Lukuku W FEMC2007

Haisla Perspectives on Timber Supply in Haisla Traditional Territory

Whitney Lukuku, Kitamaat Village Council, P.O. Box 110, Kitamaat Village, BC, V0T 2B0, Canada, whitneylukuku@uniserve.com
Michael Buell, Cortex Consultants Inc., Suite 2a - 1218 Langley Street, Victoria, BC, V8W 1W2, Canada, mbuell@cortex.ca

In British Columbia, allowable annual cut (AAC) is determined by the Chief Forester. A timber supply review (TSR), including a modeling analysis, is undertaken for the Chief Forester to consider in his determination. The major problem with this system is that the AAC is aspatial and not identified on the ground. Consequently, there is no mechanism to ensure equitable distribution of timber harvesting across the planning area.

When the AAC is apportioned to forest licensees, the must meet cut control rules: they must harvest within +/-50% of their AAC every year and +/-10% over 5 years. Forest companies concentrate their harvesting in one area or watershed to meet cut control requirements and “economic“ objectives.

A spatial allowable annual cut could be apportioned to various watersheds according to how much a particular watershed contributed to the overall long run sustainable yield in the overall timber supply analysis, and that volume would be harvested from the watershed every year, every five years or every decade.

Apportioning the annual cut in the spatially will allow First Nations communities to identify watersheds that will be impacted by harvesting activities. If specific watersheds are important for traditional use and environmental protection then First Nations communities could lobby for a reduction to the cut in those watersheds. Conversely, First Nations communities could argue for increases to the cut in watersheds that are not important to their traditional use.
Apportioning the harvest by watershed will also allow First Nations communities to know the amount of volume that will be extracted from watersheds and where on the landbase harvest activities will occur, allowing for more effective community and infrastructure planning.
Sensitivity analyses could force the model to only harvest certain watersheds. In addition to this, harvest levels could be controlled in certain watersheds - e.g. harvest only 20% of the watershed over the planning horizon. This would help gauge the effect of important watersheds (important to traditional use and environmental protection) on the overall harvest level.