Truce declared - Forest industry and environmental groups reach deal

[Samuel]

May 18, 2010 | In Environmental News | Send feedback »

Love it or hate hate, the Canadian forest industry has agreed to a deal with environmentalists.

The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement

Deal details:

    * logging will be suspended in 29 million ha of boreal forest while a conservation plan is developed to preserve the endangered woodland caribou
    * Canopy, ForestEthics, and Greenpeace will stop their "Do Not Buy" campaigns in regards to Canadian produced paper while this agreement is implemented
    * Forest Product Association of Canada member companies agree to commit to the highest environmental standards of forest management and harvesting practices
    * an uninterrupted fibre supply is guaranteed to the forest company's mill operations

Who is part of the deal?

The deal was made between the Forest Products Association of Canada, who was representing 21 of its member companies, and nine leading environmental organizations.

Forestry Companies Participating in the Agreement:

    * AbitibiBowater
    * Alberta Pacific Forest Industries
    * AV Group
    * Canfor
    * Cariboo Pulp & Paper Company
    * Cascades Inc.
    * DMI- Peace River Pulp
    * F.F. Soucy, Inc.
    * Howe Sound Pulp and Paper
    * Kruger Inc.
    * LP Canada
    * Mercer International
    * Mill & Timber Products Ltd
    * NewPage Port Hawkesbury Ltd
    * Papier Masson Ltée
    * SFK Pulp
    * Tembec Inc.
    * Tolko Industries
    * West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd
    * Weyerhaeuser Company Limited

Environmental Organizations Participating in the Agreement:

    * Canadian Boreal Initiative
    * Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
    * Canopy (formerly Markets Initiative)
    * David Suzuki Foundation
    * ForestEthics
    * Greenpeace
    * Ivey Foundation
    * The Nature Conservancy
    * Pew Environment Group's International Boreal Conservation Campaign
    * Hewlett Foundation's support for boreal forest conservation has been critical to the collective efforts of these groups

Who enforces the deal?

The progress made to reach the objectives laid out in the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement will be regularly measured and reported on by a jointly agreed-upon independent auditor.

[Jasperfield]

"Emperor's New Clothes"

I hope to see the full force ricochet from this moral cowardice printed-up by a "new press" on some soon bright morning!

[Samuel]

What do you mean?

[mad murdock]

making peace with "Radicals" is not possible in the end.  I believe it is not going to end well for any agreement with any group that does not have at its founding principles rooted in truth.  The environmentalist movement today does not have genuine interests in whatever they are promoting, they always have a hidden agenda, unless they can be truthful about what their endgame is, it is not possible to come to any lasting meaningful agreement with them on any issue. IMHO.

[Bill Johnson]

The Financial Post had some thoughts about the agreement:

We need a 'Do not Donate' campaign against these green extortionists
by Peter Foster
Behind all the feel-good eco-speak of this week's Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement lies a simple bargain: the forest-products industry gets a bunch of NGOs off its back (at least for the moment); the NGOs get to demonstrate their ability to bring the forest industry, or indeed any industry, to heel.

As Todd Paglia, the executive director of ForestEthics, one of the NGO signatories, noted a few years ago, "We are going to provide these companies with an option of doing it the easy way. If they want to do it the hard way, we can see a tremendous amount of negative press and damage to their brand."

So the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC), which signed this deal with nine NGOs on behalf of its 21 members, has effectively cried "uncle" and called it accommodation.

"While the future of forestry and conservation in Canada's Boreal Forest rests primarily with governments," notes the agreement's accompanying blurb, "both industry and environmentalists have a shared responsibility to help define and realize that future."

But who ever elected, or appointed, the environmentalists?

Not, mind you, that governments are going to squeak too loudly. They are under NGO pressure too. Why else would Ontario be covered in dandelions? Now logging is to be suspended on 29 million hectares from sea to mismanaged sea.

This week's deal involves an area "twice the size of Germany." It also seems to have a good deal of European economic wisdom about it. It will undoubtedly mean fewer jobs, higher prices and zero impact on the climate, but it was hailed by its signatories as a success because it would "conserve significant areas of Canada's vast boreal forest, protect threatened woodland caribou and provide a competitive market edge for participating companies." But neither the boreal forest nor the woodland  caribou were under any realistic threat. Meanwhile the "competitive market edge" bit refers to the fact that the eco storm troopers will now call off their "Do Not Buy" campaigns.

When is someone going to launch a "Do Not Donate" campaign against these green extortionists?

