Why Forestry Matters

 

Just Naturally Speaking                 by Betty Jean Brill  Nipigon  July 5, 2010

 

Why Forestry Matters

 

“We, Canadians, acknowledging that we are depositories of diverse social, cultural and natural riches are resolved to build a country that safeguards its natural environment and USES IT rationally and responsibly to ensure prosperity for generations to come.”

 

The Preamble (I) to A Renewed Canada, the Report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, February 28, 1992. pp. 126-127. (the capitals are mine)

 

Let us flash back to 1944 when the Canadian Legion Educational Service was creating vocational courses for Service Personnel. One course they chose was “Forestry”.

 

“It is noteworthy that in every forest region there persists a forest industry, even though the first logging may go back three centuries.”(End quote from p. 65.)

 

They stress that logging should be considered a permanent occupation for Canadians.  To back that up they point out there is a growing school of thought that considers “ forest crops as renewable and therefore perpetual and it is essential that forests be so treated.”

(page 63)

 

Seventy years ago they were not thinking of their life cycle deep carbon footprint but they were well aware of just what logging meant.  They expressed it this way:

 

“ Logging comprises all the technique of harvesting timber for commercial use.  In general, the word is used to include the job of opening up an area of timber by roads, the making of such other improvements or structures as are required, the cutting of the timber, its assembly from stump to first point of transport, loading and hauling and dumping, and very often its delivery to the mill or market by the most favourable method.”

(page 61)

 

Forest products constituted our first major export.  They supplied cheap housing materials and fuel.  They helped the development of railways into new areas by providing freight more quickly than agriculture could.

 

“Logging shaped the national character of Canadians by demanding industry and courage, self-reliance and ingenuity.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 1945 the Woodlands Section of Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Montreal, published a little booklet called “Pointers to Woods Workers”.  Their preface was:

 

“Forest Conservation means careful, wise use of forests.  A woods worker’s part in this is of great importance to all, as the forest benefits everybody.  Take care of it.   Avoid waste.”

 

“Your work depends on the forest.  Treated well, it will continue to give work for generations.  Abused, the forest will not renew itself properly; even if it does come back it will be poor.”

 

“You can do a lot for forest conservation by preserving young growth of valuable kinds,  by being very careful with fire and by avoiding waste of good wood.”

 

In 1940 the merchantable accessible timber in Canada was estimated at a total (softwoods and hardwoods) of 211,656,000,000 cubic feet.  They figured another 100,000,000,000 cubic feet was rated not commercially accessible.

 

Flash forward to 2006.  The National Timber Inventory total tree volume on forest land was 47,957.07 million cubic metres.

 

Converting that to cubic feet we get 1,693,555,969,980 cubic feet.  Even if you dropped off a few lower age classes of trees, it looks like we still have more wood after seventy years of cutting than we had to start with.

 

Flash back to 1999, Philadelphia, The PEW Charitable Trusts: PEW Environmental Group:  They began to craft a strategy for Canada’s great boreal wilderness as part of their campaign to conserve intact old-growth forests.  They found Canada’s far reaching expanse of publicly owned forest and taiga a “ particularly ripe opportunity.”  Their Goal – one hundred million acres by the year 2010.

 

From 1999 to 2006 the PEW ‘ invested’ $35.4 million dollars in Canada.

 

They had 60,000,000 acres ‘protected’ by 2006.

 

They got their Goal, 100,000,000 acres ‘protected’ in 2007- three years ahead of schedule.

 

Basking in their success they had their campaign evaluated.  The evaluators asked Steve Kallick, the director of the Boreal Conservation Campaign, “How did you know what areas were important to protect?” He couldn’t answer because he had no idea scientifically why they did it. Unfazed, he said the evaluation had shown they needed to support better science.

 

 

How did this ‘foreign power’ manipulate our governments and industries into signing away our rights to use our natural resources in one hundred million acres of our boreal?  They explain it all on their websites. They developed and consistently projected a clear and compelling message that created a sense of urgency regarding the need to protect specific tracts of wilderness and then continued to extend their reach.

 

PEW takes credit for prompting the Manitoba government to create the ten million acre, pristine boreal forest World Heritage Site.

 

The Ivey Foundation (London, Ontario) takes credit for the creation and passing of the Species At Risk Act last year.  Their boast is that the foundation has an excellent political reach which it is not afraid to use.

 

The Ivey Foundation is one of the ENGO signatories of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement of May 18, 2010.

 

PEW is one of the nine Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations that signed the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement of May 18, 2010 – 29 million hectares and counting.

 

Counting- an additional 200 million acres of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec are expected to be designated as parks and refuges pending the fulfillment of previously made commitments.

 

Two interesting covenants that charitable organizations have to sign in the U.S.A.:

4.a. The corporation shall not lobby, carry on propaganda or other wise attempt to influence legislation…

4.b. Cannot participate in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition of any candidate for public office.

 

Maybe these covenants have no repercussions if used in a foreign land, but what about Ivey?  What about ForestEthics and their fomenting intolerance of resource industries?

 

Michael:

Was it really cooperation between the forest industries and the environmental groups when the ENGOs used language such as:

Leverage existing government legislation.

Influence upcoming regulations.

Transform attitudes and behaviour  to create conditions for positive government action.

Fiscal policy used as a strategic way to influence public and corporate decisions in support of conservation.

Act strategically to set legal precedents.

Discourage buyers.

National Focus to drive the process…ie., the FPAC to an agreement in exchange for supply certainty.