Herb Hammond

Dear President Mierau and Council Members, Association of BC Forest Professionals (ABCFP): By way of this letter, I resign my membership in the ABCFP. I no longer wish to be part of an organization that alleges to “care for BC’s forest and forest lands,” while remaining silent about the degradation and frequent destruction of natural forest integrity and resilience perpetrated by the vast majority of forestry activities. I will provide examples of these endemic problems below. The ABCFP spends more time worrying about what title people involved in forest management do or do not use than providing standards and oversight of activities to protect forest integrity and resilience. The constant reminder, under threat of fines and potential incarceration, to retired forest professionals that they are not permitted to practice forestry, even to provide advice, is a specific example of this problem. In many aspects of societies retired people are viewed as sources of wisdom to be consulted and listened to as a way of reaching sound conclusions that protect the public interest and the ecosystems that sustain them. In the absence of definition and oversight of forest management in BC by the ABCFP, the organization has contributed significantly to the many endemic problems that plague the profession. Here are a few examples: (1) A plethora of scientific articles urge the protection of primary forests and remaining intact forests to mitigate climate change and reduce loss of biodiversity. Incorporation of this knowledge into new ways of forest protection and use that maintain forests as carbon sinks, and sources of high levels of biodiversity are professional obligations to protect the public interest. Instead, the ABCFP promotes, often by their silence, “business as usual” forest management that exacerbates climate change and biodiversity loss, and shifts forests from carbon sinks to carbon sources. (2) The determination of the allowable annual cut (AAC), along with where and how the AAC is extracted have major impacts on the integrity of forests and the well-being of forest-based human communities. However, the AAC is based on questionable (or no) science. Together with a strong lobby from the timber industry to keep the cut as high as possible for as long as possible, the structure used to calculate timber available results in non-sustainable AACs. This problem has become increasingly obvious as industrial forest tenure holders are unable to find trees to cut to meet their AACs and/or resort to logging of younger and younger trees to reach their AAC. The ABCFP has an obligation to provide scientifically sound and precautionary models, inventory standards, and forestry methods that protect the broad public interest. This obligation has been shirked to the point that the ABCFP may be viewed as more of an industry lobby group than a professional association that stands up for the well being of the public. The actions and inaction of the ABCFP may be interpreted as being in support of keeping the level of cut as high as possible for as long as possible. (3) Pure water is a vital ecological benefit produced by forests at no cost, as long as the natural integrity of forests are maintained. However, with the exception of some small non-industrial forestry operations, industrial forestry degrades water quality, quantity, and timing of flow. The degradation of water starts as soon as roads and the first logging occur in a watershed. As more roads and logging occur in a watershed the degradation of water grows. The type of logging and its location within a watershed influence how large and long lasting the negative impacts of forestry on water are. The work of Younes Alila, UBC forest hydrologist, and his graduate students has been seminal in urging big changes to forest management to protect water. The public has also been very vocal (and right) about the many negative impacts of forestry to water. Science supports that old growth forests provide the best water with the most reliable flows. Climate scientists reminds us that with the loss of intact, natural forest cover, water problems will increase as climate change progresses, leading to more floods, droughts, and water shortages. However, the ABCFP has been silent about the wide ranging impacts of forestry on water, including floods and drought. This silence certainly looks like the ABCFP is captured by the timber industry and not acting in the public interest. (4) Professional reliance, which was put in place by a provincial government that desired to privatize public forests has been entrenched in forestry practices as the modus operandi. This approach permits no disclosure of information to the public by timber companies about the standards and specific forest data on which timber management operations are based. Thus, we have private entities preparing plans and carrying out timber extraction on public lands with no effective accountability to the public. The ABCFP support for professional reliance is a direct conflict with their stated intention to protect the public interest. If that intention was real, the ABCFP would support the abolition of professional reliance and support the development and enforcement of clear, precautionary standards for forest management. The public interest is not protected by turning forests over to the discretion of the timber industry. The public interest is protected by ensuring that all forest activities maintain the natural ecological integrity and biodiversity that provide the ecological benefits that the public depends upon. (5) Clearcutting has been thoroughly discredited for its wide ranging negative impacts on carbon sequestration and storage; biodiversity; water quality, quantity, and timing of flow; and non-timber forest uses. Climate scientists have been vocal in their opposition to clearcutting, because it exacerbates climate change and fuels biodiversity loss. Yet, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, clearcutting remains the system of choice for most timber management in BC. This is another place where the ABCFP silence is in direct opposition to the public interest. Even if short-term employment is the only aspect of the public interest considered, clearcuts still fail to deliver as much employment as ecologically responsible partial cuts. (6) In the world’s rush to commit to less carbon intensive forms of energy, BC forests have now become a target for the wood pellet industry that supplies wood pellets to burn for the production of electricity in the United Kingdom, Japan, and elsewhere. Burning wood pellets to produce electricity emits significantly more greenhouse gas emissions per unit of electricity produced than burning coal. At best, burning wood pellets is a misguided attempt to lower greenhouse gas emissions. At worst, it is