COMPETING REALITIES: The Boreal Forest at Risk

From the many discussions we had with presenters and a review of the many reports referred to us, there emerged two basic questions. The first is, how should the forest be apportioned? What proportion of the boreal forest should be left in a natural state, protected from development; what proportion should be managed extensively for timber and other purposes, with ecosystem health of uppermost importance; and what proportion should be managed intensively for timber production? These are decisions that must be made on all levels – regional and local as well as national.

On the national level, conclusions have been made. Following its public consultations on goals for managing our forests, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers stated that Canada’s forested land should be managed in ways that maintain "essential ecological processes, biological diversity, productivity, resilience and capacity for renewal"(266). This management approach does not supersede, but rather is in addition to, setting aside some areas for protection.

Such an approach, whether it goes by the name of "natural landscape management" "ecosystem management" or "sustainable forest management," focuses on the management at the landscape rather than stand level. It requires that managers have a good understanding of the natural processes and diversity within the forest so as to judge the level of harvesting that the forest ecosystem can handle. All components of the forest ecosystem – water, soil, trees, wildlife, air – must be managed together,(267) as must all human activities within or impinging upon the forest. At the operational level, a wide range of harvesting practices may be used to bring about the desired forest site characteristics. Fine tuning will be needed for certain at-risk species. A number of forest companies are currently practicing this type of approach.

A "floating-reserves" system, developed by Mistik Management for the Saskatchewan boreal mixedwood forest, was brought to the Subcommittee’s attention. In this system, which is intended to preserve biodiversity over a broad area, forest management objectives are based on the predicted availability of habitat for key wildlife species as well as wood supply objectives. Landscape pattern targets influence the distribution of harvest and other activities. The spatial distribution of stands in the forest landscape is also assessed with regard to considerations such as connectivity and fragmentation. Replacement stands must be identified for those scheduled for harvest based on ecological characteristics. (268)

Protecting certain representative areas will also help to preserve boreal forest ecosystems, but, as pointed out by a number of researchers and presenters, such a network may not suffice to protect the whole range of biodiversity in the boreal forest. Some reasons cited include the high likelihood of losing important components of protected areas due to the frequency and scale of natural disturbances(269), and also the possibility of climate change impacts on protected areas in the boreal forest. In addition, there is much that is not known about the requirements of boreal wildlife species. For example, the habitat requirements of many species; why boreal forest bird populations vary as much as they do(270), and what controls the high cyclic variability in population sizes of many boreal vertebrate species are all unknown factors.(271)

This is not an argument against completing a representative areas network but rather in favour of managing extensively for ecocystem integrity. The case for protected areas was never originally meant to stand alone. As Hummel wrote in Protecting Canada’s Endangered Spaces:

"Clearly, if the effect of designating protected areas is to merely intensify resource exploitation on surrounding lands and waters, there is little overall gain for conservation. The fact is, we need both protected areas and sustainable use elsewhere to achieve our conservation mission. "Sustainable use" here means using natural resources such as forests, fishes, and agricultural land in a manner that ensures they will be healthy and available to future generations, indefinitely.

In the end, ecological sustainability depends on achieving economic stability by carefully extracting more and more value from a fixed amount of raw material – in other words, doing more with less. Protected areas alone won’t get us there, but they are a necessary first step in disciplining our demands on the land so that it remains a healthy and beautiful homeplace." (272)

In his 1994 keynote address to the Timber Supply in Canada Conference, J. Kimmins recommended zonation of the commercial forest into areas for intensive management for timber and areas for extensive management. In the latter, management would strive to mimic natural landscape and stand patterns that are significant to the values for which the area is being managed.(273)

Intensively managed areas could include forest management activities such as juvenile spacing, commercial thinning, increased pest and disease control, and increased fire protection. A trend toward intensive management in Canada is already evident. Significant increases in expenditure on silviculture, reflecting a trend to more intensive forestry on a smaller landbase, have been evident since the late 1970s. Silvicultural activity on private woodlots to rehabilitate stands and promote faster growth was funded through federal-provincial agreements until the mid 1990s. The Subcommittee was told that this activity is no longer funded in Ontario and the West.(274)

In addition to supplementing fiber production for the forest industry, it has been suggested that marginal or abandoned agricultural land be reforested to promote carbon sequestering. This would be only a partial solution, as the amount of land available would not be great enough to balance Canada’s carbon emissions. The Canadian Association of Woodlot owners estimated that woodlot owners could plant trees on 30,000 hectares each year for five years at a cost of $70 million/year.(275)

In light of the above, the Subcommittee has concluded that three distinct areas or categories of manegement are needed: protected areas, areas managed at a landscape level for biodiversity and timber; and intensively managed areas. The former should be up to 20 per cent of the boreal forest. Extensively managed areas would retain a relatively natural mixture of tree species and ages for the sake of preserving biodiversity and constitute most of the boreal forest. It would accommodate the full range of forest users and communities, including aboriginal hunters and trappers, tourism, and recreation. The third category would be intensively managed areas, which could comprise up to 20 per cent of the total forest.

The second basic question that the Subcommittee feels must be answered is, who shall be the forest stewards? This question was posed to the Subcommittee by several presenters and caused considerable debate. The boreal forest is too important to Canada and to the world to leave to politicians, subject to pressure from powerful interests, or to discretionary administrative decisions. Nor did the Subcommittee feel that the forest companies, with their shareholders desire for maximum profit-taking, should be in charge.

At length it became apparent to us that we must all be the stewards, applying our various strengths to the task: the federal government with its expertise in forestry, wildlife, fisheries, climate change and its many branches that deal with matters associated with the forest; the provinces with their management expertise; the forest companies with their innovation and technological leadership; the sustainable forest management network with its reseach expertise; the aboriginal communities with their traditional ecological knowledge base and desire to participate in decision-making; the biologists, foresters, and conservation organizations with their understanding of the complexity and fragility of the forest ecosystem, and the members of the public to whom the Crown forests ultimately belongs. There is indeed a "forest community" consisting of many different strengths and views, which together must take us into the age of "New Forestry."