N.S. report calls for restrictions on clear-cutting
Urges focus on ‘ecological forestry’
HALIFAX• A new report is calling for fundamental changes in how trees are harvested in Nova Scotia — including a reduction in clear-cutting, a controversial practice that fells large stands of forest.
The report released Tuesday by University of King’s College president Bill Lahey says forest practices should be guided by a new paradigm called “ecological forestry” which treats forests “first and foremost” as ecosystems.
It says the province should adopt a so-called triad model that sees some areas protected from all forestry; some forests dedicated to high production forestry including clear-cutting; and areas that are harvested with a “lighter touch” and limited clear-cutting.
Although he didn’t say it in his report, Lahey was unequivocal when asked whether there is currently too much clear-cutting in Nova Scotia.
“Yes,” he said. “There is too much happening where it should not happen ... and the consequences of that is a continuing reduction in the proper functioning of the ecosystems and the biodiversity that are dependent on our forestry.”
Lahey’s report says clearcutting would be acceptable in some even-aged forests of predominantly single softwood species. However, Lahey says alternatives to clearcutting should generally be used where the forest is of the mixed-species, multi-aged variety.
It says the recommended changes are estimated to reduce clear-cutting from 65 per cent of all harvesting on Crown land to between 20 and 25 per cent.
Lahey acknowledged that as a consequence there could be increased clear-cutting on private land as industry deals with a reduction in wood supply. “It’s a recognition of the reality that 70 per cent of our land is owned by Nova Scotians,” said Lahey.
But he said any adverse economic effects shouldn’t stop the province from better protecting Crown land and by extension privately owned woodlots.
“I do not think the danger of contraction in the industry should be a rationale for not implementing the level of protection for ecosystems and biodiversity on Crown land that I say is warranted. Nor should it lead to a fainthearted approach for over time moving as much private land management toward ecological forestry as possible.”
About 90 per cent of wood harvested in Nova Scotia is clear-cut, according to federal figures.
But Lahey’s report says about 80 per cent of forest harvesting is done through clear-cutting, with about 90 per cent done on private lands and 65 per cent carried out on Crown land. Lahey said about 18 per cent of all land in Nova Scotia is owned by forestry companies.
Lands and Forestry Minister Iain Rankin gave no immediate reaction, saying the government would study the report before responding to any recommendations, including those that would reduce the percentage of clearcutting on Crown land.
The report calls for better ecological management and stricter overall enforcement by the province.
However, it conspicuously omits any reference on whether the use of trees for biomass energy generation should continue.
It also recommends Crown licence-holders be given access to public funding for the use of herbicide spraying to control competing species and to control the density of areas that are clear-cut, known as plantations.
A CONCERN IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT LOWER WOOD SUPPLY.
Lahey also dismisses any notion that Westfor, a conglomeration of companies in western Nova Scotia, has limited the access of private owners to markets for their wood.
Announced nearly a year ago, Lahey’s review was originally due in February, but extensions were granted in order to complete the report and then to have it reviewed by advisers in international law and forestry economics.
It was met with a decidedly mixed reaction from an industry representative on Tuesday.
Jeff Bishop, executivedirector of Forest Nova Scotia, said while there are some good things in the report there are also things that “scare” him. “It’s always a concern if we are talking about a lower wood supply,” said Bishop.
He admitted that at this point he doesn’t know whether the overall recommendations will be good or bad for private land owners or the industry as a whole.
“We are going to have to dig in to the information they provided,” he said.