Case Study | Gallery | Maps

A Clear-cut Case Study

Summary

Recent documents from Canada provide clear-cut evidence that Weyerhaeuser has grossly violated the legal, social and ecological commitments that allow them to log on public lands in the province of Saskatchewan. In the Pasquia-Porcupine forest area, Weyerhaeuser’s own documents show that the company has exceeded its legal 20-year all-season road building allowance by 70% in just 5 years. Now the company is requesting an increase of 250km in road-building that would more than triple the impacts of road construction. Meanwhile, in Saskatchewan’s Prince Albert forest area, Weyerhaeuser has chronically ignored concerns of a community board representing area residents. In spite of this illegal and destructive behavior, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) still certifies Weyerhaeuser’s operations as “sustainable forestry”. Local citizens are outraged, [1,2] and the Saskatchewan Environmental Society has retained Sierra Legal Defence Fund to appeal Weyerhaeuser’s certification. Read on for the details of our Clear-cut Case Study.

The Boreal Forest

Pasquia Porcupine Forest Management Agreement (FMA)

Forest Management Plan

Weyerhaeuser’s Pasquia-Porcupine FMA spans a staggering 20,000 square km in the threatened southern fringe of the Boreal Forest—an area larger than the state Connecticut. A pact between Weyerhaeuser and the Saskatchewan Government allows Weyerhaeuser to log on public lands in the Pasquia-Porcupine as long as they adhere to the terms of the 1999 20-year Forest Management Plan which restricts Weyerhaeuser’s operations within legal parameters. [3]

The agreement requires Weyerhaeuser to minimize its impact on delicate boreal soils by logging more in the winter, when the ground is frozen, and limits the building of all-season roads that fragment habitat and encroach on ecologically sensitive areas. [4] When the agreement was originally considered, reviewers pointed to “the commitment to minimize permanent all-season road construction as a real positive benefit of the proposed [plan].” [5] The benefits, unfortunately, would not be realized.

Violations

Five years into the 20-year agreement, government documents show that Weyerhaeuser grossly violated their Forest Management Plan for the Pasquia-Porcupine. On May 21, 2001 the Saskatchewan Government notified Weyerhaeuser of “the need to obtain Ministerial approvals for changes to a ‘development’ pursuant to The [Environmental Assessment] Act prior to proceeding with those changes.” [6,7] In spite of that mandate Weyerhaeuser proceeded to routinely operate outside of the plan without approval, ignoring the regulations intended to limit the company’s damage.

As early as August 28th 2003, the Saskatchewan Government “expressed concern relating to non-compliance with commitments made in the 20-yr [plan].” [6] Several information requests were made, and Environmental Impact Assessment reports were required, but Weyerhaeuser failed to produce many of them.

In November 2004 Weyerhaeuser finally submitted a “Change in Development Proposal”—three years after the violations had occurred. The proposal sought retroactive approval to double summer harvest levels and more than triple all-season road-building allowances to a total of 417 km. [8]

The government’s response was scathing. Mr. Larry Lechner, Director of the Environmental Assessment Branch, wrote that

“[company data] demonstrates a clear non-compliance with Ministerial Approval issued pursuant to The EA Act with the last year 2003/2004 being the worst by nearly doubling the activity in ‘summer’ conditions.” [5]

On road-building he explained that

“Ministerial Approval directed the proponent to provide an overall Access Management Plan for the life of the Forest Management Plan. This report has never been delivered for the original 100 km [road] network, the proponent has now exceeded the proposed levels by 70% and are requesting a combined increase that would more than triple the impacts of road construction on the FMA.” [5]

He goes on to say that “[a]dditional all-season road construction in the FMA is likely being conducted in violation.” [5]

Prince Albert Forest Management Agreement (FMA)

Forest Management Plan

In October 2000, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society commented on Weyerhaeuser’s Management Plan for the 3 million hectare Prince Albert FMA. They warned that “the driving force behind Weyerhaeuser's Plan is a dramatic [2.5 fold] increase in harvest pressure. This increase in harvest pressure and the plan to implement it, threaten to destroy the forest ecosystems as we currently know them.” They noted that “[t]he combined effects of habitat change and road impacts are of special concern for the scattered small bands of woodland caribou that remain within the forest management area.” Equally disturbing was the observation that “[d]uring the public consultation at Weyerhaeuser co-management meetings, local people were unable to influence what they wanted in their area. Weyerhaeuser could veto anything they wanted, anytime.” [9]

Violations

As could be expected, Weyerhaeuser’s reckless behavior has lead to conflicts with local residents. On January 31st 2005 frustrated residents of the Dore-Smoothstone Lakes area set up a barricade on a public highway “to stop all log truck and low boy traffic, until safety concerns and four season road questions are addressed.” [10] Only then did Weyerhaeuser begin to address acute safety problems, but many fundamental issues remain unresolved.

