HALIFAX, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2002
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
9:00 A.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. James DeWolfe
MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess we will call this meeting to order. It's about 12 minutes after the hour and I'm sorry that we are running a little late but we have several meetings on this morning and we are running a little low on members.
We have a continuation of the previous meeting because we found it just so interesting, we decided to divide it. We have with us Nancy McInnis-Leek, Director of Forestry Division and Jorg Beyeler, Manager of Forest Management Planning, Department of Natural Resources. We welcome both of you here this morning and I trust the members of the committee had a nice long weekend because that's what the constituents feel that we had when we are not in the House. I know we all worked very hard yesterday.
I'd like to start out by reintroducing the committee because we have at least one replacement and we'll start with Mr. Langille.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Without further ado, who is going to take the lead on this? Nancy, are you going to?
MS. NANCY MCINNIS-LEEK: Jorg is going to. We are just going to make a continuation of the presentation from before but this time focusing on the wood supply aspect of the forest strategy and make time available to answer questions.
1
MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that and it's interesting to note that Kerry Morash, who is filling in today, is a forester himself with a forestry background, and we are delighted to have him join us as a replacement. Hopefully, we will have some interesting comments from him. Of course, we have Mora Stevens, our clerk, with us today. I will now ask you to continue on from last meeting. Jorg.
MR. JORG BEYELER: Good morning to all. I will be doing the presentation on wood supply. As you are probably all aware, this is a significant topic for Nova Scotia for the enterprise of the forest industry of Nova Scotia. It's a big question that always comes to us and comes in reference to wood supply - do we have enough wood out there to sustain our industry - and this presentation will attempt to give you a perspective on that but also provide, I think, the background that goes into this type of analysis to give you an understanding of how it's done and what some of the results are.
The title is, it's a forecast for the next 80 years. This forecast has specific purposes and one is that it provides trend forest growth. That's one of the key aspects of it, timber availability to the forest industry and to estimate potential harvest levels from the Nova Scotia forest. That is one of the key purposes. The results from this type of analysis are used for strategic and policy purposes and public awareness but not to confuse wood supply with annual allowable cut, this particular analysis, or these results, are not what we consider the annual allowable cut levels but just potential growth and potential harvest levels. So I would like to make that point fairly clear and I will get into that part of the discussion a little bit later on.
[9:15 a.m.]
So, again, what does this type of forecast tell us? The key one, growth. Future growth of the forest from a starting position which is, in this case, the period 1996-2000 when this analysis was done and, obviously, possible harvest levels. It also gives us an estimate or forecast of how the inventory changes over time because, in effect, through this type of analysis, we are growing the forest, we are doing the silviculture on the forest, there is harvest occurring in the forest, there are aspects of exclusions from the forest for timber production purposes, and I'll explain that. The attempt is to forecast how inventory changes over time. The other key aspect is how forest age class changes over time. Those are the major aspects that I will be showing you.
Now the other key point I would like to reference as I go through this presentation,
is we consider that the forests of Nova Scotia, there is a total land base, a forest land base, but the analysis of this, it focuses on what we call the operable forest and I will explain what we mean by that.
What is the methodology that we use? It's a simulation modelling process that has been developed by the Department of Natural Resources over the past 20 or 25 years. The model is called the SAWS model and this is version 8.0. So in other words, it's the eighth time that this model has actually been upgraded and developed and the acronym is Strategic Analysis of Wood Supply. That is the modelling process that is used to come up with this forecast. It is Nova Scotia based. It was developed in Nova Scotia by previous staff in our department and it has been used for the last 20-plus years.
The forecast depends on a number of things and is determined using a number of factors. One is to consider what is that operable forest? What I mean by the operable forest, what is the forest that is available for timber production? You are all aware that not all forest is available for timber production so we are focusing on that portion of the forest that is considered available. We use all the latest inventory data that we have had at the time of the analysis, and I will go into a little bit of detail on that. It uses forest growth models that have been developed in a number of ways, and I will describe that. The key aspect of forest growth is how much silviculture is done or not done and the aspect of harvest. We take into account the harvest that has occurred in the past. We don't actually estimate demand but we use the aspect of growth to determine potential harvest. The other key points I am going to try to raise with you are the supporting data and assumptions, and there are assumptions that go into this process.
So let's start with the forest resource. You have probably all seen these types of statistics before. It's just a breakdown of the forest of Nova Scotia. This is the total forested land base in Nova Scotia, approximately 4.2 million hectares. It's broken down into four key land tenure types of which the small-private makes up approximately 50 per cent, the major component; industrial, close to 1 million hectares; and, Crown, approximately 27 per cent, 1.2 million hectares. Then there is federal Crown as well. So that is the breakdown of the forest land base as it exists in this analysis. There are always slight changes.
As I mentioned, one of the aspects, one of the first processes that we go through in determining a future wood supply forecast is how much area is really available for timber production and there's a key aspect here. This slide really gives you a summary table of what we consider land that is really, not totally, but generally excluded from timber production. I should explain that the model that we use, it's either an all or nothing model and the land is either available for timber production or it's out. This gives you an example of the types of lands that we have excluded from the operable forest. All the federal lands we have taken out. There's only a very small portion there that's available. Of course, in parks and protected areas there is limitation. There is no harvesting allowed in parks and protected areas.
Non-participating small landowners, this one deserves a little bit of explanation. There is always a factor and, again, there's an assumption that's used here, based on surveys that have been done in the past, of how many landowners, if their timber is available for harvesting or it's merchantable, will actually harvest that timber. We have an estimate, we use estimates
that a certain percentage of landowners will never harvest their timber even though it's available for harvest. This is the overall estimate of the total land base, 7.8 per cent, but it's based on factors that 15 per cent to 20 per cent of landowners will not harvest their timber even though it's available. So we have excluded approximately 330,000 hectares from the land base from this being available for timber production.
The wildlife and biodiversity features, that includes corridors, old forests, wildlife clumps, riparian zones, all those types of features we have excluded from timber production and it's a considerable land base. Now, in actual fact, if you look at the wildlife habitat regulations, riparian zones along streams are not totally excluded. You can actually harvest, but at the time of doing this analysis, which was actually pre-release of those regulations, and from information under the old guidelines that people were not going into those areas to harvest, they were excluding them. So we took the decision to exclude them from available land.
The other aspects, of course, right-of-ways, inaccessible areas, those areas inaccessible due to lack of access. We also took out what we call the non-productive or slow timber growing areas that were a residual after we took off all these other ones; and, of course, sugar maple stands are forested, but they're technically not available to any extent for timber production. Christmas trees are, again, trees, but will never become a harvestable tree in the sense of timber.
That just gives you an overview of the type of exclusions that we have made, it's a significant percentage of the forest, 38 percent. So we have excluded this as being not available for timber production. The analysis on future timber supply is on the balance of that area which is approximately 2.6 million hectares of land or 62 percent of the land base, or the forested land base. So that is a key point to take into account.
I guess the other key aspect, and I guess people wonder, is what type of information do you have when you do this type of analysis? How good is it? Is it reliable?
The key, I guess the most important information that we use, is what are we starting with today when we do that analysis in terms of inventory. Now, where do we get that information? Well, in a number of ways. In the past, we used to do inventories by doing temporary sample plots across the forest land base and then extrapolate to the whole forest. Now, we actually do an estimate of every forest stand in the province over a 10-year period using aerial photography. That is a major key change to determining inventory, and actually this analysis incorporates the first complete photo interpretation analysis for the province. What information do we get? We get species composition for each stand, we get the stocking. In other words, how many trees and how well are they distributed on a given area?