Now, they will be able to slap a "Do Not Buy" order on any company accused of having "lower" standards than the open-ended ones in the agreement. Indeed, they will be fervently cheered on by the FPAC. Otherwise its members will be, as it were, out on a limb. But if the industry really imagines this will end NGO pressure, they are dreaming in Technicolor.

FPAC head Avrim Lazar, who can be seen walking onto the screen to grovel about environmental matters each time you go to the organization's website (Sample: "We all know that if we are going to keep the planet for our children, we are going to have to consume a little less") declared that: "The importance of this agreement cannot be overstated.... Together we have identified a more intelligent, productive way to manage economic and environmental challenges in the boreal that will reassure global buyers of our products' sustainability."

When I asked Mr. Lazar how much the agreement would cost in terms of jobs, profitability and higher consumer prices, he almost pleaded for me to understand that the deal was "economic." After all, presumably the threats to jobs, profitability and consumer costs would be even greater from ever-escalating campaigns of misinformation.

According to Greenpeace's Richard Brooks, spokesman for the NGOs who signed the agreement, "Concerns from the public and the marketplace about wilderness conservation and species loss have been critical drivers in arriving at this agreement."

More hooey is hardly conceivable. Where did such greatly exaggerated "concerns" originate except in the campaigns of Greenpeace and co.? If we want to gauge Greenpeace's concern for consumers, we might recall a boreal campaign six years ago — again aimed at bringing the forest companies to heel — in which it accused manufacturers of bathroom tissue of "flushing ancient forests down the toilet." Greenpeace rated the "environmental friendliness" of a number of different brands and ranked "Seventh Generation" highest because of the "high recycled or alternative-fibre content and clean, chlorine-free production." At the other end of the spectrum was "Life" brand, which contained "endangered forest fibres." Twenty-four rolls of Life brand cost $6.99. Twenty four  rolls of Seventh Generation cost $26.94.

Depressingly, but typically, the NGO side of this campaign was funded by the Pew and Ivey Foundations. The Pew foundation — which was built on the fortune of the stout free-enterprisers who developed the first commercial Athabasca oilsands plant — has been called "perhaps the most egregious violation of donor intent in existence."

A few years ago the FPAC put out a statement refuting many of ForestEthics' claims about the boreal forest. Mr. Lazar then described ForestEthics' version of the complex issues of forestry management as "simplistic and biased." Now he claims that the FPAC, too, might have been "simplistic and biased. That's what happens when you are fighting. We were always playing defence."

Better, apparently, just to give in.

This agreement is as shakedown, and a dark day for Canadian business.
Posted in: FP Comment  Tags: Peter Foster, conservation, forest products, environmentalism


Read more: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/05/18/forest-shakedown/#ixzz0oOWELIyV

[fuzzybear]

   well being one person who lives in the Boreal Forest range and who's life depends on the Caribou, I am glad that the clear cutting has stopped for now.  People do not realize that this forest range is totally different than any where else on this planet, and how vital it is to the survival of this planet.
   Now having said that let me stress to you all that I am not an environmental nut job.  I am a bushman. I am a hunter and logger. But what these companies have been doing is wrong. 
   The Boreal forest takes longer to develope into mature trees. The Alberta Tar sands is an environmental disaster that has destroyed the land scape forever and the paper industry has done the same.  When they clear cut these stands of  trees it will be another 3 generations until trees are even mature enough to be considered for harvest again.
   I DO NOT agree with the "greenies" on their practices and politics. But I am glad that something has been done.
   Carabou once ran in the 100's of thousands in the north. now through human causes there are less than 100 thousand. 
   I have always stood on one platform and will stick by it....This is the last frontier left on the planet earth...leave it the hell alone!!! period.
  I for one am tired of people who do not live here telling me about my back yard. I am tired of uneducated persons deciding what should be done here.  This should not be about money it should be about protecting an area that will be gone forever if nothing is done.
   There will never be huge cities built here, there will never be shopping malls, there will only be a devistated eco system that will never return.
  I am sorry if I have offended anyone.
  Donovan

[Ron Wenrich]

Offended?  Heck no.  Its always good to hear from someone who is working with the situation.  Industrialization of a resource doesn't always mean that its an improvement.

Since you do logging, how would you manage the area?  Would you still clearcut, but in smaller blocks, or would you just do thinnings? 

