Falldown

Falldown falls down

Review by Jim Cooperman

While Patricia Marchak’s new book, Falldown, contains valuable information and some excellent recommendations for changing forest policies, it falls short in its analysis of B.C.’s forest management issues. The book’s major flaw is that it equates the planned falldown with the overcut, instead of finding fault with how the Forest Service determines the annual allowable cut (AAC).

The book presents an oversimplified view of second-growth forest management and forest ecology, it belittles land-use planning initiatives and it supports compensation for forest companies. As well, Marchak neglects to consider and criticize the government and industry’s efforts to forestall falldown with the mantra that second-growth forests are growing faster than anticipated.

The difference between the existing AAC and the long term harvest level (LTHL) should not be confused with the overcut, as the LTHL itself is a result of flawed methodology, based on computer projections of timber volumes instead of a spatial analysis.

As well, Marchak misses the point that the AAC determination is not just a technical exercise but is heavily influenced by instruction from the politicians to consider the “social and economic objectives of the Crown.” A letter from former Forest Minister Andrew Petter instructs the chief forester to pay attention to the need for “continued availability of good forest jobs and to the long-term stability of communities that rely on forests.” That translates to mean that the AAC is to remain high in order to keep mills operating, workers employed and the government in power, even though the wood supply is rapidly running out.

Marchak also fails to explore the reasons why the timber industry continues to demand that the AAC be maintained or increased, likely due to its ongoing campaign to remain competitive in the global market-place.

Besides the obvious visual assault when one views the province’s clearcut landscape from the air or when one scans a satellite image, there are other numerous indications that the forests have been and continue to be overcut. What Falldown fails to include is a discussion of how mills have closed, how companies are now forced to log the “guts and feathers” and high-elevation forests, where regeneration success is suspect, how the chief forester has instructed his staff to cut back on the protection of old-growth forests, how old-growth forest-dependent species are at greater risk as their habitat is clearcut, how green-up rules are being relaxed to keep the cutting level propped up, and how foresters are simply having difficulties finding enough timber to fill five-year plans. Falldown mistakenly characterizes second-growth forests as either naturally regenerated, managed stands or plantations. Unfortunately, all of B.C.’s second-growth forests are part of the managed land base and contribute to the long-term AAC. What differs, is the level of silviculture activity and whether these treatments occur prior to or after these forests reach a “free-to-grow” size. Silviculture activities occur in naturally regenerated stands as well as in stands that were planted.

Marchak also fails to adequately evaluate forestry sector assertions that these second- growth forests are growing back faster than anticipated. Initiatives such as the Old Growth Site Index project and growth and yield studies funded by Forest Renewal BC are already reversing the falldown effect and helping to prolong overcutting. There is a pressing need for a credible critique of these claims, one that includes a description of the increasing number of plantations which are failing as a result of bugs, diseases, depleted soils and drought.

Land-use planning initiatives have resulted in and continue to make major changes to forest management in this province, yet Falldown dismisses these processes in a few sentences. While problems persist with the implementation of the CORE regional plans, many of the LRMPs have resulted in progressive land-use policies. Granted that many special management zones continue to be plagued by status-quo clearcutting, there are a growing number of regions where land-use planning is showing positive results. As well, landscape unit planning to protect bio-diversity is now underway, which will result in the designation and protection of a limited number of old-growth management areas.

Falldown’s recommendations for changing forestry policies are based wholly on eco-system conservation and while these ideas are laudable, they are so far removed from eco-nomic realities, they do not help to provide a much-needed middle ground. Unfortunately, our social systems are based on finances, not ecology, and if the conservation movement is going to successfully create ecologically responsible changes to forest policy, recommendations are needed which will not be immediately dismissed by government and the forest sector.

Marchak’s attempt to mollify industry with the promise of compensation also falls flat and is not defensible, because the public should not have to cover the cost of lost future company profits. Amazingly, Marchak falls into the trap of supporting the timber industry call to benefit from silvicultural investments and she also falls for the myth of intensive silviculture by suggesting that “yields might be enhanced.” Falldown neglects to provide comprehensive recommendations for much-needed reforms in ownership, control and tenure arrangements, changes needed to make AAC reductions feasible.

What this province needs is some creative, “outside-the-box” thinking to produce changes which all sectors could support. Hopefully, the forest policy review initiative now under way will result in new policies and new systems of tenure to end overcutting and begin the transition to an ecologically sustainable future for B.C.’s forests.

[This review appeared in Fall edition of the B.C. Environmental Report, published by the B.C. Environmental Network.]