🚀 go-pugleaf

I perceive an effort on the part of both the BC government and Macmillan
Bloedel to substantially misrepresent the government's Clayoquot Sound land
use decision. Both have attempted to portray the decision as being more
protective of the environment, and more costly to the forest industry, than
evidence indicates. Below, I summarize a few examples.

The misrepresentation is quite disturbing to me for several reasons.
First, both parties are in unique positions of trust -- the government with
respect to the people of BC, and MB with respect to its employees (and
perhaps the entire forest industry). Second, both parties are far better
funded than any whose views differ. Third, their effort to misrepresent the
decision implies their belief that most would oppose the actual decision as
being too damaging to the environment.

I'm interesting in hearing whether others are aware of this mis-
representation, and whether they mind these attempts at manipulation.

The examples of misrepresentation that I'll summarize here are drawn from 
the following sources: 

  o  the BC government flyer "Clayoquot Sound: A Balanced Decision, A
     Sustainable Fugure", published in June 1993.
     
  o  MB's brochure "Making It Work", Summer 1993, newsletter "Clayoquot Sound 
     Backgrounder", June 1993, and newspaper advertisement (Vancouver Sun,
     July 15, 1993, p. A6-7).
     
More factual information on the Clayoquot Sound land use decision is taken 
from "Clayoquot Sound Land Use Decision: Background Report", Prov. of BC, 
April 1993, which I'll denote by CSLUD.

1.  AREA SUBJECT TO LOGGING

The area subject to logging is frequently understated. MB states in "Making 
It Work" that 

  "The area available for timber harvesting has been reduced from 81 per 
  cent to 45 per cent".

According to CSLUD, the area available for harvesting is actually 62%. MB 
has chosen not to count the 17% designated as "special management areas". 
However, logging *will* take place in special management areas. (Whereas 
logging takes priority in the 45% allocated for "general integrated 
management", other factors such as recreation and habitat protection are to 
take priority in the special management areas -- but not to the exclusion 
of logging.) 

MB states in "Clayoquot Sound Backgrounder" that

  "...the decision reduced ... the size of the commercial forest by about 
  half"

The reduction from 81% to 62% is actually one quarter.

2.  AMOUNT OF ORIGINAL FOREST PROTECTED

The amount of original forest protected is frequently overstated. MB states 
in "Making It Work" that 

  "The government protected about 60 per cent of the original forest...".

I can find no basis for this claim. According to CSLUD, 93.0% of the land 
area is forested (with either new or original forest), 11.2% has been 
harvested since 1950 (when harvesting is said to have begun), and 33.4% is 
now protected. Thus, at most 40.8% of the original forest can have been 
protected (33.4% / (93.0% - 11.2%)).

Perhaps MB's claim is derived from this one, which is found in both the 
government flyer and MB's television ad:

  "[The decision saves] more than half of the old growth *in the Sound's 
  pristine watersheds*" [emphasis added]

Of course, the key qualifier is "in the Sound's pristine watersheds". We're 
not told what watersheds these are considered to be, or how little old 
growth is protected elsewhere. 

Or perhaps MB's claim is derived from the following statements, both found 
in its "Clayoquot Sound Backgrounder": 

  "About 60 per cent of the old growth forests will never be logged", and
  "Less than 60 per cent of Clayoquot Sound's forests are *suitable* for 
  logging" [emphasis added]

Is MB claiming, then, that that old growth will be preserved because it is 
not economical to log it? This view seems to be contradicted by its 1992 
Annual Report, which states that

  "...as old growth log prices rise over time and cheaper logging methods 
  are discovered, the company expects all of its designated working 
  forest to become economically accessible"

We should not, therefore, expect unprotected forests to remain unlogged.

3.  ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF DECISION

The consequences to the forest industry are frequently overstated. MB
states in "Clayoquot Sound Backgrounder" that

  "In 1991, forestry activities contributed $162 million to the regional
  economy"

MB doesn't specify what region it is referring to here, but perhaps it 
would like you to assume that region is Clayoquot Sound. However, it most 
certainly is not. The government flyer spells it out a bit more clearly: 

  "In 1991, forestry contributed about $136 million to the 
  Clayoquot-Alberni Region's economy..."

(About a third of the Alberni region's timber harvest comes from 
Clayoquot Sound.)

MB also states in "Clayoquot Sound Backgrounder" that

  "The economic impact of the decision included the elimination of ...
  about $60 million in annual economic activity"

This seems to be based on a rationale stated in "Making It Work":

  "The current sales value of forest products manufactured from west 
  coast wood is about $200 per cubic metre of logs processed. Therefore, 
  the 300,000 cubic metre harvest reduction removes $60 million (in 1991 
  dollars) from the B.C. economy each year".

Never mind for the moment that this simplistic analysis ignores many 
factors, including the value of trees left standing and the relationship 
between price and supply. In its "Response to the CORE Public Report and 
Recommendations Regarding Issues Arising from the Clayoquot Land Use 
Decision", June 1, 1993, the BC government states that

  "The impact on the provincial economy is projected to be a $46 million 
  per year reduction in Gross Domestic Product..."

I've not yet located a justification for this figure. One might note, 
however, that the decision represents about a 10% reduction in the Alberni 
region's timber harvest, and that the region has a forest economy worth 
about $136 million. One might expect, therefore, that the impact is 
actually on the order of $14 million.

4.  BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION GOALS

This is my favourite. From MB's "Clayoquot Sound Backgrounder":

  "The government *protected* ... 33 per cent of the land area, *three
  times the amount international environmental authorities ... believe
  is sufficient to protect ecosystems*". [original emphasis]

This conveniently ignores the tremendous imbalance outside Clayoquot Sound,
which a "balanced" Clayoquot Sound decision could help to redress. It
refers to the recommendation commonly attributed to the Bruntland
commission, that 12% of representative ecosystems be protected.

Considered in the context of Vancouver Island, however, the amount
protected is far below the 12% goal for at least two ecosystem types.
According to CSLUD, the decision leaves only 5.7% of Vancouver Island's
"very wet maritime coastal western hemlock, submontane" protected, and only
7.7% of its "very wet maritime coastal western hemlock, montane" protected.

--------------

   ...Art Pope, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of British Columbia