***********************************************
WORLDWIDE
BIODIVERSITY/FOREST CAMPAIGN NEWS
The
Double-Face of Canadian Forest Practices
***********************************************
Forest
Networking a Project of Ecological Enterprises
April
1, 1995
OVERVIEW
& SOURCE
Friends
of Clayoquat Sound have provided this excellent overview
of
Canadian industrial forestry, highlighting that one of the last
forested
wildernesses on the planet is quickly being consumed by
grossly
unsustainable, industrial logging.
There is lots of good
information
in this item, which was posted in econet's
forest.canada
conference.
*******************************
RELAYED
TEXT STARTS HERE:
/*
Written 6:53 PM Mar 28, 1995 by web:focs in
igc:forest.canada
*/
Background
THE
DOUBLE-FACE OF CANADIAN FOREST PRACTICES
Concerned
members of the European Community are by now accustomed
to the
rosy picture Canadian forest practices painted by Canada's
federal
and provincial governments. Government
officials say
Canadian
forest practices are ecologically sound and sustainable;
that
there is no deforestation here, only perpetual forest
renewal;
and that governments are reducing the rate at which
forests
are logged.
This
portrait is a false face composed of expensive propaganda
purchased
from public relations firms' propaganda that uses
statistics
in a misleading way and makes hugely exaggerated claims
for the
effectiveness of new forest policies. The real face of
forest
practices in Canada is not so pretty. Behind an elaborate
facade
of studies, planning processes and new policies, Canadian
governments
are allowing our forests to be ecologically gutted to
provide
extravagant profits for logging companies.
Federal
and provincial governments dazzle Europeans with figures
citing
the huge number of trees they replant.
These governments
continue
to cover up the failure of a substantial portion of
replanted
areas to regenerate into forests. The
federal
government's
own figures show that between 1986 and 1991, a vast
area of
Canada's forests was depleted. 4.3 million hectares were
not growing
commercial tree species ten years after harvesting.
This
category has almost doubled in the past 15 years.
Canadian
governments whitewash the damage done by clearcut
logging.
The unregenerated forestland is part of the damage of
clearcut
logging. Another part is the massive loss of biodiversity
that is
happening across the country. This includes continued
destruction
of fisheries, and a growing number of species listed
as
endangered or threatened. It also includes a substantial
contribution
that clearcutting makes to global warming. The
government
has done nothing to bring carbon release by the forest
industry
under control.
As part
of its campaign to impress the European public, the
Canadian
government created a committee to study clearcutting. The
committee
was extremely biased in its approach, it totally ignored
the
widespread damage done by clearcutting, and rubber-stamped
clearcuts
as being Recologically sound.S In 1992 86.5% of logging
in
Canada was clearcutting.
Governments
often give average figures when speaking of the size
of
clearcuts. The true range of sizes can include huge clearcuts.
As of
1993, Ontario was still allowing clearcuts of between 100
and 200
hectares in the boreal forest. Alberta clearcuts may go up
to 100
hectares.
Reductions
in the size of clearcuts do not solve the problem.
Unless
accompanied by drastic reductions in the total volume of
forest
logged, smaller clearcuts only mean that the industry does
more of
them to get its assigned volume of wood. No such drastic
reductions
have been made. Smaller clearcuts fragment the forest
and
gradually link up to form large clearcuts.
The
public can be deceived by claims of reductions in the Annual
Allowable
Cut (AAC). The AAC is the government-set limit on the
amount
of wood that may be harvested annually from government-
owned
land. The actual amount of wood being
harvested may vary
considerably
from that figure due to a number of factors.
One of
these
is the logging of private land. Another
is the logging of
pulpwood,
which may not necessarily be included in the AAC. In
1992,
the national AAC declined by roughly 2%, while the total
harvest
rose by almost 6%. And the worst is yet
to come, because
over
the last five years over $10 billion worth of new or expanded
pulp
mills has been initiated. Their AACs are just beginning to
come on
line.
