Forest Certification

[Samuel]

As a new member to the Forum, I thought I would share a few pictures of our so-called clear-cut cut blocks from the past couple winters.  Also I have noted (although have not dug very far), there does not seem to be a lot of chat regarding the fine controversial subject surrounding Forest Certifications, as this is my interest and responsibility within the company (DMI) that I am employed with.

DMI practices “sustainable forest management” under an ecological-based approach employing continual improvement and innovation that is guided by science and third-party audits of its activities.  DMI’s approach to forest management employs a combination of coarse-filter strategies, fine-filter practices, consultation, integration of activities, and collaboration in ongoing research.  Since inception in 1999, its ecological-based forest management practices have attempted to reflect the spirit of the six key forest stewardship principles set out by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM):

1.   Conservation of biological diversity
2.   Maintaining healthy forest ecosystem condition and productivity
3.   Conservation of soil and water resources
4.   Continued forest ecosystem contributions to global ecological cycles
5.   Providing multiple benefits to society
6.   Involving Aboriginal communities and the public in sustainable development

We are currently ISO 14001:2004 certified on our way (2008) to be CSA Z-809 Certified.  If anyone has any experiences, nightmares, questions or comments you would like to share, feel free to drop me a line.  Check out our website at www.prpd.ca

Try clicking onto the pics as it should take you to where they are posted at --Photos MUST be in the Forestry Forum gallery!!!!!--:



Links to off-site photos are not allowed
please use the Forestry Forum Gallery
for Photos used in posts.
admin

[beenthere]

Try setting up your photo gallery, and put the pics (that we can see) in there for us.  Please. 

[beenthere]

I see they are in your gallery now. Didn't before. My bad

However, if you would make them 400 pixels (rather than 100) they would be 4 times bigger and 'easier' to see. Seems they are stamp size now. Do appreciate you taking the time to post, and hope this is taken as a friendly suggestion. 

[beenthere]

Click on "Help" above (second button from left) and near the top you will see something about a Tutor to post pics in the gallery.
I crop them first, then resize to get the 400 pixels longest side  then save to lowest compression. Hope this helps.

[Ron Wenrich]

Back to the discussion at hand.  We've talked about certification before here on the forum.  I doubt if things have changed very much over the years.

There is little to no demand for certified forest products here in the States.  The largest hardwood forest in the US that is certified is that owned by the State of Pennsylvania - 2 million acres.  Lots of fine cherry, oak, and maple, and the state does a fine job of management....better than most others in the state, including consultants.  But, I have never heard of anyone getting requests for certified wood.  It seems to be more European.  The North Americans want cheap above anything else.

Since this isn't a market driven issue, there is no reward for the landowner.  We have a rough enough time getting anyone to do any cultural work let alone actually think about doing any planning. 

Most people don't want anything to do with the 3rd party stuff.  The industry is pushing the Sustainable Forestry Initiative and is trying to get certification.  The Tree Farm system is trying to do the same thing.  The problem with SFI is that it is an industry trying to do self regulation.  It doesn't work.

I've seen a lot of stuff that is called sustainable.  It is basically high-grading under a new name.  Take out all the good stuff and leave the rest.  It still looks like a forest, but all the good growing stock has been removed.  The residual stand is usually poor form, inferior species, and the like.  And foresters are involved in many of these sales.

The only good to come out of the SFI program is that they have taught loggers how to do a better job.  I see all the past damage to trees in the sawmill on a continual basis. 

[Riles]

I guess we would have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a clear cut. You left a lot of nice vertical structure. Looks pretty, but I'd have to call it a seed tree cut.

[Ron Scott]

A "Search" will bring up quite a bit of discussion on "Forest Certification" on various Threads.

[Samuel]

Since this isn't a market driven issue, there is no reward for the landowner.  We have a rough enough time getting anyone to do any cultural work let alone actually think about doing any planning.

