 |
|
We will be posting articles here from our
board and general members. Please contact
us if you would like to submit an article for consideration.
Mountain Pine Beetle
Issue Paper
By Ray Travers
Introduction
A mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic is occurring throughout the range of British Columbia’s lodgepole pine forests. This is the consequence of many factors including an abundance of susceptible mature pine, a series of mild winters, large variations in beetle population cycles, and a lack of priority harvest of pine. By 2005, the epidemic extended over 8.7 million hectares and killed about 450 million cubic metres of pine – this is equivalent to 6 years of logging for all species over the whole province. By 2013, it is projected that 80 percent of the volume of all lodgepole pine in BC may be killed.
Our MPB Issue Paper addresses the problem by asking key questions that need answers, so that a high level of forest stewardship can be maintained during and after the epidemic.
The Problem
The magnitude and severity of this outbreak is a consequence of weather conditions that favoured growth and spread of the beetle, plus a forest management system that failed to detect and adapt to the lodgepole pine forests increasing susceptibility to MPB attack.
The Issues
- MPB as a natural agent of forest renewal
- Large areas of susceptible pine throughout the Interior
- Fire exclusion by suppression practices over the past 50 years
- Limited harvesting of the smaller diameter pine in the past
- Slow response by agencies and companies to the spread
- Focus on managing the beetle vs managing the pine
- Ineffective forest stewardship: policy, planning and management
- Short and long term economic and social impacts on forest communities
The Questions
- How do MPB forest managers define stewardship? forest health?
- What is the difference between the failed MPB ‘control strategy’ of the past and what is being done now? Does the current strategy manage the pine or the beetle?
- In the absence of a major disturbance event like insects, disease, fire or logging, which species would likely replace the early-successional lodgepole pine?
- Is ground-truthing consistently carried out to validate the aerial observations of attacked stands? Is the MPB epidemic data reported by annual tree kill per hectare? What distinction is made between cumulative area attacked and the annual increase?
- Is there a ‘front’? If so, is this different from the general location of present attack?
- Is advanced regeneration with late-successional species (eg. spruce, fir) purposefully protected in pine salvage harvesting programs?
- When is fire hazard (ground, crown) lowest and highest in a pine forest? Dense young stand? Dead standing? What management practices minimize this hazard?
- Is the MPB susceptibility rating commonly used to detect and rate stands in advance, that may be attacked? If so, is it effective? If not, why not?
- Has accelerated logging of green trees been effective? Is this salvage logging? What is the annual value saved? What percentage is billed at salvage vs sawlog stumpage rates?
- What ecological guidelines are being used? Are they effective? Why or why not? Is it important to leave dead wood (standing or on the ground) for productivity?
- Was logging of susceptible pine carried out before the epidemic? If so, how much? If not, has this contributed to the losses? Were all species in the profile being logged?
- What silvicultural practices are applied to ‘beetle-proof’ the lodgepole pine stands? Will future stands be more or less susceptible to the MPB than past and present stands?
- Is the growth response of the non-killed trees being measured? Has this increase compensated for the lost volumes?
Taking Effective Action
Meaningful answers to these questions (and others) are essential for prescribing policies and procedures that will maintain lodgepole pine forests in a vigorous condition - diverse in species, age, size and condition. Positive impact policies and practices, where the MPB is endemic, will help to maintain forest productivity, minimize losses in merchantable timber, and sustain a more regular flow of environmental, economic and social benefits to forests and forest communities. Effective forest legislation and policies, and a corresponding forest management system, are required that are far more appropriate and enforceable than we have seen in the past.
Log Export Review
Submission to Provincial Review Panel
by Harry Drage
Thank you for the opportunity to participate with the review of BC log export policies. We hope that our comments will contribute to changes to enable increased effectiveness.
With the globalization of today’s wood products markets, and supply and demand complexities, log exports has become a more complicated topic than ever. This makes it difficult to focus on the simple basics of the debate – is the export of logs good for BC?
The Forests Society believes there are several key questions that should be answered:
- Is it our intent to manufacture all or most logs within BC?
- What are the volumes of logs exported now? Is this acceptable?
- Do log export policies allow both sellers and buyers to receive a fair price?
- Do we advantage BC communities, processing facilities and employment?
- Is log waste avoided, utilization optimized, manufacturing diversity encouraged?
- Is the exporting of logs a sign of problems to be addressed in the forest industry?
Some of the specific components that we propose as part of an effective policy:
- Logs from private and Crown lands should be treated the same. Present legislation (Forest, Act Part 10) would apply to both sources.
- There should be a two-level approach – larger and smaller operations. Smaller
(F.A. Sec 128 (2)) would have a more simple and quick application process.
- Larger-scale operations would have the responsibility to ensure that their export proposals did not substantially deprive the local economy of associated benefits. However receiving a fair price for their logs would be an expected component.
- There would be a formal requirement for local manufacturing facilities to have the opportunity to bid on all logs, from Crown or private land, proposed for export.
- Regional log markets should be established to guide fair prices, and over time enable the value of logs to approach export market prices.
- There would be administrative oversight, including monitoring and auditing, to ensure policies and principles were met and continuous improvement achieved.
Forest Certification & Public Involvement
Comment
By Harry Drage
General Thoughts
- All three main forest certification systems active in BC - CSA, SFI, FSC - and also the ISO 14001 registration system, have brought a positive influence to our SFM debate and practice. Each has different emphases, and strengths and weaknesses, and has evolved significantly over the past 10 years.
- Since the BC Ministry of Forests, as the main public oversight agency, has had recent major staffing and funding cutbacks, it is more important than ever for people to find ways to be meaningfully involved with SFM.
