Sept./Oct., 2004 Yvon Moreault's comments concerning each of the recommendations of the Select Committee on wood supply / Réactions aux recommandations préparées par Yvon Moreault Select Committee on Wood Supply First Session Fifty-fifth Legislature September 2004 Final Report on Wood Supply in New Brunswick General Comments 1. Most objectives and principles enunciated by the Select Committee are praiseworthy. 2. However, most of the expertise resources available to the Committee, as identified in Appendix E, are known for their bias in favour of and/or livelihood dependance on the forest industry. This resulted, especially in details, in some recommendations that do not reflect and will not meet the objectives and principles of the Committee. 3. The following is an attempt to show the consequences of these biases and possible alternatives to meet objectives of the Select Committee in answer to the large consensus expressed by New Brunswickers during their public consultations. Specific comments:             ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation 1: That DNR incorporate the Select Committee recommendations adopted as result of this report into Departmental policies, the 2007 and 2012 Vision documents, and the Forest Management Manual where appropriate. Support of this recommendation is dependant on the final text of the proposal (assuming it will be amended). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation 2: That, by December 2007, DNR prepare a strategy for public participation, in time for 2012 management plan development. In practice this means it would take over three(3) years to prepare a strategy for public participation. Then, the the impact of the public participation would not be felt before 2012. This is strictly a delay tactic to leave the New Brunswick citizens away from the resource management process. Furthermore, the text accompanying this recommendation clearly spells out that nothing is changed from the present practice. The public participation is strictly limited to setting objectives for the Vision document.  Under this recommendation, the owners of the forest cannot input in the actual management of the Crown resource while foreign ownership of milling facilities have full access to all resource information and fully control the the process that affects all resources. . . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation 3: That a process similar to the one just completed by the Select Committee be undertaken on a 10-year cycle. Support. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation 4: That an individual (“The Coordinator”) responsible to co-ordinate implementation of the Committee’s recommendations and reporting to the Deputy Minister, be engaged for a five-year term, with possibility of extension. The person undertaking this critical function should be: (i) knowledgeable of natural resource management, (ii) objective, and (iii) a skilled manager and facilitator. This approach is the same as the one used in 1982-83 to implement the New Crown Lands and Forest Act. Over twenty years later I still wonder what his mandate really was? Beside being an excellent communicator his main emphasis, from a field staff perspective, was to prevent us from looking over the shoulders of licensees' field operations. We would have a look five years down the road, then pass or fail them!  My questions were: « In five years, do we remove the allocation and close the plant? » « If we see them running a bulldozer in a brook do we close our eyes? » Etc This scholar was/is one of the best forestry communicator of his times. His skills were used extensively to sell the New Act and the justification of licensee taking over the control of New Brunswick Crown forests. Assuming the new functions would be different, try to find an « objective » person to carry out this responsibility. One who was not on industrial payroll, or did not depend on the industry for consulting or research contracts, or did not expect future benefits from the industry, or was not an industry « tamed » civil servant forester. It might be easier to find a diamond mine in New Brunswick! Oddly enough, a similar proposal has been brought forward recently to the Coulombe Commission in Québec by the industry and it's allies. There they call it an « Intendant Forestier » which had it's origins in supplying military needs. In present context, it could be interpreted as the one responsible and empowered to supply fibre to the industry. Bottom line?  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation 5: That by April 2005 a Provincial Advisory Committee be established to provide advice to the Minister of Natural Resource on issues pertaining to Crown forest management. Support. As long as the process is not similar to the current Licensees' advisory committees whose membership is selected by the industry as opposed to being selected by all interested organizations. As long as the mandate is clear, as long as the process is democratic whereby stakeholders (licensees and re creationists) and shareholders ( political representative and environmentalists) have significant representation etc. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommendation 6: That as soon as possible, the purpose and function of the Licensee Stakeholder Committees be clarified and enhanced. Same comments as for 5 above. People of New Brunswick are not « stakeholders » of the Crown forests, they are « shareholders » « owners » and the consulting processes should reflect this reality. