Under the banner of 'Focus on Clearcutting', a public examination of Nova
Scotian forestry practices took place in Halifax on Wednesday, May 10,
2000. The full-day forum consisted of four sessions - 'Clearcut
economics', 'Clearcutting exposed: a visual tour', 'Beyond clearcutting:
revaluing our forests', and 'Is it time to stop clearcutting in Nova
Scotia?' - for a total of two dozen presentations. Regrettably, I was only
able to attend the fourth session (though fortunately this final segment
acted as something of a round-up for the day).
Each of the six 'Time to stop clearcutting?' panellists were alloted 12
minutes to sketch their views on the topic. No provision was made for
direct discussion between the presenters but a susbsequent question period
gave moderate scope for this, at the same time affording some degree of
audience participation. Before any of this could happen, however, a member
of the organizing committee delivered fairly extensive prefatory
remarks.
Much of this opening speech (from Kermit deGooyer of the Ecology Action
Centre) was in the way of expressing appreciation to those who made the
event possible - presenters, sponsors, volunteers, etc. Given special note
in the list was Canada Trust, for provided funding. DeGooyer saluted
CanTrust for associating itself with a somewhat controversial undertaking,
rather than playing it safe and supporting unobjectionable but unispired
activities such as anti-littering campaigns.
Coupled with a PowerPoint display which prominently showcased the
Microsoft logo on the wall behind the panellists, this encomium left me
very ill at ease. How, I wondered, do we plan to move against clearcutting
if we render ourselves dependent on the selfsame corporate order that is
stripping the planet? Alternatively, I mused, did the larger part of the
organizing committee hold the naive belief that - in the absence of
structural retrenchment sharply circumscribing the power of commercial
enterprises - personal choice on the part of "consumers" could bring about
lasting and effective environmental change?
In the course of his introduction, deGooyer stressed that the "one-sided"
appearance of the conference line-up was not by design on the part of the
organizers. Indeed, deGooyer attested, extensive efforts were made to
involve both industry and government - but these entreaties were rebuffed
(with one exception: the staff person for the Health Canada/Environment
Canada Community Animation Program made a presentation during the third
session of the day). DeGooyer noted, with a very matter of fact air, that
the large forestry enterprises had indicated that they were in principle
interested in talking about clearcutting, but not where they would be
exposed to the expression of concerns from environmentalists.
Following Kermit deGooyer's speech there was little delay in getting to
Ron Colman, the first panellist. Colman - for 20 years a professor of
political science, and for five a researcher and speechwriter at the
United Nations - is best known locally as the director of GPI Atlantic.
This project is an attempt to create a "Genuine Progress Index" - a
measure of economic wellbeing which incorporates a wide range of valuable
social and environmental considerations ignored in the calculation of
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), our standard yardstick at present.
Colman began his address by noting that he had already made a presentation
earlier in the day in which (as those familiar with his work would expect)
he had condemned clearcutting. Therefore, he continued tongue-in-cheek, he
had concluded that his task for the evening was to present the case _for_
clearcutting.
Accordingly, Colman proceeded to argue that, given the way Nova Scotia
currently keeps its accounts, clearcutting makes perfect sense. If, as at
present, increases in the GDP are considered the bellwether of a healthy
economy, whatever makes the most money go round is what's best for Nova
Scotia. Clearcutting does an admirable job of this. It is the most
efficient means yet designed for harvesting trees - and the more trees
that can be cut down, the more can be sold.
Where reliance on GDP as a lodestone is complete, there are theoretically
no limits to how much forest is levelled in the pursuit of profit; even to
the point of eradicating trees altogether. GDP takes no account of the
essential services provided by a standing forest (such as production of
the oxygen we breathe) because no transfer of money - the only sign that
GDP can interpret - is involved. Yet, as Colman pointed out, to record as
gain the destruction of the basis of one's industry - in this case, trees
- is similar to a factory owner recording as pure profit the proceeds from
the sale of his manufacturing equipment.
Apologists for GDP answer these criticisms by arguing that there are
different kinds of capital, which they claim are by and large fungible.
For instance, trees or "natural" capital, in being harvested and sold, are
converted into money ("financial" capital), a portion of which, if need
be, can be invested in technology ("technological" capital) designed to
replace the original natural capital (perhaps by outfitting us all with
SCUBA gear).
