Opposition to biodiversity protection measures has been aggressive and on-going.
by Jim Cooperman
On Sept. 28, Jim Cooperman (former BC Environmental Network [BCEN] forest caucus coordinator and BC Environmental Report editor), was invited to address the Association of British Columbia Professional Foresters' (ABCPF) executive council about ongoing issues regarding forestry in British Columbia. This is a summary of the talk.
Perhaps one of the greatest concerns for the environmental community is the inadequate level of protection for biodiversity under current policies and regulations. Despite the government's supposed intentions that were part of the Forest Practices Code when it was completed over five years ago, there are no Landscape Units today, and only two Identified Wildlife management areas. Why?
One of the reasons is that many foresters have been aggressively opposing implementation of biodiversity protection measures for years. When the Council of Forest Industries began their boycott of Landscape Unit Planning implementation last year, your association did nothing. TheBCEN forest caucus approached the ABCPF to take a stand in support of implementation and you took five months to reply with a gutless letter that waffled on the issue.
Why? Because like many organizations, decisions involving controversial issues often fall to the lowest common denominator. It could be said that foresters, like other groups, fall into three categories: the liberals, the conservative masses, and the dinosaurs.
The liberal Registered Professional Foresters can be found in research, academia, consultant industry and some in companies. These are the foresters that support change, the protection of environmental values, and innovation. The conservative masses are mostly concerned with maintaining the status quo of keeping the fibre flowing to the mills, while the dinosaurs clamour for Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) increases, logging in parks, and the relaxation of rules and regulations. Although the liberals often end up in a leadership role in your association, when critical decisions are needed, the dinosaur mentality takes precedent.
The ABCPF is forever talking about professional accountability and ethics yet the masses and the dinosaurs are mostly accountable to the all mighty dollar, which above all else is the controlling factor in forest companies. Ethics are tossed out the window on a regular basis by the dinosaurs.
These Jurassic foresters include those who propose logging in sensitive areas such as prime habitat for endangered species where Ministry of Environment staff have opposed cutting. Then there are the foresters that regularly sign enhanced silviculture prescriptions to provide Forest Resources BC (FRBC) jobs for unemployed forest workers, even though the work is often not justifiable and in some cases could actually be lowering forest productivity. There are the foresters that push for logging in sensitive community and domestic use watersheds, despite the valid concerns of water users.
And public input is often made mockery of by foresters. Witness the situation in the Shuswap when an open house was called for an amendment to a Forest Development Plan with only two weeks left for comments. Residents then found out that all the blocks had already been flagged in the field, even before the amendment was advertised! Thankfully, the small business program backed off their plans and set up a public advisory group after there was a local uproar. Logging continues to be approved in high elevation areas where regeneration is doubtful. Repeated attempts to restore forests to these sites are often unsuccessful. As well, logging continues to occur adjacent to small streams, thus impacting salmon. Recently, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has released an assessment that estimates 30 hectares of prime salmon habitat continues to be destroyed every year due to improperly constructed stream crossings. As well, a recent freedom of information inquiry revealed what looks like collusion between DFO, industry and forest service staff to prevent DFO from implementing tougher riparian regulations.
In Victoria, one unresolved issue is a Section 41b direction statement that was released some years ago that weakens environmental protection. Despite the effort by the environmental community, BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks staff and even the Forest Practices Board to pressure the government to re-write the direction memo, resistance continues by certain government foresters who recently released a revision that offers only minimal improvements. The list goes on, yet the dinosaurs continue to argue for an increase in the AAC, when in fact the cut level desperately needs to go down.
The Key Issues
Above all else is the concern that our forests have been over cut and the over cutting is continuing. Sure, the province now revises the AAC every five years, but the Timber Supply Review (TSR) process is flawed.
TSRs ignore the fact that forest high grading continues to occur, leaving the stands of lower quality and volume. TSRs do not adequately look at spatial issues. Inventories are very old and suspect. And the modelling has become so complex that it can be misused to show whatever results the analyst desires to determine. Cutting rates should focus on the short-term supply and be determined for smaller watershed units using spatial analysis. The Forest Policy Review was right-on when it recommended a thorough review of the timber supply issue.
Of course, at fault is the entire sustained-yield model, which drives the AAC and most management decisions. The over cut is the driver that leads to greater fragmentation and the loss of wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities and good, clean water.
Despite some improvements in selected areas of the province (e.g. MacBlo/Weyerhaeuser on the coast and Interfor at Adams Lake), conventional clearcutting is still the norm, despite its impacts on non-timber values. Many forest activists look forward to Forest Stewardship Council certification as a way to kick-start change and innovation.
Tenure reform is of course a major. As long as forest management is tied to maximizing returns to shareholders, the public will never see its forests managed responsibly. In addition to an open log market, the province also needs a diversity of tenures that provide opportunities for communities and First Nations.
Another key concern is the lack of proper funding and adequate staffing for the Ministry of Environment.
Are things getting better or worse?
Despite some improvements in specific areas, things are getting worse, especially as the cumulative effects of impacts continue. Adding to the $4-billion watershed rehabilitation needs caused by decades of forest stream trashing, are the problems created today from continuing to clearcut the edges of small streams and the logging on steep slopes and in high elevation where regeneration is doubtful. Bugs and disease are also on the rise, in part due to global warming and past mismanagement.
Signs of improvement can be found in those areas where land use planning has been fair and effective, where companies have actually moved beyond greenwashing into innovative programs that better maintain all forest values, and where new community forests plan will balance timber needs with the needs of local residents.
How can they be made better?
Democracy needs to become part of forest management, with foresters paying attention to the legitimate concerns of local communities.
How could the ABCPF make a difference? Instead of following the dinosaurs, listen to the liberal-minded members of your organization who are calling for sustainable practices. You need to support the call for a review of the timber supply, actively oppose those groups and individuals that continue to thwart implementation of landscape unit planning and wildlife protection, and encourage more dialogue with citizen groups concerned about the impacts of status quo forestry management. Above all, foresters need to make ecologically, economically and socially sound decisions that respect nature and the needs of local citizens.
* Thanks to John Werring and Ray Travers for their help in the preparation of this talk.
***
[From WS December 2000/January 2001]