Friends of Clayoquot Sound Provide Update
6/22/99
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
Title: CLAYOQUOT UPDATE
Source: Friends Of Clayoquot Sound, Contact FOCS for more information
(250) 725-4218
Status: Distribute freely with credit given to source
Date: June 22, 1999
Byline: Sergio Paone
As with most of you, the Friends Of Clayoquot Sound also responded with great
concern at yesterdays announcement that Weyerhauser is eating MacBlo.
It no doubt puts into question many of the commitments that MacBlo has been
making in the last year or so. If Weyerhauser chooses not to honour these
commitments (which would be a stupid thing for them to do) they will no doubt
feel our collective wrath. It also adds a new dimension to the privatization of
public lands issue and specifically the recent MacBlo land transfer deal.
However, there is something that is being lost in all the recent news about the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between MacBlo, First Nations and 4
environmental groups, and now this corporate concentration deal. What about
INTERFOR? Frankly, the Friends Of Clayoquot Sound are more concerned right now
with INTERFOR than we are about Weyerhauser.
2/3 of Clayoquot Sound is controlled by MacMillan Bloedel (now Weyerhauser). The
other 1/3 is controlled by INTERFOR. INTERFOR has not signed a Memorandum of
Understanding. They have recently put forward a new forest development plan that
calls for 52 new cutblocks on most of their Clayoquot land tenure (they are
asking for 135,000 cubic metres from Clayoquot each year for the next three).
They are also asking the Clayoquot Planning Committee to complete their plans
for the Sydney valley, a pristine valley in Clayoquot for which INTERFOR has
most of the land tenure. This is one pristine valley that is not protected by
the MOU.
The above points should be kept in mind before there is any more talk of 'the
end of blockades in Clayoquot', or 'the end of years of controversy'.
While this might be true with respect to the new joint venture company (we will
of course have to monitor and see if it will work out that way), it isn't yet
true for Clayoquot as a whole. Although this complicates things, it is reality
and we must tell people that. For FOCS, it makes recruiting help much more
difficult if people think the issue here is solved. INTERFOR was blockaded on
Clayoquot's Catface Mountain for an entire month just this past October. They
eventually left the mountain when the rainy season hit and are now saying they
may go back soon (their last statement said June or July). They currently have
three road building permits and 4 cut-blocks approved on Catface. Just a few
days ago, we saw a barge loaded with constuction equipment heading out into
Clayoquot. We are currently checking to see if this was INTERFOR's and if it was
headed for Catface.
With respect to the MOU;
While FOCS acknowledges that the MOU takes some important steps forward, we
could not sign the deal because it falls short of what is acceptable to us and
our supporters. We couldn't sign because
* While the phase-out of old-growth logging is mentioned in the deal,
there is no time-line attached to it. For an undetermined length of time the MOU
will sanction the logging of old-growth, with enviros promoting the products.
FOCS cannot accept any logging of old-growth regardless of who is doing it.
* MacBlo (now Weyerhauser) is already using the MOU for public relations
in the market place. While MacBlo (Weyerhauser) may do some 'state of the art'
logging in Clayoquot, their activities elswhere leave a lot to be desired. A lot
of good PR over Clayoquot could mask their other unacceptable activities.