Unlike the right-wing fanatics at the Fraser Institute (who have advanced
propositions frightfully close to that given above), the Nova Scotia
government is not quite so far gone as to be completely sanguine about the
prospect of progressively wiping out the province's forests. To guard
against such an eventuality, civil service ledgers carefully record two
types of data: how many trees are lost in a given year (through logging,
fire, etc.), and how many are gained (through natural regeneration and
silviculture). As long as the second item at least keeps pace with the
first, Colman explained, our harvesting activity is deemed sustainable
under the present regime.
As it turns out, column no.2 is said to be running ahead of no.1 at this
time. In fact, Colman reported, so many new trees are judged to be
springing up in Nova Scotia that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
thinks that we can comfortably _increase_ our harvesting rate.
Having outlined the standard rationale for clearcutting Colman became
himself again and moved on to show that an essential premise of the
argument is false. Central to the pro-clearcutting position is the idea
that "a tree is a tree is a tree", so that we need only ensure that new
growth is equal to or greater than the volume of wood cut down in order to
guarantee an endless supply. However, as Colman demonstrated, this view
fails to take account of the qualitative changes which clearcutting brings
about.
To begin with, clearcutting tends to beget youthful forests. In Nova
Scotia, during the period in which clearcutting went from playing a
supporting role to taking over the show (in the '50s less than half of our
timber harvest was clearcut; today, 99% is), older trees were virtually
eliminated from the province. In 1958, Colman related, about one quarter
of Nova Scotia's trees were at least 80 years old; by 1998, their numbers
had dropped below 2%. Yet, younger trees do not necessarily offer benefits
of the same kind or degree that older ones do; pine, e.g., must attain a
certain age before it is suitable for use in furniture construction (in
which capacity it commands a significantly higher price than does
pulp).
Additionally, clearcutting unevenly promotes the growth of certain species
(varieties which require shade, e.g., are obviously at a great
disadvantage in the wake of clearcutting). Amongst other effects this has
led to a pronounced increase in the softwood component of our forests.
Yet, Colman reported, studies in New Brunswick have shown that a mixture
of deciduous and coniferous species should be preferred. Where hardwoods
and conifers grew in close proximity, defoliation rates from the spruce
budworm averaged less than 15%; where stands consisted of evergreens only,
defoliation rates were consistently above 70%.
Next after Ron Colman was Kevin Deveaux, a lawyer and a Member of the
Legislative Assembly. Deveaux is currently running for the leadership of
Nova Scotia's New Democrats.
Kermit deGooyer had earlier explained that the other parties in the
Legislature, the Liberals and the NDP, had been invited to participate in
lieu of the absent government representatives. While I thought it entirely
in order that the forum's organizers should extend the opportunity to all
politicians, as public servants, to come and educate themselves about the
issues, I found questionable the decision to extend them space for
presentations.
The government, in both its legislative and executive arms, ought indeed
to be held to account for its actions with regard to forestry or aught
else. However, the Opposition can neither answer for the government nor
give verifiable indications of what their own parties would do once in
power. Accordingly, granting the Liberals and the NDP the chance to speak
under these circumstances does little but provide them with an opportunity
to make free political hay. To boot, the procedure was discriminatory as
groups without seats in the Legislative Assembly were not given the same
privilege.
To his credit, Deveaux seemed somewhat sensible of the peculiarity of his
role. He began by explaining that, by his reading, the organizers had
invited him to shed some light, as an insider (in the Legislature, if not
the government), on the political dimensions of clearcutting in Nova
Scotia.
Deveaux posited that succesive Grit and Tory administrations have been
reluctant to come to grips with concerns about forestry practices because
of the unusual composition of land ownership in Nova Scotia. Atypically
for Canada, most land in the province (and this holds true for woodlots as
well) is privately owned, the greater part of which is divided into small
parcels held by individuals.
Many of these smallholders, Deveaux explained, view their woodlots as a
kind of nest egg, or hedge against financial hardship. Often, in the
regular course of life, these people (many of them absentee landowners)
take little active interest in their holdings. Should a contractor come
along and offer to clearcut the land - leaving the owners in possession of
their plot while paying them well for their wood and without the owners
themselves having to lift a finger - it cannot be surprising that many
assent to the arrangement. Hence, if the government moves to legislate
limits to clearcutting a sizeable number of voters would be directly
affected, and might not like it very much.
