On Changing the Economic Model for Forestry
By Peter Ewart
Forestry diversification is not only an economic and social necessity for northern BC, it is also an ecological necessity. That was the message delivered by Kathy Lewis, well-known UNBC forestry researcher, speaking at the “Cumulative effects of natural resource development” event on January 10 and 11 at UNBC in Prince George.
As was noted by a number of speakers, the cumulative effects of diverse human actions can result in unforeseen outcomes. According to Lewis, such has been the case with the mountain pine beetle epidemic which has devastated vast swaths of British Columbia’s lodgepole pine forests. Mountain pine beetles are a natural part of the forest eco-system. However, human actions have disrupted the eco-system allowing this epidemic to expand to catastrophic levels.
What are these human actions? Firstly, under normal circumstances, the beetle population has been held in check by the cold Novembers of the north which kill off large numbers of the bugs. However, since the early 1980s, these Novembers have not been cold enough. This climate change is seen by many to be at least partially attributable to human activity (greenhouse gas emissions).
Secondly, a large buildup of older, more vulnerable, lodgepole pine has taken place creating an ideal host for the beetles to proliferate. Normally, forest fires have kept the distribution of older pine in check, but for the last sixty or more years, government and company policy has been to suppress forest fires significantly, resulting in this buildup.
Thirdly, the forest companies and government have followed monoculture tree planting policies, creating vast plantations of lodgepole pine with little species diversity. This lack of diversity also helps create ideal conditions for the spread of the beetle.
Just one these factors by itself would not have resulted in the sheer extent of the current beetle epidemic. However, taken together, the result is an outcome – an unforeseen cumulative effect – that has been devastating for the forests and forestry dependent communities.
According to Kathy Lewis, the overall problem is that we have a faulty economic model. Forestry practices, regulations and policies reinforce our dependence on the production of large volumes of low value forest products, such as relatively unprocessed dimension lumber and pulp and paper. As a result, when industry conducts reforestation, it has a huge incentive to plant fast-growing and commercially profitable lodgepole pine, as well as spruce and fir.
This narrows species variety and makes these pine, spruce and fir monoculture forests more vulnerable to pathogens and insects. What is especially ironic is that British Columbia stands out for the great natural variety of its softwood and hardwood trees. Yet, instead of capitalizing on this variety and diversifying our products, we are narrowing it and backing ourselves into a corner with the current economic model.
Lewis notes that the provincial government has recognized the problem. One of the things it is doing is encouraging forest companies to plant a wider variety of trees. However, along with that measure, she thinks we need to change the overall economic model. This, of course, is a big undertaking and will include planting a mix of hardwoods and softwoods, creating a wider variety of products, getting more value out of the wood, and diversifying our markets. In addition, we need more local mills rather than ones that have their head offices outside of the region or the country. According to Lewis, this would mean a more sustainable economy and healthy forests in the long run, but may mean that people do not end up with the same income.
Lewis’s presentation sparked some interesting questions and commentary from the audience. One person commented that the underlying problem was that the economic system is driven by tenure and oligopolies, i.e. big companies dominate. And that, until we address that issue, we won’t be able to bring in more diversity such as Finland did many years ago.
Another person complained that the Ministry of Forests “is on a crazy train with no planning, no staff, and nothing in place to ensure ecological integrity.” Still another claimed that stumpage rates were too low and that this has led to the creation of supermills. As a solution, this participant suggested that we need to charge a higher resource rent for mines and forests. The last questioner wondered out loud about whether shifting to employee ownership could bring about the changes that are needed.
Reflecting on Kathy Lewis’s presentation and other presentations at the two-day UNBC event, it is clear just how important scientific inquiry is to the betterment of modern life. However, as one speaker noted, we face a serious problem. Will science drive government policy or will government policy drive science? Too often, these days, we have governments at the federal and provincial level who claim that policy (and the interests of global big business) must drive science, and thus we see the shutting down of research that challenges vested interests, as well as the muzzling of scientists.
But this is counterproductive for our society. We need free scientific inquiry combined with community empowerment to find solutions to the problems we face, whether it be combatting the mountain pine beetle infestation, creating a better economic model for forestry, or addressing larger systemic issues.
Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
Comments
Why don’t some of these ‘scientists’ conduct some research into how the money system works, and whether that has anything to do with all the various ‘effects’ above they’re all so anxious to label as ’causes’?
Aside from that, before any of them deem themselves qualified to suggest or support some of the proposals mentioned above, (more ‘value added’, higher stumpage rates, smaller, locally-owned mills, employee-owned mills, etc.), why don’t they spend some time talking to those actually still in the industry as sawmill owner/operators? Or people who were, and have since sold out to those large corporations these types all love to hate?
