The Chief Forester's Role: Science or Politics?

Britsh Columbia's Forest Act establishes that the most important role of the Chief Forester is to determine the AAC. The David Suzuki Foundation believes that the Chief Forester’s primary duty should be to ensure that the province's forests are not overcut and that ecological integrity is maintained. Disturbingly, the Chief Forester is required by law to maintain established harvesting volumes. The meaning of sustained yield according to the Forest Act is to maximize production and to ensure a continuous supply of wood.

What this means is that the sustainability of BC forests is legally subservient to guaranteeing lumber and pulp mills a steady timber supply, despite the ecological or cultural consequences

Who's doing the math?

Analysis shows that the Chief Forester is not only accountable to the Ministry of Forests. Other, and often more senior departments pressure this office to maintain the AAC to meet “socio-economic ideals.” This is clearly shown if the following excerpt from a letter written by the Minister of Forests to the Chief Forester. “The Forest Act gives you the clear responsibility for determining AACs, decisions with far-reaching implications for the province's economy… any decreases in allowable cut at this time should be no larger than are necessary…” (Minister of Forests, July 28, 1994) 

In October 2000, the Chief Forester admitted in the mid-Coast timber supply review that he was unsure of the AAC's impact on the environment, but that he proceeded due to pressure from the Minister of Forests:

"mature forest cover requirement may not be adequate for grizzly bear habitat...the problem may be exacerbated if forest companies proceed. However, given the minister’s directions I am willing to maintain the current harvest level.”

Many Ministry of Forests staff believe that AACs are too high and that a major shortcoming in timber supply analysis is the failure to fully account for the effects of non-timber values (wildlife, habitat, cultural and tourism values) on timber supply. Numerous Ministry of Forests staff have stated that current AAC levels do not allow for the delivery of sound integrated-resource management. 

The way forestry is managed in BC mirrors in many ways the East Coast cod experience: optimistic yield and regrowth levels are used to justify today’s extraction. If proper planning is ignored and policy does not change, a parallel devastation of communities will occur here.

To better understand the present system of AAC determination, an excellent publication, “Citizens' Guide to Allowable Annual Cut Determinations: How to Make a Difference”, is available from the BC Environmental Network Educational Foundation.

Join our Forest Information Response (FIR) team to help bring the cut down! Sign me up!

See more on the Overcut