We have the age, we have the growth potential, insight capability, and we have obvious timber volumes and the cover type in itself. That's the type of information we get from each stand using photo interpretation analysis.
We also have harvest and silviculture data available, not on a stand-by-stand basis, but in terms of area that has been harvested in the past. We have that type of information. How is it collected? Well, the aerial photos, there's a complete set of aerial photos done on a 10-year cycle, which is used. The inventory group also has 3,200 permanent sample plots that are measured on a five-year cycle. They are randomly distributed throughout the province and these plots have been in place for the most part going on 30 to 35 years. That is a key set of data. Again, Nova Scotia has a reputation in terms of permanent sample plots, that we have probably one of the largest and longest set in existence of probably any province in Canada using the permanent sample plot methodology.
The other aspect that we have is on a two-year cycle. We get satellite imagery that we use to determine the harvest areas that have been cut in between the aerial photography, which is a 10-year cycle. So, it's just to explain that there is a considerable amount of data that is used in this type of analysis. It's not perfect, it never will be, but it provides us a relative level of confidence of particularly the starting point that we use in this analysis.
[9:30 a.m.]
The other key one is the forest growth potential. Those 3,200 permanent sample plots, if you look on this particular graph, we use those particularly to model the growth of the older forests. They're very effective in that way to develop equations to model growth for the older stands. In the past there was a very extensive survey and analysis done to develop a growth model for the younger stands that have originated since 1970, and growth equations have been developed with that, and those are implemented in the model.
For managed stands, there is another set of permanent sample plots that, again, have been in place for up to 30 years. There are about 1,200 of those, and they're specifically targeting all the different types of management that have occurred in the province over the last 20 to 30 years. We have very good growth data on those, and have used that data to develop another growth model for managed stands. Those growth models are inputted into the overall analysis process to help us ascertain what growth can be on the types of conditions that we have across the province.
I should stress they are focused primarily on softwood, because at the time that they were developed - the issue has always been softwood and remains - hardwood, using analysis, it's determined that hardwood grows approximately 66 per cent of softwood, and in this particular analysis we used that factor to model hardwood. We are in the development of completing a hardwood growth model that would be implemented in the next one, but in this particular analysis it was not available. We also have climatic growth limitations or height limitations, depending on location across the province, proximity to the coast, the higher areas like the Cape Breton Highlands and so on, so, there are actually height limitations that are put on the growth process.
The silviculture program scenarios. This is where we use the silviculture primarily, because silviculture impacts the growth significantly. If no silviculture occurs you can expect so much growth; if you do the silviculture, in effect what you're really doing is speeding up the growth of forest stands by management. The scenario analysis that is done in this type of process is always using levels of silviculture to determine what the effects are and what possible growth levels we can achieve or not achieve.
In this particular analysis, or the results that we use deal with aspects of no silviculture, if silviculture does not occur and programs stop - what I call the pre-regulation silviculture scenario and that is the amount of silviculture that was going in the late 1990s, prior to putting the forest sustainability regulations in place and, of course, the regulation scenario, the impact of the wood acquisition plans that are in place today. You can see, in terms of dollars per cord or dollars per cubic metre, the difference between those scenarios. I should also add that this process was actually used to determine how much silviculture per cubic metre was required to meet our sustainability requirements. So there's really a double purpose to this type of analysis - it's to provide information, but it's also to determine the level of silviculture that is required to meet sustainability targets, and, again, I will go into that.
The demand. You can see from this particular slide I've just highlighted the actual harvest from 1996 to 2000. I should add that is the highest level of harvest that has occurred in this province at any period in the history of recording harvests. The mean harvest for softwood during that period was 5.4 million cubic metres and, again, it's allocated by tender, by region and we get the information from the registry program.
The hardwood harvest in the year 2000 - 827,000 cubic metres. In a sense (Interruption) Yes?
MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a question of conversion here. Perhaps you could help us out with that.
MR. BEYELER: Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacKinnon?
MR. MACKINNON: I'm just being a little bit lackadaisical. Can you convert that 5.4 million cubic metres into cords?
MR. BEYELER: Roughly, a very easy calculation is to divide by 2. It's approximately 2.7 - it's actually a little bit more than 2, so it's close to 3 million cords. (Interruption) If I get going here, just stop me anytime.
Getting back to it, the aspect of harvest - this is just to establish our starting point. We don't try to forecast demand through this process. Some of the other key assumptions that go into this is are what occurs, what type of regeneration do we get? We have extensive surveys to determine that from naturally regenerating harvest areas and plantations. You can see here that there is a significant difference between natural areas and plantations in stocking. The difference is between 66 and 80 per cent. Again, the aspect which I mentioned previously was this factor for non-participating landowners which ranges from 15 to 20 per cent, depending on location.
In addition to growth factors, there are also cull factors or loss factors or mortality factors that are implemented or used in the model. The cull and waste are really an estimate of mortality that occurs, particularly in stands that are not managed, and/or the type of cull and waste that occurs at harvest time - wood that is just not suitable for any specific products, is volume but it's not suitable.
There is a complex set of factors for insect and disease. I just have here an average for all those complex factors, based on region, based on tenure and it amounts to approximately 5 per cent loss of merchantable timber per year. So you have the growth and you take 5 per cent off that growth at harvest time. We also take off a 1 per cent volume level for wildlife clumps that are now required to be left in harvest areas after the harvest.
The last point here is the harvest eligibility standards. It's just an indication of what the standards are when the harvest occurs. What merchantability standards need to be met for a harvest to actually occur and those are the standard minimums - 15 to 18 centimetre diameter limits at top and 9 centimetre top limit and at 20 per cent stock, that's an operability as to how much volume per acre or per hectare.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Bill Langille.
MR. WILLIAM LANGILLE: I see in your harvest standards that you have 15 to 18 centimetre diameter limit. Why is it 15 to 18? Why isn't it 18 or 15 - what's the difference?
MR. BEYELER: It depends on the tenure, type and perhaps the region. For example, in the west region, there is a little bit of a higher minimum diameter as opposed to the east where you have balsam fir, so the eligibility limiter - the minimum diameter that a harvest can occur is at 15 centimetres or 6 inches diameter. So there are differences depending on tenure and region that we factor into that. A little bit depending on the type of species involved, whether it's fir or spruce or pine, that sort of thing. Spruce and pine we use a larger diameter limit.
MR. LANGILLE: So the simple answer is region.
MR. BEYELER: That's right. So that, I guess, is the part of the presentation where I, in a sense, try to explain the factors, the aspects that go into this type of analysis, I guess, from our perspective, it has developed the confidence - do we have enough data, are we using it properly, are we going through the right processes to determine whether we have a credible result or a result that we have confidence in.
I will show you the results from the analysis that we used in this particular time period, and the results will be based on wood supply, on inventory and on age class. So, starting with the wood supply - and again, I direct your attention to the aspect that we give you these results based on the silviculture scenarios, so you're looking at, where you have the three lines and the lines indicate whether it's regulation, pre-regulation or the nil silviculture scenario. You can see, obviously, that there is a considerable difference between the potential- the key aspect here is the growth, this is the annual growth curve or line over a long period of time. Now, there is a considerable difference, obviously, between those results and again, impacted by the amount of silviculture or the amount of management that occurs on that given land base over that period of time.