In support of this contention Deveaux quoted from two DNR personnel - one
being the Minister for Natural Resources himself, Ernie Fage. In a letter
to the NDP caucus, Fage indicated that DNR had chosen not to participate
in the conference for two reasons. First, staff were too busy discharging
other duties (possibly true in light of the crippling spending cuts made
by Fage`s boss, Premier John Hamm). Second, though, Fage noted that the
majority of Nova Scotia's woods were held privately and stated that it was
the Department's view that choice of cutting method on these holdings
ought to be at the discretion of the owners.
Deveaux also read from the industry journal Atlantic Forestry
Review. In the May, 2000 issue DNR's Executive Director for Forest
Practices was cited as saying that his Department: "...will not tolerate
any landowner being forced to do anything that he did not wish to have
done on his property."
Given, on the one hand, the obvious political sensitivity of the situation
(which has made the status quo attractive to government), and on the
other, the environmental imperatives which make it clear that the present
forestry regime is unsustainable, Deveaux proposed a two-pronged approach
to the situation, combining what he termed "honey" and "vinegar". The
honey would come in the form of tax incentives which would favor selective
harvesting over clearcutting; the vinegar would be prohibitions on the
export of raw lumber, which Deveaux identified as a principal impetus for
the high rate of cut in Nova Scotia.
Minga O'Brien was the next speaker. O'Brien is a biologist and a forest
ecologist. She has worked for SmartWood as a certifier of Forest
Stewardship Council protocols and is presently with the Nova Scotia Nature
Trust, a non-profit organization which attempts to conserve private lands
in the province.
In her talk O'Brien expanded upon Ron Colman's idea that clearcutting can
produce important qualitative changes in a forest, so that attending only
to quantitative aspects (i.e. the number of trees) is insufficient. To
exemplify this O'Brien reported on a study conducted at Hubbards Brook,
New Hampshire, the results of which were published in 1979.
Hubbards Brook was a bosky and virtually pristine area at the commencement
of the study. After some years of scientific examination the environs were
clearcut, then replanted and sprayed with herbicides (as is customary in
industrial logging operations). The researchers continued to monitor the
area for some time thereafter.
O'Brien had prefaced her discussion by labelling ecology "the science of
the obvious", meaning that rigorous investigation only tends to confirm
what our intuition tells us about these matters. Hubbards Brook bears this
out. As was to be expected, the researchers observed profound and
disastrous environmental effects during the period of their study.
Whereas, in its unmolested state, Hubbard Brook had been a vibrant and
self-sufficient system, after the logging operation it was emphatically
degraded.
Amongst the numerous changes noted were detrition of the soil, damage to
the watercourses (through avulsion and siltation), and loss of biota. Many
of these effects were inter-related and mutually reinforcing. To
illustrate: the removal of large trees, with their extensive root
networks, left the soil vulnerable to erosion. Meanwhile - without the
braking effect which the tree canopy had provided - more precipitation
struck the newly vulnerable earth at a greater velocity, gouging out
minute pellets of dirt and causing even more soil to be carried off than
would otherwise have been the case. In turn, the telluric degradation
resulted in less topsoil being available to anchor new growth. That which
did remain showed a waning capacity to hold nutrients and moisture,
further decreasing the survival prospects of young plants. With the
consequent net loss of flora, it was only to be expected that the cycle
would be perpetuated.
The clearcutting of Hubbard Brook also devestated the habitat of a whole
range of animals, O'Brien added. Those affected naturally included birds -
which were deprived of safe spaces to nest - but also earthbound animals,
amphibians and fish. Land animals as diverse as squirrels and bears use
hollowed out trees for hibernation - but no wood of significant size was
left at the site; amphibians and fish alike were unable to cope with the
massive temperature fluctuations and net gain of heat that resulted from
the loss of shade and water storage that had been provided by the forest.
Siltation of the water courses caused further harm to the fish
population.
Having detailed the "collateral damage" attendant on clearcutting, O'Brien
concluded her presentation by noting that, not so long ago, even those
working within the forest industry recognized the destructive nature of
the technique. O'Brien quoted Ralph Johnson (from 1928-65 Chief Forester
for Bowater, one of the larger pulp and paper concerns in Nova Scotia) as
being of the opinion that clearcutting was contra-indicated in all but a
select number of circumstances. O`Brien noted that Johnson also condemned
the practice of harvesting trees before they reached maturity - a practice
which (as reported by Ronn Colman) is alive - and doing great harm -
today.
