In this article, I speak for all forests—boreal, temperate, tropical, and mangrove in both hemispheres. I say this because all forests everywhere are under constant economic attack by various corporations—as are resources in general worldwide. We are today facing a global forest crisis that will ultimately affect the world’s supply of potable water, as chronicled by:
Bear in mind, as you read this piece, that our continued social-environmental crises are created and fostered by two contemporary human traits: (1) quick-fix, symptomatic thinking and (2) people, including governments, insisting on living beyond their monetary means. Corporate advertising drives both in our global economic paradigm of more, more, more—a paradigm that is perpetuated by the news media’s sensationalizing the need for constant (= linear) economic growth, which is a biophysical impossibility in an interactive universe of ever-novel, cyclical processes.
OUR ECONOMIC MYOPIA
The lead article in my hometown paper, the Corvallis Gazette-Times, opened on February 13, 2007, with the headline, “Timber filibuster falls short.” The first paragraph said, in part: “An attempted filibuster by Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith fell short Monday as procedural wrangling foiled his bid to extend payments to rural counties hurt by cutbacks in federal logging.” Smith goes on to say, “We are talking about people’s jobs, children’s schools and general public safety in 700 timber counties in 39 states.”
As has been the case throughout history, this “short fall” is self-inflicted through the kind of economic shortsightedness tucked into the language of the “Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960,” which is based on a linear, economic assumption totally at odds with ecological reality. The assumption is that biological processes in a forest remain constant, while we humans maximize whatever forest product or amenity seems desirable. The errors associated with this kind of linear thinking over the past several hundred years illustrate the dismal results of ignoring the perpetual novelty, cyclical nature, and inviolable biophysical principles of ecological reality. Much as some people might want it otherwise, we cannot circumvent Nature’s inviolate, biophysical principles because they are beyond the capacity of humanity to alter. Forests—or any other resource, for that matter—are not the endless producers of commodities and amenities that we have heretofore assumed them to be. I will use forests to demonstrate the foregoing point because more people are familiar with them than with other resource systems.
In the beginning, when vast forests of ancient trees spread across much of the Pacific Northwestern United States, the forest industry became incensed whenever the federal government put up a timber sale on public lands. “How dare the federal government compete with private industry,” was the cry, because such competition would lower the price of lumber. But once the owners of industrial forests had liquidated the available timber on their own lands, a new voice was heard, one that whined because the federal government was not allowing the capture of windfall profits reaped from cutting the public’s ancient forests, wherein the industry had no investment prior to logging.
There was yet another facet to cutting timber on public lands. Namely, the counties wherein the forests grew were given a share of the revenues. When, therefore, a county wanted more money, pressure was placed on the government agency in charge of the forest to sell more timber. The pressure to sell more and more timber was based on the economic principle of sustained yield (sustained cut), which postulates that, once a forest is converted to a plantation, the latter can and should produce wood fiber at a specified level in perpetuity. Were this the case, however, it would not only require a constant or accelerating rate of growth but also assumes the constant capacity of the soil to nurture the desired growth. There was no room within this claim for even a slight decline in soil fertility from over-exploitation, erosion, and compaction, or presumed catastrophe, such as fire, disease, or a change in climate.
With passage of the “Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960,” a new, economic ploy came into being. It was called: Non-declining, even flow. Simply put, this economic mantra translated into a sustained cut, ostensibly to stabilize jobs and thus community economics, but at the tremendous price of a foregone biologically sustainable forest—the self-inflicted cost of .
Today, the forests, which could have been sustainably harvested, are a historical wish, and the coveted “timber receipts” with them. Nevertheless, the monetary insatiability of the counties was as much a part of their decline as was the monetary insatiability of the timber industry. What, if anything, have we learned?
OUR LINEAR FOLLY
I still hear the same rhetoric I heard ten, twenty, thirty years ago: Namely, we need more money; therefore, we need to cut more trees. Only there are no more big, old trees that can be wisely cut if future generations are to have viable forests to meet their life’s requirements. With this in mind, I wonder how our thinking would be affected if the “Multiple Use Sustain Yield Act” had been conceived and written as the “Multiple Use Sustain Yield Act” or even as the “ Act?”