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation 7: That, effective 2005, the Minister of Natural Resources report annually to the Legislature on the status of New Brunswick’s forest and its management. Besides highlighting the recommendations of the « coordinator », this has been done through Annual Reports since the 18th century! This in fact insures the recommendations of the coordinator have direct and unfiltered access to the legislators. Is this according to « Hoyle »? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommendation 8: That DNR regularly provide objective and factually correct information to the public about forest management including the use of various harvesting and silvicultural techniques. Agreed, as long as DNR and it's personnel do not become propaganda agent for debatable forestry practices. One should not forget that a civil servant may not actively and publicly question a policy of his/her department. (Re: Fraser civil servant case vs Federal on the metric system policy). The use of herbicide is a case in point where staff could give factual pro use information while they could not give contrary information. The departmental industrial internal lobby promoted this approach in the early 90s. DNR staff and industry staff were to have a unified voice on forestry policies and matters. My argument remains the same, we work for different employers with different objectives, therefor this position is untenable for civil servant.  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation 9: That Crown operators’ performance be more widely reported and that penalties for mismanagement be increased. Agree and support this recommendation. However, the common practice of « trading » penalties, from ones being recognized as penalties in the Performance Appraisal process to ones that are not recognized as such, should be banned. It is one of the corrupting procedures of the Performance Appraisal process. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation 10: DNR establish a process to develop quantifiable wood supply objectives for all commercial tree species. The department has inventory data which makes this recommendation feasible and practical at the provincial level. There are many implications involved with this objective depending on the policy will of the province. For example, to increase the quantity of tolerant hardwoods, the options are to decrease the amount of clearcuts, plantations and herbiciding in mixed stands which would conflict with the level of softwood allocations.  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation 11: That the wood supply strategies and objectives identified above be developed with reference to the natural diversity of the Acadian forest in order to generate increasing yields of a wider variety of commercial tree species while maintaining important ecological features of the forest. Comments for 10 above are as pertinent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation 12: That the amount of clearcut harvesting on Crown land be reduced. Strongly support with one qualifier: why wait until 2112 to implement? The Act and Agreements allow the Minister to make this type of change now for the 2007-2011 Management Plans. Delaying will only exacerbate the ongoing devaluation of the Acadian forest. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation 13: That, in order to promote the future benefits from the Crown forests, DNR modify existing silviculture guidelines for thinning and planting. This is one of the most critical forestry recommendation. It illustrates clearly the bias mentioned in the introductory remarks. To give it justice, it's two components must be examined separately. 1. Support: common sense. "Multi-species thinning targets should be developed to better maintain and promote species diversity in pre-commercial thinning treatments. While this is already implemented on some Crown Licenses, the targets must be developed and applied to all New Brunswick Crown land."  In fact this has been implemented for years: if there was no conifer present in the target area, one would leave a merchantable hardwood. 2.To strongly condemned. "Similarly, criteria for planting eligibility should also be broadened to allow for more planting of sites which naturally support softwood. This would help partially offset long-term negative impacts to softwood volumes." 2.1 First, there is absolutely no logical justification of "similarity" between the two propositions. 2.2 Contrary to the first component, this one promotes monoculture rather than diversity. 2.3  The present policy can be summarize as follows: to meet the biodiversity objectives, stand classifications must be maintained. This is partially accomplished by broadly maintaining pre-harvest conditions: S (softwood> 75%) and SH (softwood 50-75% +hardwood) stands are eligible for planting. The proposed change in policy would make the following stand classification eligible for planting: HS ( hardwood 50-75% + softwood).  2.4 The last published New Brunswick Forest Inventory (1986) shows in Table C3a that S and SH stands covered 65,3% of Crown Lands.  Allowing to add the HS cover type would bring it up to 76,97%. This would opened the door to increasing bio-diversity abuses already condemned in research done by professors of the U de M on this very subject. 2.5 This proposed change in policy would also involve a tremendous increase in herbicide poisoning to control "competition" on these richer mixwood types. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation 14: That any reduction in the short-term supply of spruce/fir/jack pine be tempered to reduce the negative impact to the existing industry. The Committee believes that the Minister should ensure that net decline in softwood AAC should be restricted to 1.5 - 3.0 % of the 2002 softwood AAC. This recommendation defies the logic of the whole system established since 1982 and similar to that used across Canada. The AAC (annual allowable cut) is determined by using the "best" forestry information available and the most promising silviculture intervention. Computer simulations determine the AAC which, in theory, can be harvested while maintaining sustainability. What this recommendation does is to ignore the theoretical AAC and make it a political one. This would be a scandal that would set the province back to the New Brunswick Railway era days! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation 15: That DNR continue to use adaptive, science-based decision making in setting management criteria for all special management areas and that no additional harvesting be permitted in special management areas at this time. Agreed. One should point out however that four Protected Areas that have industrial wood potential may be harvested until 2112! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation 16: That, by April 2005, up to 10% of the total annual harvest volume of all species be made available for harvest by small, qualified contractors. Disagree with this recommendation. It is no substitute for a community forest approach broadly supported by the people of New Brunswick and applied elsewhere with success in Canada. This is a "demi-mesure" which may cause more problems than solve some. It kind of assume that present contractors, who have a very hard time surviving ( a lot have gone and are going bankrupt) , could afford to harvest 10% less volume every year . The size of the pie is not increasing, to the contrary, it should be decreasing! The net effect is that the target of contention will shift from the licensees to the Department of Natural Resource. The Licensees will still determine who will harvest where, how much they will pay for the harvested wood which is part of their legitimate allocation. And so on. It's nothing but a hornets' nest that will delay reasonable access to a public resource for another decade. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation 17: That effective immediately, DNR implement wood allocation mechanisms to retain and promote local employment opportunities in the event that a mill ceases operations. Agreed and urgent! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation 18: That for the 2007 operating plans, DNR facilitate mechanisms which encourage the harvest of other non-timber forest products should they be identified (e.g., balsam fir tipping). Agreed. Under this same principle, the maple sugary industry should be reconsidered since the arbitrary cap on Crown hectares made available has been reached. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that a sugary can maintain it's value and revenues indefinitely while a clear-cut is a once in a century deal. With some of the present prescriptions approved in Region 4 and perhaps even more so in Region 3 the potential for sugaries will soon vanish. Time is of essence! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation 19: That, in April 2007, 2% of the 2002 level AAC be made available for new, value-added wood processing initiatives. Agreed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation 20: That Licensees and Sub-Licensees report on employment levels and that these be considered when the Minister renews Crown allocations. Agreed. Interesting but what is the objective? What action will be taken? If UPM or another reduce employment by 50%, will their AAC be reduced by 50% and allocated to another licensee? The absurdity of the question demonstrates the dilemma faced by our MLA's. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation 21: That the current negotiations concerning primary source of supply that DNR has been facilitating between the New Brunswick Forest Products Association and the New Brunswick Federation of Woodlot Owners be fully supported The same "stunt" was pulled in 1981 to get support from private woodlot owners for the New Crown lands and Forest Act. When industry felt secure enough, they got the Crown as residual supplier principle removed from the Act. Back to the "take it or leave it" negotiation practice! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendation 22, from the Licensees' point of view and mine, the most important, will be dealt with later. Consider this as a prologue: The New Brunswick Annual Royalty Scandal! In the late seventies the province, prompted by the forest industry, decides to change the whole approach to the management of the Crown forest.   Even though an in depth study under the able leadership of Reg Tweedale had recommended the complete take over of the Crown forest by the province, the politicians of the day did exactly the opposite and ceded controls to the forest industry. To convince the political and the woodlot owners oppositions, Minister Bud Bird made the following commitments.  1.Because low Crown stumpage charges to industry was unfair competition for woodlot owners, stumpage charges would be brought up to 100% of - fair market value- within 5 years( 1987). 