As Kermit deGooyer had intimated in his introduction, it took a sturdy
soul to stand up in front of the `Focus on Clearcutting` crowd and defend
clearcutting. Nevertheless, Peter Duinker, who spoke after Minga O'Brien,
did not shrink from the task.
Duinker, Director of Dalhousie University's School for Resource and
Environmental Studies, wisely sought to woo the audience with humour
before making his views known. Indicating his bald pate, he made bold to
claim that he knew something about clearcutting at firsthand: having
detected an "uncontrolled natural thin" progressing across his scalp, he
had decided that a clearcut was preferable (I chose similarly in a like
situation, as those who have seen your humble reporter know). Lest
jocularity prove insufficient, Duinker further sought to passivate the
crowd by dissecting the term "clearcutting" - an endeavour which, by his
own admission, was somewhat soporific in its effect.
Having taken these steps to tame the audience Duinker at length addressed
the evening's topic directly. "Is it time to stop clearcutting in Nova
Scotia?" he queried. In all likelihood, he postulated, this time would
never come; and definitely not, at a minimum, until certain conditions
come to pass.
As it happens, two of the requirements he had in mind had already been
adverted to by Kevin Deveaux: the apparent antipathy of woodlot owners
towards regulation of harvesting and the perceived financial hardship
entailed in swearing off clearcutting (the latter obviously influencing
the former). However, while Deveaux was relatively optimistic about the
possibility of bringing landowners on side, Duinker dismissed this notion
as unrealistic for the foreseeable future.
Referring to his earlier descriptive remarks about clearcutting, Duinker
further argued that the method - especially in its so-called "messy" form
- was actually an appropriate one, given the present composition of our
forests. Duinker conceded that clearcutting would not have been an optimal
strategy in the Acadian forest that existed in a virgin state prior to
European incursions but maintained that, in their present condition, our
woods lend themselves to clearcutting given that the species which now
predominate grow back best under conditions of full exposure. He noted,
however, that an increase in messy clearcutting (where more biomass -
branches, e.g. - are left at the site, so that there is less loss of
nutrient content) would be an improvement on the status quo.
Duinker also stated that the impact of climate change ought to be be given
due consideration in the clearcutting debate. If Nova Scotia comes to be
severely affected by global warming, said Duinker, it might behoove us to
become "more aggressive" in our harvesting.
Regrettably, Duinker did not elaborate on this thesis, so one can only
guess at his rationale. My own assumption was that he had in mind the
susceptibility to natural disaster (fire, insect invasion, etc.) of the
degraded forest now common in Nova Scotia. It is now certain that
conditions will worsen over the course of the 21st century and Duinker`s
idea, I would presume, is that we might as well cut the maximum number of
trees ourselves, and use the wood - because otherwise gales or pests or
whatnot will do the job anyway, but without benefit to us.
In rounding out his address, Duinker made a plea to examine clearcutting
in historical perspective. As instantiated today, Duinker argued,
clearcutting is a less destructive practice than was the single tree
felling of valuable specimens ("highgrading") of yesteryear. Then, too, he
suggested, clearcutting in itself is relatively benign if trees are
allowed to grow back. What has been truly devestating, on Duinker's view,
is the permanent conversion of former woodlands to settlement,
agricultural purposes, and so on.
Wade Prest followed Duinker. As matters turned out, Prest was the
penultimate speaker; but there was some confusion on this point due to
Elizabeth May's tardy arrival and Prest went to the podium believing
himself to be the final presenter of the evening. In consequence, Prest
altered his planned speech in an attempt to sum up key insights of the
symposium with a minimum of duplication.
All of the night's presenters were creditable, and in particular I found
Peter Duinker's manner quite genial and engaging; but in terms of delivery
my favorite speaker was definitely Wade Prest. A scion of an old Nova
Scotian sawmilling family, he studied forestry and biology at university
and now practices sustainable logging on his own land. Prest is someone
who is manifestly well-versed in both the theoretical and the practical
aspects of forestry. On my view, Prest's unhurried, folksy way of dealing
with some fairly technical material deserves special notice.
