When it comes to sustainable forest management there are Canadian stakeholders who should take a bow for their efforts, but instead they go unnoticed.
“People have to stand up and defend what we are doing because we are doing a good job in many cases, but we are not prepared to say so,” said University of British Columbia (UBC) professor Dr. John Innes.
He made the comment at the 2006 Forestry Leadership Conference held at the Wyndham Bristol Place Hotel in Toronto March 1-2.
For whatever reason the Canadian forest community is doing well, but there are areas that need attention, he said.
A recent test of UBC students revealed most did not know the difference between vertebrates and invertebrates. Perhaps this knowledge retention on the development of a backbone is a theme that has been penetrating through the generations, he said.
“The forest community needs to have courage of its convictions,” he said.
Sustainable forest management refers to the “stewardship and the use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity and vitality.” Further, that management “has the potential to fill ecological, economical and social functions at local, national and global levels, and does not cause damage to other ecosystems.”
It recognizes the difference between logging and forestry and Innes said he does not believe Canada is ready to embrace the whole picture, frankly.
In 1995, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) collaborated with provinces and released a national framework of criteria and indicators (C&I) by which sustainability was defined. It was Canada’s first attempt to document sustainability progress by reporting on 62 of the 83 indicators within the framework.
UBC researchers asked 120 forestry stakeholders about the C&I framework and only four were aware it existed at all.
“To me that is shocking,” Innes said.
Sustainable forest management has so many opportunities, yet “the concept has lost its way.”
Certification strategies like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), Swedish and Norwegian-based (PEFC), Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), African-based Strategic Environmental Focus (SEF) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO 14001) have tended to adopt C&I from government bodies. The CSA is based on the six criteria and 17 elements from the CCFM, while the SFI applies nine principals from the Sustainable Forestry Initiative Standard.
“The whole certification process is dependent on how well we define the criteria indicators and therefore, the criteria has become critical.”
Certainly Canada made strides in land sustainability with CCFM’s six criteria, but there are huge challenges requiring a new sustainability framework. The industry requires effective assessment tools for all forest management processes, he said. This includes balancing biodiversity values, timber supply, economic benefits and workforce safety within the framework.
Forestry industry stakeholders need to define acceptable ranges for those indicators.
“We have been avoiding this. We have not said how much biodiversity we are prepared to lose to maintain timber supply. We have not said how much timber supply we are prepared to lose.”
With experts meeting, from expert scientists talking about the potential of the sustainable forest “(Canada) is not getting there.”
The forestry industry tends to look at urgent issues such as the softwood dispute, land use conflicts, forest fires and alien insect species instead of long-term concerns such as logging in old growth stands, high conservation forests, and tree species at risk, he said.
Controlled forest burns are now becoming an accepted part of the sustainable practice but what about the parameters for genetically modified trees? The Chinese are moving toward this end, yet Canada remains indecisive on how to respond, he said. South American tree plantations that can produce a mature tree in 15 years will have an impact on the domestic supply and Canadians “are remarkably ignorant of global trends.”
Protecting water sources will become a paramount concern as well, he argued. So too will fish habitat as salmon runs are becoming more protected every year.
Aboriginal rights have been dealt with poorly in the past, as industry and government have not addressed possible constitutional infringements.
“Yes, we can bring First Nations into the fold of sustainable forest management. Our experience is that they know what sustainable forestry management is all about and it is the others that don’t,” Innes said.
Invasive species, such as the pine beetle will be an issue as the country experiences warmer temperatures and the impacts of participating in a global market.
Skills, particularly in foresters, are declining at a time when the sectors need fresh ideas and new approaches.
So why have these issues not been included into the existing C&I framework?
Researchers at UBC interviewed a range of stakeholders, from giant organizations with land up to 8,000,000 hectares to small business managing a small-scale tenure. Innes said they found there “is a lack of understanding and a lack of buy-in to the fundamental principles of sustainable forest management as listed by the CCFM.”
If Canada is to redeem its forestry sector, then issues have to be addressed. And yes it may require money, so it is time to put some money where the mouth is. “We are being coy,” he said, fumbling for the appropriate word.
“It appears Canadians value the protected forests, but are not willing to pay for it.”