A Close
Look at British Columbia
British
Columbia contains the most forest and accounts for about
50% of
the volume of wood cut each year in Canada. The BC
government
has given millions of taxpayer's dollars to public
relations
firms to create a bright, new public image for its
forest
practices.
In one
publication, Forestry in British Columbia: The Answer Book
Premier
Harcourt says "The government of British Columbia has
repeatedly
made it clear that unsustainable, environmentally
damaging
logging practices will no longer be tolerated in BC." But
the
truth of the BC forest industry is that many mills are
currently
running out of wood due to unsustainable logging
practices,
and unsustainable rates of harvest are being allowed to
continue.
This is probably being done, in great part, to avoid the
political
backlash from the jobs that would be lost if the cut was
brought
down to a sustainable level. But over
the long term,
workers
are not served at all by this; the real benefits go to the
companies,
who are trying to keep record-high prices for wood and
pulp
rolling in as long as they can get them.
There
is 35% more mill capacity in BC than there is forest on
Crown
land, but that isn't stopping BC's
companies. To keep the
mills
operating at optimum capacity, BC's unsustainable forest
industry
is pillaging forest on private land, not only in BC, but
as far
away as Alaska, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
In the Yukon,
the
federal government is giving away the ecologically-sensitive
boreal
forest to BC companies for only $7.00 a truckload.
AAC
reductions on government land in BC have been forced because
there's
not enough wood left. But in areas where these reductions
have
occurred, they are nowhere close to the 35% reductions that
are
needed. With the logging on private land, the annual cut is
about
78 million cubic metres of BC timber.
And with the wood
supply
coming in from outside the province, these companies are
consuming
close to their capacity Q 90 million cubic metres a
year.
Meanwhile, companies are starting to demand access to forest
committed
to them for pulpwood. This would mean cutting an extra
8.39
million cubic metres a year over and above the AAC Q 240,000
logging
trucks full of wood.
The
government has embarked upon Timber Supply Reviews in
districts
throughout the province. Some of these reviews have made
claims
about the timber supply that totally ignore the need for
increased
protection of other values such as watersheds and
biodiversity;
these estimates appear hugely inflated compared to
what is
actually apparent on the ground.
Companies
in areas that have little wood left are pushing into
BC's
boreal forest to the north. The government's Timber Supply
Review
for the last great untapped reserve of boreal forest in
northwest
BC has paved the way by stating logging could be
maintained
at ten times the current rate. If approved, this
cutting
rate would devastate the area's forest, its wildlife, and
the
livelihoods of the many people, including native Indians, who
live
off the land or make their living as tourism guides. The
trees
needed to fill a single logging truck in this region would
have a
collective age of 30,000 years, as compared to 750 years
per
truck on Vancouver Island in southern BC. Growing conditions
in
these northern regions are so difficult that it is doubtful
whether
these forests will grow back once they have been cut, and
if they
did, it would take a very long time.
Europeans
who remember Premier Harcourt's first trip to Europe may
remember
his statement that BC had a new Forest Practices law.
They
may also have seen the government pamphlet that says the Code
will be
law by the spring of 1994. Now, in the spring of 1995, the
Forest
Practices Code has not yet been legislated.
When
last seen by the BC public, this Forest Practices Code
expressly
allowed 40-hectare clearcuts, made provisions for much
larger
clearcuts under the excuse of eradicating insect
infestations
and disease, did not require a sustainable rate of
harvest,
did not give adequate protection to fish-bearing streams
or
domestic watersheds, and gave district forest managers the
discretion
to disobey virtually any and all of its so-called
regulations.
It offered no protection for biodiversity under the
law,
only discretionary RguidelinesS, and it is said that now even
these
are being gutted. Without a drastic
reduction in the AAC,
40-hectare
clearcuts will mean more fragmentation and road-
building.
