Jump to content

Ben Barclay

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    16

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Gallery

Blogs

Events

Journalism: The over-exploitation of BC forests

Library: Destruction of wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity

Journalism: Loss of forest-related employment

Journalism: The need to expedite final treaties with First Nations

Journalism: Loss of primary forest

Journalism: Loss of carbon sequestration capacity

Other notable forest-related writing and reports

Noteworthy writing and reports from the forest-industrial complex

Forest News

Library: The over-exploitation of BC forests

Library: Loss of primary forest

Library: Loss of the hydrological functions of forests

Make conservation of the hydrological function of forests a higher priority than timber extraction

Library: Loss of forest-related employment

Library: The need to expedite final treaties with First Nations

Transition from clearcut logging to selection logging

Library: Increase in forest fire hazard

Journalism: End public subsidization of BC's forest industry

Library: End public subsidization of BC's forest industry

Library: The need to reform BC forest legislation

Journalism: The need to reform BC forest legislation

Library: Creating a new vision for BC forests

Forest industry public subsidy calculator

Manufacturing and processing facilities

Forest Trends

Investigations

Community Forest Mapping Projects

Area-based calculations of carbon released from clearcut logging

Journalism: The increase in forest carbon emissions

Library: Increase in forest carbon emissions

To protect biodiversity, transition away from clearcut logging

Peachland Watershed Protection Alliance

Library: Loss of future employment resulting from exporting raw logs

Mapping old forest on Vancouver Island

Mapping old forest in Omineca Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Skeena Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Northeastern Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Cariboo Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in South Coast Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Thompson-Okanagan Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Kootenay-Boundary Natural Resource Region

Forest Conservation Organizations

Mapping old forest on Haida Gwaii

Mapping old forest on the central coast

Library: Ecologically damaging practices

Journalism: Ecologically damaging practices

Critical Issues

Analysis

Comment

Listed species: Cascades Natural Resource District

Listed species: 100 Mile House Natural Resource District

Listed species: Campbell River Natural Resource District

Listed species: Cariboo-Chilcotin Natural Resource District

Listed species: Chilliwack River Natural Resource District

Listed species: Fort Nelson Natural Resource District

Listed species: Haida Gwaii Natural Resource District

Listed species: Mackenzie Natural Resource District

Listed species: Nadina Natural Resource District

Listed species: North Island Natural Resource District

Listed species: Peace Natural Resource District

Listed species: Prince George Natural Resource District

Listed species: Quesnel Natural Resource District

Listed species: Rocky Mountain Natural Resource District

Listed species: Sea-to-Sky Natural Resource District

Listed species: Selkirk Natural Resource District

Listed species: Skeena Natural Resource District

Listed species: South Island Natural Resource District

Listed species: Stuart-Nechako Natural Resource District

Listed species: Sunshine Coast Natural Resource District

Listed species: Thompson Rivers Natural Resource District

Listed species: Coast Mountains Natural Resource District

Action Group: Divestment from forest-removal companies

Fact-checking mindustry myths

First Nations Agreements

Monitor: BC Timber Sales Auctions

BC Timber Sales auction of old-growth forests on Vancouver Island

Monitoring of forest fires in clearcuts and plantations: 2021

Library: End public subsidization of forest industry

Examples of engaging the mindustry:

Portal: The over-exploitation of BC forests

Portal: The need to reform BC forest legislation

Portal: The need to expedite treaties with First Nations

Portal: The need to get more organized, informed and inspired for change

Portal: Develop a new relationship with forests

Portal: Destruction of wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity

Portal: Loss of the hydrological functions of forests

Portal: Increase in forest fire hazard

Portal: Loss of carbon sequestration capacity

Portal: Increase in forest carbon emissions

Portal: Ecologically damaging forestry practices

Portal: Loss of forest-related employment

Portal: Loss of future employment resulting from raw log exports

Portal: Costs of floods, fires and clearcutting of watersheds

Portal: The economic impact on communities of boom and bust cycles

Portal: Loss of economic development by other forest-based sectors

Portal: The true cost of subsidies provided to the logging industry

Help

Loss of trust in institutions

Portal: The instability of communities dependent on forest extraction

Portal: The psychological unease caused by forest destruction

Portal: Loss of trust in institutions caused by over-exploitation of BC forests

Portal: Social division caused by over-exploitation of BC forests

Journalism: The instability of communities dependent on forest extraction

Journalism: Psychological unease caused by forest destruction

Journalism: Loss in trust of institutions as a result of over-exploitation of BC forests