The one other aspect I should point out is that this analysis, what happens is the volume that is available, the growth that's available here is the volume that is available for harvest in that given period of time and in the analysis, the model actually harvests that volume. So it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy in a sense that if - on the red line - that harvest, that amount of volume is available in the analysis process, that is being harvested and it goes back into the queue. So there's a considerable difference between these three lines. Again, the nil scenario, we can maintain a certain amount of harvest and then it starts to crash.
The pre-regulation scenario looks positive in the general sense and this is combining all three tenures - small-private, Crown, and the industrial. When you combine these together, these are the types of curves that you get. So even the pre-regulation looks positive, and the regulation has a very consistent increase in growth by implementing, from this start point - they all have the same start point. So there is a potential over that 80-year period to virtually double the harvest level in Nova Scotia, given that level of silviculture.
I will qualify my statements that, given the information that we have today - now we're not stating that that possibility may exist in reality 80 years from now because, in effect, we do this type of analysis every five years to confirm or update changes that have occurred - but given the analysis that we have done at this particular time, these are the potential growth levels that can occur.
On the hardwood side there's a little different picture, again, because the amount of silviculture is considerably less, even with the implementation of the regulations at the 60 cents per cubic metre level. You can see that the red line, the regulation line does, over a period of time, start to rise just a little bit higher than the other two. The point that you see, where it says 2000 harvest, that is the 827,000 cubic metres of harvesting that occurred in the
year 2000. So you see in terms of volume it is considerably below the potential harvest or growth levels that exist in the province at this particular time and what this analysis shows.
[9:45 a.m.]
Now, if we go back to the pre-regulation scenario - if you will remember back to the blue curve which had a positive line over that period of time - that's true, but if you separate the Crown and the industrial and the private, it does show that given the start point back in 1996 that there was a significant problem in terms of sustainability on the small-private land base. There's no question about that; there were a number of studies done, and in addition to our own, the national round table also pointed that out. The analysis that we did concurred with that, that there was approximately, at the level of harvest that was occurring in 1996 or during that period, that five-year period, a 20 per cent over-harvest occurring on the small- private land base at that time and that really precipitated the need to do something on the small-private land base, which was one of the key catalysts for these regulations that were implemented in the year 2000.
You see on the industrial side and the Crown side the curves are the opposite. You may ask why, what's the difference? Well in a sense the industrial sector, on its land base, is actually doing silviculture at a higher level, even in the $3 per cubic metre that exists in the regulations. So they've already exceeded those levels - the Crown, the same. The Crown was doing silviculture on the public land base at a higher level than in the regulation scenario. The real problem was the amount of silviculture that was occurring on the same private land base, and it's a considerable problem because it's 50 per cent of the total land base of the province. Even though that pre-regulation had a positive curve, when you combine them it definitely shows that there was a problem on the small-private land base.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: What do you call silviculture? Are you referring to planting trees?
MR. BEYELER: Silviculture - to clarify that - is a general term of planting trees, tending, doing competition control, doing commercial thinning, all the activities that promote forest growth in a managed stand condition. So it's all those things, and it's also doing harvest in a way that encourages natural regeneration. It's planting the areas that need to be planted - all those activities.
MR. MACDONELL: My sheet here - this is called Current Silviculture, Net Merchantable Softwood Volume. The title has changed on this - I'm assuming this is an updated . . .
MR. BEYELER: Yes.
MR. MACDONELL: After the regulations came in or . . .
MR. BEYELER: Yes. Current and pre-regulation are the same scenario.
MR. MACDONELL: Okay.
MR. BEYELER: Now, what was the impact of implementing the regulations? Again,
I should clarify that this process was used to determine how much silviculture actually would be required to make up that deficit on the small, private land base. We went through all kinds of analysis to determine where that level needs to be. That level, based on our analysis, needed to be at $3 per cubic metre of silviculture applied to the small-private land base. You see, once we determined that level - and you see here from this particular graph - it was specific that we targeted that land base to meet or make up that 20 per cent deficit, but actually the amount to actually exceed that would have to be a lot higher than $3 per cubic metre.
So the aspect of implementing that $3 meant that we could sustain that existing harvest level at the 1996 level on the small-private land base, but you can see that this curve is absolutely flat, there's no room for increase for at least a 30-year period. The impact of doing that, of increasing that silviculture now, provides the ability to maintain that harvest level. Down the road, it also provides the ability to increase it. You may ask, why does that silviculture now give us the potential to increase harvest or maintain a harvest level or make up a 20 per cent deficit? The answer to that is that silviculture increases the forest growth to the extent that future timber will actually come onstream faster because of the increased growth. It's a term that we use in the forestry profession, it's called the allowable cut effect. That's why that is possible. By increasing silviculture today, we can actually increase harvest levels. In this case it's not increasing, but it's making up a deficit.
The curves on the Crown industrial again, really don't change because the analysis here is at $3 per cubic metre and the actual difference on those two land bases is not significant. But it is certainly significant on a small private land base.
MR. MACDONELL: That's based on the 1996 level of harvest?
MR. BEYELER: That's right. Well, it's actually the average for that five-year period and we target it at 1996.
MR. MACDONELL: Okay. So, if that level changed, that would throw those predictions out?
MR. BEYELER: Well, to some degree.
MR. MACDONELL: As long as they change outside the prediction.
MR. BEYELER: That's right. Again, we monitor change of harvest not on a one-year period, but generally on a five-year period. So, if there was a significant change over a five-year period, then our next analysis would have to take that into account and something probably would have to change, yes. One year, not necessarily.
This graph just simply shows the aspect of making up that difference in the harvest so the blue line is the pre-regulation and the red line is showing the effect of implementing those regulations.
Again, I've mentioned quite often that this is an 80-year forecast, but that we traditionally do this type of analysis every five years. Really, we consider what is the wood supply potential for this five-year period, 2001-05. This particular table includes what we consider the potential harvest level or the potential wood supply level for this particular period, from all these different land bases.
Again, when we do the analysis which is slated to be complete in 2005, these numbers may change, but this is what we consider our potential harvest levels - not allowable cut, but potential harvest levels from these land bases for this particular five-year period.
MR. LANGILLE: I'm glad you clarified that - not allowable cuts.
MR. BEYELER: Right. Maybe it's a good time to bring that up, the difference between those two. The potential harvest level simply means that is the amount of growth that occurs on an annual basis that could be harvested. I say could be.
The allowable cut means that you have control over a land base to actually specify what your harvest is going to be. To do that, and for example, the government can only do that on the Crown land base, and to do that, what isn't included in this type of analysis are aspects of cost, aspects of proximity to other stands or difficulty, road construction. Those types of things are not included here. Those have to be taken into account in determining an annual allowable cut and the province does that.
On the private land base, since the province has no control over the harvest, we never use that term. We simply use the potential harvest levels. That indicates, again, the amount of harvest that could occur given the growth that's occurring on that land base.
MR. KERRY MORASH: If I might, just for clarification, the total allowable cut always is referring to Crown land only?
MR. BEYELER: Only to Crown land, absolutely. I've included a couple of other graphs here to show what has occurred during this last six years. You see the blue line at the top, which is the wood supply line; and the green line, which is the total harvest that has occurred in this past six years and this is total harvest - softwood and hardwood. So, again,
you can see that the numbers have been just narrowly below that line, and in the last year, in 2001, harvest has actually dropped somewhat in the province. The difference, again, you can see that softwood is the primary component of that, with hardwood a very small component.
