Messrs. FINNISH DISCUSSION GROUP ON FORESTRY QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER THE FORESTS & FORESTRY PROJECTS DISCUSSION GROUP LOLA HYCKES INFOLAB As a newcomer to Internet I am not sure how to start an interchange of ideas with people or institutions, who share my interest in SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY. In any case I am attaching first an abstract of my ideas and then a more detailed version. Since I expect to be called to explain my ideas before a commission of the Chilean Senate shortly, I should very much appreciate comments and/or advice. Yours very truly P. Riesz
Sender: Paul Riesz, Brasil 754/14, Fax 056 2 695 3922, Santiago/Chile: February 12th. 1996. Electronic Mail: priesz@mailnet.rdc.cl ABSTRACT: A. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE PRESENT MANAGEMENT OF CHILEAN NATIVE HARDWOOD FORESTS. 1. CLEARCUTTING for chip-production and a corrupted version of 2. A system locally called PROTECTION CUTTING in which only a few completely rotten trees are preserved for protection of seedlings, everything else is cut down. 3. Supervision by the Forest Service: fine in theory, but ineffective in practice, B. WHAT ARE THE CAUSES;. 1. Decisions on which trees to cut down, are left in the hands of chainsaw-operators. 2. Landowners by tradition consider native forests to be a nuisance; that to get some use out of them, they must be replaced by pastures. 3. Forest engineers and other professionals are not well prepared for managing native forests, since study plans of forestry schools are focused exclusively on techniques for planting fast growing species. C. WHAT IS BEING DONE TO CORRECT THIS SITUATION: A law trying to promote changes was introduced in Congress several years ago, but was stalled through opposition from radical factions of both private enterprise & environmentalists. A new & (in my opinion much improved) version is about to be considered in the Senate next month. D. WHAT ELSE SHOULD BE DONE: 1. A few points of the law should be corrected for technical reasons, others to address some justified objections. 2. Talks with moderate opposition sectors should be started NOW, before final discussions in the Senate, in order to find mutually acceptable solutions and get their cooperation. 3. Key professionals from the Forest Service should have an opportunity to visit areas, where successful selection management is practiced. E. WHAT COULD THE NEW LAW ACHIEVE: 1. FOR THE ECONOMY: it would a. immediately create 3-4000 jobs and b. after 11 years there could be new exports worth around $us 1 billion a year + 100 000 new jobs 2. FOR THE ENVIRONMENT it would a. preserve most non-economic functions of forests by stopping clearcutting and overcutting. b. make forests more accessible for nature lovers. F. WHAT ARE MY PERSONAL CONCERNS IN THESE MATTERS: As a non-academic consultant to some local lumber- and veneer mills,. I am mainly interested in ensuring a regular & permanent supply of HIGH QUALITY logs, needed for satisfying customer's demands in overseas markets. Fortunately this objective seems to be quite compatible with regards for the environment. MORE DETAILS ON THESE PROBLEMS. AT PRESENT THE FOLLOWING HARMFUL SCHEMES ARE BEING APPLIED: a. clearcutting great areas in 2 of the country's most densely forested regions for supplying the needs of the local chip mills, that could & should be supplied from subproducts of timberstand improvement only, something, that would have an enormous positive impact on the Chilean economy (see below). b. a scheme locally called PROTECTION FELLING, in which a only a few absolutely useless trees are left standing for protection of seedlings; the rest is harvested, including many thin, but otherwise promising trees. As a result one obtains mostly chips and very low grade lumber, but only very little material suitable for export. Thus a high volume of biomass, grown during many years, is being wasted. With this scheme one must wait for about 100 years for the next harvest of sizeable trees and there are not enough new forest areas available, where industry could get logs in the meantime. In theory all this should not have happened, since CONAF (the Chilean Forest Service) must approve a management plan, prepared by a forest engineer, before any felling can be done. But this apparently very effective scheme did not work, for a number of different reasons: 1. The decision which trees to cut down is usually left to logging contractors and chainsaw operators, who have no stake in the future of forests and often. are not supervised by anyone. 2. Conaf does not have the manpower to effectively supervise what is being done. 3. Landowners have by tradition considered native forests as a nuisance with hardly any value and have always tried to replace them with pastures; this might have seemed reasonable in the past, when local hard- woods had no export markets, but by now quite extensive and profitable markets DO exist, but this fact has so far not reached the executives of some big companies, who even have representatives in the US and elsewhere. Therefore the old traditions still persist in many places. 