Focus Magazine Nov/Dec 2016
Past Editions in PDF format
Focus Magazine July/August 2016
Focus Magazine Jan/Feb 2017
Focus Magazine March/April 2017
Focus Magazine May/June 2017
Focus Magazine July/August2017
Focus Magazine Sept/Oct 2017
Focus Magazine Nov/Dec 2017
Focus Magazine Jan/Feb 2018
Focus Magazine March/April 2018
Focus Magazine May/June 2018
Focus Magazine July/August 2018
Focus Magazine Sept/Oct 2018
Focus Magazine Nov/Dec 2018
Focus Magazine Jan/Feb 2019
Focus Magazine March/April 2019
Focus Magazine May/June 2019
Focus Magazine July/August 2019
Focus Magazine Sept/Oct 2019
Focus Magazine Nov/Dec 2019
Focus Magazine Jan/Feb 2020
Focus Magazine March-April 2020
Navigating through pandemonium
Development and architecture
Everything posted by David Broadland
Karen, thank you for summing up the reality of the deferrals so succinctly.
The ministry of forests provided few details about the areas of old-growth forest on which it claimed it was deferring logging just before the provincial election. FOCUS has obtained mapping that confirms the ministry greatly overstated its claim of "352,739 hectares." A load of old-growth forest heads northward on the Trans Canada near Nanaimo in December 2020 (Photo by Gordon Fuller) FOCUS has obtained mapping of the “Old Growth Deferral Areas” that were given names—but not much else—by then forests minister Doug Donaldson just before the provincial election. Th
Thanks for the details, Kevin. Unless those of us who are critical of the ministries practices are willing to understand the complexities of forest management, we aren't likely to be useful critics. So I appreciate your willingness to provide some of those details. Yes, let's talk more offline.
Wow. There's so much here, Kevin. Thank you for your years of public service and for coming forward with your concerns. I will contact you off line, but I wonder if you could tell us a little more about the 5000 permanent sample plots. Are they all plantations, or do they include primary forest? You say that there was pressure to log the PSPs. Was that because there was a shortage of trees to cut? Or was the intention to get rid of the sample plots so they couldn't be used to check the growth and yield modelling? Or? Thanks again for giving us the benefit of your years of servic
Thanks for your comments, TalkingTrees. I think many people agree with you on this. I do. But the devil would be in the details. How much less of a cut? I understand that the growth and yield models may be overestimating what can be cut by 20 percent. If that's the case, addressing that inaccuracy would require lowering the cut by 20 percent or more. The current (2018) carbon sequestration capacity of BC forests is 7.0 megatonnes per year, whereas it was 87 megatonnes back in 2000. But isn't the current 7.0 megatonnes also overestimated if growth and yield modelling is off? In any case, w
Your words "doing what you are currently doing" need further explanation. If what you are "currently doing" has external costs—loss of biodiversity, loss of BC forests' ability to moderate climate, loss of hydrological function, for example—that aren't included in your definition of sustainability, then this definition of "sustainability" is deeply flawed. If all you really care about is the flow of "fibre" to mills and log export facilities, then I suppose it's fine. One common element to timber supply reviews is that they always, directly or indirectly, consider the socioec
Hi Guest, thanks for this information. I take it you have worked for MoF. Are the results of the Workplace Environment Survey shared with all employees in that ministry? The information I have is that this survey is conducted every two years. Has the 2020 survey results been released to ministry employees?
