Atlantic Forestry September 2019

Erdle’s dream
Accord could increase protected areas by increasing intensive management

by David Palmer

The Federal government has set a new target of 17 percent for protected natural areas (PNAs) country-wide by the end of 2020, and has created a $500 million pot of money known as the Canada Nature Fund to help provinces achieve those targets. For some provinces, getting to 17 percent will be a piece of cake (B.C. and Nova Scotia lead the pack, at 16.8 and 16.4 percent respectively), but for others it will be a lot more difficult. New Brunswick and P.E.I., at 4.7 and 3.3 percent respectively, are the laggards. But New Brunswick has big plans to change its number dramatically in the years ahead.

For decades, there has been a struggle in New Brunswick between those seeking to conserve more forest and those wanting to harvest more wood. Successive governments have tinkered with the numbers, pleasing or displeasing one group or the other, but rarely finding a happy medium. The 2014 Forestry Agreement reduced the conservation forest from 28 percent to 23 percent, and then the Liberals restored it to 28 percent just before they left office.

With 100 percent of the public forest committed, wood supply has always been tight. The operating assumption was that there was no slack in the system, and that if more wood were to be allocated to timber companies, it would have to come from the conservation forest. Conversely, if more forest were to be set aside, somebody would have to give up some wood supply.

According to earlier wood supply forecasts, the payoff for decades of tree planting and silviculture was not expected until about 2030. Then a miracle happened. A review of the 2014 Forestry Agreement that looked closely at thousands of tree growth plots – in New Brunswick and in neighbouring jurisdictions Maine and Quebec – revealed that tree growth was significantly higher than previously expected. So much so, in fact, that not only could the forest easily furnish the extra volume required to meet the commitments of the much-maligned Forestry Agreement, there was enough extra wood coming from the intensively managed portion of the working forest that it freed up other forest land that could be added to the PNA network.

In the dying days before the 2018 provincial election, with little fanfare, the outgoing Liberal government announced they were doubling the amount of PNA on Crown land, as well as honouring the increased allocations. This was met with some initial skepticism, but the current Progressive Conservative government is lending credibility to the numbers by proceeding with a two-fold increase in PNAs.

Although an impressive leap forward, this still leaves New Brunswick seven percent shy of the federal target. It leaves one wondering what could be achieved if growth rates were increased even more. That’s a question that has fascinated Dr. Thom Erdle for many years.

DUAL BENEFITS

At Forest NB’s 2019 AGM in March, Dr. Erdle delivered a presentation entitled “Dual Benefits of Intensification – from Possible to Practical,” exploring this theme in detail. The good professor spent several years in New Zealand, where he noted striking similarities and dramatic differences between New Brunswick and New Zealand. To begin with, both are half-way to the poles at the same latitude – 45 degrees north for New Brunswick, and 45 degrees south for New Zealand. New Brunswick has six million hectares of forest, and New Zealand is in the same ballpark, with nine million hectares. Here the similarities end.

The proportion of working forest in New Zealand is 18 percent, while in New Brunswick it is 77 percent. In New Zealand the growth rate, or mean annual increment (MAI), is an astounding 20-25 m3/ha/year (eight to 10 cords/acre/year), while in New Brunswick it is 2.5 to five m3/ha/yr (0.5-1.0 cord/acre/year). Finally, despite the fact that the standard industrial New Zealand forest is an intensively managed plantation stocked with non-native third-generation Radiata pine, and treated to site preparation and herbicides, there is a peaceful and productive co-existence among the public, the industry, the indigenous population, and multiple interest groups.

Clearly, the growing conditions in New Zealand are much better, and New Brunswick will never be able to achieve those astonishing yields, but we can do a lot better than we are now. First, a bit of background is required.

There are 3.2 million hectares of Crown land in New Brunswick. If the forest were growing at the rate of one m3/ha/year, and every bit of the forest were operable, that would yield 3.2 million cubic metres a year. At 2.5 m3/ha/year (which is the current MAI), the theoretical yield would be about eight million cubic metres a year. With the current AAC (annual allowable cut) at about six million cubic metres, that leaves approximately a quarter of Crown land for conservation forest or PNAs.

