50 years ago, the province entered into ‘Tree Farm Licences’ (TFLs) with various companies. In return for agreeing to adhere to stricter provincial logging regulations on their private lands, these companies gained access to large swaths of crown timber. TFLs were a type of ‘social contract’ intended to promote long term ecological, economic, and social sustainability.

In the past decade, companies have begun rapidly applying to the BC Ministry of Forests to have their private lands removed from the Tree Farm License system – doing so is hugely profitable to the companies, who can log more intensively, export more logs, and sell choice land for development. Logically, these ‘deletions’ represent a breaking of the TFL ‘social contract’ and should therefore include compensation to the public for all those years of access to publicly owned timber; in 2004, Ministry of Forests staff concurred.(note 1)

However, the January 2007 decision by Minister of Forests Rich Coleman to grant Western Forest Products, the largest coastal forest company in BC, a deletion worth tens of millions of dollars to the company included no public consultation, compensation, or protection of recreation and other public values on the affected lands.

A Secret, Undemocratic Decision:

This decision unambiguously demonstrates Rich Coleman’s inability to serve the public as his position demands. Coleman kept the public in the dark regarding this TFL deletion (note 2) - there was no opportunity to provide input, ask questions, or otherwise express concerns.

In the 1990s the public of Vancouver Island turned out to the Perry Commission hearings and overwhelmingly rejected the idea of removing lands from Tree Farm Licences, a process also referred to as Tree Farm Licence (TFL) deletions. As Minister of Forests, it is inconceivable that Coleman was unaware of this clear public sentiment; and although current legislation did not require Coleman to consult the public before granting WFP their deletion, his decision to keep the process quiet reflects an arrogance and disregard for those affected that is unbefitting of his Ministerial position.

A Decision that Damages Public Recreation:

Coleman’s decision will result in a loss of access to forest and coastal lands that the public have used for decades. The public had the right to use the TFL lands for recreation. Now, that right to public access is gone.

At the very least, Coleman could have negotiated to trade the TFL removal for parkland, as has been done in the past; or he could have negotiated continued waterfront access, and public access to forest lands for recreational purposes. In other words, Rich Coleman could have represented the public’s interest in these lands – he chose to waive that responsibility.

A Decision that Damages the Environment:

Coleman’s decision compromises environmental protection. It removes the stricter regulations of the Forest and Range Practices Act from the land – which reduces protection of environmentally sensitive riparian zones, ungulate winter range and community watersheds. Cut controls don't apply on private land, so much more intensive logging is now allowed, including increased logging of old growth on lands previously under consideration for inclusion in ‘Old Growth Management Areas’.

A Decision that Damages Forest Workers:

Coleman’s decision will cause forestry job losses, since the TFL deletion allows Western Forest Products to convert former forestry lands, and lands necessary for forestry infrastructure, to non-forestry uses (note 3). Soon after the decision was made, WFP conditionally sold 2, 520 Ha of previous TFL 25 lands to developer Ender Ilkay – the direct result of this sale will be the loss of forestry jobs, e.g. at the Jordan River log sort. The decision also removes the restriction on exporting raw logs from the deleted lands after three years – it is common understanding that more exported logs equate to more exported jobs, because exported logs aren’t being funneled into local mills. Coleman’s public statements imply that he made the decision to protect forest jobs, yet he did not attach any employment retention conditions to WFP’s deletion.

A Decision that Disrespects First Nations:

Coleman’s decision to allow WFP their deletion revealed disrespect and disregard for his constitutional duty to meaningfully consult and accommodate First Nations. In making his decision, Coleman was required to “consider if accommodation for First Nations has been adequate for this decision, or if more accommodation is warranted.(note 4)” By granting WFP their deletion, Coleman was explicit in his opinion that no further accommodation was warranted (note 5). He came to this conclusion despite clear opposition to the deletion of coastal lands by the Pacheedaht First Nation, an explicit request by the Kwakiutl First Nation for funding to properly provide input into the process (denied), recognition that the Kwakiutl First Nation would likely be “disappointed with the reduction in the size of Old Growth Management Areas”, which would be reduced by the deletion and are important to the Kwakiutl’s constitutionally guaranteed aboriginal rights, and an overarching format of consultation and accommodation that resembled a rushed question and answer session, devoid of the opportunity for meaningful First Nations input into the mechanics and details of the actual deletion decision (notes 6,7,8).

