Whither Our Forests? Part 2

                                                          There are signs that our recently elected provincial government is taking a long, serious look at the future of the forest industry. The second report of the Premier's Self-Sufficiency Task Force dealt almost exclusively with this issue, and there has been at least one lengthy survey that has been distributed to selected citizens of the province. I was one of the respondents of that survey and I was duly impressed with its thoroughness. Obviously the future of the forest and of the industry is a major concern for a great many people.  

           I have always been an advocate of education, because I believe that an educated public is better prepared to articulate its concerns and to understand all of the implications of decisions that need to be made. That is evident in this case because there is no doubt that the forestry industry is facing serious challenges, particularly over the next twenty or so years. How those challenges are met will have implications for everyone who lives here for a much longer period than that, so it is imperative that we get it right. That is why I was somewhat dismayed at some of the recommendations that were made in the above mentioned Task Force report, and why I was particularly willing to take the time to respond to the survey.  

           Mark Arsenault is President and CEO of the New Brunswick Forest Products Association. He wrote a Commentary column in the Saturday, March 10 issue of The Telegraph Journal that was, in large measure and endorsement of the Task Force recommendations. His essay was entitled "N.B. forestry has a future" (no capital letters); rather belatedly, perhaps, I am going to comment on several of his (and the Task Force's) key recommendations.  

           Early in his column, Mr. Arsenault observes that "the forestry sector has to maximize uses for our existing forest and grow more trees, always using the best available science." I cringe whenever I read that expression "best available science" because it rarely means "best researched science" or "in the opinion of the overall scientific community". Instead it often comes down to "the science that best articulates what we want it to say." This is a tactic that has become extremely popular (and, unfortunately, quite successful) in the anti-scientific regime of President George W. Bush - and there is a great deal of documentation slowly coming to light to substantiate the blatant misuse of fundamentally good science in the cause of industry or big business, both in the USA and, unfortunately, in Canada.  

           Mr. Arsenault goes on to recognize the importance of the forest industry to everyone living in the province and then states that his organization "is fully supportive of this goal [sustainable forestry].We will work with the provincial government, industry and stakeholders to ensure that the best science is used to guarantee that our forest sector thrives for years to come."  If you reread that statement carefully, you will notice that he uses the expression that the "forest sector" (and not simply the "forest") will thrive. To me that means that it will thrive (if it does at all) as an economic and not an ecological entity.  

           In next week's column I will examine two specific recommendations that he makes, both of with are completely at odds with any concept of long-term ecological sustainability, really do not make a great deal of economic sense either.