Bad Licensee

[Pandion]

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/brit ... -1.3668891
I wonder how much more of this stuff is out there. I'm surprised they were even caught.

[Nate]

Looks like they only have 600 or so hectares total, so we're talking a total obligation of just over 100,000 trees, which sounds like that's over the entire company life cycle. Also doesn't mention whether they didn't plant trees or whether they did and enough died that they failed to meet their free to grow targets.

Pretty minor, on its own this is neither surprising nor concerning, pretty lazy journalism not to put it in context or even attempt to research how indicative it is of small licensee practices. The article says this slipped through the cracks so it sounds like an exception to be rule.

By even comparing this company to Canfor it distorts the size of what's being talked about.

"While Arrow Glenn isn't a major player in forestry when compared to Canfor or TimberWest, Mosher says it's important nonetheless to monitor what smaller companies are doing because they make up a significant portion of the industry."

This is like saying "While Mom and Pops construction company isn't a major player like Ellis Don or PCL..." This Arrow company has ACCESS to 600 hectares, Canfor has ACCESS to something like Four hundred thousand hectares in the Fort St James area alone. This is as small as it gets. And the article doesn't even tell us if it's going to be impossible for them to meet their FTG targets or not, this could as easily be a few blocks that failed to regen as it could be some small time licensee trying to scam forty thousand trees in reforestation costs.

We can learn almost nothing from this article other than the fact that a small licensee didn't do their paperwork properly. It's not like it said they never reforested period or forged regen data.

[Nate]

Also, not defending the company, just saying this article sucks and it would be nice to know more about how often this happens and exactly in what manner they failed to meet regen standards.

[Evergreen]

There's may be lots of these "bad licensees" around the province and it appears the government is either doing very little and/or doing it very slowly. Take Meadow Creek Cedar for instance. They had a much larger cut in the West Kootenay area near Kaslo. Their reforestation practices were a well known farce. When they did finally plant some of their areas, they did so in the middle of the summer with horribly mistreated stock. The whole operation from harvesting to milling to reforestation was a terrible joke but they were allowed to continue on for many years before the government finally cancelled their license. This only happened after their mill burned down.

Here's a link to part of the story - http://www.nelsonstar.com/breaking_news/303333731.html

[Nate]

Does the WSCA get involved in this kind of thing at all? If there is a systemic problem with licensees' reforestation practices it would represent an enormous opportunity for silviculture contractors generally.

[jdtesluk]

"Involved" is relative. The WSCA doesn't exactly position itself as a public watchdog or town crier when a company's forestry practices are not up to snuff. However, they indeed lobby the Government for better silviculture practices based on both A) what they know is needed for healthy forest futures, and B) knowing that such work is their collective industry. It is a political relationship- they can't just go and scream blue murder about bad practices, and expect industry and the Government to engage with them and cooperate. Remember, an industrial failure today is pretty much synonymous with a state failure given the expectations on regulators, and the close (almost at times incestuous) relationship between the Gov and big business. I think if you read John Betts' statement on the matter at hand, you get a sense of how they position themselves publicly. Indeed, stronger words and more assertive strategies are used when directly dealing with various ministry officials or boards of directors, but without actual power to make change, the WSCA's efficacy is based on remaining a voice that is listed to for providing helpful input, and at times (however strongly they can) encouraging accountability.

So, yes, the WSCA is involved in such matters, but they generally deal with them in a careful manner. If problems are apparent, they consult with ministry and lobby for improvement. This activity by the WSCA is probably one of the most important activities for all tree planters and contractors, and perhaps the only reason we have a half-viable silviculture industry in BC.