In the wake of several devastating wildfire seasons, with thousands of hectares of forest scorched and entire neighbourhoods razed, British Columbians are acutely aware of the damage left behind. At the same time, mill closures across the province due to dwindling timber supplies have compounded the challenges facing rural communities. As the province concludes a closely contested election this weekend, forestry management has taken somewhat of a back seat to issues like healthcare and housing in the media. Yet for those who live outside of Metro Vancouver, the policies shaping BC’s forests remain a matter of immediate concern.

Fire management and local response, or lack thereof

One such issue came to the forefront at a logging convention five years ago. John Rustad, now leader of the BC Conservatives, shared a story that underscored what he views as a critical failure in the province’s fire management approach.

“A fire started on a remote hillside, and the local logging crew was ready to respond,” he recounted in an exclusive interview with Coastal Front.

“These were trained workers, equipped and willing to act, but they were told by the fire service to hold off until official responders could assess the situation.”

As days passed, the fire continued to grow. By the fourth day, Rustad said, the crew had made multiple calls to the fire service, pleading for permission to intervene.

“They were told, ‘If you go up there, we’ll sue you.’ The ministry wanted an official assessment before anyone could act,” he explained.

By the time the fire service finally arrived on the seventh day, the fire had spread to over a thousand hectares.

“This was avoidable,” Rustad emphasized. “It didn’t have to escalate that way.”

Rustad sees this incident as emblematic of broader issues in BC’s fire management policies. He argues that centralized decision-making and regulatory delays have contributed to the scale of the wildfires that devastate the province each year. The BC Conservatives say they will work with contractors in the private sector and provide local communities with equipment to fight fires, although details remain vague.

“These people are often the first to spot a fire; they know the terrain,” he said.

“The current approach leaves us vulnerable and prevents communities from protecting their own backyards.”

However, Rustad’s focus on decentralizing fire management is not without its critics. Some question whether his push for a more community-based approach is genuinely aimed at enhancing local capacity or if it reflects a broader agenda favouring privatization. For the BC Conservatives, privatization and private sector involvement in public services is seen as a positive step toward efficiency and responsiveness. Rustad has consistently advocated for empowering private contractors and local responders, stating that this will reduce bureaucratic delays and give rural communities greater control over their own safety.

“The private sector can often respond more quickly and effectively than government alone,” Rustad said.

While the notion of empowering local responders resonates with rural communities, concerns persist over potential risks, such as a lack of accountability in the event of private sector mishandling of fire incidents. Moreover, while Rustad argues for a shift in authority, he offers limited specifics on how local teams would coordinate with provincial resources during larger-scale fires. Still, the concept has its appeal. Rustad has suggested stationing equipment like the Kootrac Fire Tracker, a nimble vehicle designed for rough terrain, around rural communities that can attack spot fires with a foam application system.

“Imagine every small town having the tools on hand to tackle fires before they grow,” he said. For Rustad, providing communities with these resources could improve initial response times, protecting both lives and livelihoods in remote areas.

Different approaches to herbicide use in forestry

While fire management remains a contentious issue, the use of chemical herbicides—specifically glyphosate—has also sparked debate. James Steidle, a BC Green Party candidate for Prince George-Mackenzie and founder of Stop the Spray BC, has long advocated against glyphosate spraying in BC’s forests. In an interview with Coastal Front, Steidle elaborated on the impact of glyphosate, a herbicide used to suppress the regrowth of broadleaf trees like aspen and birch in favour of conifers.

“Aspen trees, in particular, help keep the ground moist and act as natural firebreaks,” he explained.

“By wiping them out with glyphosate, we’re not only reducing biodiversity but also increasing our forests’ susceptibility to fire.”

Rustad also touched on glyphosate, acknowledging that while it may play a role in forest management, he questions the widespread reliance on chemical herbicides.

“There are places where using glyphosate just doesn’t make sense,” he said.

The BC Conservatives have pledged to ban aerial spraying of glyphosate but leave the door open for other forms of application, a stance that some critics, like Steidle, argue perpetuates the same environmental issues.

BC does not disclose backpack glyphosate spraying, which Steidle says remains common.

Health Canada has approved the use of other herbicides like triclopyr, but opponents argue that these chemicals can have long-lasting impacts on ecosystems and wildlife. Steidle warns that if glyphosate is simply replaced with similar herbicides, BC’s forests will continue to suffer.

“We need to move away from chemical interventions altogether,” he emphasized.

In areas where glyphosate has been sprayed, researchers have documented a marked decline in biodiversity. The herbicide eliminates broadleaf species, reducing food sources and habitats for wildlife like moose, deer, and birds.

Studies have shown that glyphosate can remain in the soil for years, affecting plant health and limiting the growth of new vegetation. This is of particular concern for First Nations who rely on forest ecosystems for traditional foods, medicines, and cultural practices. There’s also widely documented concerns about human reproductive health.