I wonder because a forest is a continuum of interdependent processes in relation to time, completing its cycle only in the memory of several human generations. And because a forest is an interactive, biophysical system defined by its function, as opposed to its pieces in isolation of one another, it is driven by continual change and novelty, which precludes the existence of an independent variable or constant value other than the number one. We do not seem to understand this, however, or we ignore it, because all of our models—economic, managerial, and even ecological—are short term and linear. This is not only because we chose to based them on desired outcomes but also because we do not have the capability to construct them in any other way.
Thus, while linear models can only predict in a linear function within the span of a few years, the cyclical nature of a forest touches that “predictable” line for but the briefest moment in the millennial life of the soil, the womb from which the forest grows. Yet, in this instant, with grossly incomplete knowledge and shortsighted, unquestioning faith in that knowledge, we insist on a sustained-yield prediction into the unforeseeable future from our plantation management. When, therefore, we liquidate an old forest, we do so thinking we can forever have a rapidly growing plantation that has a magical sustained yield, even as we ignore the interacting, biophysical variables of forestry: soil, water, air, sunlight, climate, and diversity in all its myriad forms.
Changes in global climate are dynamic, however, and will alter Earth’s biophysical cycles on Nature’s scale of time and space—not humanity’s. None of these alterations is quantifiably predictable in the short term, and only slightly more so in the long term, which makes an assumed, constant value effectively moot—economic or otherwise. This leaves computer predictions ecologically “deaf, dumb, and blind” when it comes to forest cycles. Hence, yields from plantations may be moderately predictable in the short term, but cannot be sustained in the long term. On the other hand, plantations that emulate a natural forest, may become sustainable, but only when we have the humility to learn how to nurture the long-term, biophysically health of the soil of which the trees are but a visible extension.
Because of the dynamic nature of evolving ecosystems and because each system is constantly organizing itself from one critical state to another, an ecosystem cannot be “managed” for an absolute value of anything, such as a given sustained yield of timber. The only with respect to humanity is whatever ensures the ability of an ecosystem to adapt to evolutionary change (such as global warming) in a way that may be favorable for us.
We must, however, devise a new paradigm before we can change our strictly , which forces us to view the forest and all it contains simply as commodities to be endlessly exploited. In other words, we cannot have an economically sustainable yield of any forest product (such as wood fiber, water, soil fertility, wildlife, or genetic diversity) until we first have an ecologically sustainable forest, one in which the biological divestments, investments, and reinvestments are balanced in such a way that the forest is self-maintaining in perpetuity.
A NEW PARADIGM
In the new paradigm, we must accept the forest as a living organism with which we cooperate and through such cooperation are to harvest products as the biophysical capability of the forest permits. But what, you might ask, does the concept of sustainability mean in terms of a forest?
“Sustainability” means we must first have a biophysically sustainable forest in order to have a biologically sustainable yield. We must have a biologically sustainable yield in order to have an economically sustainable industry. We must have an economically sustainable industry in order to have an economically sustainable community. And we must have an economically sustainable community in order to have an economically sustainable society. .
We must first practice sound “bio-economics” (the economics of maintaining a healthy, biologically sustainable forest), before we can practice sound “industrio-economics” (the economics of maintaining a healthy, economically sustainable timber industry), before we can practice sound “socio-economics” (the economics of maintaining a healthy, culturally sustainable society). It all begins with a solid foundation, which in this case is a healthy, biologically sustainable forest.
Many of today’s “forest practices” are counter to sustainable forestry. Instead of training foresters to take care of forests, we train plantation managers to manage the short-rotation, economic plantations—rowcropping, as it were. Forests have evolved through the cumulative addition of structural diversity, which in turn initiates and maintains process diversity, complexity, and stability through time. We are reversing the rich building process of that diversity, complexity, and stability by continually replacing forests with plantations designed within narrow, short-term, economic constraints.