For our company with our Asian and European markets, Forest Certification has been written into our contracts and is nearly mandatory to enable us to sell our product. 

As far as private land timber purchases we do, the scope of our Environmental Management System includes activities we conduct on private land since we have our contractors do the work.

[extrapolate85]

Speaking as an individual, I have to say that the pictures look like sound forestry to me given what little I know about the particulars in the Peace. The $64,000 question to me, is whether there has been a fundamental change in forest practices since gaining certification, or did you find out that pre-certification practices were already sound and thus certification is just putting a stamp of approval on something that you were already doing?

While it is true that North American consumers are not the driving force behind certification. Many of the larger retailers have mandated it in response to extortion by many of the preservationist groups, Earth First, WWF, Sierra Club, etc. (e.g., you either demand certified products or we will send protesters dressed as Ninjas carrying placards blaming "your retail chain" with destroying the environment). Bottom line, it was a business decision. That said, I have to say that I disagree with Ron regarding SFI and the industry policing itself; SFI serves a purpose, which is to put a stamp on something that meets a certain standard, and this fulfills the requirements of those that buy large quantities of forest products (it is also useful in carrying a message to the urban dwellers, that those of us that dwell in forested areas care about our forests and the critters that live there). While this may not be on the radar of small businesses, it is certainly important to large forest and forest products companies (which supply North America the vast majority of our forest products and jobs for our rural forestland communities. As for industry self policing, the industry has a history of doing so and has done a great job in other facets such as lumber grades, standardized product sizes, etc., so my hat is off to AF&PA for taking on such a daunting project and getting something workable in place.

I think that it is great that DMI is in a position to carry a positive message to the public regarding forest use; and perhaps prevent being shut out of government-owned-timber lands (something that many of our communities in the Northwest US would give a lot for if they could go back to 1990).
  

[Samuel]

I guess we would have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a clear cut. You left a lot of nice vertical structure. Looks pretty, but I'd have to call it a seed tree cut.

Provincial legislation of Harvesting activities on crown land dictate that a certain percentage of the vertical structure is left behind.  The stipulation is that this retention is to represent the previous stand.  Our Aspen blocks have no problem regenerating themselves so the retention left behind serves as an ecological feature providing habitat and wildlife cover.  The blocks are harvested to emulate a fire and as such we are having great success with our regeneration etc.

[Samuel]

Speaking as an individual, I have to say that the pictures look like sound forestry to me given what little I know about the particulars in the Peace. The $64,000 question to me, is whether there has been a fundamental change in forest practices since gaining certification, or did you find out that pre-certification practices were already sound and thus certification is just putting a stamp of approval on something that you were already doing?

I think that it is great that DMI is in a position to carry a positive message to the public regarding forest use; and perhaps prevent being shut out of government-owned-timber lands (something that many of our communities in the Northwest US would give a lot for if they could go back to 1990).

Thanks for your response.  How I like to refer to certification is that we simply write down what and how we do things, and have an auditor prove we do what we say we do.  I am not sure if there was a fundamental change, however trending environmental incidents since our EMS have been implemented, incidents are way down as we are getting better at orientating and training our operators.  Any improvements to your business such as this justifies the existence in my mind, however having a process in place outlining your business is the benefit that we have gained.  For example, just locating the most current version of a cut block map from amendments etc. sometimes proved to be a challenge, but now everyone, including our contractors know if they go to our website (where all of our documents are stored and controlled) they can print off the most current version.

As far as certification goes, if any of you were watching the news lin the past month may have noted that a large forest company in Alberta lost a contract with Victoria Secret due to pressures from NGO's with respect to certification issues.  Victoria secret prints over 1 million catalogs a day so this was substantial loss to the company.

[Phorester]

Who does the third party audits on your operations?

Are your management plans required to be written by Foresters with a 4 year degree in forestry?

[SwampDonkey]

Good discussion going on in here. I thought I'de give my spin on it. 