Broken down into the tenures, there has been over the last five to six years a bit of a shift in where the harvest is occurring. There was significant pressure on the small private land base in the late 1990s, and there has been a shift in the last two to three years that the industrial sector - and, again, they're taking into account the historical silviculture and the growth that they're achieving on their lands - they are starting to increase the proportion of harvest to their mills from the industrial land base and decrease accessing the small private land base. We predict that that trend will continue in the next little while, thereby actually reducing the pressure on the small private land base to some extent. You will also see that the Crown is virtually flat. The Crown harvest has not changed at all over the past five years and, actually, if I look back at the historical curves, it hasn't changed much in the last 10 to 15 years; it's roughly around that 500,000 to 600,000 cubic metre level per year.
So, just to give you an indication of what, in terms of - I'm showing you the predictions and I just wanted to update you a little bit of what has happened in that period.
A couple more things, the inventory. Now, again, I'm going to show you three inventory graphs, which is, again, a forecasted change of inventory over time. This first one, just the key aspect here - I've now dropped you back to the total forest - through this process we've been talking mostly about the operable forest, the 2.6 million hectares. I draw your attention to this particular graph. We're now back to the 4.2 million hectares. So even though we do the analysis for timber production, the other 1.6 million hectares are still growing. They're still out there doing their thing. So we're also modelling the inventory of the total forest throughout all this process and you can see that over time that softwood inventory is growing, is increasing . . .
MR. MACDONELL: Are you adding to the operable forest here, or this is total forest?
MR. BEYELER: This is total. In terms of modelling the inventory, we say, okay, at any given time we have this much merchantable timber available on the total forest. So this is what this particular graph shows, that if you look at any particular year in this graph it will indicate how much standing merchantable timber is sitting there.
MR. MACDONELL: That would be in those places that we have excluded, like federal lands?
MR. BEYELER: That's right. Again, just because we've excluded them doesn't mean that there's nothing happening there in terms of growth. So I just kind of bring that picture back together for you. If I go to the operable forest, now I'm back to the operable, you see
a similar curve, there is a slight decrease in the earlier years, the earlier sort of 20 years there is a slight decrease and, again, it's because of the age class structure that we have today, but, over a considerable period of time, that starts to build again. Again, the hardwood, there's very little change throughout all of this.
The last one I show you, which is the one you and I always have gotten into, John, the specific point here is, what I've showed you in the two previous ones is the merchantable inventory over the whole forest that exists at any given time. This slide shows the merchantable inventory only in the areas eligible for harvest - they meet that harvest eligibility criteria. So in other words, in the analysis process, these are the areas that are in the harvest queue; they could be harvested at any given time over a period.
[10:00 a.m.]
Now, the age class structure that exists today, the amount of area that we have in unmanaged forest means that we have a lot of merchantable timber sitting in harvestable stands. That decreases over time, as the age class structure in the operable forest changes over time - I will show you that - but it does not mean necessarily that we're losing production or we're not sustainable. It just shows that the amount of wood that needs to be available to meet our sustainability targets can be a little bit less. As you see that curve, it comes down a level and it will generally stay flat, so that is the amount of merchantable timber that is in existence in harvestable stands to maintain our sustainability requirements. I will show you that on the basis of our age class structure, because there is a difference - there's a change that occurs in age class.
The green bars are the 1996 age class structure, again, based on interpretation. I should point out that it is not what some people consider the true age, it is an age that is determined through an interpretation process. It does show that right now we have very little old forest in the forests of Nova Scotia - you have probably been hearing that over and over again - we have very few old forests. We have a lot of forest, approximately 70 per cent in the 40- to 80-year age class. That forest which exists has a lot of merchantable timber in it. Most of those stands are unmanaged, they are eligible, they are in the harvest queue, because they meet the harvest eligibility requirements. So there's a lot of merchantable timber out there right now. It's not really old - it definitely has a lot of life to it, but it's not growing very fast because it hasn't been managed.
Now as we implement this type of analysis and modelling process, and we harvest the stands that are available for harvest, we start changing the age class structure. At the same time we exclude a lot of area from harvest. If you look at the red bars, the excluded areas, they're sitting out there, they're also still growing and they're growing older in time, in age. How they actually exist, some trees may die, but the average forest generally gets older.
The operable forest changes in structure as well, so that you have a little higher percentage of the operable forest in the 0- to 20- and 20- to 40-age classes. This is the age class structure that would or could occur over a period of time in the operable forest. The harvest occurs primarily in the 40- to 100-year age class. The 0 to 40, that's when they're growing, that's when the silviculture is occurring, the stand tending is occurring, the management processes are occurring. They're growing faster, they're putting on volume faster, but in essence that's where it gets back to that lower curve. The actual timber that's available in the harvestable stands, on average, is somewhat less because the age class structure has changed to some degree.
When you put the whole forest together again, you see a sort of distribution in a sense. In effect, people say we're going to have a younger forest by doing all these things.
Well yes and no. We have yes in the operable, the managed stands, the intensively managed stands, generally we'll have a slightly younger forest. Overall, with all these other impacts occurring across the province today, we will also have a larger percentage of older forest than we do today, considerably larger.
Finally, I'm glad to say I'm almost finished, there are two aspects I guess I want to leave you with. This type of process is used to forecast future forest, but it is also used in terms of analysis to determine what the requirement was of the forest sustainability regulations that these targets established. I guess the final key point is that based on this analysis, based on the fact that we have these regulations in place, we are confident that we are meeting our sustainability requirements on all the tenures in the province at this time. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that educational portion of our meeting. It was a little longer than what we normally have, but it was most informative, so I just let it roll. We'll start off with some questions from our members. Bill Langille you're first.
MR. LANGILLE: The forest always interests me because of my background and having a certified tree farm. Having said that, we have Stora, Kimberly-Clark, Bowater plus we have other lumber companies, I'm not going to name them all, but I'm sure you are aware of them. Now, I have a concern and my concern is that - today we have a balance in our forest and I look back to the 1940s, and my first question is, how much silviculture did we have in the 1940s and 1950s?
MR. BEYELER: I would say very little. I don't know the exact history, but in comparison to what we're doing today, there was a little bit of planting occurring back in those days, but in general, the types of silviculture that we're talking here, probably very little.
MR. LANGILLE: I guess that is where I'm going. Now natural growth, today our forests have a lot of merchantable trees that came from natural forest and now the focus seems to be on silviculture. Now, do you consider spraying a form of silviculture?
MR. BEYELER: Yes.
MR. LANGILLE: We are spraying and the big companies, are they planting hardwood or are they just planting softwood?
MR BEYELER: They are just planting softwood.
MR. LANGILLE: They are just planting softwood. What we in fact are doing to our province, we're going over a period of time to change the landscape of our province. We're going from a balance of hardwood species and softwood, and the big companies and the government, Natural Resources, what they are in fact doing, they're planting softwood. So we're going to eventually change the landscape of our province by doing this. Would you agree to that?
MR. BEYELER: Not Really.
MR. LANGILLE: Could you elaborate on that then?
MR. BEYELER: One of the key aspects is that planting only occurs approximately on 15 per cent of areas that are being harvested. On that 15 per cent, yes softwood is being planted. Now the other 85 per cent, those areas are left to regenerate naturally and in most cases they come back, if they're a hardwood area they come back to hardwood, if they're a mixed wood area there will be a mix of species and even some in softwood areas you get a mix of species of hardwood and softwood depending on how the harvests have occurred. We actually have tracked, also through this type of analysis, is there a change in the cover type and really it hasn't changed much over time.