The Local-Co Management Development Board for the Dore-Smoothstone Lakes Area represents the interests of local residents to Weyerhaeuser and the Provincial Forest Service. They raised concerns about public safety, loss of roadless areas, damage to culturally important areas, habitat loss, wildlife disruption, protection of fish habitat, logging in riparian zones, and local economic stability. [11,12] They write that they “have documents of non-compliance of [Weyerhaeuser] back as far as 1995… As the documents have shown, these same issues have been ongoing since the beginning of the presence of Weyerhaeuser in this province, and their track record is the same as in other areas of Canada and the US where Weyerhaeuser operates.” [13]

In a letter to the Saskatchewan Minister of Environment on May 23, 2005, the Board explains that

We believe that if some one or some officials do not get this company under control in the very near future, it will be too late for the total environment of Northern Saskatchewan as we know it. The evidence is very clear to see if people get away from their desks and out in the forestlands...This land and the people of this area have been over exploited for too long. [13]

The wood from Weyerhaeuser’s destructive logging is used to make products that supply the US market. For instance, trees logged in this area go to Weyerhaeuser’s Prince Albert Mill which produces copy paper for Xerox. [14]

Certified Deception

Weyerhaeuser’s flagrant and continued disregard for public input, ecological integrity, and even for the law begs the question of how Weyerhaeuser’s operations remain certified under the Canadian Standards Association system, supposedly a mark of sustainable forestry. [15] As the Director of the Saskatchewan Government’s Environmental Assessment Branch writes “Did Weyerhaeuser’s Environmental Management System (ISO/CSA) not alert Weyerhaeuser to the pending Environmental Assessment Approval violation? Did the independent auditors not identify these pending violations as a concern to Weyerhaeuser?” [5]

Even though Weyerhaeuser’s own Annual Operating Plan for the 2004/2005 season “included a number of proposed approaches/activities which do not appear to comply with the [Environmental Assessment] Ministerial approval,” [6] the CSA still failed to enforce Weyerhaeuser’s compliance.

Clearly a system which certifies as sustainable an operation that is consistently violating the law, ignoring public concerns, and breaking ecological guidelines cannot be a very meaningful guide for consumers. As Allyson Brady of the Saskatchewan Environmental Society explains “the CSA framework contains no specific criteria and indicators. By allowing industry to set their own bar the CSA fails to guarantee even minimal forest management practices. The Forest Stewardship Council is the only meaningful certification system that is trusted by industry, environmental groups, communities and consumers.”

The Sierra Legal Defence Fund is filing a complaint regarding Weyerhaeuser’s CSA/ISO certification for the Pasquia-Porcupine area due to apparent legal non-compliance. [16,17] Devon Page, staff lawyer at Sierra Legal Defence Fund explains, “these documents suggest that Weyerhaeuser is operating in contravention of Saskatchewan’s environmental laws—we intend to hold them accountable by challenging their CSA/ISO certification.”

Weyerhaeuser: Clear-cutting the Canadian Boreal One Cut Block at a Time

“The people of Saskatchewan expect their forests to be managed in a prudent way that protects ecological integrity and provides economic stability for the benefit of current and future generations” says Brant Olson of the Rainforest Action Network. “Instead Weyerhaeuser is plundering the forests for short-term profits without even adhering to the laws of the land. This is typical of Weyerhaeuser’s short-sighted behavior around the globe.”

Weyerhaeuser’s chronic disregard for the ecosystems and communities in which they operate in is staggering. And yet the company still publicly claims that “Weyerhaeuser also meets, or exceeds, forest management standards set by government for these publicly owned forests.” [18] In light of the strong evidence presented here, such claims can only be called bold-faced lies. Once again, Weyerhaeuser has exposed themselves as an untrustworthy company built on socially and ecologically destructive practices. The forest and its peoples demand and deserve better.