Journalism: Social division caused by over-exploitation of BC forests

Library: The instability of communities dependent on forest extraction

Library: Psychological unease caused by forest destruction

Library: Loss of trust in institutions as a result of over-exploitation of BC forests

Library: Social division caused by over-exploitation of BC forests

Resources: Psychological unease caused by forest destruction

Resources: The economic impact on communities of boom-and-bust cycles

Resources: Loss of economic development potential in other forest-based sectors

Journalism: Cost of floods, fires and clearcutting of community watersheds

Journalism: The economic impact on communities of boom-and-bust cycles

Journalism: Loss of economic development potential in other forest-based sectors

Library: Cost of floods, fires and clearcutting of community watersheds

Library: The economic impact on communities of boom-and-bust cycles

Library: Loss of economic development potential in other forest-based sectors

Portal: Permanent loss of forests to logging roads

Portal: The economic costs of converting forests into sawdust and wood chips

Journalism: Permanent loss of forests to logging roads

Library: Permanent loss of forests to logging roads

Journalism: The economic costs of converting forests into sawdust and wood chips

Library: The economic costs of converting forests into sawdust and wood chips

Resources: The economic costs of converting forests into sawdust and wood chips

Resources: Ecologically damaging forestry practices

Resources: Conversion of forests to permanent logging roads

Library: Getting organized

Journalism: Getting organized

Forest politics

Forest Stewards

Portal: Plantation failure

Library: Plantation failure

Journalism: Plantation failure

Library: Loss of carbon sequestration capacity

Portal: Soil loss and damage

Journalism: Soil loss and damage

Library: Soil loss and damage

Resources: Soil loss and damage

Journalism: Loss of employment resulting from export of raw logs

Journalism: Destruction of wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity

Journalism: Loss of the hydrological functions of forests

Journalism: Increase in forest fire hazard

Action Group: Sunlighting professional reliance

Making the case for much greater conservation of BC forests

Science Alliance for Forestry Transformation

Bearing witness:

Economic State of the BC Forest Sector

Big tree mapping and monitoring

Reported Elsewhere

Protect more

Start a forest conservation project

Get involved

Article reference pages

Physical impacts created by logging industry

Nature Directed Stewardship at Glade and Laird watersheds

References for: How did 22 TFLs in BC evade legal old-growth management areas?

References for: BC's triangle of fire: More than just climate change

References for: Teal Cedar goes after Fairy Creek leaders

References for: Is the draft framework on biodiversity and ecosystem health something new? Or just more talk and log?