The companies and the government, yes, in areas that need to be planted, and primarily those are softwood areas. Hardwood areas are generally not planted to softwoods. I shouldn't say it's never been done, it has been done in the past. It is the position of government today, and it is the position I believe of most companies, not to convert hardwood sites to softwood sites but hardwood generally comes back naturally and the silviculture that occurs is management that occurs from a naturally regenerated stand, depending on what the harvest method was. I would disagree with you in the sense that we are changing that landscape. In fact, history has shown that we are not, that we are maintaining those covered types in the relative levels that have occurred in the past.
MR. LANGILLE: Okay. When we replant, when we are zeroing in on softwood only, I believe we are disrupting nature, we are disrupting our wildlife. As you know, you have a forest of softwood. About the only thing you get in there is rabbits and squirrels. You don't have the food chain.
I want to touch on spraying. What chemical do you use in spraying? What is it exactly?
MR. BEYELER: The primary herbicide that is used is VISIONTM or glyphosate. I'm not sure whether there are others used but that is the primary one that is being used.
MR. LANGILLE: And the purpose of that is to kill the hardwood.
MR. BEYELER: To control hardwood competition.
MR. LANGILLE: I guess control is a better word than kill, is it? (Laughter) Or a fancier word for kill.
Could we not use silviculture without spraying? What I'm looking at from you right now is where are the circumstances that we have to use spraying to go out with your saws and cut the hardwood that's coming up, therefore, letting your softwood grow faster than the hardwood. Now I realize that hardwood, especially your birch and that, they grow faster and they will smother the softwood out but could we not go in with people, with saws - and I know we do that - and cut the hardwood, therefore allowing the softwood to come up but also having a balance there with hardwood, even though it's smaller, that could sustain, let's say, wildlife and nature and what Nova Scotia's forests are, the balance in there. What would you say?
MR. BEYELER: Yes, both methods can be used. If we are talking plantation management, which our softwood plantations are generally geared toward softwood, the difference between the two methods is primarily cost. If you are controlling hardwood competition in a softwood plantation, herbicide does the job very effectively at a reduced cost in comparison to the manual methods. So that is one of the reasons why primarily it's being used. You can also treat areas using manual. Our results or indications have always shown that the manual treatment of hardwood creates even faster growth. So in other words, they sprout again and they come up almost faster even after they are cut. So there is an aspect of cost there.
Again, just to go back to softwood plantations which may comprise up to 15 per cent at the most, the prime objective is to grow softwood in those plantations. On the other areas, where you are dealing with competition in naturally regenerated areas, herbicides are generally not used, that the manual weeding or pre-commercial thinning technique is used primarily and at that time the people who are working there are making judgments as to what
species they select. Again, in mixed-wood areas, they are generally maintained as mixed-wood stands, hardwood areas are maintained as hardwood stands and so on. So there are different aspects. They are both effective to some degree in terms of cost. There is no question that herbicides are more effective and more cost effective as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We have to move along.
MR. LANGILLE: I know I could go on all morning and probably into the afternoon, but I will pass. I wasn't trying to put you in the hot seat, I was just trying to get some answers.
[10:15 a.m.]
MR. MACDONELL: I want to thank you for the presentation. You're right, we've bounced these numbers around and you've bounced them off me on occasion. I've got to say that I think this work is really beneficial and the fact that I don't necessarily see the same picture, but I am curious about a few things and one of those last slides - I have Nova Scotia Projected Inventory for Total Forest: 1996-2070 - the red softwood line right there is showing a drop in inventory. Am I reading that right?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: In the merchantable inventory.
MR. MACDONELL: In the merchantable inventory, okay.
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: Not all trees.
MR. MACDONELL: No, not in the total forests. My biggest concern is the operable forests when we're harvesting it. So that would mean that over some years our cut, I would assume, our harvest would have to increase to cause a drop in the inventory, because otherwise . . .
MR. BEYELER: Yes, the harvest is increasing as we're looking at this.
MR. MACDONELL: Now, I remember one day a conversation you and I had and you said in the 2.6 million hectares in the operable forests - I think you said it was about 6 million acres - that we were growing about half a cord per acre in our forests and getting our 3 million cords. So, therefore, we're really growing about what we were cutting. So if that's true, then why is it that we've had such an emphasis on the fact that we're overharvesting on private woodlots if we're growing as much in our operable forests as we're cutting?
MR. BEYELER: Well, again, we are if we look at the operable forests in total, but if we look at the operable forests just on the small-private land base, then when you looked at it in that sense, there was an overcut of about 20 per cent. So, in other words, during that
five-year period, say 1995 to 2000, that level of harvest which I believe is 3.6 million cubic metres on the small-private land base, the growth that was occurring was about 3 million to 3.1 million during that period. So that's why there was a deficit, no question about that.
MR. MACDONELL: I'm always interested in what positions governments take around any of these issues and as time goes on, the situations they have to deal with, and I come back to the Royal Commission on Forestry back in the 1980s, I believe, and it looks like they intended to, with what they call doubling the silviculture treatments, but they don't give a dollar value on what that necessarily means, but we know that that didn't happen. I mean there were those management programs in place, a federal-provincial shared program, and they were predicting just about our level of harvest by 2040. Now we're at 2002 - and actually this is 1996 that this was put together - you know, some 40 years ahead of that harvest. So that causes me some concern because I tend to think that, well, when it looks as though we're running into a problem, we generate another model and say that this can work.
The model that I think we've generated is to harvest a younger forest. For some people interested in biomass, that's fine - a tree is a tree. But for some people who are interested in the forest and what all of that means, because I'm not sure that in five years or 10 years or 15 years that somebody will say, we're going to harvest a 30-year forest, then someone will say we're going to harvest a 20-year forest. It seems to me that at some point you have to set some type of limits.
You mentioned about the harvest eligibility requirements when you showed the age classifications and the 40- to 80-year forests, I think you said, were about 70 per cent of what we could harvest. So that brings me to the question of how we determine what our harvest eligibility requirement is. To me, that's setting the tone for 40 years to 30 years to 20 years and I'm just curious. To me, you shouldn't cut those young trees unless you're doing a treatment and removing them to release other trees, to let them grow. That would make sense to me. Or you could have old trees that are not growing that you would want to remove, but to make the cutting of 40-year-old trees a standard practice, which is what happens in this province, because we're harvesting 100,000 acres almost all of it clear-cutting.
That brings me back to the definition of silviculture, which I know should include a variety of treatments. But, here, it's planting trees and that's if they don't regenerate. If you don't get a certain level of regeneration, we go in and plant. So, I guess my point is that with the sustainability fund, with the idea that whatever volume is harvested, there's an equal level of silviculture going on in those stands in order that we hit our targets for sustainability.
It would seem to me that if we're clear-cutting for the most part and therefore planting trees for the most part, that at some point, without putting a limit on what you cut, you run the risk of actually overharvesting compared to what you can grow to replace it. I think if you cut one tree and you plant one tree which is really the basis of what we're talking about in silviculture now, if we had 10 million trees and we cut them all and planted 10 million
trees, we wouldn't have a forest. We'd say, wait at least 40 years until those trees grow and we'll start to harvest them.