A
recent scientific report says the west coast fishery may be on
the
verge of collapse. It is known that clearcut logging destroys
fish
habitat; but the clearcutting will go on. A recent study
showed
that the new Forest Practices Code is overwhelmingly
inferior
to forest practices now required across the border in the
United
States. This unpopular government may be ousted next year,
leaving
behind Timber Supply Reviews and a Forest Practices Code
that,
while giving the appearance of change, have actually opened
the
door to the pillaging of most of what is left of our forest.
It's
true that this government has done some good things for the
environment,
but they represent nowhere near the level of
commitment
needed to change the course of forest practices from
one of
ecological devastation to one of good stewardship. Pleasing
the
forest industry continues to be the top priority in most major
decisions.
The
government has created quite a few new parks. It is not far
from
preserving 12% of the province. But
this does not mean 12%
of the
forest. Protection of low- and mid-elevation forest varies
between
6% and 8% in the regions that had a public planning
process
and new parks. 94-96% of these forest zones has been
designated
for logging.
It is
suspected that global warming is already having an impact on
some BC
fisheries. The environment minister gives lip-service to
the
need to curb global warming. He knows that dramatically
increased
forest protection is needed to offset global warming.
Yet
this same minister was part of a government committee that
turned
down a plea for including more than 6% of the low- and mid-
elevation
forest in the new parks the government is creating. The
government
gave no consideration to global warming when it made
the
recent decisions to leave key forested areas out of some
parks.
The
government has created a few truly large parks, and these are
real
treasures, but the public must realize that the vast majority
of the
environment in BC has little protection. Most of the new
parks
are small and ecologically fragmented.
The government
ignored
the crisis in the massive loss of biodiversity, and
ignored
the scientific evidence that larger parks are needed to
meet
this crisis. Political compromise was what determined the
boundaries
of many of these parks. In its latest decision in the
West
Kootenay/Boundary region, the government slashed all of the
major
park proposals by amounts ranging from 1/3-1/2. Key forested
areas
that should have been included were given to the logging
industry.
What is tragic is that these are the last major new
parks
we will ever have, as our last remaining wilderness areas
are
being cut so fast that in just a few years there will be none
of any
substantial size left to save.
The
scientific arms of our governments know that massive damage is
being
done to the environment, and that this damage will have an
impact
around the world. Recently a shocking federal government
report
cited scientific opinion that over 283 species of plants
and
animals are threatened or endangered in BC, and over 634
others
are rare or vulnerable. Clearcut logging was cited as one
of the
major causes. But the government is
willing to work on
preserving
biodiversity only as long as it doesn't take away too
much
forest from the forest industry. To date every need for
environmental
protection, no matter how urgent, has had to be
negotiated
and compromised with the profits of the logging
companies.
Europeans
who are perplexed by the two different stories being
told by
government/industry and environmental organizations can do
what we
advise the Canadian public to do: Look past all these
complicated
details to the end-result. In spite of serious,
devastating
damage being done to our environment, the forest
industry
is still getting just about as much wood as ever. The
result?
Last year the profits of some of BC's largest logging
companies
shot past the $100 million mark. Imagine a single
corporation
making over $100 million net profits in one year. At
the
same time, Canadian logging corporations owe millions of
dollars
in back taxes.
Over
the last years, support from the European community has
played
a critical role in getting better forest practices in
Canada.
Once again environmentalists from Canada come to beg you
to keep
up the demand for environmental reforms. Our governments
must
learn that the planet is small and that people all over the
world
are holding them responsible for the stewardship of a very
important
resource.
###RELAYED
TEXT ENDS###
You are
encouraged to utilize this information for personal
campaign
use; including writing letters, organizing campaigns and
forwarding. All efforts are made to provide accurate,
timely
pieces;
though ultimate responsibility for verifying all
information
rests with the reader. Check out our
Gaia Forest
Conservation
Archives at URL=
http://forests.lic.wisc.edu/forests/gaia.html
Networked
by:
Ecological
Enterprises
Email
(best way to contact)-> gbarry@forests.org
Phone->(608)
233-2194 || Fax->(608) 231-2312