The first theme which Prest dealt with was the provincial government's
revisionist stance regarding the state of our forests and the related
question of how much wood can reasonably be cut in a given year. In 1981,
Prest stated, the Department of Lands and Forests (later integrated into
DNR) judged that if the several millions of dollars spent yearly on
silviculture in Nova Scotia were doubled, the allowable cut could be
raised to 4,500,000 cubic metres by 2000. In 1999, Prest noted, 6.3
million cubic metres were harvested - despite the fact that monies used
for silviculture had stayed constant or even diminished from their '81
levels.
This apparent incongruity is explained by the remarkable recent discovery,
by the Department of Natural Resources, that Nova Scotia has 30% more
wooded land than previously thought, and that our forests are 17% more
productive (i.e. trees are growing back that much faster) than earlier
estimates had assumed. Given these new data, it is agreed that there is a
moderate amount of overcutting occuring in the province, but more
silviculture, DNR avers, will easily compensate for the excess
harvesting.
It is true that generating an accurate count of trees is a notoriously
difficult business in an area of any size; obviously it is not feasible to
traverse Nova Scotia totting them up one by one, and no other failsafe -
but less tedious - method has been devised. While skeptics might find it
suspicious that inventory projections should be radically ratchetted
upwards just when critics are raising concerns about the sustainability of
our harvesting practices, it is not easy to put the lie to the revised
estimates of the province's tree population. Tacitly acknowledging this,
Prest's body language unmistakably conveyed his doubts about the new,
higher total, but he did not directly challenge the contention.
He did, however, take issue with the 17% claim. Referring back to Minga
O'Brien's presentation, Prest discussed the degradation of forests
attendant on clearcutting. DNR's productivity estimates, Prest indicated,
were based on studies of stands which had been clearcut twice or three
times - but this is chicanery. Forest ecosystems are progressively
weakened by succesive rounds of clearcutting (through mechanisms outlined
by Minga O'Brien), and even without this the damage may worsen over time
as the incapacitated system loses ever more essential elements (water,
minerals, etc.) So even if DNR's model was a correct reflection of say,
second or third growth, it is an appropriate guide to later forest
generations; and indeed, Prest stated, ultimately woods which have been
subject to multiple clearcuts which have productivity approaching
zero.
Although he protested that he didn't have the time to talk about his
"woodlot owner stuff", in truth Prest's presentation was preceptibly
informed by his experience as a forester on his own land. Prest made an
appeal to consider the human dimension of the forest industry: 13,000 Nova
Scotians work in the sector, he said, and it will not do to throw them out
of work even in the name of ecology. Happily, though, there is no reason
to suppose that employment and environmentalism are mutually
incompatible, according to Prest.
Prest spoke of the positive effect on global carbon budgets that logging
can have. He suggested that by cutting down trees - at the proper age, he
cautioned; not in an immature state, as is common practice today - and
using the wood for constructing shelter, furniture, musical instruments
and assorted other artifacts, carbon is kept sequestered in the timber
while land is made available for new trees to grow up and absorb yet more
greenhouse gases. We should modify our techniques, Prest stressed -
notably by dispensing with clearcutting - but we should not give up on
forestry.
As indicated above, Elizabeth May was the last speaker of the evening. May
is known nationally as the Director of the Sierra Club of Canada; she is
also an author and a lawyer. She has been an environmental activist for
more than 20 years, first becoming involved through her opposition to
aerial spraying of insecticides in Cape Breton.
After a few prefatory remarks, May picked up where Wade Prest had left off
in a discussion of the Nova Scotia government's creative accounting
techniques. Where Prest had argued that DNR assumptions about forest
productivity were flawed because they ignored the damage inflicted on
woodland ecosystems by clearcutting, May challenged DNR directly by
stating that the Department's modelling was pure obfuscation. Third party
audits had consistently found that silviculture targets were not being
met, she revealed. Yet, despite the knowledge that the silviculture which
was supposed to have generated sufficient new growth to compensate for
over-cutting had never materialized, DNR extrapolated its figures exactly
as if the work had been done.
May also provided a couple of intriguing quotations. One, from a 1958
Department of Lands and Forests publication (the same document used by Ron
Colman to identify the age of Nova Scotian trees in that year), showed the
Department taking a very dim view of clearcutting. This changed the
following twelve-month when Stora opened its massive pulp and paper plant
in Port Hawkesbury, shifting the primary demand in the province from high
quality/large diameter timber to low grade wood where size was of little
moment.
