Old-growth logging was ‘goal’ of Interfor: B.C. Forest Appeals Commission decision

British Columbia-based forestry giant Interfor reaped an estimated $1.8 million in net profit from logging in old-growth areas that were meant to be preserved, a decision by the province’s Forest Appeals Commission says.

The commission issued the decision last week, upholding the finding that Interfor committed eight contraventions of the Forest and Range Practices Act with the logging between 2012 and 2016 in the Arrow Lakes area of southeastern B.C.

The timber had a market value of about $4.4 million, and the estimated economic benefit was more than $1.8 million after subtracting the company’s costs, it said.

Interfor’s forest stewardship plan for the area stipulated that logging should not take place in old-growth management areas except in certain circumstances with documented rationale, said the decision posted to the commission’s website.

It said Interfor’s site plans for the eight cut blocks didn’t meet those requirements, including a failure to provide reasoning for logging the old-growth areas.

Instead, it said the configuration of the cut blocks “indicates that the harvesting of (old-growth management areas) was a goal for Interfor, rather than confining such harvesting to exceptional circumstances,” as required by the stewardship plan.

However, the panel set the fine at $280,000, down from $360,000 initially levied by a Forests Ministry district manager in 2022.

The decision notes that manager found no indication that the company based in Burnaby, B.C., deliberately ignored the requirements laid out in the plan.

The estimated volume of timber harvested from the old-growth areas was about 38,000 cubic metres, spanning 82 hectares, the decision said.

A representative of Interfor did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Eddie Petryshen, a conservation specialist with the Kootenay-based environmental group Wildsight, said Interfor’s logging took place in public forests containing old-growth ecosystems that are key to meeting the province’s biodiversity targets.

Crunching the numbers in the decision, he said the average volume of timber harvested per hectare was almost double the provincial average, suggesting the trees were larger in the old-growth management areas logged by Interfor.

Petryshen said the decision is a “win” for old-growth. “I think government did the right thing in the face of industry pressure, and held them accountable.”

But the case prompts some unanswered questions, he said, like whether provincial decisionmakers were aware of the overlap between Interfor’s logging plans and the old-growth areas when they approved the cutting permits in 2012 and 2016.

The commission’s decision said the province, which was the respondent in Interfor’s appeal, indicated the cuts into old-growth management areas were “large and excessive,” causing “significant harm” to nearby habitat.

It said an expert called by the province to provide evidence at the January 2024 appeal hearing found one of the cut blocks where logging overlapped with an old-growth management area by 82 per cent contained “very large old-growth forest on one of the most productive sites … and provided exceptional biodiversity value.”

In another of the eight cut blocks where violations occurred, about 100 per cent of the logged area fell within an old-growth management area, or “OGMA,” it said.

“This indicates that Interfor’s focus was not on a non-OGMA harvest, and that Interfor did not recognize that harvesting within an OGMA was to be a limited exception to the general prohibition” against such logging, the decision said.

The decision said Interfor acknowledged that its operations had involved logging old-growth management areas.

But the company claimed it had nonetheless complied with its forest stewardship plan based on its interpretation that nothing in the strategy or B.C.’s forestry law expressly or implicitly limited the size, extent or frequency of logging incursions into old-growth management areas.

The commission disagreed, finding the company “ought to have known” that an element of the plan allowing for the modification of old-growth boundaries in specific circumstances was meant for slight, not significant changes.

The decision further noted that in 2010, the province’s deputy chief forester issued the rationale for determining the annual allowable cut for the area and old-growth management areas were excluded from B.C.’s timber harvesting land base.

At the time, it said the deputy noted “the retention of an appropriate area of old growth forest is a key consideration to conserving landscape-level biodiversity.”

Based on that, the decision said Interfor ought to have known the province did not hold the view the company could log old-growth as it claimed it had the right to.

During the appeal, it said the province noted that Interfor was “unable to produce any documents” from the time the cut blocks were planned.

Petryshen said the case underscores how B.C.’s system of professional reliance is “out of step” with the public interest in environmental protection.

“These companies and the province have a huge responsibility right now, and they’re not living up to it,” he said in an interview.

The commission noted that B.C.’s forestry law “rests on professional reliance,” and failure to meet professional expectations undermines public trust in forestry.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 19, 2025.

Brenna Owen, The Canadian Press