Thanks for your comment TalkingTrees. I don't refer to the long-term harvest level in either this story or "Forestry isn't sustainable, folks." For readers who don't know how the ministry uses that term, it applies to the level of cut the ministry timber supply analysts think might be available 50 to 200 years (or more) from now. Nobody knows what's going to happen next year let alone hundreds of years from now, and I think the ministry's use of this term is pure hubris. How can it know what large disturbances outside its predictions might occur? Fires? Insects? Climate change? Building t
BC's ministry of forests is actively creating an alternative reality about the impact its policies and actions have on the climate and biodiversity crises. IN RESPONSE TO THE CLIMATE AND BIODIVERSITY CRISES, BC’s ministry of forests has fallen into a pattern of denialism. We all know what climate denial is: refusing to accept scientifically verifiable evidence. Denialism goes beyond denial. Denialism is the purposeful construction of an alternative version of reality. The ministry of forests, in cooperation with other members of the forest-industrial complex, is creating an alterna
Mapper par excellence David Leversee has done additional work at determining how much of Clayoquot Sound's total area of 279,414 hectares is actually being deferred for two years. He believes that there is only 22,403 hectares of "Good/Medium" old forest that remains unreserved or unprotected. Using David's more accurate number, the actual amount of old forest with large or very large trees on which logging is being deferred for two years is as follows: Crystalline Creek: 0.1 hectare Stockdale Creek: 233.6 hectares Incomappleux Valley: 2000 hectares Clayoquot Sound: 22
Forests minister Doug Donaldson's announced 2-year logging deferrals of old-growth forest are almost entirely in areas that have little or no productive old growth on them—or were already protected. BACK IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR, three BC forest scientists released an independent report quantifying the remaining scattered areas of forest containing “large” and “very large” old trees in this province. These are the “old-growth” forests that contain the highest levels of productivity and biodiversity—the forests that many thousands of British Columbians have fought hard to save from logg
Thank you for your insight on this "Waste smoke and mirrors". The Province's inventory of annual GHG emissions estimates the carbon released by slash burning each year (3.3 megatonnes in 2018), but these estimates miss most of the wood that's left in clearcuts. I have seen estimates that 40 to 60 percent of a cutblock's biomass is left in the clearcut or wasted along the way to end use. That would suggest roughly an equal volume of wood as is harvested, a volume that we know accurately thanks to log scaling. When one does the arithmetic, that 40 to 60 percent waste will release about 40 m
Thanks for your comments Judy. Readers might want to check out Sarah Cox's story in The Narwhal on the Spruce Beetle infestation in the Prince George region in which Judy is interviewed: 'Hundreds of hectares of moonscape': B.C. spruce beetle infestation used to accelerate clear cuts
Thanks for joining the conversation Atmo. I appreciate your years of experience and service to the province's forests. You say "The higher short-term harvest level found in most Interior TSAs is usually composed of wood killed by the mountain pine beetle or by the recent fires." This is not supported by the ministry's own data. I looked at several years of data from the ministry's Harvest Billing System to determine what percentage of the harvest was lodgepole pine in the TSAs with the greatest difference between their current AAC and the mid-term harvest level projected by each TSA'
Hi Yudel, thanks for your question. I didn't actually say that the "increase in the AAC has caused an additional 40,000 ha a year to be logged". This may be the cause of your confusion. The 40,000 ha per year estimate derives from, first, ministry timber supply reviews which have established a mid-term harvest level 14 million cubic metres lower than the current AAC, and second, ministry silviculture reports on how much forest has been logged that provide average volume/hectare. It is not derived from the uplifted AAC in the Interior that occurred during the peak of the beetle infestation
Posted August 27, 2020 Image: BC is undergoing a radical transformation as its forests are turned into a giant flammable plantation. Buried in 71 ministry of forests timber supply reviews is a huge gap in harvest sustainability that makes Forest Stewardship Council certification of BC wood products an international scam. Go to story
We looked at 10 years of expenses from the ministry's Annual Service Plan Report for each fiscal reporting period: 2009-2010 through to 2018-2019. You can find 8 of those here. If you want the other two, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Buried in 71 ministry timber supply reviews is a huge gap in harvest sustainability that makes Forest Stewardship Council certification of BC wood products an international scam. The hidden, but official, harvest sustainability gap Is BC’s forest industry sustainable? The BC Council of Forest Industries claims that “BC leads the world in sustainable forestry.” What would be required for COFI’s claim to be true? There’s a lot that could be said here. COFI’s claim could be true if its current members and their predecessors, for example, hadn’t logged 97 percent of biologica
July 3, 2020 Over the past 10 years, it cost British Columbians $365 million per year, on average, to allow forest companies to log publicly-owned forests. Most of BC’s “working forest” is now a giant patchwork of logging roads, clearcuts and young, fire-vulnerable plantations. For that dubious environmental result, BC citizens are paying more to manage the destruction than they receive in direct payments from forest companies for the wood extracted. ONE OF THE GREAT ENDURING MYTHS told about BC’s forest industry is that “forestry pays the bills, folks.” Thos
Yes, this is helpful. I am trying to determine how much of the difference can be accounted for by the additional costs that area-based tenures have. If you have professional experience on this question and can provide relevant information, please contact me at email@example.com.
Thank you for your reply. No, I am not arguing that government management of BC forests should be profitable. I am suggesting that claims that forestry "pays the bills" in this province are no longer valid. I am arguing, along with a lot of other voices in BC, that it is time to consider managing the forest in the Timber Harvesting Land Base for a broader spectrum of values than, in effect, just timber. In this era of governments declaring a climate emergency and acknowledging an ongoing collapse in biodiversity, it's long past time to acknowledge that the forest industry is doing harm, h