IWTF events, articles and videos

Store

Downloads

Everything posted by Ben Barclay

  1. Ben Barclay
    Thanks David...
  2. Ben Barclay
    Thanks David...
  3. Ben Barclay
    Hi Dave - most of the Old Growth was running 1500 - 1800 Cu M/ha, or more, in the early days. (The minimum legal density for cutting second growth is now 400 Cu M/ha, I believe, by the way). If they cut 10,000 cubic metres in 1932, say, would that not be reasonable to assume it came from between 5556 and 6667 hectares of land? I think the assumptions that they were mostly cutting primary forest, and that they were clearcutting, are reasonable. The number would of course be ballpark, but surely that is better than absolute nothing. In fact, a ballpark number would be a challenge for them to do the math, which I believe they should. Is there some middle ground between "meaningless" and "not super accurate"? +- 20% accuracy? Surveys are often accompanied by disclaimers to accuracy. Perhaps it could be stated as "somewhere between..." I'm concerned that we let them get away with not counting the number of hectares degraded from 1900-1970. The public interest is not served by us not having even a ballpark number for hectares impacted. Have you any better ideas for getting this number? I guess another question is where did Michelle get her figures for disturbed land in the chart she made (attached). Maybe the data is in there. Thanks..
  4. Ben Barclay
    Hi Dave - most of the Old Growth was running 1500 - 1800 Cu M/ha, or more, in the early days. (The minimum legal density for cutting second growth is now 400 Cu M/ha, I believe, by the way). If they cut 10,000 cubic metres in 1932, say, would that not be reasonable to assume it came from between 5556 and 6667 hectares of land? I think the assumptions that they were mostly cutting primary forest, and that they were clearcutting, are reasonable. The number would of course be ballpark, but surely that is better than absolute nothing. In fact, a ballpark number would be a challenge for them to do the math, which I believe they should. Is there some middle ground between "meaningless" and "not super accurate"? +- 20% accuracy? Surveys are often accompanied by disclaimers to accuracy. Perhaps it could be stated as "somewhere between..." I'm concerned that we let them get away with not counting the number of hectares degraded from 1900-1970. The public interest is not served by us not having even a ballpark number for hectares impacted. Have you any better ideas for getting this number? I guess another question is where did Michelle get her figures for disturbed land in the chart she made (attached). Maybe the data is in there. Thanks..
  5. Ben Barclay
    When the Ministry says "dead pine", what does this mean? Are 100% of the trees dead on a hectare before they salvage log, or is there a threshold, where say, if 50% of the trees are dead, they "salvage log" the hectare? It appears that the salvage logging is over and above the regular approved AAC. Is that so? Citizens might prefer that they postpone regular cutting in lieu of salvage logging, so the overall cut is the same, whether it is due to beetles, or logging. Thanks.
  6. Ben Barclay
    Another fabulous, foundational chart, David. I particularly like the private land number, which has previously been pretty hidden from the public. I'm assuming most of the private cut is the E&N Railway lands? Taking the numbers back to 1900 helps us avoid "baseline creep" or sliding baselines. Do you have data for hectares cut? If not, is there a factor for converting this to hectares, so we can track land degradation? Old growth might have yielded 1500-1800 CuM/ha, whereas 2nd growth is currently logged at minimum 400 CuM/ha. Say 400-600. Unfortunately, to do a calculation, one would need to know the Primary/Secondary split for each decade. I can do a rough calculation, but did anyone track hectares cut back to 1900? I would love to have a source for that data I could publish in a peer reviewed paper. Thanks again.
  7. Ben Barclay
    Another fabulous, foundational chart, David. I particularly like the private land number, which has previously been pretty hidden from the public. I'm assuming most of the private cut is the E&N Railway lands? Taking the numbers back to 1900 helps us avoid "baseline creep" or sliding baselines. Do you have data for hectares cut? If not, is there a factor for converting this to hectares, so we can track land degradation? Old growth might have yielded 1500-1800 CuM/ha, whereas 2nd growth is currently logged at minimum 400 CuM/ha. Say 400-600. Unfortunately, to do a calculation, one would need to know the Primary/Secondary split for each decade. I can do a rough calculation, but did anyone track hectares cut back to 1900? I would love to have a source for that data I could publish in a peer reviewed paper. Thanks again.
  8. Ben Barclay