The second chestnut came from a manifesto produced by the Canadian Council
of Forest Ministers. Reminding us that Peter Duinker had indicated that
clearcutting was defined in a number of different ways, May suggested that
he had overlooked the most extraordinary of all - to wit, that elaborated
by said Council.
According to this august body, clearcutting is to be understood as a
method of regenerating trees. This assertion moved May to conjure the
spectacle of the noble clearcutters who go to the trouble of hewing
exhaustively, then remove every last stick from a site - not with any
mercenary thought of selling the wood - but only to create the "fully
exposed environment" neccesary to the promotion of certain plants...
May wrapped up her presentation with a strategic suggestion for
environmental activists. Never mind clearcutting for the moment, she
advised - concentrate for now on a campaign against feller-bunchers.
First of all, she explained, feller-bunchers - the primary piece of heavy
equipment currently used for industrial logging - cause specific types of
damage over and above that entailed in clearcutting generally. For one,
they are so massive that they cause soil compaction; this promotes run-off
which leaves ecosystems vulnerable to drought while at the same time
increasing the risk of flooding. Then, too, extensive road networks must
be created to allow the machines to be brought to site. This leads to
further telluric degradation, as well as opening up former wilderness
areas to other types of exploitation, be it snow-mobiles or
settlement.
Moreover, May noted, a primary economic impetus driving clearcutting is
the huge debt load taken on by logging contractors in the act of
purchasing the obscenely expensive feller-bunchers. Saddled with such a
burden, the contractors are compelled to keep their machines working
around the clock in order to meet their debt service obligations; under
these circumstances, clearcutting is the only viable option. In
consideration of this, May proposed lobbying government to buy back the
feller-bunchers, thus removing the pressure to harvest at breakneck speed.
Once this was accomplished, she concluded, a fitting resting place for
them would be in a Museum of Inappropriate Technology alonside the
draggers which have devestated the fisheries.
The evening had gotten off to a bit of a tardy start anyway, and as Kermit
deGooyer`s introduction proved to be of some length and most of the
presenters ended up overstepping the time allotment, the question period
had necessarily to be reduced. As it turned out, intervention from the
floor was further limited by the tendency of audience members who did make
it to the microphone to hold forth without apparent thought for others who
might wish to speak.
I suspect that at this stage almost everyone was feeling somewhat taxed,
due to the lateness of the hour and the strain of attending to the
session's half dozen presentations. As a result, many people were doing an
indifferent job of listening; which was unfortunate because it meant that
the panel's prepared remarks could not be properly augmented through
supplementary discussion.
A notable example was a challenge directed at Peter Duinker: how, he was
asked, could he assert that the damage wrought by forest fires and by
clearcutting was comparable? Duinker calmly responded by reminding his
interrogator that he had made no such suggestion in the course of the
evening, adding that he fully agreed that the two phenomena were
dissimilar in all essential respects. I suspect what may have happened is
that the questioner (who I understand was aware in advance of Duinker's
pro-clearcutting sentiments) may not have listened closely to Duinker's
presentation. No doubt used to hearing this equation made by clearcutting
apologists as a matter of course, he likely took it for granted that the
Resource School Director would trot out this line.
Panellists were responsible for some miscues as well. When her fellow
guests seemed disinclined to respond to a pair of cogent queries from an
audience member, Elizabeth May spoke up. Unfortunately, she became so
absorbed in a single aspect of the woman's inquiry that neither actual
question ["In the main, do corporations or individuals own the
feller-bunchers?" and, "What role do international trade agreements play
in Nova Scotian forestry?"] received a satisfactory answer.
Then, amidst a disquisition by another member of the audience, Ron Colman
interjected with a non sequitur. To be sure, Colman's expostulation was
wellfounded (he was expressing his outrage at the government boycott of
the forum), and the speaker was rather more prolix than the occasion
demanded. Perhaps stronger action on the part of the chair was indicated,
but she had been called in at extremely short notice (the slated moderator
having cancelled on the very eve of the conference) and may, quite
understandably, have been slightly unsure of her office.
Lest it seem that I have nothing but criticism for the question period, I
should note that good ideas were put forward here, too. The man whose
soliloquy was interrupted by Ron Colman argued effectively against Peter
Duinker's conclusion that it was not politically feasible to regulate tree
harvesting on private property.
