Increasing pressures to use forest biomass: A conservation viewpoint

Abstract

Various policy, economic, and social drivers are pushing us towards utilizing our forests for a changing mix of products that include returning to them for biomass as a fuel source. While this is a use with some limited merit, it must be considered prudently and with the ecological limits of our forests clearly identified and understood before substantially investing our public resources towards this purpose. There is enough scientific evidence to suggest that caution and restraint is needed so that we can identify key ecological impacts and define sites on which increased fibre harvesting is not appropriate before biomass policies are put in place. Information is needed on monitoring methods, and effects on site productivity, biodiversity, and carbon cycling; full economic analyses and life-cycle carbon accounting is needed. Perverse incentives need to be avoided. A precautionary path is therefore required that makes ecosystem sustainability a priority, that builds confidence in application of current practices, that includes environmental assessment and pilot programs, and that operates under a clear regulatory regime that integrates bioenergy removals within clear forest management plans. The pervasive impacts of climate change are converging with an economic opportunity to set the groundwork for our next forest economy, and biomass utilization policy will play a key role in how well we choose to manage our forest resources in this unique context. To proceed with maximization of use as the dominant management priority is to ignore the critical obligation that managers must appreciate: that our forest resources have limits to their exploitation from which, once exceeded, they do not easily recover. On the evidence available, this is a time for government policy makers to take the precautionary path in allocating our forest biomass, and to ensure that we are comfortably living on the interest from our forest ecosystems but not tapping into its capital.Key words: biomass, sustainability, policy, conservation, full-tree harvesting, environmental impacts, intensity, carbon, utilization pressures RÉSUMÉ Plusieurs forces politiques, économiques et sociales nous poussent à utiliser nos forêts pour en tirer des produits différents ce qui comprend aussi un retour vers la biomasse en tant que source de carburant. Même s'il s'agit d'une utilisation ayant quelques mérites, elle se doit d' être considérée prudemment et dans les limites écologiques clairement identifiées de nos forêts et comprises avant d'investir substantiellement nos ressources publiques dans cette direction. Il existe suffisamment de preuves scientifiques laissant entendre que des précautions et de la retenue doivent être exercées pour nous permettre d'identifier les impacts écologiques et définir les sites sur lesquels l' exploitation plus poussée de la matière ligneuse n' est pas appropriée avant que les politiques portant sur la biomasse ne soient mises en place. Il nous faut plus d'information sur les méthodes de suivi et les effets sur la pr...

Multiple-Use Zoning Model for Private Forest Owners in Agricultural Landscapes: A Case Study

“…Harvesting residual biomass (branches, tree crowns) and non-merchantable trees could also be used to increase the quantity of biomass extracted from forests, a strategy that has been allowed by the provincial government [121]. However, impacts on soil fertility, soil C stocks and biodiversity can also occur following residual biomass exploitation [122,123].…”

The potential of forest biomass as an energy supply for Canada

“…87, n o 1 -Th e f or esTr y Ch r on iCl e Forest harvesting residue inventories must therefore take ecological factors into consideration. Sites can be excluded from tree or residue harvesting because of environmental concerns such as soils with excessive drainage, low organic matter content or low nutrient supply, or where there are biodiversity or conservation issues (Hesselink 2010, Thiffault et al 2010. These factors can be incorporated into guidelines and regulations governing harvesting residues recovery and hence some jurisdictions define a proportion of harvesting residue that should be retained (e.g., 20% in Sweden [Skogsstyrelsen 2008] and 30% in Finland [Koistinen and Äijälä 2005]) and also sensitive sites where residues should not be removed (e.g., New Brunswick; Government of New Brunswick 2008).…”

Intensive forest biomass harvesting and biodiversity in Canada: A summary of relevant issues

“…Several papers from this workshop have already been published in The Forestry Chronicle, including an introduction to the workshop , information on low-impact forest bioenergy systems (Lattimore et al 2010), a conservation perspective (Hesselink 2010), issues related to site productivity (Thiffault et al 2010), operational and cost considerations (Ralevic et al 2010), and guidelines for whole-tree harvesting in Sweden (Levin and Eriksson 2010). This paper addresses the biodiversityfocused content of the workshop.…”