Boundary Forest

09/04/2026

The New Forest Act isn’t just proposing different forestry practices, and this is another difference from the current approach. We're not just proposing greater community involvement or additional scientific advice within the existing governance structure. Under the NFA, the governance structure itself changes. Decision-making is moves closer to the regions through Local Forest Boards. Independent provincial oversight is provided by a Forester General. And Regional Science Panels and Indigenous Knowledge Panels have formal roles within the decision-making framework.

So this is more than consultation or participation. It changes where decisions are made, who is involved in making them, and the framework within which those decisions must be made. Provincial government still establishes the legislation, standards, and overall direction, but considerably more authority and accountability reside at the regional level.

Read the proposal: https://boundaryforest.org/

09/03/2026

The New Forest Act is organized around a simple spatial framework: Protect – Restore – Harvest. Rather than asking every hectare to serve the same purpose, different parts of the landscape receive different forms of management.

Protect areas maintain primary forests and critical ecological functions. Restore areas are previously disturbed lands managed for recovery of forest structure, hydrology, and ecological function. Harvest areas remain working forests, where timber production continues within ecological limits.

The framework is designed so that these three functions work together as one integrated system rather than competing with one another. It isn't based on managing every forest the same way. It's based on managing each landscape according to what it is capable of sustaining.

Read it here: https://boundaryforest.org/

09/02/2026

Last week, government announced the new Working Forest Landscape Model. We were interested to see the move toward an integrated, landscape-level approach and, of course, a three-zone model. There are differences between the government's model and the New Forest Act, but there are also areas of common ground. One aspect we appreciate is government's recognition that British Columbia needs to think more broadly about ecosystem function and long-term stewardship. The New Forest Act approaches that same challenge by asking what the legislative framework itself should look like. We believe we share many long-term objectives, even where our approaches differ.

The government planning processes sit inside the current system that is ruled by volume-targets and tenures. The New Forest Act sits at a different level. It isn't another initiative operating within the existing legislative framework. It proposes changing the framework itself. It asks what the underlying legislation should require those planning processes to achieve. So we see considerable potential for the New Forest Act to complement and inform the work government is already undertaking.

Read it here: https://boundaryforest.org/

09/01/2026

The government’s new three-zone forest model may sound similar to the New Forest Act’s Protect–Restore–Harvest system. It isn’t. The essential difference is what comes first.

The government starts with a timber-production objective and divides the landscape into zones around it.

The New Forest Act starts with ecological limits: protect what must remain intact, restore what has been damaged, and then determine where and how much harvesting the land can sustain.

That is the difference between zoning the existing forestry system and replacing it with a different system.

The NFA doesn’t just change the zones on the map. It changes the rules that determine what happens on the map.

Read the NFA: https://boundaryforest.org/

09/01/2026

Over the past several years, we've worked with scientists, retired foresters, and rural British Columbians to develop what we believe is a practical legislative framework for the future of forest management in BC.

Read it here: https://boundaryforest.org/

08/31/2026

Government is developing new planning processes, including Forest Landscape Plans and now the Working Forest Landscape Model. We developed the New Forest Act framework which sits at a different level. It isn't another initiative operating within the existing legislative framework. It proposes changing the framework itself. It asks what the underlying legislation should require those planning processes to achieve. So we see considerable potential for the New Forest Act to complement and inform the work government is already undertaking.

This Wednesday, September 2, we're meeting with BC Ministers Parmar and Neill to introduce the New Forest Act framework. You can read about it here: https://boundaryforest.org/

08/31/2026

The government has just announced its own three-zone forest model and superficially that can sound very similar to Protect–Restore–Harvest. It isn't.

The fundamental difference is what comes first. Under the government's model, the existing forestry system remains in place. There is still a designated timber-production land base, with the Working Forest intended to contribute to a provincial harvest of 45 million cubic metres a year. Forestry continues in the Multiple-Use Zone. And the Conservation and Protection Zone would incorporate commitments government has already made through 30-by-30 and the Old Growth Action Plan.

So the government starts with the existing forestry system and its timber volume objective, and draws three zones within it. And critically, those zones operate under the existing forestry legislation. The Forest Act and Forest and Range Practices Act remain the legal machinery underneath the map.