As related above, Duinker had argued that woodlot owners would not put up
with being told what to do on their own land. Yet, the man observed, along
with all their fellow citizens these same people must obtain permits for
any number of activities on their private property (building a shed,
digging a well, etc.); why should they suddenly revolt on this one
point?
Another man made the extremely important observation that government
(whatever our high school civics courses taught) does not
unproblematically reflect the will of the people, whether with regard to
conservation or any other matter. Indeed, more often than not "our"
elected officials are concerned only with what industry wants.
We are setting ourselves up for failure, the man averred, if we approach
issues with the belief that we need only inform politicians of our
preferences, and they will make it so. Rather, we must understand that our
supposed representatives will frequently form the first wave of the
opposition against citizen action.
Typically it takes some time to digest such extensive information as was
put forward at the `Focus` forum. A fortnight on, it strikes me that a
certain re-direction might be appropriate in future meetings of this
sort.
One aspect of the conference which I found disquieting was the rough
treatment meted out to Peter Duinker by certain members of the audience
during the question period. It struck me that this was neither
constructive nor called for.
Now, as related earlier, I was vexed by Kermit deGooyer's expression of
support for Canada Trust, which was coupled with what I found to be an
overly sympathetic allusion to the decision by industry to stay away (for
fear of encountering the reaction Duinker was met with). On the face of
it, these complaints may seem inconsistent. The difference is that, first,
corporations are not people - the odious legal fiction of corporate
"persons" notwithstanding - and they ought not to be treated as if they
were. More specifically, Duinker deserved the respect and consideration
which is the due of any person; Canada Trust, an artificial and (in common
with all modern corporations) baleful construct, did not.
Second, forestry companies and the state are the actors responsible for
what is now happening in our woods - and by all rights they should answer
for their actions. It is possible, I suppose, that Duinker attended the
forum as a stalking horse for these two groups; but if anyone at the
conference had evidence of this they failed to bring it forward. This
being the case, Duinker was entitled to present his views without having
his character impugned, and without being attacked because he has ideas
that square with those held by the true culprits.
An unfortunate effect of all this was that Duinker`s ideas were not as
well analyzed as they might have been. In particular, I would have liked
to have heard more of his thoughts on climate change. While I question
whether anyone would have been converted to the view that clearcutting is
a sensible response to global warming, I definitely feel that the theme
needs to be dealt with.
Duinker, if I understood him aright, represents a kind of
realpolitik position. He recognizes that Nova Scotia`s forests have
been badly mauled for centuries and that to restore them to health (if it
is still possible) is a project that will take generations of humans.
Given the domination of neoliberal politics and the rapidity with which
climate change is coming upon us, what is the sanest strategy for those
with an interest in forest issues? At the end of the day, perhaps the
answer is still that we should mobilize all our efforts against
clearcutting; but I would find it comforting to hear more talk that
suggests that environmentalists are fully cognizant of these factors.
The 'Focus on Clearcutting' forum - even in the single session that I
attended - provided a wealth of information. Additionally, it has stirred
up considerable attention to this topic in the wider community (the
conference itself made CBC Radio's national news and the local CBC has
suddenly come alive with forestry stories in the past fortnight). The
organizers and the presenters have done the public a great service and
richly deserve commendation.
Linda Pannozzo of the Nova Scotia Public Interest Research Group (NSPIRG)
has, in the recent past, planned and facilitated two somewhat smaller
symposia on forestry practices in this province - arguably the inspiration
for the 'Focus' forum. Without meaning to be greedy, it is much to be
hoped that further conferences of this type can be arranged in the
future.
---Antoni
The groups which sponsored the `Focus on Clearcutting` were:
In conjunction with the conference, Linda Pannozzo and David Caulfield of
NSPIRG coordinated the production of a tabloid entitled Clearcutting in
Perspective. The magazine includes articles by a number of the `Focus
on Clearcutting` panellists as well as original artwork by Lyse Boyce.
Copies of the tabloid are available, free of charge, at the NSPIRG office
(314-6136 University Avenue, Halifax; open Monday-Thursday 11am-5pm).
Those who can`t make it in person can call 902-494-6662 or write
<nspirg@is2.dal.ca> and I`m sure the good folks at PIRG will arrange
to
send you a copy.