That's the fear that I have that what we're doing is actually going down a road without setting a limit. If this industry takes off and decides that they're going to double their volume, that if they can sell it they're going to cut it, this is going to be out the window. Somebody will sit down and re-jig a different model and say, here's what we have to do. At some point, unless you start planting 40-year-old trees, you're not going to be able to keep up. That would be my interpretation. So, am I way off base on my thoughts on that?
MR. BEYELER: Do you want me to tell you honestly? (Laughter)
MR. MACDONELL: Yes, because to me this is related to setting a limit. If you don't set a limit, you're in trouble.
MR. BEYELER: Okay. Just a couple of things. Let's look at a vision of the forest. Yes, this type of analysis is based on how much silviculture we do. That's a key aspect because it's geared towards timber or the forest industry - no question about that. I guess the picture you have to recognize is that even in this analysis we have other forests out there doing their thing (Interruptions) Right, still growing, creating structure. In fact, we're talking almost 40 per cent.
Within that 60 per cent, the areas that are going to be managed intensively, using silviculture, are really still only maybe half of that 60 per cent. So it's really only 30 per cent of the area, of the total forest area; silviculture is being focused on approximately 30 per cent of the total forest area. That's where the intensive work is going on. You have another 30 per cent that is growing naturally and is not being treated and so on. You have different types of forests occurring out there. Even with the harvest levels that we're applying in this analysis, those are still going to be there.
When you say we're planting a tree for every tree that we cut, no. We're planting 15 per cent of all trees being cut. The other 85 per cent of trees that are being cut are being replaced naturally. I would like to clarify that, we're not in a one-to-one . . .
MR. MACDONELL: But overall, natural or man-generated . . .
MR. BEYELER: That's right. And the other aspect, you alluded to the fact that theoretically we may be cutting trees at 40 years and then we're going to be cutting them at 30 years and then - well, I believe the reality, in the future, is going to be that much of the wood that is coming out of the forests that are being managed or being created today is not going to be coming out of a final cut, a final clear-cut. Over time, a very high percentage of wood is going to be coming out of areas through commercial thinnings. Commercial thinnings are going to generate, in the future, much of the wood that is going to the forest industry.
Final cuts are actually going to be a fairly small percentage, a much smaller percentage of the harvested wood in the future.
History has shown, with management, that's what occurs. All the Scandinavia countries, if you look at what their percentage is, even age management, they only have a very few species to work with, they only generate approximately 30 per cent of their wood from final cuts, most of it is coming from first commercial thinnings, second commercial thinnings, and the industry here is moving in that direction as well. The size factor will not necessarily create younger forests being cut, but the size factor, the ability for the industry to use smaller wood - that's the 15 centimetres, that is the key, even on these management scenarios. The industry can use that type of wood but it's not going to be coming from clear-cutting at 40 years or at 30 years, it's coming from the technology of being able to do commercial thinnings and generate a lot of their wood for the industry from that type. Therefore, the structure will look considerably different.
Our analysis here doesn't show that, because we haven't factored in a high level of commercial thinnings yet into the analysis because we didn't have the data to support that. I believe that's where the future will be in Nova Scotia. Therefore, our forests will not get younger and younger all the time.
MR. MACDONELL: One more, then I will move on.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we better just keep moving, you've had about the same time as our colleague. Before I go to Mr. MacKinnon, I just wonder if I could make a comment or ask a question with regard to Stora. We will look at hardwood as the topic for the moment. Stora controls a huge amount of hardwood within their leases and uses, essentially, very little of it, they mainly use softwood. They're sitting on these hardwood stands, and I'm told that they do very little with regard to forest management of these hardwood stands, yet they don't want to give them up. Trees like white birch are falling over, and a standing tree is worth around $100. A fortune in hardwood is essentially being lost. Wouldn't it be more prudent of them to let the private companies go in there and do forest management in return for taking some of those hardwoods out, culling it out? If this is so, then why aren't they doing it?
[10:30 a.m.]
I will throw in another one. I believe that in New Brunswick the regulations - now, correct me if I'm wrong - are that if you're not utilizing the species on your leases that they're taken from you and someone else is able to lease them. Perhaps you could comment on that.
MR. BEYELER: I will just comment briefly on the first part, and I will defer to Nancy on the second. Yes, in the past, Stora has not done very much with hardwoods. In the very near past, they have changed quite significantly and are now on track to implement management on their hardwood stands to some degree; I'm not sure exactly to what level, but I know a change has occurred in the near past. On the other aspect, I will defer to Nancy on that.
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: I guess, as most of you are aware, we are, as a department, revamping the Crown land management and allocation process for all licences and lessees. With regard to Stora, one of the things that has been discussed with Stora, over time, has been how to more adequately address the hardwood component in terms of those who may be interested in accessing it, as well as the improvement of that hardwood component over time, in terms of the quality required for potential users. We don't have an interest in simply generating firewood from our hardwood stands.
Those issues and the interests of potential users of the wood are being addressed in the revamped process and would be negotiated with Stora. Stora and Kimberly-Clark have unique, legislated mandates for access to that wood, as well as for management of that wood. We go through an annual process of planning, allocation of harvest and silviculture management that is approved by the department. We have that relationship with Stora and with Kimberly-Clark which allows us to guide both the silviculture and the harvesting.
Those components, in terms of the utilization of hardwood, are important to us, and we are looking at how to manage them more thoroughly. In the more recent past, also, we have been looking at, and Stora has been allocating access for, stands that for one reason or another they are not interested in harvesting. That includes hardwood and softwood. That has been a shift over time, and will continue to be a shift into the future.
As Jorg has sort of tried to mention in our presentation, from a department's policy perspective, we are very interested in maintaining the forest in the three-stand covers to the proportions they have been historically. We are also very interested in trying to improve the hardwood management potential in our forest to move to higher-value hardwood stands. The hardwoods have been subject in the past, to a great deal, to high grading. They require management to move them back to a quality that meets the lumber industry and the veneer industry's demands. That is something we are trying to incorporate. Did I answer all sides of your question?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, how many hectares of hardwood stands does Stora maintain within their leases?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: I really couldn't answer that. They have a combination of softwoods, hardwoods and mixed-wood stands, and the actual component of . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: The department wouldn't have a calculation on that?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: Not here with us today. We can calculate that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I wonder if you could provide us with that information, and how much of it is currently and has been dealt with in proper forest management practices? It would be interesting to have something . . .
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: I will see what we can do to provide those to you, in terms of the numbers.
MR. CHAIRMAN: . . . to compare to the next time we have you in, to see where we go with that. That is a concern that a lot of the mill operators mentioned to me. Certainly, hardwood - often people think just in terms of utilizing it for pellets and that sort of thing, that's the poorer species. There's a huge market out there for value added, furniture stock and so on.
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: And we do have to grow that type of wood. There's a mismatch right now between the hardwood we have and the specifications required for those types of products. There's a transition process required.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think any future allocations of value added have to be key to the decision-making process with regard to our wood, value added right here in Nova Scotia.
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: It is certainly an important component in what we look at.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Russell MacKinnon, please.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I want to flip over to the sheet entitled Supporting Data & Assumptions to SAWS (cont). It makes reference to Cull & Waste Deductions, Insect & Disease Deductions, Wildlife Habitat Clumps, Harvest Eligibility Standards. Those percentages you have there, you would subtract that off as possible acreage that you would include in calculating your allowable cut for the year, your total merchantable cut.
MR. BEYELER: Yes, those . . .
MR. MACKINNON: You would subtract that off that 2.6 million hectares?
