|
Guest Editorial
At a crossroads
Restructuring forest
management in New Brunswick
by Jen Hacking
The recent release of the Report of the New Brunswick Task Force
on Forest Diversity and Wood Supply, and the Report on the Task
Force on Investment Opportunities in the New Brunswick Forest
Sector should be a starting point for serious work to begin on
restructuring the forest industry and environmental protection
initiatives in the province. It is not enough for the New Brunswick
government to poll the public, choose a management alternative,
take their best guess on the future direction of markets, and
roll the dice. This time, with these reports as the foundation,
all of our assumptions, knowledge, policies, and opinions must
be pulled apart and evaluated under a bright light. Building
a rational approach to forest management should start with a
new foundation, not by touch-ups to a crumbling structure.
At the heart of complex forest management issues is the expectation
that forests must serve multiple purposes. Policies and regulations
require woodland managers to simultaneously grow trees for fiber,
maintain wildlife habitat, ensure clean air and water supply,
be aesthetically pleasing, accommodate recreational pursuits,
and act as a commercial source of non-timber forest products.
These expectations need to be re-evaluated. While forest managers
are justifiably proud of the job they have done balancing conflicting
objectives, it could be argued that juggling multiple purposes
has not served any individual objective well to date.
Trees should be grown like any other agriculture crop; on lands
dedicated to industrial management zones, intensively, with regular
access for silviculture purposes, using improved varieties, with
the primary objective of producing the highest cubic meter of
fiber per hectare possible. If greater amounts of wood per hectare
are grown in industrial management zones, greater land area can
be set aside in protected areas with no decrease in annual allowable
cut (AAC). We don't require farmers to grow corn and potatoes
under or among native species of plants; requiring forest managers
to produce fiber in this way handicaps them in a fundamentally
ridiculous fashion.
With respect to environmental protection for wildlife and watershed,
we must bring clear thinking to the possible expansion of protected
areas. Protected areas currently comprise four percent of forested
land, while 23 percent is earmarked as conservation forest including
riparian areas, buffer zones, deer wintering habitat, and the
protected areas. Conservation forest allows limited selection
harvest while maintaining many desirable habitat characteristics
necessary for a range of species.
Selection cutting as a regeneration tactic for tolerant tree
species may still be necessary to maintain the character of the
Acadian forest. However, it must be recognized that partial harvest,
while contributing to AAC, results in additional road access,
and adds significantly to the cost of extracting timber. More
critically, it increases habitat fragmentation and access by
recreationalists, negatively impacting wildlife and endangered
plant species. It may make more sense to include greater areas
of Acadian mixed woods in protected areas, and reduce the overall
land area planned for selection harvest.
Riparian areas and buffer zones around wet areas will still
be necessary in industrial management and also will act as refugia
or corridors for wildlife and non-commercial plant species. Providing
greater area for each individual purpose (buffer zones, plantations,
watershed protection), rather than smaller fragments of land
adding up to the same overall area, will allow better service
of each objective.
When restructuring forest management in the province, the primary
concern must be human health by prioritizing clean air and water
supply. If we damage our habitat and negatively affect the health
of New Brunswickers, government costs will rise and our province
as a whole will suffer. Establishment of protected areas should
coincide with land necessary for maintenance of clean water supply
to urban centres. The entire province should be managed by watershed
and eco-region, not by the current arbitrary regions based on
county (political) boundaries.
Other considerations and uses for forests are gaining visibility
and value. We should be educating ourselves about the emerging
carbon trading market. This past fall, the first greenhouse gas
auction in the United States took place, selling permits to power
plants in the northeastern U.S. for the right to emit carbon
dioxide at $3.07 per ton. Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, and Vermont shared close to $39 million in carbon
credits associated with their standing timber. Those numbers
should make us sit up and take notice that our standing tree
inventory may soon be of more than aesthetic or spiritual value.
Forest management is at a crossroads in our province as a result
of the many economic factors described in Don Roberts' report.
The New Brunswick government must clearly identify priorities
and stand behind them. There is no better time for wholesale
restructuring of the province's forest industry. With aging mills,
changing markets, and a shifting work force (in age as well as
geography), every policy, including those describing tenure,
regulations around export of wood and wood products, government
support of silviculture, total area of land dedicated to protection,
conservation, and plantations, must be placed on the table and
pulled apart to objectively determine if they still fall within
best practices. New opportunities including carbon sequestration
must be fully understood and realized. Our forests can provide
all that they have in the past and more, but not if government
continues to apply small, incremental changes to an outdated
system.
(Jen Hacking, RPF, is the Executive
Director of the Association of Registered Professional Foresters
of New Brunswick. Note that the opinions expressed in this article
are personal, and do not reflect those of any organization.)
|