When I worked for private woodlot owners, DNR – now Energy and Resource Development (ERD) – generated wood supply models for all seven marketing board regions. It was our job to explain the results to woodlot owners, the first task being to change government reporting from cubic metres and hectares to cords and acres. In YSC’s case, our average MAI was close to the provincial average, which translated into roughly half a cord per acre per year. In other words, you could cut 50 cords a year off a 100-acre woodlot in perpetuity, but you would have to work 100 percent of your land to get that much wood.

It was generally believed that, with proper management, one could double the growth rate to one cord per acre per year, which meant that you could cut the same amount of wood from half the land base, leaving the other half untouched as a reserve or protected area. So it’s not difficult to see that even a small increase in yield could produce big results.

PLANTATION POSSIBILITIES

Dr. Erdle had access to growth data from JDI’s plantations for two native New Brunswick species (Black and White spruce) and one non-native species (Norway spruce). The rates of growth were four to seven m3/ha/year for Black spruce; four to eight m3/ha/year for White spruce; and nine to 13 m3/ha/year for Norway spruce. The average for the three species is seven m3/ha/year, which is almost three times the provincial MAI of 2.5. Erdle plugged those numbers into wood supply models.

The current AAC for hardwood, pine, and cedar combined is 1.9 million cubic metres. It is not possible, at this time, to significantly raise growth rates for these forest species, so they would continue to be managed under the current non-intensive (extensive) model. That requires 880,000 hectares, or 26 percent of the Crown forest.

The AAC for softwood (spruce, fir, Jack pine) is 3.95 million cubic metres. At an MAI of 2.5 m3/ha/year, about half of the Crown forest is required, leaving only 24 percent for conservation (including deer yards, old growth, riparian buffers, and PNAs). But by doubling the growth rate to five m3/ha/year, the amount of forest required to produce the AAC plummets from 49 percent to 24 percent. And by applying JDI’s average plantation-grown spruce growth rate of seven m3/ha/year, the area under intensive forest management is reduced to 17 percent, while the area available for conservation forest and protected natural area jumps to 56 percent!

Erdle’s analysis goes well beyond the theoretically possible – delving into the practicalities of transitioning from the current situation, where only a small portion of the forest is protected, to an idealized future where the majority of the forest might be conserved. Although there would be lots of logistical and timing challenges involved in reaching such a goal, all can be overcome, given the will to proceed.

AGREEMENT

The most important requisite for moving forward with this vision is to get agreement among all entities that shape or influence forest policy. Erdle postulated an “Acadian Forest Accord,” with all the significant players signing on, including First Nations, woodlot owners, conservation groups, the forest industry, and government.

How likely is that? Improbable, given the entrenched opposition to plantation-style forestry that relies on clearcutting, planting, and herbicides. The sensitive issues around the use and safety of glyphosate in the province were put on full display this summer by the bizarre dismissal of Maritime College of Forest Technology instructor Rod Cumberland. (Cumberland has been an outspoken critic of glyphosate spraying, and many see this as the reason he was fired. See Rachel Brighton’s coverage on pg. 22 in this issue of AFR.) At times, the gap between the sides seems so wide as to be unbridgeable.

Yet, organizations like J.D. Irving and the Nature Conservancy of Canada are working together for the common goal of preserving New Brunswick’s special natural areas. Clearly there are benefits to cooperation, but it requires that all parties act in good faith and all the cards are on the table. A previous effort ultimately failed, and left bad feelings that have simmered for years. Working together can be extremely frustrating, and it’s often less painful to walk away from the table – tell your members that the other side refused to make any concessions, and then continue sniping – than to stay at the table and work through differences.

In any event, if this initiative is ever to take wings, the province will have to drive the process, and be prepared to mediate, conciliate, and at times arbitrate. While it is encouraging to see ERD leading the way with the doubling of PNAs on Crown land, a much more ambitious target is achievable.