MR. BEYELER: It's a subtraction but it's not in acres or in area. For example, if a given area generates a . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Of your total volume.
MR. BEYELER: That's right. If a given area generates 25 cords, for example, then we take off a certain percentage of that cordage for cull and waste, for insect and disease, on a yearly basis.
MR. MACKINNON: I want to go with that, because we have 2.6 million hectares, which I've translated - I would kind of like to work in acres and cords, if that's okay with you. The old school is what I'm used to working with. That would work out to about 6.6 million acres. The rule of thumb that I was always accustomed to - and you can correct me - is that forestry would regenerate at a rate of one-half cord per acre per year. Would that be a fair assumption, on average?
MR. BEYELER: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: Okay, which would mean that we're generating renewable about 3.3 million cords a year out of the 6.6 million acres. Now, when you flip ahead to the softwood and the hardwood harvest, add those two together - 2.7 million and 413,000 cords respectively - that's 3.13 million cords. Right? Then you factor in the assumptions for SAWS on cull and waste, insect, disease and so on and so forth, you're talking about another 340,000 cords so your total consumption is actually exceeding your rate of growth. So how can you say that we're managing our forest when in fact the consumption actually shows that it is greater than the rate of growth?
MR. BEYELER: Well, in this analysis, the amounts that are shown on the tables, that's after those deductions have been made. Yes, you're giving me sort of approximate values - the values that we're working with here have already taken into account those deductions. They're already gone.
MR. MACKINNON: Then let's fast-forward to the small-private woodlot owners. What I've heard you say here over the last two presentations, effectively you have to keep changing your policies to meet the demands of big business because your policies haven't been effective. We've gone through the 1980s and the massive silviculture and spray programs and so on. I don't want to get into history too much.
For those who aren't familiar - I know my colleague, the member for Queens, would certainly be familiar with what I'm talking about - the amount of money that was spent on the federal-provincial programs, but effectively we're back to square one and we're looking at cultivating a younger forest and we haven't factored in the effects of global warming, the Kyoto factor. You've glossed over potential fire - there are a whole lot of different assumptions. Really, what you're doing is establishing a management control system for the small-private woodlot owners, because you've already stated that you have good management on Crown. Correct?
MR. BEYELER: Yes, in terms of meeting our supply targets.
MR. MACKINNON: So you're effectively developing a management strategy for the small-private woodlot owners, whether they want it or not, in order to be able to meet the assumptions and the objectives on production that you've set out. Correct?
MR. BEYELER: We're providing a management strategy . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Yes or no would be fine.
MR. BEYELER: A management strategy, yes; control system, not necessarily so. The mechanism is on the industry to have the silviculture done. Now, how that relates to private landowners, private landowners still do not have to have silviculture done on their properties if they so choose. Absolutely, there's no mechanism to force a landowner to do anything on their own land, but what it provides are incentives through a program that is required by regulation that will encourage landowners to do that and there are many landowners who agree with the concept and will take advantage of that and do it to the point to meet our targets. So it's a strategy, but it's not a controlled system.
MR. MACKINNON: But you've already indicated that only 15 per cent of the annual harvest now is being given silviculture treatment. Why don't you deal with the other 85 per cent rather than go run for shelter with more regulation on something that's in the hands of the private sector? Why don't you effectively go and provide the treatment for the other 85 per cent that you're allowing to be harvested every year? Is it because the government is receiving so much pressure from big business that they're using the argument that natural regeneration is the way to go? It's a total contradiction of the policy that was in place from 1984 to the early 1990s.
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: Large leaps. There are bits and pieces of fact and they're sort of leaps of thought process there, I think.
MR. MACKINNON: There has to be because the department keeps changing its policy.
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: Well, I don't think we've changed the policy ever. The core policy has always been to have a portion of the forest managed to produce growth that can be harvested. Many private landowners are very good stewards of their land and do that as a matter of course in the management of their woodlots at whatever scale they're operating. The point you're making about silviculture being 15 per cent, that was about planting. There's a great deal more silviculture in the realm of the broad spectrum of treatments that actually occur. Not every hectare of land requires treatment in order to meet these growth scenarios.
What is happening at the moment is at a level on private land, industrial land and Crown land to support the type of harvest we see today and at the same time we monitor the amount of harvest, where it's occurring, on what types of stands, to ensure that the two line up and match fairly succinctly over time. We are concerned, as Mr. MacDonell mentioned, about a sudden jump in harvest that may put the type of silviculture which has a delay factor in it, put the type of silviculture we do out of sync with harvest. So we do manage that in terms of information and monitor it. We do look at a change in policy if required in order to keep things going along the lines we have forecast, but as a core mandate we are still looking at maintaining a combination of natural forests, forests for multiple use, as well as forests which serve a large part of our economy in terms of forest sector and forest industry.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, how many hectares of forest land were sprayed last year?
MR. BEYELER: I'm thinking it's approximately 10,000 hectares, I believe, I'm not sure exactly.
MR. MACKINNON: Is that inside the 15 per cent window or is that part of the other 85 per cent that didn't receive silviculture?
MR. BEYELER: No, again, that's part of - the 15 per cent, just to qualify it, 15 per cent of area that's harvested generally gets replanted. So silviculture activities near the spraying, herbicide spraying generally occurs on the plantations, yes, so that would mean that it's approximately in that range, but I'm not 100 per cent sure of my figure.
MR. MACKINNON: Is that down substantially from previous years? I know at one time you would pick up the paper and every time you would turn around, there was a spray program. I mean how many hectares are we spraying today as compared to, let's say, eight or 10 years ago?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: I don't have those figures I guess, but from an industry's interest in managing their cost of operations and effectiveness of certain types of treatments, they have been reducing their emphasis on spraying to ensure that they're spending the money where they get the biggest impact. There are other forms of treatment which result in trees that grow healthy without having treatments. So they're reducing the amount of spraying and the amount of thinning that's required.
MR. MACKINNON: If you could give me those figures and I'm finished, Mr. Chairman.
MR. BEYELER: We could provide those figures, we just don't have them with us.
MR. MACKINNON: That's fine.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Langille has a question on this.
MR. LANGILLE: I think we're looking at two types of spraying when you say when you pick up the newspaper. I think you're looking at spraying for disease rather than spraying for silviculture and I think about the spruce budworm, and I think that's where you were going there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Kerry Morash, you're next.
[10:45 a.m.]
MR. MORASH: Mr. Chairman, I apologize - I don't have a long preamble, but I do have a couple of questions if I might be able to ask them. The major wood or the major industrial consumers of wood products - I know that they do have models of their own - I was wondering if you might be able to help me understand how their models and your models fit together. Do you use some of their information, coach them or assist them with making sure that everything is working together so that we have the most accurate information within the province that we possibly can have?
MR. BEYELER: They use a different modelling process than we do. For example, Bowater, StoraEnso and Irving use a Woodstock-Stanley modelling process. It has a different focus because they're modelling their own lands so they're trying to optimize production from their own lands. Also, theirs is a spatial model - again, it's to help them in their harvest and management planning. Ours is a general model to determine overall growth of the forest given certain impacts today and given certain things in place. There's a bit of a different focus.
Having said that, yes, we do use some of the same information, some of the same inventory information, silviculture. They generate information for us as a department, they have their own, but they use our information as well. In terms of modelling, we are involved to some degree with what they do. Our modelling people and their modelling people do have contacts, but generally, it is a different process. Kimberly-Clark is modelling their one million acres for their objectives - the same with Bowater, the same with Irving, and Stora is now essentially doing the same on Crown land. Our modelling process does not deal with spatial aspects, it deals with operational constraints, it deals with cost factors. We deal purely and simply with growth, given certain impacts.