Every acre of Nature’s forest replaced with a plantation is an acre that is purposely stripped of its biological diversity and ecological sustainability, thereby reducing it to the lowest common denominator—endless exploitation based on simplistic economic theory. The simplistic economics of the agriculture paradigm has not proven to be ecologically sustainable anywhere in the world in the medium and long term. Thus, the concept of a “plantation,” a strictly simplistic, economic concept, has nothing whatsoever to do with the biological sustainability of a forest. Under this concept, forests are replaced with plantations of genetically manipulated trees accompanied by the corporate-political-academic promise that such plantations are better, healthier, and more viable than the indigenous forests, which evolved with the land over millennia.
“Sustainable,” however, means producing economic outputs as the forest gives us the biophysical capability to do so in perpetuity. This, in turn, necessitates maximizing the biophysical integrity of the forest, as well as procuring all products and amenities within the long-term sustainability of the forest’s biophysical capacity.
To accomplish ecological sustainability, we must shift our historical paradigm from the cherished notion of sustained yield, wherein the forest is managed so an equal volume of merchantable wood fiber is not only produced annually but also projected forever into the unknowable future. I say this because the timber industry was sustained, until recently, by the superabundance of existing timber, rather than by carefully creating and implementing plans for the caretaking of biologically sustainable forests.
The timber industry has survived by changing its technology and standards of utilization, which has enabled more of the existing timber to be cut and processed. Although this has improved the industry’s economic efficiency of use, it has delayed the apparent need for a critical assessment of the forest’s actual condition, and has made no provision for the necessities of either forest health or the life requirements of future generations.
The most productive forests in Oregon (those below 4000 ft elevation) were the first to be cut out. To maintain the “sustained yield” from the less productive high-elevation forests (those above 4000 ft) the increase in annual acreage cut has been five times the increase in volume cut during the last 40 years. Are we adding to other ecological blunders of world forestry by mining our high-elevation water-catchments?
Further, the practice of “sustained-yield forestry” excludes of all other human values except the production of fast-grown wood fiber. Young forests (up to 60 years old) do not produce the highest quality water. They are not conducive to recreation. Spotted owls, marbled murrelets, and elk are not sustained by them through time. They have lost the attractiveness of diversity. In addition, genetically engineered, “improved” trees in fast-growing plantations produce problem lumber because of weak wood that tends to shrink, warp, and break under stress.
In Short, sustained yield is nothing more than short-term, economic exploitation, wherein the inherited principal is summarily cut without reinvesting sufficient biological capital in the forest to at least balance the account. Ecological principles of diversity, interactive process, and the forest’s cycle through time are violated in order to practice the diminishing return of “sustained yield” forestry—which is, nevertheless, the circular, economic firing squad wherein the insatiable timber industry and the counties are now caught with their fingers glued to the trigger.
“Sustainable-yield forestry” has not been practiced in the Pacific Northwest, because our “sustained yield” (which equates to sustained cut) has come from the ancient forests we inherited from Nature and for which we can claim no credit. In fact, even the stated concept of sustained yield has been violated by continually increasing the cut of these old forests whenever more money was desired.
If, therefore, human society is to survive as we know it, we must become trustees of our natural resources, which means letting go of the exploitive, colonial mentality—use it until it collapses, then someone else can deal with it. Much as we might wish otherwise, humanity is not in control of Nature. If we go back to the original sense of the word “re-source,” we will find that the ecological sustainability of our forests is embodied in a word we blithely use but do not fully understand. “Re-source” means to use something and then be the source of its renewal—not its demise!
The choice is ours today. To generations, we bequeath the wisdom or the folly of our decisions. What will our choice of actions be with respect to forests: the continuance of our current exploitation or the unconditional gift of a biological living trust whereby truly sustainable forests are maintained for all generation, present and future?
The photograph of the waterfall was taken by and © by Sue Johnston. Text and other photos © by Chris Maser 2011. All rights reserved.