I sincerely apologize in advance for the length of this reply. On 29
November, 1995, Joachim Maier wrote:
[clip]
>The "Maine Council on Sustainable Forest Management" _ a roundtable
>set up by the governor of Maine _ has defined sustainable forest
>management in the following way. [end clip]
NOTE: The council revised the definition at its last meeting. The revised
definition is as follows:
"Sustainable forest management enhances and maintains the biological
productivity and diversity of Maine's forests, thereby assuring economic and
social opportunities for this and future generations. It takes place in a
large ecological and social context and achieves a balance between
landowners' objectives and society's needs."
[clip]
>Problem: None of the members on the Maine Council has a specific
>economic background. Budget constraints do not allow the
>involvement of an economist. Some of the members of the council _
>according to their professional background _ want the council to
>focus on the biological side of sustainable forest management, and
>not to include the economic aspect of the problem. Therefore esthetic
>and recreational considerations will be included, but no economic
>indicators will be defined.[end clip]
The "problem" that Joachim perceives needs to be put into its proper context.
The *mission* of the Maine Council on Sustainable Forest Management (MCSFM)
"is to develop practical, credible benchmarks of sustainability against
which forest landowners can assess their forest management practices. These
benchmarks shall address the Principles of Sustainability outlined by the
Northern Forest Lands Council, which are:
-The maintenance of soil productivity;
-The conservation of water quality, wetlands and riparian zones;
-The maintenance or creation of a healthy balance of forest age classes;
-A continuous flow of timber, pulpwood and other forest products;
-The improvement of the overall quality of the timber resources as a
foundation for more value-added opportunities;
-The protection of scenic quality by limiting the adverse aesthetic
impacts of forest harvesting, particularly in high
elevation areas and vistas;
-The conservation and enhancement of habitats that support a full range
of native flora and fauna;
-The protection of unique or fragile natural areas; and,
-The continuation of opportunities for traditional recreation."
(Executive Order No. 11 FY 94/95, 25 April 1995)
To carry out its purpose, the council will:
"-Use the best available information from all sources;
-Develop, by July 1, 1996, a definition of forest sustainability in
practical terms feasible for implementation by all
landowners;
-Recommend, by July 1, 1996, the establishment of criteria and goals to
ensure a sustainably managed forest;
-Recommend, by July 1, 1996, a methodology for the Department of
Conservation to monitor forest landowners'
progress toward achievement of forest sustainability goals; and,
-Review and assess existing rules and regulations affecting forest
management for their adequacy in achieving the
Principles of Sustainability, and recommend changes where necessary,
by October 1, 1996." (op. cit.)
Council members include two Pew Scholars (silviculturist and wildlife
biologist), woodlands managers for large landowners, a logging contractor,
a consulting forester, a forest ecologist, a sporting camp owner, and the
two top forest policy people in state government, both of whom have business
experience.
The council has heard Joachim and others express concerns about log and chip
exports, imports of Canadian labor, increased mechanization of harvesting
operations, and so on. These issues, all important, lie beyond the
*mission* of the MCSFM. The council members acknowledge the public concerns
aboout these matters, and will likely report them to the Governor in a "side
issues" paper. However, it would be irresponsible for the council to delve
deeply into matters that the Governor did not ask them to examine and fail
to deliver the products that the Governor *did* ask them to deliver.
Regarding Joachim's assertion that the MCSFM is focusing on biological
issues to the exclusion of economic issues, I would counter that the
"ecological" and "economic" aspects of forest management are inextricably
linked. The two words have the same root, "oikos," [Greek: house]. At its
root, economics concerns the proper management of households. If we don't
have a forest -our forest household- managed according to *ecological*
principles, then we won't have a forest *economy*, in which the products and
services of the forest (both market and non-market) are provided, created or
transformed to meet the needs of the human communities that rely on them for
their sustenance.
Several of the council members work (or have worked) in the business of
delivering forest products to the public. They understand the economic
pressures on forest landowners, the imperatives of the marketplace, and the
need to balance how they do business with the public's concerns about and
competing demands on the forest (and *all* of its values), and with the
ecological realities of the land they manage. All of the council members
understand the complexity of the forest and people's interactions with it.
The MCSFM exists, in part, to help define the public interest in a
privately-owned resource (nearly all of Maine's forest land is privately
owned). We expect that the many private interests, who are key stakeholders
in this process, will keep the council aware of the economic issues
affecting sustainable forest management through the various input avenues we
have set up. And, if the council requires expert information about economic
issues, it knows who to ask in the private and public sectors
[clip]
> Question:
>What will be the consequences _ negative as well as positive _
>circumventing the economic aspect of sustainable forest management?
>Please keep in mind that budget constraints will not allow the
>inclusion of an economist, and that current members might be uneasy
>with complicated economic concepts. [end clip] ###This is insulting.###
The council is certainly not circumventing the economic aspects of
sustainable forest management. Piling on the issues that Joachim and others
would like the MCSFM to consider would only mean that this process, like
others before it, ends up in a morass from which nothing useful emerges.
That would not serve the people of Maine well.
The people of Maine have serious and legitimate concerns about *how* the
forest is being managed. The Governor asked the MCSFM to address these
concerns. It will do that in responsible manner. But it will *not* be
sidetracked by issues not central to its charge.
Best Regards,
Donald J. Mansius
Staff, Maine Council on Sustainable Forest Management
Department of Conservation
22 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0022
webmaster_sustain@state.me.us
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0