Mike: I find your comments to be both useful and revealing: useful because they provide insight on a forest industry perspective on forestry and revealing because they hit on a few of the key differences that divide the industry from its many critics, who, I might clarify, are not just NGOs but also informed professionals and many of the general public.
Perception is reality. So if I substitute “timber" where you write “forestry” and “forest” in your comments, you might realize how even your thoughtful comments are perceived by many readers to be timber-centric. By way of illustration: "I may be the only pro-timber advocate in this chat" among many pro-forestry advocates.
As an example, plantations are not forests. Primary forests are not replaceable or renewable. The industry might be replacing the trees through planting but it is not replacing forests: by that I mean the ecology of primary forests, the full extent of ecosystem services a forest provides, and the full amount of the carbon emitted to the atmosphere though the act of logging.
As another example, implicit in your comments (and optimism) are two false assumptions:
One, you apparently believe that the plantations are performing as assumed by the forest ministry in its timber supply modelling when forest health surveys and science tell us otherwise.
Mortality and under-performance of young plantations for whatever reason after declaration of "free-growing" at 8 to 12 years of age are a big concern because the unverified performance of "managed stands" (ministry jargon for unmanaged plantations) as assumed in timber growth models determines the present supply of timber as reflected in allowable annual cuts -- ergo unsustainable timber supply.
Two, you are of the opinion that forestry is adequately operating under sustainable practices. To most informed forest ecologists and the general public nothing is sustainable about clearcut logging of primary forests with the resulting loss of biodiversity, damage to water, erosion of soil, and emissions of carbon.
The whole notion of “sustainable forest management” as a standard for forest certification has been a point of major contention ever since it was initiated and is viewed by many to be false and misrepresentative of the true state of forest practices in B.C. -- the epitome of greenwashing. Every time an industry spokesperson alludes to forest certification and sustainable forestry, it infuriates so many people both inside and outside the forest sector -- seeing is believing.
Misrepresentation is the reason why Ecojustice recently filed a complaint on behalf of a diverse group of Canadians to the federal Competition Bureau asserting that the forest industry and government claims of sustainable forestry are false and misleading. I suspect you are aware of this complaint; but, if not, here are links to relevant documents:
Press release: https://ecojustice.ca/pressrelease/sustainable_forestry_claims_false/
Text for the complaint: https://ecojustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-07-21-CSA-CB-Complaint.pdf
We agree in principle on the importance of communication and dialogue. However, the forest industry (and the forests ministry) have a lot to learn about what to communicate, how to do it, and who does it. By relying on amateurs among its lobbyists as spokespersons for the industry, who, when challenged, become defensive of their own organizations, the forest industry will continue to lose credibility and social licence. Communication has to be two-way, believable and truthful.
Meaningful dialogue needs to begin with mutual recognition by the forest industry, by the forests ministry and by their critics that the defining crises of our times are climate change and biodiversity loss, and that clearcut logging of primary forests in B.C. is a major contributor to both crises.
Within the context of forestry in B.C., what has to be conceded and what has to change to mitigate against these crises? How can industry expertise contribute meaningfully to dialogue and solutions? And how does the forest sector see itself surviving needed changes and concessions?
Over to you, Mike.