[fuzzybear]

   There are large tracts of forest through out the north that are dying off do to the perma frost melting. These areas are turning to swamp land. We have large areas of spruce beatle kill. These areas in my opinion should be addressed first.
   The major problem here in the north is logistics. In order to harvest where these companies want to harvest they must build roads. The problem with this is they cut straight through carabou calving grounds and migration routes. 
   There are plenty of areas where harvesting can be acomplished without adding major roads deep into the bush, and without disturbing the eco system. 
   The problem is that there are too many people trying to make the rules and they are so far out of touch with the reality of this eco system. Most of the people trying to shape the laws have never set foot here.  They do not understand that water does not come from a bottle and food does not come from the store.
   The Boreal forest IS THE WORLDS AIR FILTRATION SYSTEM. If this Vast forest range is destroyed the world will not survive long.
  In this age of electronic communication I personally see no need for harvesting trees for paper. There are millions of tones of paper that can be recycled to handle the paper industry. The government needs to step up and help these companies switch from pulp mills to recycling mills. 
   I am not sure of the numbers but I am willing to bet that paper use has dropped a lot over the last decade. Businesses use the largest portion, but there are companies that are pushing hard to reduce their paper consumption. Newspapers are becoming a thing of the past, and those still in print are pushing for more recycled content in their paper.
   I'm sorry for the rant but this is something I believe in. The government will always follow the money, instead of the truth.
  Donovan
   

[Ron Wenrich]

Fuzzy, you sound a lot like Jim King.  If you don't know Jim, he's in the Amazon area of Peru.  He has the same problem where outsiders are trying to tell them how to manage the area.

[mad murdock]

Having lived for some time in the interior of Alaska, specifically the Fairbanks Borough, and having worked as a helicopter Mechanic in the North, I have personally seen at least 50% of the area of Alaska by helicopter.  The northern boreal forests are somewhat different from other areas on the planet, but share many commonalities.  There are not many large industrial forest tracts to compare to areas in Canada, besides in the interior, the only places where merchantable timber grows is near rivers and areas with decent drainage, and a southern exposure.  Anything with a Northern exposure will have nothing but black spruce and tundra growing on top of the permafrost.  As far as the Caribou go, many cried foul when the pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez was built, that it would disrupt the migration route of the Procupine herd  and Arctic herd.  The facts born out over the years since the pipeline has been built and in service, are that the pipeline has had a positive effect on the caribou, during the dead of winter with extreme cold temps, the oil moving in the pipe generates a small amount of heat, and caribou can be seen congregating along its route often, during the coldest parts of winter.  The construction of the pipeline and the service road have not had a negative effect at all on the herds in Alaska.  Maybe things are different in Canada, I will not attempt to speak to the problems there, only that I think when it comes to veg management and timberstand health in general, Canada has severly limited itself by maintaining a position that the only chemicals suitable for use is glyphosate.  There are so many good tools (chemicals), that are available, that are shown to be extremely effective at promoting good forest health, that do not damage the flora or fauna, that could be employed, if better reason were found in managing forests in not only Canada, but Federal Lands throughout the western US as well, IMHO.
Having said all of that, I think that there should be nationwide referendums to give all of the bleeding greenies their own chunck of land that they can live out their lives how they please, and leave all the rest of us the heck alone, and we can see who will last longer!

[Samuel]

From our perspective as one of the companies that signed own, our tenure is ~ 2.8 million hectares which is a large forest.  Not signing onto this agreement basically put us in the limelight of every ENGO so we seen it as less of a risk of signing on than not.  In the end, really nothing is going to change in how we conduct our field operations and bring chips to the mill.

[deutz4]

The Boreal forest IS THE WORLDS AIR FILTRATION SYSTEM. If this Vast forest range is destroyed the world will not survive long.

This is the same crap I've heard about the rainforest since I was in gradeschool in the 60's. At the estimated rates of its demise it was long gone by 1990. We just can't help but live in the "endtimes". I've lost sleep to the A-bomb, new IceAge, overpopulation, communism (we will bury you), WWIII(see Israel 1968), ebola, AIDS, bird flu, pig flu, one world order, global warming, and God knows what else I forgot. Lets just stop it!

[fuzzybear]

   I never said anything about it being the end times...and I take offence to it being said.
I simply wrote a scientific fact.  The Boreal forest is the worlds air filtration system.  If you want to throw stones I simply will not play a childish game. Please do not put words into my mouth and distort what I say.  I get enough of that from the government know it all's I have to deal with on a weekly basis.
Donovan

[Samuel]

Well put