Common use of Harvest flow Clause in Contracts

Harvest flow. Large timber volumes in older forests often enable a variety of short-term harvesting levels without jeopardising the long-term sustainable timber supply. These alternative harvest flows may have a decline to a long-term level, an even flow or step up to a long- term level or even a decline to a level below the long-term before stepping up to the long- term level. For the IFPA review analysis, I requested several alternative harvest flows to aid in understanding the dynamics of the timber supply. These included non-declining and declining harvest flows. The chief forester in his memo on timber supply analysis methodology suggested selecting, if relevant, a ‘base case’ harvest flow that reflects the harvest flow used in the Timber Supply Review base case. In the recent Kamloops TSA timber supply review, the timber supply analysis base case for conventional harvest showed a harvest flow with only a 5% decline between the short-term and the long-term. Consistent with advice in the chief forester's memo on timber supply analysis methodology, I will use non-declining harvest flows for assessing the timber supply impact of innovative practices. I make this choice because the Kamloops TSA timber supply review base case closely approximates an even-flow forecast. Further, I feel that a comparison of this non-declining harvest flow with the non-declining harvest flow that includes the innovative practices reduces the risks to long-term sustainability because the risk of an over-estimate of a short-term AAC increase, that might result solely from the manipulation of harvest flow in later periods, is reduced. Nevertheless, I recognise that a harvest flow at the TSA-level cannot always be mimicked at a sub-unit level. There may be trade-offs at different time periods between sub-units that enable a greater harvest flow at the TSA-level. For the IFPA area, given that the negotiation of operating areas did not use timber supply analysis methodologies, it would be unlikely that the harvest flow would match exactly the TSA harvest flow. I will discuss this factor further under ‘Impacts on other licensees’.

Harvest flow. Large timber volumes in older forests often enable a variety of short-term harvesting levels without jeopardising the long-term sustainable timber supply. These alternative harvest flows may have a decline to a long-term level, an even flow or step up to a long- term level or even a decline to a level below the long-term before stepping up to the long- term level. For the IFPA review analysis, I requested several alternative harvest flows to aid in understanding the dynamics of the timber supply. These included non-declining and declining harvest flows. The chief forester in his memo on timber supply analysis methodology suggested selecting, if relevant, a ‘base case’ harvest flow that reflects the harvest flow used in the Timber Supply Review base case. In the recent Kamloops TSA timber supply review, the timber supply analysis base case for conventional harvest showed a harvest flow with only a 5% decline between the short-term and the long-term. Consistent with advice in the chief forester▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇'s memo on timber supply analysis methodology, I will use non-declining harvest flows for assessing the timber supply impact of innovative practices. I make this choice because the Kamloops TSA timber supply review base case closely approximates an even-flow forecast. Further, I feel that a comparison of this non-declining harvest flow with the non-declining harvest flow that includes the innovative practices reduces the risks to long-term sustainability because the risk of an over-estimate of a short-term AAC increase, that might result solely from the manipulation of harvest flow in later periods, is reduced. Nevertheless, I recognise that a harvest flow at the TSA-level cannot always be mimicked at a sub-unit level. There may be trade-offs at different time periods between sub-units that enable a greater harvest flow at the TSA-level. For the IFPA area, given that the negotiation of operating areas did not use timber supply analysis methodologies, it would be unlikely that the harvest flow would match exactly the TSA harvest flow. I will discuss this factor further under ‘Impacts on other licensees’.