Public knowledge of forestry practices has improved over the years, but some misperceptions about the state of Ontario’s forests still persist due to “junk science” and environmental alarmism, say officials with two of the country’s largest forest company associations.
“Most people still don’t understand that a clear-cut involves leaving large pockets of forest intact,” says Mark Holmes, the manager of public affairs with the Ontario Forest Industries Association (OFIA).
Environmental and conservation groups that rely on emotionally charged messaging, he says, often skirt over the fact that Ontario has one of the most globally regarded standards of sustainable forestry. Many of these groups gloss over the onerous “hoops” that existing forest companies must pass through to actually harvest wood in Ontario’s forests. Moreover, provincial legislation places much of Northern Ontario’s rich boreal forests out of reach of harvesting, he says.
“We only harvest about one-quarter of a percentage point of our harvestable trees,” Holmes maintains.
Over the past decade, forest companies have taken steps to present their side of the story to the public. Although Northern Ontario is where most
of the forest business occurs, the environmental movement and government policy-makers are largely in the south. For the past couple of years, the Forest Products Association of Canada has been placing ads in bus shelters educating the public about the state of the forests and the sustainable practice already in place.
“The industry has got a good story to tell. It’s time they told it,” says Andrew Casey, a public relations representative with the Forest Products Association.
“Forestry practices over the past 10 years have improved about 100 fold, in terms of environmental stewardship and regulations at all levels of government,” he adds.
Casey says that a recent study conducted by researchers at Yale University concluded that Canada was equal to or exceeded forest sustainability standards in 38 other countries.
Presenting this picture has not always been easy, even for the strongest proponents of such practices.
Tembec, a leader in sustainable forestry and a promoter of forest company certification, has been trying to present an accurate image of forest practices for years.
“It’s not just about advertising. That’s only one side of the picture,” says Pierre Brien, a media spokesperson for Tembec. The company has been promoting tours of its forestry operations so members of the public are able to get a real sense of what is going on.
“Even many leaders in the communities where we operate have no idea what we really do,” he says.
Over the last couple of years, the company has sponsored trips involving mayors, councillors and city officials venturing on tours into the woods. The initiative has worked well in Quebec, and they plan to bring it to Ontario next year.
Forest companies are also quick to add that it is simply not fair to lump all environmental and conservation groups together in the same basket.
Groups that have good sound scientific backing for their work tend to get invited to hearings when forest management plans are up for review or work with forest companies in developing conservation strategies.
Groups that present bad policy affect the forest industry adversely because the industry is very “capital intensive” and financial institutions need to know that the fibre will be available for the future. When logging is stopped for trivial reasons, he says, this does not make for a very stable investment climate.
“The groups that tend to rely on rhetoric and junk science don’t get respect or get asked back to hearings. The groups that are good usually withstand the test of time,” says Casey.
Casey names groups like the World Wildlife Federation and Ducks Unlimited as examples of non-governmental organizations that have contributed greatly to forest management by providing well-grounded environmental science at hearings.
However, groups that appeal to alarmism, not only misdirect public policy in terms of forest management practices, he contends, they also adversely affect wildlife.
The fight is not necessarily with radical environmental groups, it is simply in presenting the industry’s case that there is a vested interest in preserving the forest for future generations.