2.In exchange for the - control - of the management Crown forest, the industry would carry out specific and spelt-out management responsibilities. Seventeen year later, the forest industry pays, on weighted average, less than 68% of fair market value. What is the cost of this to New Brunswick citizens?  It represents over $ 60 000 000 annually that the province foregoes to collect from the forest industry. If one translates this in terms of volume of wood on which royalty is not collected every year, it could be illustrated as follows: Imagine wood stacked one (1) metre deep and one (1) metre high along the Trans-Canada starting in Fredericton. You would have to drive over 90 km per hour, non-stop, for 24 hours, to reach the other end of the pile somewhere in the middle of Ontario ! Recommendation 23: That, on a five-year basis, Government commit to the level of silviculture funding deemed appropriate to achieve desired timber objectives developed during the analysis stated in Recommendation 10. Comment: this is really a false problem. The approach itself leaves the impression that funding Crown land silviculture was a problem. This is absolutely false (and one may well wonder why this approach was taken!) . The Department has been committed to and has funded the silviculture levels approved in every Management Plan for over twenty years! The Forest Management Agreements, between the Queen (Minister) and the Companies (licensee) make this commitment formal and legal. For example sections 13.1 and 13.3 of the Forest Management Agreement of 1997 read: "13.1 During the Fourth Five Year Period the Company shall carry out basic silviculture on not less than ......... hectares of the ........................ License within areas approved in the Operating Plan,... "13.3 The Minister shall reimburse the Company for approved basic silvicultural treatments to standards set out in the Forest Management Manual, at rates authorized by the Minister." This has been standard procedure. The levels of Basic Silviculture are established following recommendations of Licensees based on modeling analysis. Recommendation 24: That any increase in royalties (using 2004 as the base year) be deposited in a dedicated fund directed exclusively to the Crown silviculture program. Comment: What problem are we trying to solve? Why bring back the royalty issue under silviculture if it is not to confuse/muddle the issues? Seems to me it is up to the Legislators to set priorities of revenue distribution. These would be significant amounts, especially if the forest industry was to pay the level of royalties identified by Minister Bird when controls of Crown forests were surrendered to the Licensees in 1982. This increase in royalties would amount to over $60 000 000 annually! Did they want to give the impression royalty increases would be marginal and take years to accumulate to a significant level? Again in the discussion of this recommendation they write “... the silviculture budget should be fixed for that five year period.”!   Are they from Mars? This is how the system has been operating since 1983 and has to operate under the Agreements stated above.  It appears to be a deliberate and ultimate attempt do distract attention from the critical issue involved with royalties. "Issue 12: Management of Industrial Freehold Lands Recommendation 25: That DNR establish a minimum level of silviculture that must be conducted on Licensee and Sub-Licensee industrial freehold. Again, this has been a legal requirement since the beginning of the new regime in 1982!  This is still implied in the Act:  CHAPTER C-38.1 Crown Lands and Forests Act "40(1)  Upon the request of the Minister, a licensee shall at his own expense provide the Minister with a copy of, and shall prepare if necessary, a current management plan and a current operating plan for freehold land owned or controlled by the licensee, such plans to be prepared in the same form as, and to contain comparable information to that set out in, management and operating plans prepared for Crown Lands." This was also part of the original "bargain" as defined by Minister Bird and the Department. In a publication of the Department of Natural Resources dated May 5, 1982 introducing the New Crown Lands and Forest Act one reads: " The Act also has direct repercussions on Large Freehold held by enterprise seeking a wood allocation from the Crown. These enterprises must manage their Freehold properties according to norms at least equivalent to those imposed on Crown forests." (my spontaneous translation : any volunteer for a professional translation?)   Also consider the irony of the recommendation, "That DNR establish a minimum level of silviculture that must be conducted on Licensee and Sub-Licensee industrial freehold", when one knows the level of silviculture on Crown forests is determined by Licensees in their Management Plans submitted to DNR&E for approval. (In some cases, like the approval of the 1992 Forest Management plan of License 10, a mere political formality!)   ============================= Please address comments and/or questions to: Yvon a Moreault, RPF (1963-1997) Regional forester, retired Department of Natural Resources Province of New Brunswick moreault@bigfoot.com   Yvon A. Moreault 351, Rte 295N Dégelis, Qc G5T 1R2 418 853 2091 In answer to comments received:  Constructive comments, corrections or questions are welcome. Copyright is waved as long as quotes are acknowledged and not used out of context. 2004.10.22