Some thoughts about shifts in forest renewal funding ...

Forest Management and

Silviculture Funding Shortfalls

There was a time when Government and the forest industry saw the value in effective silviculture programs.

Starting in the 1960’s Government assumed responsibility for forest renewal that lead to advances in renewal techniques including effective site preparation, planting/seeding and tending. Forest nurseries were established and seedling technology improved dramatically over time. Funding for these early programs was derived largely from general Government revenues, part of which was contributed from Crown charges on wood harvested from the forest.

By the 1980’s there was a shift in forest management responsibilities from Government to the forest industry as a result of changes in license tenure. Silviculture funding and planning remained with the Government.

In the mid-1990’s the entire responsibility for planning and silviculture was shifted to the forest industry. The level of expenditures in the silviculture program was tied to long term strategic objectives in the forest management plan. Funding for that level of silviculture was tied to contributions made by the industry to a provincially held renewal fund. Essentially, for each cubic metre harvested a given amount was held back and set aside for use in the silviculture programs.

Before these developments forest renewal was a hit or miss (mostly miss) process where forests were harvested and left for natural regeneration. The original forests harvested post WWII were primarily conifer that was destined for the pulp and paper and sawmilling industries. These stands were either pure spruce or jack pine or some combination of these two with occasional poplar scattered in the stands. For various reasons this process of natural regeneration allowed favoured pioneer hardwood species at the expense of conifer. The result, as a result of the lack of investment in silviculture was that the young forest was comprised mainly of mixed species with much higher levels of poplar and relatively low stocking of the more desirable conifer species.

By the 1980’s and 1990’s the improvements in silviculture practices along with much higher levels of funding resulted in much better young forests following harvest. These results were consistent with forest management planning objectives to recreate forest conditions found prior to extensive logging and forest conversion. Extensive areas of spruce and jack pine were very similar to those original conditions and met the long term objectives for wood supply and habitat management.

All of this came at considerable cost. When times were good in the forest industry with high demand and prices the industry was able to invest in these expensive treatments. In return for those investments and with expectation of more productive stands in the future the industry was able to increase current harvest levels.

The forest industry failed in the mid-2000’s and the fallout has been a disaster for the state of the forest. Pulp and paper mills closed due largely to lack of demand and increasing costs and were dismantled. Sawmills closed due to lower prices for their products coupled with higher costs for scarcer raw material. Government scrambled to maintain whatever scraps was left of the industry. Silviculture suffered as less money was available to execute the appropriate renewal programs. More and more area was left for natural regeneration whether or not it was appropriate for conditions encountered. Tending plantations became unheard of and quickly grass and herbaceous plants overran the young seedlings and survival plummeted.

The outcome is inevitable. Independent Forest Audits confirm that lack of investment means objectives described in management plans will not be achieved. Wood supply once considered sustainable will no longer be so. Changes in forest cover will mean changes in wildlife habitat. On and on.

The same foresters who at one time were committed to producing high quality, productive stands of spruce and jack pine, similar those found in the forest prior to logging, are now investing essentially nothing in silviculture and are content with whatever grows back post-harvest. The result will likely be degraded stands of mixed woods with an overabundance of second and third growth, poor quality poplar in place of those highly productive conifer forest plantations of the 1970’s through to the 1990’s.

The public is assured through legislation that forestry in Ontario is managed by highly qualified and committed registered professional foresters. It is hard to accept that claim in the face of these changes in forest renewal. Clearly, economics determines the effectiveness of silviculture programs, not what is best for the forest and clearly the lack of investment is damaging to long term forest health. When foresters consistently certify silviculture prescriptions that they know, or should know, will not be successful in terms of achieving future forest conditions the public has a right to demand to know why.

At the same time though the fault doesn’t necessarily lie with the role foresters play in this process. Foresters have little choice but to do what they are told. Government and industry demand maximum volumes of wood in management plans and foresters design silviculture programs that are capable of achieving those volumes with the budget they are given.

1.    This approach to linking income to silviculture is wrong. If there aren’t sufficient funds to do the work required to properly regenerate the forest then the forest is no longer sustainable. This should not be allowed to happen.

2.    Rehabilitating formerly degraded forest lands should be an objective in future forest management plans. This would require an assessment of recently harvested areas to determine current and future forest condition. The assessment would be followed by a plan to carry out necessary silviculture.

3.    The practice of listing multiple options for regeneration on silvicultural prescriptions should be avoided in preparation of management plans. Foresters should not have the option of planning for one set of outcomes while at the same time selecting lower cost options that will yield different outcomes.