4. Chilean forestry schools concentrate on teaching the techniques of planting Radiata pine & other fast growing woods, since so far jobs were plentiful in these activities only. As to the management of Native Hardwood Forests, in 11 out of 13 schools not even the THEORY is being included in their study program and in the 2 where such theory is being taught, there is hardly any opportunity for practicing in the woods. Therefore the basic conditions for approving management plans, worked out by graduates of such schools, are often so impractical, that lumbermen prefer to risk fines, instead of trying to comply with schemes, they find useless or counterproductive. 5. The private professionals who prepare the required management plans, also lack the training to do a really good job and since they are not responsible for carrying them out, they often do not even try. 6. As another consequence of this peculiar training, many local forest professionals think, that whenever some prior logging has occurred, what is left consist of suppressed or otherwise worthless trees; therefore they recommend the mentioned PROTECTION FELLING as the only viable system. Their conclusions are probably justified sometimes; but since they were not reached after careful research in the woods, they might have overlooked some more positive circumstances: a. a group of German foresters, who were sent to Chile by their government to advise small forest-farmers, have found that there are many places, where there are enough promising trees to justify timber-stand improvement. The problem consists in their location; they are not normally found in large, connected areas, but in a kind of mosaic of small areas, alternately suitable or not for such schemes. This would mean a lot of work by trained professionals, but since wages are still rather low here, the required effort would certainly be worth while (see below). b. experiments made in 100-150 years old lenga-forests indicate, that even such mature trees increase their growth rate by 200% after thinning out operations. AS TO OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECTED LAW it might still come from the 2 fringe groups mentioned, though its latest version does take some of their more moderate & probably justified objections into account. Nevertheless there is the danger that their more radical sectors might prevail and use their considerable political influence to prevent or at least delay the approval of the law. This would be very unfortunate, since in the mean- time the mentioned harmful practices would go on; especially clearcutting in areas with good roads, which are exactly the ones, where timberstand improvement would be most promising and profitable. Furthermore such areas are so scarce that within 5 - 10 years almost none might be left. Therefore it would be very important to convince their more moderate sectors, that the law is quite compatible with their interests. Talks with their representatives should be organized NOW & be as well prepared as possible. They should start with items where a consensus is most probable and touch more controversial subjects only after it has been proved, that agreements are possible. One would need a moderator respected by everybody, who would direct discussions towards the search for acceptable solutions and be capable to prevent or cut short passionate declarations of controversial principles. WHAT MIGHT BE THE EFFECTS OF A BETTER MANAGEMENT OF NATIVE FORESTS ON THE CHILEAN ECONOMY? The projected law proposes subventions for correct management of forests, which would encourage private enterprise to open up regions as yet lacking roads and to start timberstand improvements in some 100 000 ha per year. Through weeding out defective or too closely spaced trees, they could produce the volume necessary to satisfy the rawmaterial needs of chipmakers WITHOUT ANY CLEARCUTTING. The better trees left standing in that area would grow more rapidly, with a yearly increase in volume of about 1 million m3; almost all in trees capable to yield very high grade lumber. They could be made into products worth 5-40 times more than chips. Therefore 10-20 years after starting this scheme it could generate new exports worth several hundred millions dollars per year and eventually they could go up to more than a billion. Such a scheme with its economic opportunities should also convince some forest-owners and lumber industries, who up to now were opposed to the earlier versions of the law, that the new version is really in their best interest. WHAT WOULD BE THE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT? Through eliminating the widespread clearcuttings and promoting moderate selective harvests, forests would take good care of most of their environmental functions; they would protect against erosion, produce probably as much oxygen as virgin forests, offer a good habitat for most of the local fauna and preserve some biodiversity. As to ECOTOURISM, any person walking through such forests, would notice that they are easily accessible for visitors & certainly not lacking in natural beauty. It might be true that some people prefer virgin forests for many different reasons, but they can enjoy such forests in the extensive Nartional Parks or Protection Zones. Trying to TRANSFORM ALL FORESTS INTO SUCH PARKS is a luxury; that hardly any