I was under the impression from the beginning that it was the markets in the US that demanded it. That's what they have been telling us up here. Any mills in Maine that are in close enough proximity to NB for markets are demanding it. Some want the assurance that the wood they buy is certified now, some are leading us into it. A lot of the markets in the US our sawmills cater to demand certification. But, I agree with Ron on what they are sometimes calling certified. For some markets, it's simply staying within a calculated AAC and being able to follow a paper trail. And recently our marketing boards had the calculations done for each of their management areas. Also, there are management plans, which sadly are rarely followed. Anyway it seems to have been enough to satisfy the current market situation. Trouble is AAC works best under even-aged management. When they talk of age-class distribution as part of determining AAC, that is simply how much area of each age class (20 year classes typically), and where is it. It's even-aged stands. What if I want to manage hardwood stands, which are naturally uneven aged. It's easy enough on a small woodlot, but not so straight forward on a huge forest with more than one cover type.

All our crown lands in NB are certified. In 2006 our government told the industry to go and cut more from the buffer strips and cut closer to the water bodies, since most companies were leaving a bigger buffer than required. Also, they're allowed 30 % removal from the buffer, which says nothing about basal area retention, wind throw hazard, soil compaction hazard, rutting hazard.

[Samuel]

Who does the third party audits on your operations?

Are your management plans required to be written by Foresters with a 4 year degree in forestry?

Our 3rd Party registrar for our Woodlands Operations is KPMP Performance Registrar Inc.  In Alberta, there is a Regulated Forestry Profession Act governing the right to practice Forestry in Alberta.  In order to practice forestry, Foresters (degree program) and Technicians must apply to the College of Alberta Professional Forest Practioners.  Based on education and experience, members become a conditional member, and within one year of application, must successfully pass the 3 hr exam (ethics, forestry, land use/oil & gas, legislation etc are a number of the topics on the exam).

There are three types of plans completed in Alberta.  The higher level strategic plans calculating AAC, management units, retentions levels are called Detailed Forest Management Plans (DFMP's) and are submitted on an 10 year basis.  Annually we submit a General Development Plan.  The primary components of the General Development Plan (GDP) includes a forecast of the areas scheduled for harvest over the next 5-year period which should align with the approved Spatial Harvest Sequence (SHS) outlined in the Detailed Forest Management Plan (DFMP). Any deviations from the approved SHS or any long-term access plans shall be illustrated in the respective Final Harvest Plan (FHP) and summarized in the GDP.

The GDP must also include the current status and forecast of the deciduous and coniferous Annual Allowable Cuts (AAC's) and cut-control period for each of the operators within the planning area.

In addition to outlining the projected fibre supply forecast, the GDP shall also include details regarding road requirements, silviculture activities, and strategies to address fire management, forest health, and fish and wildlife issues within the planning area.

Specific Operational plans are also submitted annually for approval and we call them AOP's or final harvest plans.  The primary components of a Final Harvest Plan (FHP) include a map and report that clearly illustrates and documents the harvest area boundaries, roads and watercourse crossings within an individual compartment.

Unless otherwise approved by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD), the FHP will follow the harvest sequence illustrated in the General Development Plan (GDP) and subsequently the Spatial Harvest Sequence (SHS) outlined in the Detailed Forest Management Plan (DFMP).

Final Harvest Plans (FHP's) are developed for each compartment scheduled for harvest. Unlike the DFMP and GDP, which focus on landscape-level goals and objectives, the FHP addresses specific stand-level objectives for the harvest area. Although the scope of the FHP focuses on stand-level goals and objectives, these goals and objectives remain consistent with the landscape-level goals and objectives identified in both the GDP and DFMP.

The FHP shall illustrate the location of each harvest area, road(s), watercourse crossing(s), as well as a detailed reforestation plan specific to each harvest area. In addition, details regarding access management and reclamation, as well as specific strategies to mitigate impacts to watersheds and other sensitive sites within the compartment must also be identified in the FHP.