And I don’t mean some starry-eyed boob with a Wood-Mizer who’s still be hard pressed to eke out a decent living ‘value adding’ if the government gave him prime timber free gratis.
“Thirdly, the forest companies and government have followed monoculture tree planting policies, creating vast plantations of lodgepole pine with little species diversity. “
I have difficulty believing that Dr. Lewis made this statement. Mother Nature created most of the (now dead) lodgepole pine stands.
“…whether it be combatting the mountain pine beetle infestation….”
We may be a little too late to be doing that.
I call it hindsight.
Most of the professional foresters who created the stands we now have through the system of licenses, with plans made by company foresters and approved by government foresters, often based on information and viewpoints of quasi-independent research foresters, thought they were doing the best they could.
As with everything, we think we know more now than we knew then. While that may be true, quantitatively, how true is it qualitatively? How far away are we from that magic brass ring?
To quote Donald Rumsfeld: âThere are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.â
I will just leave you with this thought. I have found in my experiences that we too often provide monocultures in our way of thinking, our way of doing things. When we develop and apply a âmonocultureâ of approaches, we leave no room for error. If there is an error, it is potentially catastrophic. In my opinion, we should be encouraging a diversity of approaches so that entire systematic approaches to solving a specific problem causes catastrophic failures.
We have more knowledge, but do we have more wisdom? Can we apply that knowledge with any more certainty than those who came before us did? I do not see any evidence of that. In forestry in this part of the world, the evidence takes in the order of 70 or more years before it is verifiable. Oh, to be so lucky as to be a forester those work will generally not be able to be judged before he/she leaves this earth. ;-)
editing my above post
“we should be encouraging a diversity of approaches so that entire systematic approaches to solving a specific problem DO NOT cause catastrophic failures”
Economic model in forestry?
Can anyone imagine having a shoe manufacturing business which takes 70 years to manufacture shoes from start to finish and having to guess, with some high degree of certainty, that the finished shoes will be a marketable item at the end of those 70 years?
How about an ecologic model of forestry? Even with that we have made mistakes it seems, but at least something is green out there, until we discover that the practices of people in other parts of the world may have played a part in the MPB infestation.
What control do we have as 4.6 million over a world of some 7 billion? More importantly, what control do the forest licensees have?
I usually agree somewhat with Mr Ewart, but it seems like this has been a navel gazing exercise by people with an axe to grind, that want things that cannot be done ( employee owned mills,higher stumpage rates). Sometimes researchers and scientists get themselves into trouble because they treat the issue as purely academic and theoretical, going with models and possibilities, without enough conversation with the people on the ground.
The meetings seem to me to be a long overdue conversation, to recap the status quo from an often unexamined perspective. I wish I had been able to attend. Is there a video legacy?
The term Triple Bottom Line economy should by this time be understood by most engaged citizens, but is it? If it were understood in practice we would not have boom and bust economics. If it were understood in practicable terms, would we have CEOs who make $12,000 per hour while the minimum wage is less than 1/1000th?
Why do we still have Food Banks? Someone once told me that if Food Banks disappeared, there would be a revolution within 72 hours.
There are best practices that we refuse to acknowledge, because we are distracted by the corporate media who has a vested interest in maintaining the system as they have evolved it. SQUIRREL!
I think the conference was exploring something resembling Triple Bottom Line Sustained Resource Management.
Look at the example of Mondragon Cooperatives in the Basque region of Spain. From humble beginnings, a seemingly recession proof model of responsible economic sustainability.The Basque region of Spain,7,234 km2 (2,793 sq mi); Regional District Fraser Fort George, 52,000 km2 (~20,077 sq mi)
Anyone seeking a viable alternative to corporate capitalism might want to inform themselves. Look at the Mondragon Cooperatives Financial Report, compare and contrast with our own. http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/eng/
I understand that “TBL is viewed as an attempt by otherwise exploitative corporations to avoid legislation and taxation and generate a fictitious people-friendly & eco-friendly image for PR purposes.”
Sounds like carbon credits to me.
BTW, the Mondragon Cooperative looks very interesting from the point of view of promoting the local economy by being very connected with the globe … a good example of globalization of a local economy. However, they have to do better than tithing 10% of profits to local social causes. As I said, not much different than the notion of carbon credits.
I look at integration of the social, economic and environmental issues associated with “development” as something which is more real and meaningful.
Comments for this article are closed.