country can afford; certainly not Chile, where deep poverty is the country´s most important problem. Furthermore, if native woods would not be available for the multiple uses in housing, furniture etc., people would have to use NON RENEWABLE RESOURCES INSTEAD (like steel or plastics), WITH MUCH GREATER HARM TO THE ENVIRONMENT. HERE ARE SOME CORRECTIONS OF THE NEW FOREST LAW, which I should like to suggest, if the COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE CHILEAN SENATE SHOULD ASK ME TO DO SO: 1. The main purpose of the law, according to its latest version, is to discourage harmful practices through charging a very high tax (from between $us 1600 ´ -3200 per ha)on any felling operations. On the other hand it tries to promote better management systems -mainly TIMBERSTAND IMPROVEMENT- through THE OBLIGATION TO RETURN THIS TAX IF: a. the area has been reforested with the same native species or b. if satisfactory natural regeneration has occurred or c. if a SELECTIVE PARTIAL HARVEST has been effected, ensuring future periodic harvests & the stable continuance of the forests present composition Furthermore subsidies of about $us 500- per ha can be granted for maintaining and improving the productive capacity of the harvested areas.. The main practical problem with this scheme is lumbermen´s lack of working capital & the almost prohibitively high cost of any credit they would need for financing the payment of the tax , while waiting for restitution. For a. & b. this restitution could only be requested after 2-3 years, when their success can be seen, but for c. this could be done IMMEDIATELY. It seems illogical to collect a tax under such difficult circumstances, if it has to be paid back shortly anyhow; the way out would be to accept: CORRECTION No 1: EXEMPTIONS FROM THE TAX CAN BE GRANTED IF CONAF CERTIFIES THAT TIMBERSTAND IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY CARRIED OUT. This could also be achieved by defining what is meant by harvesting, subject to the tax, as an intervention NOT ENSURING the conditions detailed under c. If this problem is not solved, most lumbermen would prefer to propose the highest harvest volume .allowable in a management plans, thus defeating the main purpose of the law. Additional corrections seem to be called for on some specific points; e.g. 2. Any forest with an inclination of more than 45% (not degrees) is defined as PROTECTION FOREST, where no harvesting is to be allowed. Since most areas still available for industrial use belong to this area this would EFFECTIVELY LIQUIDATE THE WHOLE HARDWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY. Undeniably such areas must be treated carefully, but better alternatives than total prohibition of any harvesting are certainly available; e.g. a. The interested party presents a plan, establishing how many trees and at what maximum distance shall be preserved for protection and CONAF approves the plan, after also studying aerial or satellite fotos of the area. b. Trees to be PRESERVED would be marked and numbered before felling starts. c. CONAF would inspect the general area, in order to establish, whether their number and distribution would really ensure protection against erosion. d. After a certain % of the area has been harvested and again after operations are completed, CONAF would inspect some sample lots, in order to see whether all the numbered trees have really been left standing. Aerial or satellite fotos could again be used to furnish complementary information. e. Further inspections, could be demanded on a case by case basis. Therefore this problem should be handled through CORRECTION No. 2: AREAS WITH AN INCLINATION OVER 45% CAN ONLY BE HARVESTED UNDER STRINGENT PROCEDURES, DETERMINED BY SPECIAL REGULATIONS FOR EACH REGION AND FOREST TYPE. For reasons implied in my prior explanations Y should like to suggest some additional articles for the law, e.g. 3. ANY FOREST ENGINEER WANTING TO PREPARE MANAGEMENT PLANS, MUST HAVE A SPECIAL LICENSE, TO BE GRANTED ONLY IF HE CAN PROVE TO HAVE SPECIAL PRACTICAL TRAINING IN TIMBERSTAND IMPROVEMENT AND OTHER TECHNIQUES OF MANAGING NATIVE FORESTS. 4. RESPONSIBILITY FOR CORRECTLY CARRYING OUT THE MANAGEMENT PLANS IS TO BE SHARED BY OWNERS AND THE FOREST ENGINEER WHO PREPARED IT. One last suggestion; since so much depends on inspections and reports from individual members of CONAF, access to a rapid and effective system of appeal to an objective arbitration board might be very helpful, especially since lawsuits are both costly and very time consuming here. Here is one idea that might be considered: 5. IN EVERY FOREST REGION ARBITRATION BOARDS ARE TO BE ORGANIZED, IN WHICH CONAF, PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, UNIVERSITIES & ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS WOULD TAKE PART. THEY SHALL HAVE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS WHENEVER THERE ARE PROBLEMS BETWEEN FOREST OWNERS & CONAF; ESPECIALLY IN CASE OF REJECTION OF MANAGEMENT PLANS. THEIR DECISIONS MUST BE MADE WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD, TO BE ESTABLISHED IN SEPARATE REGULATIONS. Santiago, 12 02 1996 Paul Riesz
Nombre del Usuario Cargo Empresa Tel: Fax:
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0