All of these plan are completed and signed off by a Forestry Professional (degree and technical diploma).  Sorry for the long winded response, but I am an individual with many words.

[sawguy21]

No problemo. As a former Alberta resident who has been involved in the forest industry, I am enjoying this discussion. Welcome aboard. As extrapolate suggests, a lot of this has been driven by extortion by special interest groups who are competing for audiences. In the long term though, I believe that overall programs such as these will benefit the forest industry. Now if we could just get rid of the silly inconsequential regulations imposed by those both in and outside of the industry looking to jump on the bandwagon and put their personal stamp on it.

[SwampDonkey]

I also welcome you to the forum Mr Elkins, and it's nice to have some input from the industry in Canada. I've been looking for this perspective for some time now. You sure use a lot of big words. I understand what they are, but a lot of folks will have to read that a couple of times. 

Now lets get down to brass tacks,  any grits up there in the north? Do you have a wood working hobby? Do you own a woodlot to tinker away at? We are an inquisitive bunch and like lots of photos. 

[Samuel]

I also welcome you to the forum Mr Elkins, and it's nice to have some input from the industry in Canada. I've been looking for this perspective for some time now. You sure use a lot of big words. I understand what they are, but a lot of folks will have to read that a couple of times. 

Now lets get down to brass tacks,  any grits up there in the north? Do you have a wood working hobby? Do you own a woodlot to tinker away at? We are an inquisitive bunch and like lots of photos. 

I have been accused of a lot of things, but never speaking in big words.   

The picture posting process seems to be somewhat challenging to me even with the directions as it seems most of the photos that I take are on the highest setting of the camera, however once I get them to a size that will enable me to upload them, the photo is the size of a small stamp.  What I may do is post a link to --Photos MUST be in the Forestry Forum gallery!!!!!-- or something where I store my family pics, and make an album of forestry like stuff.

As far as hobbies go, I consider work as my hobby and spend a heck of a lot of time doing it.  I am an avid hunter and this part of the world enables me a wide variety and opportunity of wildlife- white tail, mule deer, elk & moose as well as geese, ducks and various varieties of "prairie chickens" (grouse).  I do not have a woodlot, as having any amounts of land as a newcomer to the area would bring a substantial price tag with the crazy housing market in this area.

Those of you not familiar with Northern Alberta, it exemplifies  integrated land management with Forestry, Oil & Gas exploration & development, agriculture/grazing and 1st Nation concerns all wrapped up into one ball of wax.  I will locate some ariel shots of these integrated operations, and am due to be doing some flying in the next few weeks and will takes lots of pics to share with all.

Thanks for the warm welcome and I look forward to future conversations and information sharing.

[extrapolate85]

In additional comment that I will make regarding certification, is that the intent of many of the vocal "special interest groups" such as Earth-First!, Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club, is to put the timber industry out of business (they make no bones about it), but one organization that always appears to take the "moderate" stance is the WWF. This organization is relatively low-key in North America (mainly known for their suit against the Worldwide Wrestling Federation), but they have been very successful at wielding influence with many key global institutions, e.g., the World Bank, the European Commission. etc., and they have a huge propaganda machine in place in Europe, which carries their message. Their message regarding forest certifications is: only the FSC is credible, everybody else is not. If you happen to be from a poor country who would like a loan from the World Bank, you better listen to them. They are also here in North America (an office in the District of Columbia) and we will be hearing more from them in the future. These folks have an agenda and it is not based on the science or sound forest practices that we understand; it is based on a "do as I say, not as I do" view toward social engineering, e.g., I drive my Range Rover to the WWF office in Gland, Switzerland everyday from my large country estate in the Jura Mountains, but the rest of us should live in a solar heated 800 ft2 (72 m3) apartments and walk or ride bikes to your jobsite (which is hopefully a non-profit-small business that utilizes plantation grown trees on a very small scale). They along with their IUCN colleagues, have a plan for your forests, which they will work on via your policymakers, because they know what is best for the uninformed rural dwellers. They are experts at their task, which is press releases, media hype, celebrity endorsement, and releasing erroneous study papers. These folks are not the “typical” dreadlock sporting, cannabis cultivating folks driving around in a Volkswagen bus with the Zigzag man painted on the side and a save Tibet bumper-sticker, on their way to pour metal filings in the crankcase of your skidder. They are, however, well dressed, well healed, planning your future and drinking a glass of Sherry with your forest policymakers, while you are bickering with the rest of us over whether certification is relevant or which certification entity has credibility.