MR. MORASH: I have another question, if I might. In some of the information, it was 7.8 per cent non-participating small landowners, so that's land that is not in use and will not be in use as we estimated. It appears that with the growing environmental concerns that number could rise from the point of view of people actually acquiring land for the sake of taking it out of production. Do you know or have any thoughts about ways that we can get that land back into management? I know one of the biggest issues is a small landowner doesn't want a large machine coming in to - in their opinion - ruin their piece of land. If John
and I had a small farm tractor and a little time on the weekends when the House isn't sitting, to go in and trim through a piece of woodland, we could get a lot of fibre to market. But I'm just wondering, what are the trends and do you see the possibility of that 7.8 per cent becoming smaller or larger?
MR. BEYELER: I agree with you that there are other pressures - landowners buying land or acquiring land for different reasons - that does occur to some extent. We're not exactly sure how much. I also agree that part of the problem that landowners have is with existing harvest technology and then generally the practice is to clear-cut. I think though with management and the changes in management that are occurring, that the technology to do partial cuts, to do commercial thins, that technology, along with - I think there's a slow movement of contractors, operators and companies to move in that direction. I think that will encourage small-private landowners, who now perhaps do not wish to harvest timber because of various reasons, to participate more. I can't say for sure, but I believe that there's a possibility that with all these changes in harvest methods that that could change for the positive in the future.
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: Also we emphasize with our industry clients that they should be working with landowners to try to meet the landowner objectives from management, often which do include a bit of harvesting, thinning, forest management techniques that result in benefits to wildlife, benefits to recreation, as well as those that are timber oriented. So there's a variety of landowner objectives and industry is moving towards working with those.
MR. MORASH: This may be the last comment. I know I've heard from people who have said that they haven't harvested their land, if they had 100 acres, because of income tax. It would affect their income status and really they wouldn't get much of a benefit from harvesting the trees. Therefore, they just let them stand and that doesn't seem to be the most efficient way or it isn't - it's non-management. So there seems to be maybe some room there as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a quick one, Mr. MacDonell? You have that look on your face.
MR. MACDONELL: I will cut the preamble, I will go for quality. I'm just curious as to whether or not within the department there is a memorandum of understanding, written or not, which somehow links us to the harvesting in New Brunswick, that there is some connection between the two provinces around the level of overharvesting in New Brunswick and that we're kind of cutting one off the other in a sense that they overharvest in New Brunswick, they're looking at Nova Scotia wood to kind of fill that gap until their forests recover. And you're probably familiar with this, I would imagine, the Canadian Forest Service document, and it talks about the Atlantic-Maritime eco-zone and the fact that overharvesting on private woodlots, which you have said, and that the overharvesting in New Brunswick is one and a half times the harvest. They don't mention what the actual level in Nova Scotia is
so I just wondered, was there any type of discussion with New Brunswick in this regard at all that our forest is somehow working in sync with their lack of supply?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: We do have discussions on a regular basis with the other jurisdictions in this sort of supply zone which includes eastern U.S., Quebec, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. We sort of monitor that in an ad hoc or relatively co-operative way, but not a formal way. We do not have any formal agreement with any province with regard to control on movement of wood that would contradict other controls that are in place with regard to the free movement of goods and services across those boundaries. In New Brunswick their concern, like ours, has been the overharvested, not on their Crown land but on the small-private land. They are currently looking at similar approaches to what we have here to try to compensate for that through silviculture programs.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Last month the Canadian forest ministers met here in Halifax and agreed upon a joint initiative called Forestry 2020, or some such thing, and I understand that they were going to deploy Canada's greatest forestry minds to compile the benefits associated with sustainable forest management. I was just wondering, what role is Nova Scotia going to play in this national initiative?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: The initiative is still in the early stages of development. It depends on reaching agreements between each province and the federal government about how the overall concept would be implemented. It could be implemented quite differently in each province. So it's still in its infancy in that regard. It's still a concept. As yet we do not know what our role will be specifically in that program, or however it takes place, or takes shape as a program, but we continue dialogue with the federal government, as all the other provinces, as this progresses.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Has someone been assigned to work on the team to represent the province?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: There really isn't a formal structure outside the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, the structure for that is within that. We have representatives, like all provinces do, in that discussion with the federal government.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. MacKinnon, you have a very short snapper?
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have you factored into your calculations some projections, the impacts of the Kyoto Protocol?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: The Kyoto Protocol is one of the things I, for instance, participate in one of the subcommittees relating to that, looking at forests and the role of forests. Some of the issues about impacts of climate change on the forests are still being worked through in terms of how we should deal with those in a shorter-term silviculture
harvest. We are doing, I guess, what we can to address those and incorporate them as appropriately in our policies, in our structures. We are participating in the discussions that occur nationally. We are participating in acquiring information, being aware of what those issues are in research, as well as in outcomes.
I guess from our perspective the best we can do at this moment is work with the best knowledge that's available about climate change and participate in the protocol process, which is separate from the climate change issue, in a science sense, to the extent that we ensure Nova Scotia's position is protected in terms of the forest and overall economy aspect.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So nothing definite at this point . . .
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: No.
MR. BEYELER: One of the key aspects is what the impact of climate change will be on forest growth, on the species that we have here. For us to implement that we have to know some of those impacts and we're trying to, I guess, work with the agencies that are working on that to determine those aspects and, once we get an indication of how that would impact us, then perhaps we could implement it.
MR. MACKINNON: Okay. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And the last short snapper goes to Bill Langille.
MR. LANGILLE: This is a very short one. You are an expert in forestry obviously and you are learned and interesting. I certainly appreciate you being here and I've learned a lot from you. Anyway, as you know there's a Private Member's Bill in the Legislature now to ban all clear-cutting in Nova Scotia. Do you think we should ban all clear-cutting in Nova Scotia? What is your expert opinion on that?
MR. BEYELER: I appreciate you considering me an expert and then loading me with that question. (Laughter)
I personally don't think it would be workable to regulate that. So, as a forestry professional, I do believe there is a place for clear-cutting in the forests of Nova Scotia. To implement a ban by regulation would be very difficult to regulate, and therefore I guess from a practitioner or professional point of view, it would be very difficult to implement and thus support. (Interruptions)
MR. LANGILLE: I thank you for your answer.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will allow you one minute if you have any closing comments that you would like to wrap up with.
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: From the department's perspective, I would like to say that I do appreciate the large amount of time you have given us on these two dates to explain to you how we are approaching the forest strategy and the forest management. As you can probably appreciate from Jorg's presentation, even the wood supply is a very comprehensive and complex topic to work through as a department and we devote significant resources to try to do that, to do the best job we can.
We also appreciate receiving from you the types of questions and comments that you have, because it also helps us figure out where we are going from a different perspective and we try to include that and address that. So I do appreciate that and we are quite willing to come back on any issues at any time you feel would be beneficial for Nova Scotia.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We thank you for that and we found it very educational - I think I can speak for all members here at the table - and thank you very much for taking the time out of your schedule for the last two meetings, and I hope that we can have you back someday with some even better results on the progress of forest management. So Ms. McInnis-Leek, Mr. Beyeler, thank you again.
The meeting is adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 11:00 a.m.]