A Decision that Disrespects Local Governments and Local Planning:

Coleman gave no notice to local governments of his decision, even though in one fell swoop it allowed a transfer of huge swaths of land to a developer, thereby directly interfering with land use planning processes that local residents have spent years developing. His decision forced what amounts to emergency measures to be proposed and adopted by the Capital Regional District; measures which were designed to protect treasured land as parks and halt the possibility of dense development and urban sprawl encroaching onto former forestry land. The situation has been ripe with anxiety and unease, as local residents are left unsure exactly what the TFL deletion and resulting CRD reaction means to them and their communities.

A Decision that Shortchanges BC Taxpayers:

Coleman refused the opportunity to demand public compensation in return for the windfall profits that Western Forest Products can now make as a result of his deletion decision (by selling land, logging more intensively, and exporting more logs). Coleman’s TFL deletion essentially severed the original ‘social contract’ whereby companies accepted public restrictions on their private land in return for access to large areas of Crown timber. In 2004, the Ministry of Forests recognized the fact that when private companies are allowed to remove their private lands from TFLs, the public should be compensated in some way for retroactive and continued access to crown timber. Coleman’s failure to seek compensation is the founding basis upon which the BC Auditor General is now investigating his decision (note 9).

“Coleman and the Liberals should not count on the community's sense of betrayal to fade (note 10).”

-----------------------------------------------NOTES------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.Scan to the highlighted sections in the Environmental Law Clinic’s request for an investigation by the Auditor General, available by clicking here: http://www.dogwoodinitiative.org/documents/tfl-deletions/Audit_Request_L....

2. See pp. 8 of the Environmental Law Clinic’s request for an investigation by the Auditor General for more information on the results of the Perry Commission, available by clicking here: http://www.elc.uvic.ca/documents/Audit_Request_Letter.pdf

3.Times Colonist (Oct 26 2007). Forest workers want B.C. to block Jordan River sale. “Brian Butler, second vice-president of Duncan Local 1-80 of the United Steelworkers, said the union has no doubt jobs will be lost as prime tree-growing land, much of it logged in the winter when higher-elevation land is inaccessible, is sold to a developer. ” http://www.dogwoodinitiative.org/TC-2007-10-06/

4. Pg. 7 of Ministry of Forests briefing note prepared for Minister Coleman to inform his decision on the WFP deletion. The briefing note can be viewed in full by clicking here:
http://www.dogwoodinitiative.org/documents/tfl-deletions/WFP%20Deletion%...

5. Pg. 6 of the Ministry of Forests briefing note cited in (cited in 3) outlines the accommodation extended to First Nations with regard to the WFP deletion; the briefing note indicates that of 23 First Nations contacted regarding the decision, only 6 provided input – this is not surprising given the overwhelming suite of issues facing individual First Nations and their limited capacity to engage.

6. Documented on pp. 12 of the Minister’s briefing note (cited in 3). Although this document does not presume to speak for First Nations, it is well known that First Nations, having to deal with a suite of often overwhelming issues all at once, often have very limited capacity to deal with additional issues as they arise. By denying the request for funding to participate in consultation, the Ministry grants themselves a convenient ‘pass’ on having to meaningfully consult and accommodate the First Nation in question.

7. Documented on pp. 6 and 13 of the Minister’s briefing note. (cited in 3)

8. Documented on pp. 3-4 of the Minister’s briefing note (cited in 3)– the Ministry apparently forfeited an opportunity to engage the Kwakiutl specifically on this issue that they knew would be of importance to them; presumably interpreting the absence of the issue in the Kwakiutl’s communications to the them during the consultation period as evidence that the issue didn’t constitute an official concern that had to be addressed, rather than interpreting the absence of the issue as evidence of the Kwakiutl’s simultaneously expressed need for additional capacity to meaningfully engage on the issue (see note 6).

9. Click here to read the Environmental Law Clinic’s letter to the Auditor General originally requesting the investigation; the letter provides additional detail as to why the decision was not conducted in the public interest. http://www.elc.uvic.ca/documents/Audit_Request_Letter.pdf

10. Times Colonist (Nov 16 2007). CRD right to freeze development. http://www.dogwoodinitiative.org/newsstories/editorialCrd-right-to-freez...