[SteveB]

Certification - in Canada, certification is driven mainly by the big clients.  I don't have the correct figures, but something like 80% of our product goes to the southern neighbor.  You want a contract with home depot?  Better be certified to the flavor of the year.  In Ontario, the governmet is pushing for all crown lands to be certified to a 3rd party standard (FSC, CSA or SFI).

Rubber stamps, etc. - yes, many of these certifications seem like a pat on the back to recongnize you've been doing the right thing all along (why pay $, just to prove to someone else?), but being involved in certification really does encourage us to be more aware and critical of our own actions, and ultimately raises the bar.

Re management plans and the need for a degree.  All Canadian provinces require an approved management plan to harvest crown land.  Most are some variation on the process sbelkins detailed.  A 20 yr strategic plan and 5 or 10 year operational plan, with yearly schedules or plans of work to meet the higher level planning commitments.  In most areas, there is a lengthy review and government approval process, and in some provinces during the plan writing you have to include representatives from all stakeholders in the area covered (local communities, aboriginal gorups, snowmobile clubs, hunting/fishing guides and camps, enviro. groups, etc).  Most (All?) provinces require the plan to be approved by a registered professional forester.  That would be someone with a degree, 18 months-2yrs experince, a review and references, and then exams in order to gain "right to practice", if the profession is regulated by a provincially legislated "act".  In Ontario, legally, you need to be an RPF to write a forestry "prescription", even if it's for private land, although the provincially regulated tax incentive/management plan program (MFTIP) doesn't require plan approvers to be an RPF, as long as they are certified to the program's standards.

Someone earlier asked about calculating AAC in partial cuts.  A computer model is used in much the same way as clearcuts.  Obviously clearcuts are slightly more straightforward.  This is a simplification, and will be modified based on local growth rates, histories of natural disturbance, etc. but basically in our single-tree selection (maple dominated) stands we cut 1/3 of the BA on a 30 yr roatation (remember this is slower growing conditions than you southern guys).  So basically we can sustainably cut one 30th of our maple ground every year.  In a 4 stage shelterwood for white pine, you are already starting to grow your next crop before you've finished cutting the previouse one.  So if you do your seeding cut at 80-100 yrs (the stage of management when you creat conditions for seedligns to become established)  that's the age that you use to model your rotation by, even though you might do a "first removal" cut at 100-120 and final removal at 120-140 (the two releasing cuts for the regen you established in your seeding cut). This is probably harder to follow than trying to explain how clearcutting can be ustainably managed, but really it's the same principle, if your modeling is area-based. 

 

[SwampDonkey]

Steve, haven't you seen some hardwood sites that that 30 % does not fit? I have, especially in uneven aged stands. You sometimes get a significant number of big trees scattered in through a lot of little ones. The tendency is the remove the big ones which are most of the 30 % because of their distribution and size. Doing this knocks you back almost to even aged management. I don't think it's appropriate for long lived species, especially in our area were they grow slow. I think if the harvest is planned to take so much from each diameter class range (14-20; 22-30; 32-44 etc), then you can return to the forest much sooner instead of waiting half a lifetime. On private land, if I owned 300 acres of long lived species, I might only take 15-20 % of the basal area, that would keep me busy for years if the markets are good. Plus my harvesting would be to release healthy trees, not suppressed and flat-topped pulpwood.