While Steidle was pleased to commend the Conservatives' progress on glyphosate, he emphasized that the BC Greens are the only party promising to ban not just glyphosate, but other chemical herbicides as well.

The BC NDP stated it will “phase out” glyphosate but didn’t provide a timeline or comment on other chemical herbicides. As noted, the BC Conservatives said they would ban aerial spraying of glyphosate but still allow backpack spraying and the use of other chemical herbicides.

Corporate influence and regulatory concerns

The role of large corporations in BC’s forestry sector has also drawn significant criticism. Steidle has highlighted the consequences of deregulation over the past two decades, particularly the elimination of appurtenancy rules that once required timber to be processed in local mills. Without these requirements, timber harvested in BC is often shipped out of the region, leaving communities without jobs or local economic benefits.

The elimination of appurtenancy rules was overseen by the former BC Liberal government under former Premier Gordon Campbell in the early 2000s.

Although Rustad wasn't in the legislature when the rules were initially removed, he later served as Minister of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations from 2013 to 2017 under then-premier Christy Clark, during a time when the effects of deregulation were being felt.

“We used to have a social contract with forestry companies: if you cut down the trees, you had to provide jobs in the community,” Steidle said.

“That’s been eroded, and now we’re seeing the impacts in mill closures and job losses.”

Steidle says decisions should be made closer to home.

“When communities are invested in their forests, they’re more likely to prioritize sustainable practices.”

Overhaul of stumpage system

Rustad and the BC Conservatives argue that the current stumpage system is partly to blame for the closure of sawmills, claiming that the outdated system, focused primarily on sawlogs, fails to adjust to changing market conditions, forcing mills out of business.

In BC, stumpage refers to the fees that logging companies pay to the provincial government for the right to harvest timber on Crown land. Essentially, it's a form of rent that companies pay to access public forests. This system has traditionally focused on the value of sawlogs—large, straight logs suitable for processing into high-value wood products like boards and beams used in construction.

The BC Conservatives’ proposed overhaul of the stumpage system would replace the current sawlog-focused approach with a value-added end-product tax. Rustad argues that this reform would incentivize companies to make better use of harvested timber and encourage investment in local processing.

For example, not all trees harvested can be classified as sawlogs. There are also smaller logs, branches, and other wood with less immediate economic value that can still be used for purposes like producing wood chips, paper, or bioenergy.

“The core review will identify all unnecessary costs and red tape which have resulted in BC shipping forestry jobs to other provinces and the US. We will make sure the industry is competitive enough to ship products again, not jobs,” reads the BC Conservatives’ platform.

“Encouraging the use of wood fibre in power generation and other secondary applications will create new revenue streams for the industry and government, protecting jobs and realizing the highest possible value per log.”

However, some argue that BC's forestry crisis is not due to bureaucratic delays but rather a shortage of accessible, economically viable timber. Factors such as over-logging, the impacts of wildfires, and the lasting effects of the mountain pine beetle infestation have reduced the available supply. Companies like Canfor have begun shifting operations outside BC, citing resource scarcity.

NDP’s Forestry Strategy Faces Criticism for Delayed Action

In the run-up to the provincial election, Premier David Eby and the BC NDP promised to address the forestry sector's mounting challenges through policy changes aimed at sustainability, job creation, and conservation. Their platform highlights plans to increase value-added manufacturing, restrict raw log exports, and shift mills to processing second-growth timber instead of old-growth forests. They also aim to improve timber access by reviewing BC Timber Sales and stumpage fees.

However, despite these promises, critics argue that the NDP has been slow to act on its 2020 plan for forestry reform, which has seen little progress. The plan outlined 14 actions for a “paradigm shift” in managing old-growth logging, focusing on treating these forests as non-renewable and prioritizing ecosystem health. However, after four years, the government claims it has advanced only two of the recommendations: involving indigenous leaders and deferring logging in high-risk old-growth areas until a new strategy is in place.

While the NDP’s approach claims to focus on long-term investments, some suggest that the government’s policies do not go far enough in addressing immediate concerns around fire management and herbicide use. Advocacy groups have raised concerns about transparency in the NDP’s forestry decisions, particularly regarding the ongoing use of glyphosate and the influence of corporate interests. “We need accountability and public involvement in decisions that impact BC’s forests,” said a statement from Forest Ethics.

As the election concludes, the debate over forestry policies highlights differing priorities among the parties. Put simply, the NDP’s focus on large-scale, long-term investments aims to balance conservation and economic growth, but it doesn't adequately address immediate concerns like wildfire management and chemical herbicide use. The BC Conservatives, for example, advocate for community-led wildfire response and reforms to the stumpage system, though questions remain about how these approaches will be implemented. Meanwhile, the Greens emphasize a strong conservation stance, including stricter protections for old-growth forests and a blanket ban on chemical herbicide spraying.