On Feb. 21, 2013 legislative changes were introduced that allow for the conversion of volume-based forest logging tenures to area-based tenures. Provisions were also introduced intended to facilitate the harvest of non-sawlog grade wood fibre.

The forest license conversion legislation, introduced as a new section of the Forest Act, allows the ministry to invite a forest-license tenure holder to submit an application to have a renewable forest license converted to a new tree-farm license (TFL).

The legislation also stipulates that an applicant must invite and collect public review and comment for at least 60 days, after which the results of the public consultation will be presented to the minister鈥檚 office for consideration in its decision.

Nechako Lakes MLA John Rustad sees this legislation as providing the framework for moving forward with area-based forest management. Rustad and Minster or Forest, Land, and Natural Resources, Steve Thompson, both see the legislation as taking its cue from the 2012 Special Committee on Mid-Term Timber Supply.

鈥淎rea-based licenses are not new,鈥� said Thompson. 鈥淸This legislation] is an additional tool to increase the mid-term timber supply and to create the incentive for enhanced forest stewardship and enhanced silviculture.鈥�

By allowing a forestry company to benefit from the extra work it puts into the management of its own TFL鈥檚, the province hopes that corporate self-interest will play into keeping the province鈥檚 forests healthy.

鈥淚n order to get investment in the land-base, you need to have security of the second-cut,鈥� said Rustad. 鈥淎rea-based licenses are designed to do that  within the requirements we already have for managing our forests.鈥�

Critics of the legislation were vocal even before the details were released last Thursday. Ben Parfitt, a professional forester and an environmental and stainability critic for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, has not been reassured with what he has seen so far in the new legislation.

Parfitt supports the move to area-based tenures.  He doesn鈥檛 want his criticism of the legislation to be taken as criticism of area-based forest management.

鈥淚 am not opposed to area-based licenses,鈥� he said. 鈥淚鈥檝e made a very strong case that we should be moving in that direction.鈥�

Instead, a major concern for Parfitt is that sweeping changes are being introduced in response to what is actually a localized problem.  The Babine Forest Products sawmill in 亚洲天堂 Lake was destroyed in an explosion and fire on Jan. 20, 2012.

The commitment to rebuild the sawmill depended on providing Hampton Affiliates, the mill鈥檚 owners, with the assurances they needed that the mid-term timber supply for their company would be robust enough to justify the expense.

鈥淚 think that there ought to be a separation between substantive, province-wide changes to forest policy and dealing with the very clear challenges that pertain to 亚洲天堂 Lake,鈥� Parfitt said.

As for 亚洲天堂 Lake, Parfitt supports government sitting down with local stakeholders, First Nations, forest licensees, and the community to find a solution for the particular needs of 亚洲天堂 Lake.

His criticism is aimed at what he sees as the province using the dialogue that began in response to the 亚洲天堂 Lake mill disaster, and the mountain-pine beetle epidemic, as a way of fast-tracking legislative changes.

鈥淲hat we鈥檙e looking at here is a substantive change to forest policy right on the heels of a provincial election,鈥� Parfitt said. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 not the way we should be devising forest policy in this province.鈥�

Rustad recognizes that a lot of work needs to be done regarding the details of what these new and large TFL鈥檚 will look like. What the legislation is designed to do, said Rustad, is to enable to province to allow large forest companies to duplicate the success that other companies have had with their TFL鈥檚.

鈥淲e鈥檙e hoping, through this [legislation], to achieve results similar to what we鈥檝e seen in the Dunkley Lumber TFL,鈥� said Rustad.

Dunkley lumber holds a TFL in the Quesnel area. Rustad holds up that company as having shown strong gains in its timber supply through prudent forest management.

鈥淚 think what we鈥檝e seen [there] is a 17 per cent increase - post-pine beetle - in the amount of volume that they have available on an annual basis,鈥� Rustad said.

Mary Arcand, president of the Central Interior Loggers Association (CILA) in Prince George, is cautiously optimistic regarding both the legislation and the idea of holding Dunkley Lumber up as a paradigm example.

鈥淚n principal we can go along with it,鈥� Arcand said. 鈥淏ut we need more information and more detail.鈥�

Arcand said that Dunkley Lumber is considered to be one of the better companies to work for by the membership she represents, but she is concerned that the bigger companies might not be interested in doing things 鈥榯he Dunkley way.鈥�

鈥淲e鈥檝e seen it work with Dunkley, but that doesn鈥檛 mean that it鈥檚 going to work the same way with everybody else,鈥� Arcand said. 鈥淭here is a concern鈥� that changes being made to accommodate Hampton Affiliates will be taken advantage of by others to the detriment of small operators.鈥�

For Arcand and CILA, the devil is in the details.

While she supports the long-term stability the conversions could introduce to the logging industry, she is concerned that in the rush to accommodate large forestry companies smaller contractors will be left out of the conversation.

鈥淐ontractors need the same stability that they鈥檙e trying to give the larger companies,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e need to know how it鈥檚 going to look on a detailed level.鈥�

While both the logging industry and forestry policy critics wait for more details regarding how the conversions will look, Rustad cautions that details will emerge only after extensive public consultations.

鈥淭his legislation is the first step, enabling us to be able to go out and have the conversation and engage in a process that will certainly take a number of years,鈥� he said.

For Rustad, this new legislation enables that conversation without defining it except in the broadest terms: that it be in the public interest, that it contribute to increased fibre supply, and that it be in consultation with communities and First Nations.

While provincial oversight and regulation will remain regarding the new TFL鈥檚, Parfitt is not impressed.

鈥淚f we鈥檙e talking about the same oversight, I would say that the oversight and approval ought to be much more vigorous than it is now,鈥� he said. 鈥淲hat I see here is that the interests of the few are getting served ahead of the interests of the many and I think that is a big mistake.鈥