    Perfect Anthony. Thank you. Clearcutting has reduced our net total provincial biomass by 5-20 billion tonnes, on the order of 70% of biomass per hectare degraded. It didn't "grow back" after all. We've degraded 25 million hectares at least, almost the entire available forestry base, through clearcutting. Our goal, as you say, needs to be healing our forests back to mature stands that approach pre-contact levels of economic value and provision of ecosystem services. My shopping list for how to get our 70% of biomass back: Re-start the Forest Service under the Environment Ministry. Rescind the Tenure/Tree Farm Licence legislation, sign no new deals, let all current deals run down. (Tenure does not conform to DRIPA). Ban clearcutting, under the criminal code, citing irreparable harm to the economy, biodiversity and climate change, specifically jobs, floods and fires. Mandate Net Zero Forestry, where zero net biomass is lost in watersheds measured annually. Pass a specific law under DRIPA that First Nations must be signatories to any agreement authorising any resource extraction on their territory, with VETO power. Ban off-shore log sales. Ban exporting industrial pellets. Make Woodland Mountain Caribou protected as the provincial animal! Great minds think alike. Are any politicians ready to go down in history as visionaries who would dare save us from societal collapse due to corporate greed?
  9. Ben Barclay
    Perfect Anthony. Thank you. Clearcutting has reduced our net total provincial biomass by 5-20 billion tonnes, on the order of 70% of biomass per hectare degraded. It didn't "grow back" after all. We've degraded 25 million hectares at least, almost the entire available forestry base, through clearcutting. Our goal, as you say, needs to be healing our forests back to mature stands that approach pre-contact levels of economic value and provision of ecosystem services. My shopping list for how to get our 70% of biomass back: Re-start the Forest Service under the Environment Ministry. Rescind the Tenure/Tree Farm Licence legislation, sign no new deals, let all current deals run down. (Tenure does not conform to DRIPA). Ban clearcutting, under the criminal code, citing irreparable harm to the economy, biodiversity and climate change, specifically jobs, floods and fires. Mandate Net Zero Forestry, where zero net biomass is lost in watersheds measured annually. Pass a specific law under DRIPA that First Nations must be signatories to any agreement authorising any resource extraction on their territory, with VETO power. Ban off-shore log sales. Ban exporting industrial pellets. Make Woodland Mountain Caribou protected as the provincial animal! Great minds think alike. Are any politicians ready to go down in history as visionaries who would dare save us from societal collapse due to corporate greed?
  10. Ben Barclay
    When we clearcut a primary forest, it loses 70% of its biomass, 80% of its biodiversity, and 90% of its economic value, forever. It never "grows back". The loss of 70% of the biomass, averaged over time, results in a drastic loss of ecosystem services– especially moisture retention and carbon capture. The cumulative effect of degrading so much land for the last 100 years is extreme fires and floods, and global warming. United Nations scientists have stated that these things will cause societal collapse within the next 100 years. These outcomes are all simple science an 8 year old child can observe, and that every forester should be trained to avoid. Below is a map of Merritt BC, showing how little of the landscape is protected, (neon green), and how much has been clearcut so recently that it hasn't even greened up yet (tan colour in forested area). BC Government policy caused the Merritt flood, and BC Professional Foresters advised on those policies and enforced them. If the foresters who have been advising our government on what policies to set to avoid societal collapse don't follow the science, then how can they be said to be competent? Why are they not disbarred from the profession, as would a physician be for malpractice? If professional foresters aren't the people entrusted with advising our politicians and administrators on how to protect our future through science based legislation and diligent practice, who is?
  11. Ben Barclay
    David Broadland just keeps getting better with each article. This is investigative journalism, the likes of which we haven't seen since billionaires consolidated media 30 years ago, destroyed all the small local papers, and fired most of the staff of the big media outlets, while the Conservatives gutted the CBC with a fish knife. Nowadays almost everything we read in mainstream media is just a government press release copied out by a junior intern. How can we get this kind of investigative journalism out into the world, and support EA to keep producing it? Me, I think we should sue our governments for damages, and us these articles as evidence.
  12. Ben Barclay
