Atlantic Forestry, March 2009

A Word or Two (editorial comment) Harvesting biomass, under the influence Nova Scotia woodlot owners are right to ask what's in it for them There is a paradox governments come up against when they set out to limit or control something that is potentially destructive. They can't just let this activity go unchecked, but any regulatory system they put in place will look like an official stamp of approval. It's worse when the government stands to benefit from the restricted activity. The most obvious example is alcohol ­ the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation being one of those regulatory agencies that has truly found its calling in the marketing business. What was once ­ to use a thoroughly old-fashioned term ­ a vice, becomes a legitimate sector of the economy that should be promoted, as long as the letter of the law is followed. (The technical term for this is hunky-dorification.) This is the situation faced by Nova Scotia's Department of Natural Resources as it develops guidelines for the harvesting of forest biomass. The sector may not promise tax revenue on a bacchanalian scale, but it could provide other benefits for the province, including demonstrable progress toward environmental targets, and some small measure of energy self-sufficiency. Almost everyone agrees using biomass for energy would be good for us ­ as least in moderation. There is considerable debate, however, about what constitutes moderation. And biomass boosters, generally speaking, tend to think big. What they envision is not a cottage industry, but a significant economic sector that depends on obtaining vast quantities of a cheap commodity. So this matter of establishing guidelines has proved to be a bit dicey. To its credit, DNR initially sought a broad range of perspectives. Wade Prest was asked to join the provincial biomass working group as a representative of the Nova Scotia Woodlot Owners and Operators Association (NSWOOA), of which he is a member. But Prest became frustrated with the working group's haste to publish guidelines and its unwillingness to delve deeper into sustainability issues, so on direction of the NSWOOA board he recently withdrew from the process. "There was a lot of tokenism but no real desire to get into the question of whether our forests could take being harvested heavier than they're already being harvested," Prest said. "It's another one of these exercises, to say 'We did this, we did that,' but the objective was just to get these guidelines in place." Along with Bill Freedman, a Dalhousie University biology professor, Prest advocated for a literature review to get a better handle on the ecological effects of biomass removal, but DNR representatives said the required funding was not available. Freedman also ended his involvement with the working group; he said he could not commit more time to a process that appeared to be "all talk and no walk." Prest believed that the nutrient budget computer model developed at the University of New Brunswick was being presented as a silver bullet for sustainability, when in fact it would provide "only a tiny piece of the puzzle," taking no account of micro-nutrients. And beyond the scientific nitty-gritty, he was concerned about the bigger picture for woodlot owners who will be offered biomass revenue as a bonus for selling stumpage. "A dollar or two a tonne; that's the kind of price they've been suggesting. The idea is, 'You get your site all cleaned up and ready for planting at no cost.' But people are not being told the whole story," he said. "It's more and more into high-mechanization clearcutting. They can't harvest it at high costs, it has to be harvested at low cost ­ none of which fits with going into a small woodlot and doing a bit of work scattered throughout. NSWOOA promotes a more sensitive and less intensive type of forestry, and biomass promotes the opposite. We're most interested in the small private woodlots, and what applies to the small private also applies to the Crown land, which belongs to everybody." DNR sees a need to provide some direction for the industry right away, by releasing interim guidelines that can be amended as we acquire better tools for assessing sustainability. What Prest saw was the hunky-dorification of biomass removal. "Once the private sector starts to invest millions of dollars in plants and equipment, then that becomes the tail that wags the dog, and it's too late to talk about how much we can take from the forest. I pointed that out, and that was another place the committee did not want to go." What's troubling here is that the process continued without direct input from the small private sector. Andrew Fedora, executive director of the Federation of Nova Scotia Woodlot Owners, has also expressed doubt about the sustainability of large-scale biomass harvesting and the benefits for private landowners. "We don't have a clear indication of what you should or shouldn't remove. I would prefer to see regulations that are a bit more cautious instead of having people go in there and rake all the material off the forest floor. And I don't see any point in having a biomass industry unless there's some value for it. If any landowners were getting involved with it, I would caution them and tell them to make sure they know what they're doing." Fedora made his concerns known to DNR, but the Federation was not afforded representation on the working group. "We even offered, not just myself but members of our board," he said. "At the end of the day we are disappointed there isn't stronger input from woodlot owners. You have to be at the table to have that dialogue. Submitting written comments or whatever is not the same, otherwise they wouldn't have a working group." As of late February, Jamie Simpson remained a member of the working group, representing the Ecology Action Centre, a Halifax-based environmental group. He continued to advocate for a more conservative approach, as laid out in a position paper he published in December 2008. (Read or download this lucid document by following the link at www.AtlanticFarmer.com.) The current movement to collect large proportions of biomass from harvest sites seems to Simpson like backsliding, given the progress that has been made in raising awareness about the importance of leaving various kinds of wood behind. He cites the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) and CSA (Canadian Standards Association Z804-08) woodlot certification standards, and even Nova Scotia's Code of Forest Practice, which warn against the removal of tops, branches, and deadwood. "I've been pushing DNR to go to private woodlot owners, to caution them that whole tree harvesting isn't the best thing," he said. In Nova Scotia, where half the forest land and an even greater proportion of the wood supply is in the hands of those woodlot owners, it is important they are well informed and engaged in the development of the biomass sector. Then if they decide that getting into the energy business will help to achieve their financial and forest management objectives, more power to them. David Lindsay

SUBSCRIBE NOW TO ATLANTIC FORESTRY





Copyright 2007 DvL Publishing Inc.

Rural Delivery | Atlantic Beef | Atlantic Forestry | Atlantic Horse & Pony