse, as these values enhance sustainability and resilience in a timeframe measured not by decades but hundreds of years.
    Critically, government now has more than just socio-economic considerations to recognize and rationalize. The climate has changed and we are in the midst of an environmental emergency. Earth’s biodiversity is in crisis. Natural systems are teetering. Ecosystem services are straining. Species numbers are declining and in some cases genotypes are disappearing. Carbon sequestration is now recognized to be critical if we are to avert the worst of the soaring “greenhouse gas” effect. The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres announced that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group Report was nothing less than a “code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable.”
    In BC we are not doing all we can to confront this existential threat. Indeed our forestry sector is quite out of step with this present peril. BC forests, as a whole, are now playing a negative role. Their forest carbon sequestration capacity is less than zero. Primary, old-growth and ancient forests are of particular concern to leading ecologists as the work of Price, Holt, and Daust has independently shown. The BC Government did react to public pressure by initiating the Old Growth Management Strategy Report. Among the public submissions was one from the Cowichan Watershed Board. It’s co-chairs wrote about their great concern for the loss of old-growth forests on southern Vancouver Island and the lack of government supervision in monitoring and enforcement. Aside from a timid, temporary deferral on cutting some old-growth polygons, the importance of the OGM recommendations has yet to be consequentially acted upon.
    The liquidation of primary forests (both old growth and other) poses substantive risk to biodiversity and forest carbon sequestration. By continuing to road and cut TFL lands, we undermine our collective resilience to the climate change onslaught. Based on BC Government statistics, the carbon arithmetic makes it very clear that we must immediately commence securing the carbon-fixing capacity of our forests.
    To summarize, our economy, environment, and civil society, and humanity as a whole, require massive consequential changes to BC provincial forest policy. This transformation should commence with an immediate denial of tenure renewal in the case of TFL 46.
    Finally, because this “proposed management plan” is about social licence and not just AAC, I draw your attention to the citizen blockades that have populated this particular TFL at the invitation of Pacheedaht First Nation Elders over recent months. This outcry from such a broad coalition of civil society, conducted with such grace and peaceful dignity, epitomizes the humanistic non-violent tradition of civil disobedience. Their call of “worth more standing” is a clarion appeal to our best nature.
    Roger Wiles has a background in forest land inventory with the Canadian Forest Service and the New Zealand Forest Service in the 1970s. He later worked as a power engineer at the Youbou Sawmill and has lived in the Cowichan Valley for the last 40 years.
     
    1. May 14, 2003 Cowichan News Leader (Jennifer Mclarty): “Zirnhelt—reached at his home in Beaver Valley yesterday—continues to maintain the loss of Clause 7 was 100 percent inadvertent. ‘It could well be I was advised by staff it was nothing of consequence’ he said, adding ‘under normal circumstances a high level meeting would have been set up. I am not trying to duck out of that at all. We have to stand by what we’ve done.’”
     
    Teal Cedar’s response to Roger Wiles’ submission:

    Evergreen Alliance Staff
    In 2018, Anthony Britneff and Martin Watts, both registered professional foresters, made a 134-page joint submission to a panel of forest scientists and professionals assembled to investigate concerns Britneff had expressed in writing to forests minister Doug Donaldson.
    Britneff and Watts summarized their concerns in a 20-page report prepared for Focus, outlining numerous problems associated with the data used to inform provincial timber supply reviews. That summary is included below.
     
    Britneff-and-Watts-2018-submission-to-the-Forest-Inventory-Review-Panel.pdf
    Britneff-and-Watts-2018-submission-to-the-Forest-Inventory-Review-Panel (summary).pdf
     


×
×
  • Create New...