- The key question about certification is whether or not it has contributed significantly to SFM through improved science and forest practices. Since most larger and medium-sized companies can become certified under their present ‘performance’, has certification elevated more than just the debate?
Specific Comments
- Each certification system has a different perspective on public involvement. CSA has the most specific requirements for public participation through a public advisory group, although all systems require the public to be satisfied with a forest company’s plans and practices (as shown through reviews and audits, including public meetings). SFI and FSC do not preclude the formation of a public group.
- Our Forests Society believes that the real question about all of the certification systems isn’t so much what is included on paper in their requirements, but what is the demonstrated rigour and comprehensiveness of the public component.
Suggested Test
To consider whether or not a certification system has a meaningful and effective public involvement process, ask several probing questions:
- Is the public advisory group given an important and recognized role?
- Is the group unfettered; is open dialogue encouraged?
- Is a wide spectrum of ‘publics’ involved; are they given fair consideration?
- Is the forest company supportive and responsive?
- Are the group’s recommendations addressed?
- Are they included in company plans and strategies?
- Are the C&I as selected by the group used by the company?
- Are the indicators representative, substantive and meaningful?
- Are the indicators reported on; do practices change in response to results?
Forest Land Bylaw Proposal
Submission to the Cowichan Valley Regional District
by Harry Drage
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our thoughts about your proposal to change the minimum lot sizes for your designated forest land areas. Several members of our organization live in the Cowichan Valley, and since this proposal fits in well with our overall forest stewardship objectives, we are expressing our interest and support.
It is heartening to see such an initiative being put forward for public debate. This recognizes the value and importance of greenspace to our society, particularly as our population continues to grow. We are supportive of taking the longterm perspective to landuse issues, to balance the need for lower and higher density settlement areas.
In some cities, older residential developments have been returned to a treed land state, in recognition of the need for a better balance. In Europe, there are many examples of smaller forest holdings contributing significantly to the economic, social and environmental health of communities.
Some of the benefits that can accrue from lower density lot sizes:
- Jobs in small-scale forestry and associated manufacturing.
- Protecting community culture and character.
- Lower costs for municipal services.
- Protecting future landuse options.
- Improvement in water protection, wildlife habitat, and biodiversity.
- A contribution to reducing the effects of global warming.
There will undoubtedly be many people watching your deliberations with significant interest. If we can provide any further information or ideas, please advise.
A Brief History of Sustainable Forest
Management in BC
By Andrew Mitchell
Aboriginal peoples lived throughout the
area of the province of BC, utilizing the food, fuel, shelter,
clothing and medicines that were provided by the forests.
They developed a comprehensive understanding and appreciation
of the forest landscapes, which gave them sustenance.
The influx of Europeans in the 1800's brought
a different focus that included viewing the forest as a
store of timber and other related products. In the early
1900's, forest harvesting began in earnest in BC. The first
Forestry Royal Commission in the province (the Fulton Commission)
recommended that forest resources be retained in public
ownership and that "a sound policy of conservation
must be established." This pioneering vision provided
the framework for future stewardship and ensured that forest
lands were not fragmented among many owners.
After several decades of emphasis upon basic
needs such as fire suppression, road building and timber
harvest, the need for more comprehensive legislation and
policies became evident as BC responded to a major increase
in demand for wood products (following World War II). The
forest industry was expected to be the primary engine for
economic growth and prosperity in the province, and harvesting
rights were given to companies as an incentive for them
to establish timber processing facilities and provide employment.
The administrative framework that we generally have in place
today (which is a sharing of forest management responsibilities
among public and private sectors) evolved during this busy
development phase. The focus was on timber sustainability
and resource use, first as a part of the 'multiple use'
concept (1970's), then 'integrated use' (1980's) and finally
'sustainable forests management' (1990's).
By the 1970's, there were increasing concerns
and questions about the industrial development of BC's forest
resources. Global interest about the limits of the earth's
resources focused attention upon BC (and other forested
regions). The practices of road building, clearcutting and
slashburning became international targets, and tree planting
by itself no longer satisfied concerns about stewardship
and sustainability. In response, BC became active with initiatives
such as strategic landuse planning, operational forest development
plans and public involvement. In 1992, the United Nations
Conference on the Environment and Development emphasized
that sustainable development would require new approaches.
At this time, BC was actively working on its new Forest
Practices Code and attempting to redefine best management
practices. In the late 1990's, other SFM initiatives were
undertaken such the Protected Area Strategy, First Nations
roles and responsibilities, criteria and indicators, and
forest certification. At the same time, the forest industry
was experiencing a very difficult period with issues of
markets, demand, cost, price, facilities, capacity and supply.
Also, many people in BC were becoming increasingly concerned
that they had little opportunity to participate in and influence
forest policy and decision-making.
In spite of many problems and continuing
concerns, BC has a considerable endowment of forests throughout
the province. This natural capital should be sufficient
to satisfy the many facets of SFM, including biodiversity,
timber, water, soil, air, and the health of forest-dependant
communities. However the real question is whether or not
BC has the desire, understanding and ingenuity to establish
the necessary sound policies and institutions for SFM in
the new millennium. This includes developing an overarching
vision for our forests, setting appropriate objectives and
strategies to enable the vision, applying forest practices
that are truly sustainable, encouraging people to be meaningful
participants and full partners in our forest decisions,
and having an auditing regime to measure our progress and
make changes in direction or content as necessary.
Are we up to the task in BC?? The Forests
Society plans to be a part of the picture to define and
accomplish what people want as SFM. |
