We need to look at mechanisms that increase, rather than decrease the accountability of forest managers to local communities and to future generations. We have significant mill overcapacity in relation to supply and a volume-driven economy based on liquidating our natural capital will not sustain BC communities into the future. Even based on government calculations of the long run harvest level which does not truly incorporate biological factors, there is no question that we are cutting more than can be sustained in the long term. The allowable annual cut must be reduced significantly if we are to put ourselves on a path that is sustainable in the long term. Second, forest policy change should prioritise diversity.
Diversity provides stability in times of change.
Diversity in the number and type of businesses operating in the forest sector, but even more importantly diversity in who controls the land base. We must undertake significant tenure redistribution if we wish to move towards a more sustainable future that is economically, socially and ecologically resilient. I would echo and build on the recommendation of the 1991 Forest Resources Commission to say that the amount of allowable annual cut held by major licensees be reduced by at least 50 percent and the wood used to create a greater diversity of tenures, with the intention of creating new opportunities for communities, First Nations and other local tenure holders. As a short-term measure we need to look at immediately at doubling or tripling the number of community forest pilots agreements and dramatically increasing the number of woodlot licences. These changes should come about without compromising wood available through the small business program, which itself should be expanded.