    Good stuff. BBC and CBC are missing some key points. I would like to illuminate how the practice of clearcutting muddies the waters, without being recognised. Because we do not practice proper forestry, which retains the canopy, and only removes single selected trees, we cut everything to the ground. This produces slash piles, and kills every single tree, including ones "too small", or of a species that the province is too lazy to market. Then Drax can turn around and say: "We did chip a few whole trees that were "unwanted" or "a fire hazard". Those trees were wanted. We wanted them to live and provide ecosystem services like: Water retention Topsoil creation Carbon capture Biodiversity preservation Those lost ecosystem services from 200,000 hectares a year of clearcutting no longer protect us from extreme fires and floods. Also, burning any fuel for electricity is species suicide. Lots of false narrative to challenge. This is what good forestry looks like. This Menominee forest has yielded billions of board feet of timber since 1890. Still providing all the original ecosystem services:
  13. Ben Barclay
    Very nice summary of the problems arising from corporate resource extractors controlling and driving legislation. I don't believe it would cost any money to protect the forest ecosystems that shelter murrelets, and eventually, humans. All we need to do is switch from clearcutting, to 100% biomass retention forestry, as measured in watersheds. More jobs. No forests destroyed. Wildwood was managed this way for 70 years. 1,000,000 board feet removed from 138 acres, and yet, there is as much lumber there as when they started. And carbon. And biodiversity.
  14. Ben Barclay
    Very nice summary of the problems arising from corporate resource extractors controlling and driving legislation. I don't believe it would cost any money to protect the forest ecosystems that shelter murrelets, and eventually, humans. All we need to do is switch from clearcutting, to 100% biomass retention forestry, as measured in watersheds. More jobs. No forests destroyed. Wildwood was managed this way for 70 years. 1,000,000 board feet removed from 138 acres, and yet, there is as much lumber there as when they started. And carbon. And biodiversity.
  15. Ben Barclay
    Very nice summary of the problems arising from corporate resource extractors controlling and driving legislation. I don't believe it would cost any money to protect the forest ecosystems that shelter murrelets, and eventually, humans. All we need to do is switch from clearcutting, to 100% biomass retention forestry, as measured in watersheds. More jobs. No forests destroyed. Wildwood was managed this way for 70 years. 1,000,000 board feet removed from 138 acres, and yet, there is as much lumber there as when they started. And carbon. And biodiversity.
  16. Ben Barclay
    Very nice summary of the problems arising from corporate resource extractors controlling and driving legislation. I don't believe it would cost any money to protect the forest ecosystems that shelter murrelets, and eventually, humans. All we need to do is switch from clearcutting, to 100% biomass retention forestry, as measured in watersheds. More jobs. No forests destroyed. Wildwood was managed this way for 70 years. 1,000,000 board feet removed from 138 acres, and yet, there is as much lumber there as when they started. And carbon. And biodiversity.
  17. Ben Barclay
    Very nice summary of the problems arising from corporate resource extractors controlling and driving legislation. I don't believe it would cost any money to protect the forest ecosystems that shelter murrelets, and eventually, humans. All we need to do is switch from clearcutting, to 100% biomass retention forestry, as measured in watersheds. More jobs. No forests destroyed. Wildwood was managed this way for 70 years. 1,000,000 board feet removed from 138 acres, and yet, there is as much lumber there as when they started. And carbon. And biodiversity.
  18. Ben Barclay
    Very nice summary of the problems arising from corporate resource extractors controlling and driving legislation. I don't believe it would cost any money to protect the forest ecosystems that shelter murrelets, and eventually, humans. All we need to do is switch from clearcutting, to 100% biomass retention forestry, as measured in watersheds. More jobs. No forests destroyed. Wildwood was managed this way for 70 years. 1,000,000 board feet removed from 138 acres, and yet, there is as much lumber there as when they started. And carbon. And biodiversity.
  19. Ben Barclay
    Hi Rod, thanks for a hard number in staff reductions I can use in further articles. I took the $500,000,000 budget for Fire Issues in BC and calculated that instead of hiring a small number of logging companies to use feller bunchers, they could use that money to employ 8,000 permanent "Forest Enhancers" to restore our forests, which would bring back the level of extreme fire safety we had 40 years ago, before clearcutting went berserk. Add in the $500,000,000 subsidy to logging corporations, and that becomes 16,000 permanent Forest Enhancers. Nice green jobs. If we retained ownership of the trees until they left the mill, we could afford to have 50,000 permanent "Forest Enhancers" out there repairing the damage, and harvesting sustainably. Cheers.
  20. Ben Barclay