For our framework, Protect–Restore–Harvest does not sit on top of that existing machinery. The New Forest Act replaces it.

The New Forest Act starts at the opposite end from where the current system does. We do not begin by deciding how much timber we want and then ask where we can get it. We begin by asking what the forest and watershed can ecologically sustain.

Primary forests and other areas that must remain intact are protected. Degraded forests that need ecological recovery are placed in restoration with no logging happening there. Only after those decisions are made do we determine where logging can occur - and the harvest is whatever volume can be produced within those ecological limits - so the ecological constraints come first. There is no predetermined provincial harvest volume target.

So these aren't two versions of the same three-zone idea. In the government's model, timber production remains a starting objective and the landscape is organized around it.

In the NFA, ecological integrity is the starting requirement, and timber production has to fit inside it.

That's the paradigm change. The government's proposal changes what the map looks like on paper. The New Forest Act changes the rules that determine what happens on the ground and that in turn determines what the map looks like.

Read the New Forest Act proposal here: https://boundaryforest.org/

08/30/2026

BC has announced a “new” three-zone forest model. But there’s very little new about it. Mostly, it’s new labels on a map. The problem hasn’t changed: the government’s three zones leave the underlying forestry system intact....

BC has announced a “new” three-zone forest model. But there’s very little new about it. Mostly, it’s new labels on a map. The problem hasn’t changed: the government’s three zones leave the … Continue reading Changing the Map Doesn’t Change the System: BC Government’s New Forest P...

08/28/2026

Thank you to Rob Botterell, MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, for meeting with Jennifer Houghton, Campaign Director for the New Forest Act. We appreciated the opportunity to discuss the New Forest Act, and Rob’s thoughtful engagement, questions, and insights. Thank you for taking the time to hear about the proposal and discuss the future of forestry in BC.

08/28/2026

BC announces a “new” three-zone forest model. But what, exactly, is new? Answer: nothing, except some new labels on a map. The central problem is that the government’s three zones do not change the underlying forestry paradigm.

They organize the existing industrial system spatially while explicitly protecting a timber-production land base and a 45-million-m³ harvest target. Last year’s actual cut was 30-35 million m3.

It’s not reform. The fundamentals of BC forestry remain unchanged.

The Multiple-Use Zone doesn't necessarily protect forests. The government explicitly says forestry will continue there, including forestry activities carried out in the name of wildfire risk reduction, restoration, and “forest health.”

And the Conservation and Protection Zone is tied to the government’s existing commitment to protect 30% of BC’s land base by 2030 and its existing Old Growth Action Plan. Are they just going to slap a 'protected' label over land they would never have logged anyways?

In essence, this is a new map laid over the existing forestry system.

There is no commitment to protect all remaining primary forests.
There is no commitment to end clearcutting.
There is no requirement that ecological limits determine how much can be logged.
There is no reform of the tenure system that gives corporations enormous control over public forests.

There is no requirement to restore previously logged and roaded landscapes without extracting more timber from them.

And there is no change to the fundamental objective of maintaining a predetermined timber supply.

The New Forest Act also proposes three categories - Protect, Restore, Harvest - but the similarity ends there.

By contrast, the NFA's PRH starts with ecological limits, protects primary forests, restores degraded lands without logging, and permits harvesting only on previously disturbed lands where ecological thresholds allow.

PROTECT: Primary forests are protected from industrial logging and road building.

RESTORE: Degraded, previously logged landscapes are restored. They are not treated as another source of timber under the label of “restoration.”

HARVEST: Logging occurs on previously disturbed lands using partial cutting, continuous forest cover, and retention and only where ecological thresholds allow it.

Most importantly, the amount logged is not decided first and then the landscape arranged to supply it.

The ecological capacity of the land comes first. The harvest must fit within it.

That is the fundamental reform BC needs.

After decades of declining timber supply, mill closures, lost forestry jobs, damaged watersheds, biodiversity loss, and increasing public costs from floods, fires, and drought, re-labeling the existing system into three zones will not solve the underlying problem.

Changing the map is not the same thing as changing forest management.

BC needs legislation that makes ecological integrity the governing priority - not another planning process designed around maintaining timber supply.

Read the government news release here: https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2026FOR0033-000989

Read the New Forest Act proposal here: https://boundaryforest.org/the-new-forest-act-proposal/