BC Timber Pricing Equity – Time To Recognize The Tradeoffs Between Tabular Rates and Transformational Change

An Editorial Opinion – Right From The Stump, July 9, 2026

Five years after the Modernizing Forest Policy in BC paper signalled the province’s intention to address the “disparity” in stumpage rates among Woodlot Licences (WLs), Community Forest Agreements (CFAs), and First Nation Woodland Licences (FNWLs), the issue remains unresolved. The question should not simply be whether all these tenure types should use tabular rates; rather how British Columbia should fund transformational change in forest management

The following post was first published as an article in the June 2026 View From The Stump newsletter – are you a subscriber?

A snapshot of 2025 harvest volumes and revenues make the disparity clear:

In 2025, CFAs and WLs paid substantially lower stumpage on harvested timber than FNWLs, whose rates were more comparable to major tenures such as Tree Farm Licences and Forest Licences.

CFAs, WLs, and FNWLs represent a relatively small share of the province’s total harvest – less than 13% in 2025 by volume and only 4% of total harvest revenues (major tenures and BCTS make up the rest).

While CFAs and WLs use tabular rates, stumpage for FNWLs is determined using the appraisal approach and revenue sharing. All three tenure types are area-based and, at least in principle, are meant to support a more locally intense form of forest stewardship than typical industrial forestry.

That distinction matters. If lower stumpage is simply treated as a revenue loss to government, the debate will remain stuck. If it is treated as a policy tool to secure measurable stewardship, wildfire resilience, and community stability, the discussion becomes far more productive.

In terms of softwood lumber trade concerns, lower stumpage should not be confused with lower log prices.

For CFAs and WLs, lower stumpage generally reflects the additional costs and obligations associated with local stewardship. Those investments should offset much of the apparent benefit of lower rates. Lower stumpage does not translate into lower log prices: sellers still have to recover their costs, and log prices are ultimately set by the market, not by the tenure-specific stumpage rate.

One reason tabular rates are offered to CFAs and WLs is to reflect the challenges of economies of scale. The following table highlights the size differences among the three tenure types in terms of allowable annual cut (AAC):

FNWLs raise a different policy question. First Nations organizations hold all three tenure types, but FNWLs are specifically intended to recognize First Nations’ asserted interests in land and resources, including traditional use practices and the harvesting and management of non-timber forest products. If higher appraisal-based stumpage makes it harder for FNWL holders to pursue those objectives, then it is understandable that First Nations would look to the tabular rates available to CFAs and WLs as a more effective model.

Tabular rates tend to be lower, but it should be noted that is not always the case. There are other benefits including significantly lower administrative burden and most importantly, optionality that appraisal-based stumpage does not permit, such as flexibility to modify a harvest plan – the decision can be made in real time with no need to revisit the appraisal.

Recent reporting in the Tree Frog News suggests the BC government is now taking another run at this timber pricing issue.

That renewed interest is likely driven by more than just lobbying from FNWL holders seeking more favourable rates. Government has broader reasons to revisit the issue, including community forest expansion, reconciliation commitments, a major wildfire resiliency effort and pressure on provincial revenues.

The first pressure point is community forest expansion. The Ministry of Forests’ mandate letter calls for expanding the community forest program to “secure a more sustainable future for First Nations and communities.” One practical way to increase the AAC available to CFAs would be to convert Forest Licences (FLs), whether purchased by communities or acquired through other means.

Those conversions would reduce direct provincial stumpage revenues. Yet the scale matters. Given the size of the community forest program at 2.2 million m³ of AAC, even doubling that entire AAC would have less than a net $20 million direct impact, based on 2025 data. Considering the well-documented stewardship successes of many CFAs, expanding the program should be a defensible policy choice—notwithstanding lower stumpage revenue.

FNWLs present the larger fiscal and policy challenge. Although FNWLs currently account for only 1.6 million m³ of AAC, Lenny Joe, CEO of the First Nations Forestry Council, said at the Truck Loggers Convention last January that First Nations’ forest tenure holdings of all types have grown to more than 12 million m³. From my own experience valuing tenure for First Nations clients, several want to convert their volume-based Forest Licences into area-based FNWLs.

That increasing trend in First Nations-controlled tenure explains the province’s caution. If First Nations-controlled AAC continues to grow as expected to well above 20%, and if FLs were convert to FNWLs, and if FNWLs were to use tabular rates, this scenario could place meaningful downward pressure on stumpage revenues.

Given the province’s growing debt and the Ministry of Forests’ operating budget deficits, accepting further revenue reductions are not attractive. But revenue optimization can no longer be the central objective of forest policy.

As indicated by the recommendations from BCTS Review, together with recent Bill 14 changes intended to promote greater forest stewardship by BCTS, the government is expecting more from forest management than just timber revenue alone.

At the same time, there needs to be significantly greater investment to improve wildfire resilience in surrounding forests.

The better approach is to stop treating equity reform in rates as a narrow revenue problem and start treating it as a performance bargain. If tenure holders want access to tabular rates instead of higher appraisal-based rates, they should be prepared to commit to measurable stewardship outcomes. Many CFAs have already shown this possible as have several WLs.

Investments to raise the bar on forest stewardship has real costs. If the province wants more of it, tenure holders need a durable way to fund that effort rather than relying on ad hoc programs such as FESBC.

For FNWLs and other area-based tenures, one option would be to set clear targets for self-funded stand investments around communities, especially where wildfire resilience is a priority. All parties could benefit from reduced appraisal complexity and lower administrative demands, along with more consistent harvesting, and stronger stewardship commitments.

That is the trade-off those at the policy table should be debating. Tabular rates should not be viewed as a giveaway, nor should they be dismissed as a loss of revenue. They should be designed as a trade-off: more flexible administration of pricing and potentially lower rates in exchange for measurable stewardship gains, wildfire resilience, and community benefits. Not all holders of CFAs, WLs and FNWLs are equal performers, but if they want tabular rates, they should be prepared to earn them. And if government wants to continue to promote transformation, it must be prepared to price forest policy accordingly.

The next question is what does measurable stewardship gains look like? That’s a discussion for a future newsletter.

For more opinion and industry analysis, it will all be in the July 2026 View From The Stump newsletter coming out later in July.

To read these posts from Right From The Stump CLICK HERE

To support research-based commentary like this, please subscribe to the View From The Stump newsletter CLICK HERE

To receive notification of blog and newsletter publications, provide your email CLICK HERE

For speaking engagements or strategic advice please contact the Spar Tree Group.

Written By David Elstone, RPF

Publisher, View From The Stump newsletter

Managing Director, Spar Tree Group Inc.

david@spartreegroup.com