    Hi Rod, thanks for a hard number in staff reductions I can use in further articles. I took the $500,000,000 budget for Fire Issues in BC and calculated that instead of hiring a small number of logging companies to use feller bunchers, they could use that money to employ 8,000 permanent "Forest Enhancers" to restore our forests, which would bring back the level of extreme fire safety we had 40 years ago, before clearcutting went berserk. Add in the $500,000,000 subsidy to logging corporations, and that becomes 16,000 permanent Forest Enhancers. Nice green jobs. If we retained ownership of the trees until they left the mill, we could afford to have 50,000 permanent "Forest Enhancers" out there repairing the damage, and harvesting sustainably. Cheers.
  21. Ben Barclay
    Hi Rod, thanks for a hard number in staff reductions I can use in further articles. I took the $500,000,000 budget for Fire Issues in BC and calculated that instead of hiring a small number of logging companies to use feller bunchers, they could use that money to employ 8,000 permanent "Forest Enhancers" to restore our forests, which would bring back the level of extreme fire safety we had 40 years ago, before clearcutting went berserk. Add in the $500,000,000 subsidy to logging corporations, and that becomes 16,000 permanent Forest Enhancers. Nice green jobs. If we retained ownership of the trees until they left the mill, we could afford to have 50,000 permanent "Forest Enhancers" out there repairing the damage, and harvesting sustainably. Cheers.
  22. Ben Barclay
    Hi Rod, thanks for a hard number in staff reductions I can use in further articles. I took the $500,000,000 budget for Fire Issues in BC and calculated that instead of hiring a small number of logging companies to use feller bunchers, they could use that money to employ 8,000 permanent "Forest Enhancers" to restore our forests, which would bring back the level of extreme fire safety we had 40 years ago, before clearcutting went berserk. Add in the $500,000,000 subsidy to logging corporations, and that becomes 16,000 permanent Forest Enhancers. Nice green jobs. If we retained ownership of the trees until they left the mill, we could afford to have 50,000 permanent "Forest Enhancers" out there repairing the damage, and harvesting sustainably. Cheers.
  23. Ben Barclay
    Hi Rod, thanks for a hard number in staff reductions I can use in further articles. I took the $500,000,000 budget for Fire Issues in BC and calculated that instead of hiring a small number of logging companies to use feller bunchers, they could use that money to employ 8,000 permanent "Forest Enhancers" to restore our forests, which would bring back the level of extreme fire safety we had 40 years ago, before clearcutting went berserk. Add in the $500,000,000 subsidy to logging corporations, and that becomes 16,000 permanent Forest Enhancers. Nice green jobs. If we retained ownership of the trees until they left the mill, we could afford to have 50,000 permanent "Forest Enhancers" out there repairing the damage, and harvesting sustainably. Cheers.
  24. Ben Barclay
    "B.C. sits at a crossroads: do we go big and bold like the U.S.? Or, do we continue with the small-scale, individual-WUI approach that has been in place since 2004?" Neither. Daniels and Gray are asking the wrong question. Both approaches are just logging in disguise, and make carbon emissions from forests much worse. The best Fire Management is to ban clearcutting. Primary full canopy forests are the most Fire Smart forests, and retain 70% more biomass, moisture, and other ecosystem services like flood control. Converting our plantations back into mature forests is firesmarting. Primary forests are smarter than us. An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of non-cure.
  25. Ben Barclay
    Forest Reconciliation Act “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”—Buckminster Fuller Passing this legislation would transform BC’s practice of exploitive deforestation, into protective and productive forestry, at the stroke of a pen. Compared to current legislation, this would: 1. Double our forestry jobs and Provincial forestry income. 2. Sequester 40 million more tonnes of carbon annually, and preserve more than 50% of the province’s land mass as an effective “wilderness” biodiversity buffer. 3. Effect reconciliation with First Nations by restoring their rights of land stewardship and cultural connection, and create sustainable local income and jobs. 4. Preserve the 3% of old growth we have left as an ecological treasury, and repair the 97% of devastated clearcuts back into old growth. Significantly decrease the occurrence and severity of wildfires. Proven in an accompanying cost/benefit analysis compared to existing legislation, these goals should be monitored and refined over the next few centuries by a comprehensive science project. The legislation will re-define the relationships between forest ecosystems, communities, governments, First Nations, and corporations, by balancing their rights, and clarifying their responsibilities. It will: • Supersede all existing legislation, require a plebiscite result of 66% to change. • Set out significant penalties and consequences, and be systemically resilient, to ensure compliance and results. Part 1 contains five independent “emergency