Second in a six-part series. Read part one here, A history of the Northeast B.C. forestry industry
This past winter, Canfor announced the closures of the Chetwynd Sawmill and Pellet Plant and the Taylor Pulp mill. Insufficient timber supply to maintain all current Canfor facilities was cited as the rationale, and that the “available” timber would be used to ensure their other “local and regional” manufacturing facilities stay “sustainable.”
Last week was Part 1, the history of forestry in Northeast B.C. Prior to today, most mill closures were about consolidation. As one facility closed, its timber supply would be used to supply either new or upgraded ones that were both larger and more efficient. Now, some facilities are closing due to timber supply availability. The exceptions were the Chetwynd pulp mill and multiple facilities in Fort Nelson, which were primarily closed for economic reasons.
The consolidation of the forest industry was partially driven by the desire to increase efficiencies through scale. Consolidation was also a response of necessity to changing government regulations. What was once considered forest waste became mandatory to remove and utilize. Elimination of beehive burners required new and expensive capital investments. Advancements in milling technologies and efficiencies required mill rebuilds.
Forest planning, community consultations, new road and bridge construction standards, changes to silviculture regulations, all made it exceedingly hard for small scale operators to not only stay competitive and profitable, but stay in compliance to the new and ever-changing regulatory regimes. Many choose the option to sell and let someone else deal with the changes. In May 2019, I wrote on some of the reasons why consolidation occurred.
In the early 2000s, the BC Liberal government eliminated appurtenancy as it applied to the forest industry. Appurtenancy connected a forest tenure to a specific mill(s) and had been in place for a few decades. Appurtenancy required a tenure holder to receive government approval to keep their tenure and use that timber to supply in another if they wished to close a process facility.
Its elimination was controversial at the time and remains so today. Government (politicians) argued what it should be economics that dictate where best to manufacture wood products and not political expediency to determine where facilities must be. The tenure holders supported its elimination as it would allow wood fibre to “flow” more efficiently to the places where it could be best used utilized and that, overall, would make the industry more sustainable and economically viable.
Those opposed, many being small communities that had or were faced with mill closures, argued the opposite, and that appurtenancy was needed to ensure their communities could survive economically. The same argument continues today, as it is sufficient to say that the elimination of appurtenancy contributes to some of what we see today, and certainly allows for what we will face tomorrow.
Note: this is a very short version of appurtenancy, as it is complicated. Premier Horgan once said he would bring appurtenancy back but subsequently dropped that position. Likely because it no longer works in the age of an integrated industry that moves different parts of the tree to a variety of facilities for better utilization.
Canfor has clearly articulated it intends to use the timber that was/is used by their Chetwynd and Taylor facilities in other “local” (Fort St. John) and “regional” (Prince George area) facilities.
Canfor said there is not sufficient fibre available to keep the Chetwynd sawmill and pellet plant and Taylor pulp mill operational. So why is that? How can we so quickly change from having an abundant timber supply that was able to sustain our forest industry in perpetuity, to becoming what we hear today? What has changed so dramatically in such a short time?
This can be summed up in a couple words: government policy. Rightly or wrongly, for better or worse, which all depends upon your own view, government policy has changed, and has changed dramatically in a few short years. The forests are still out there, there are still lots of trees, trees that were once available to be harvested, but can no longer be, as government policy has put them off limits to any form of harvesting. There are also some short-term impacts and losses attributable to pests (mountain pine and spruce bark beetle) and the mismanagement of wildfire.
In the 1990s, mountain pine bark beetle (MPB) was discovered in Tweedsmuir Park, west of Prince George. Despite the advice — in some cases, outright pleas —that government, the NDP at the time, should immediately begin a slash and burn program (or logging) to remove the pine beetle infested trees and keep them from spreading, government declined and stated nature would be allowed to take its course within our parks. The result was that over the next few years, mountain pine bark beetles spread across the province, consuming most of our pine stands. Some estimates say 80% of all mature pine in B.C. died as a result. The Peace Country was not exempt.
Initially, it was thought the Rocky Mountains would stop the beetle spread. Initially, a few showed up and the local industry tracked them down, and burned those trees and beetles, hoping it would work and the mountains would stop the majority. This lasted a couple years before it was realized it was a losing battle. Billions of beetles flew over the mountains on strong summer winds and attacked most of our pine forests. Pine represented about 30% of the softwood (conifer) cut in the northeast.
The Ministry of Forests, in consultation with industry, set about a program to focus harvesting on pine stands before they deteriorated to where they were economically worthless. In some parts of the province such as west of the Fraser River on the interior plateau, pine stands were 80% of the forest. It was no secret the day would come that over cutting pine would lead to a future with less timber available and fewer processing facilities.
Next week, Part 3, What happened to the trees, caribou agreements, and the 30 by 30 agenda.
Evan Saugstad lives and writes in Fort St. John
