UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

Royal Commission and Forest Policy in British Columbia: A Review of the Pearse Report

Identification

Clé publique

doi:10.2307/3549538

Auteurs

John A. Gray

Année déclarée

1977

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

2026-11-09T19:14:00.913292+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-09T19:14:00.913292+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

Historically, Royal Commissions have come to play a significant role in the formulation of forest policy in British Columbia. The report of the Pearse Commission, Timber Rights and Forest Policy in British Columbia, released in late 1976, offers the prospect of another significant turning point in forest policy, if its recommendations are accepted by the Provincial Government. However, whether the recommendations will be adopted is in doubt; first because the Commission has spanned a change of provincial government, from NDP to Social Credit; and second because its major policy recommendations seek to reduce the forest-tenure rights of the more powerful segments of the forest industry. The Commission's recommendations to introduce flexibility into the tenure system by reducing the almost perpetual security of timber supply to holders of Tree Farm Licences and of 'quotas' in Public Sustained Yield Units are likely to draw the fire of what has become a highly concentrated industry. Its recommendations to increase competition in the bidding for timber are also likely to suffer the same firepower. While these recommendations may provide some gains in efficiency, especially over the longer term, they are largely concerned with income distribution questions, between government and the private sector, and among firms within the forest industry. Other suggested changes are more likely to meet with approval from the current government and from industry. These are aimed at simplifying and streamlining forest policy and administration. Forest-policy issues, like other policy issues, are usefully analysed from two perspectives, from that of resource allocation or efficiency, and from that of distribution or equity. Recommendations involving efficiency gains are usually more likely to gain acceptance. Those involving distribution are more intractable.

Identifiants

OPENALEX

W2027047966

DOI

10.2307/3549538

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

Doctrine

Types déclarés par les sources

article

Entités naturelles mentionnées

Forêt

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1 · Document 2

• DOI · https://doi.org/10.2307/3549538
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W2027047966

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.