statutes” to achieve the goals. Part 2 forms the core of truly sustainable forest policy legislation detailing proper harvesting techniques, forest healing strategies, and supply chain management. Precursor Legislation To address the limitations most democratic jurisdictions face in passing transformative change legislation, these two pieces of “precursor legislation” would help create conditions for passing the Act: • Binding plebiscite legislation where voters could get bills presented to the public for direct voting, by simply raising a number of signatures, without waiting on cabinet approval. • Proportional representation, which would limit potential excesses of power such as the RCMP civil rights abuses at Fairy Creek, and lack of follow through on the Old Growth recommendations, while enabling innovative legislation without needing plebiscites. Part 1 - Emergency Statutes Statute 1: Complete ban on any Old Growth harvesting. 100 year moratorium on old growth harvesting in contiguous watersheds, 50 year moratorium on harvesting smaller connective areas around current cut blocks. Year One of the moratoriums is the year that sees passage of Statutes 2,3,4. Restarts conditional on achieving metrics in 2. 50 year moratorium on any “truck” road building, over the size of small skidder trails linked to existing roads. Especially no roads into new watersheds, especially old growth. All supervision must be done by BC Forest Service. Penalties and consequences are twice the retail timber, carbon, water, and biodiversity prices. Provision for a limited number of single tree selective harvested trees to be extracted for traditional cultural FN use. Statute 2: No more clearcutting. All forestry/harvesting must conserve annual biomass, biodiversity, and ecosystem services, (especially water quality and aquifer levels), in a watershed. Enshrine the principle that we don't draw down from the forest’s “principal” only “live off the interest”, and require biomass increases for areas under their traditional baseline like fire areas and previous clearcuts. Harvesting of fully stocked areas can only be up to 75% of measured annual growth, in 5 year cycles. In depleted areas, harvesting can only be 20%-40% of measured annual growth. Limit harvesting after large disturbances to conserve biological legacies and mitigate rapid carbon release from the landscape. All supervision to be done directly by the BC Forest Service. Penalties and consequences are twice the retail timber, carbon, water, and biodiversity prices. Statute 3: All forestry agreements/contracts must include citizens of local First Nations and communities as signatories, with veto power, and offer first dibs on jobs and economic opportunities in their territories and communities, via a 66% referendum. Statute 4: Illegal to export raw logs from BC. Bringing BC in line with international leaders banning raw log exports such as Russia. Statute 5: No new Tenure agreements or TFLs allowed. New harvesting contracts must comply with Statutes 1-4. Part 2 - Sustainable Forestry Policy Current forest management legislation shall be terminated by five years, to be replaced with forest management (growing and harvesting) policies and procedures that must: Terminate or buy out all existing Tenure Agreements and Tree Farm Licence within five years from Act passage. Ensure that all policies and procedures must be: Directly supervised by the Province, no outsourcing. Written by the province, with scientists, with no corporate interference, based on scientific knowledge and evidence, including Indigenous traditional science. Prioritize ecosystem benefits (services), including: Topsoil creation, carbon sequestration, biodiversity, water retention. Connectivity in landscapes to promote gene flow, dispersal and migration. Balance recreation, tourism, timber and wilderness, human and non-human uses to: encourage greater understanding and reconnection of people with forests respect the rights of all life, fungi, plants and animals, that makes up forest ecosystems. Recognize salmon as forest animals. Criminalize the killing of apex predators including wolves. Protect habitat for species like deep snow caribou, and salmon. Map, measure and manage forests in scalable nested watersheds, and in islands. Within those watersheds and islands: Ensure that full sized and full cycle trees are well distributed spatially in scalable 100 sq. m and 1,000 sq. m plots. Canopy cover is complete. Maximize income for the Province and Indigenous peoples, and Require ownership of the trees to be retained by the Province at least until they leave the sawmill, or secondary processing, such as flooring. Require marketing and product innovation to be driven by utilising species that are natural to the ecosystem. Diverse product lines will lead to forest diversity. Monetize carbon, water, and biodiversity costs/benefits, and include in GDP, Fully report all carbon emissions and capture. Be publicly and transparently audited, with independent oversight, including FSC. Return 25% of profits to healing the damage of previous bad management, and infrastructure.
×
×
  • Create New...