blatant greenwashing. As another place to market timber, the timber industry in BC has eagerly joined the chorus promoting the development of the wood pellet industry in BC. Allegedly, the wood for these pellets comes from waste from logging and sawmilling operations. This situation has been rationalized by the declaration by forest professionals that portions of trees that are not merchantable logs are “waste” that is burned after logging is finished. In reality, no tree parts are waste. The “waste” that is now burned needs to be left on the ground, because it is an important part of forest composition that functions to replenish soil nutrients, conserve water, and provide habitat for a variety of organisms essential to forest functioning. To add to the problems created by wood pellets, there is abundant, credible evidence that intact BC forests, including old-growth forests, are being logged to produce and export wood pellets. Protection of these intact forests, particularly old-growth and other primary forests, is extremely important to mitigate climate change and slow biodiversity loss The ABCFP is silent about the problems created by the wood pellet industry, despite the fact that creation of wood pellets is not in the best interest of the public, particularly since it increases greenhouse gas production. Apparently, the ABCFP maintains that what is good for the timber industry is good for the public interest. Another aspect of this issue is that the former chief forester of BC, Diane Nicholls, is now the Drax vice president of sustainability. Drax, located in the UK, is the world’s largest user of wood pellets to generate electricity. The switch from senior government official to senior industry manager was made after Nicholls facilitated the development of the wood pellet industry in BC. Nicholls is a prominent member of the ABCFP. Despite her unethical actions around facilitation of the expansion of the wood pellet industry and then leaving government to join Drax, the ABCFP has not initiated a review of Nicholls behaviour vis a vis the Code of Ethics. The likely reason to be cited by the ABCFP is that disciplinary proceedings need to be initiated by an individual, either a member of the ABCFP or the general public. This raises another example of the ABCFP practicing a culture of silence on prominent issues they need to speak out about in order to protect the public interest and the overall credibility of forest professionals. (7) In her role as Chief Forester, Diane Nicholls established the “Chief Foresters Leadership Team,” to provide her with advice about how to manage the forests of BC. The Leadership Team consists of the chief foresters of all the major timber companies throughout BC. Such a “team” skews the advice to recommendations that support timber extraction and away from advice that supports protection of forest integrity and the broad public interest. This is yet another example of the silence of the ABCFP in issues critical to the conservation and sustainable management of the public forests of BC. The ABCFP has the opportunity to support development of a Chief Forester’s Leadership Team that is inclusive of experts on the diverse issues affected by forest management, from climate change and biodiversity loss to non-timber enterprises and Indigenous reconciliation. Such a leadership team would also include representatives of the general public, who are familiar with the current practices of forest management. The failure of the ABCFP to suggest a more appropriate leadership team than that appointed by the chief forester appears to be another example of the systemic timber bias of the organization. FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE FOREST and all life that depends on healthy, intact forests, the success (or failure) of a forest professional is measured by their footprints in the forest. Good forest management leaves few footprints and fully functioning forests. Unfortunately, most of the forestry done in BC leaves many large footprints and degraded forests. The ABCFP’s role in the large footprints of forestry is a measure of their hypocrisy when one compares their code of ethics and other public documents with what actually happens in the forest. All one needs to do is fly across the province to see the dire state of forest management. From there it requires little analysis to understand the large negative impacts that forestry has on all aspects of ecological integrity and biological diversity. The ecological benefits from pure water to carbon storage have been seriously degraded by industrial forestry. This has resulted in forestry being the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in BC. Industrial forestry exacerbates climate change and biodiversity loss, thereby contributing globally to the climate and biodiversity crises. Industrial forestry is part of the problem, not part of the solution. The forests are in trouble. Earth’s climate is collapsing. The ABCFP and many of its members are complicit in this trouble. Transformational change in how we define and practice forestry is needed. However, the ABCFP seems to have chosen to ignore increasingly loud and dire warnings from climate and ecological scientists that intact natural forests need protection to mitigate climate disruption and reduce biodiversity loss. Instead of supporting needed change to forestry/forest management, the ABCFP and most of its members have chosen to support continued logging of intact natural forests across BC. That approach leads to a dead end that will not only harm forests, but also human society. I no longer wish to be part of an organization that is unable to see the forest for the timber. Yours truly, Herb Hammond

Indigenous people maintained a responsible, gratitude-filled and reciprocal relationship with nature. It’s past time for settlers to use observation-based and precautionary knowledge to shape a new relationship with forests. THE FOREST IS IN TROUBLE, which means that we are all in trouble. The problems in the forest have little or nothing to do with natural disturbances or other natural forest processes. We are the trouble with forests. We are the forest’s pest. From climate disruption, floods, and droughts to insect outbreaks, degradation of water and soil, and loss of biodiversity, human manipulation of forests is the root cause. Our activities have been carried out under the guise of “sustainable forestry.” However there is little about our management that protects forests, and a lot about our management that protects the financial well-being of a few privileged individuals and companies engaged in timber exploitation. Management means to “control things or people.” Forestry in BC, indeed across Canada, has been firmly entrenched in a colonial paradigm, a way of thinking that started about 150 years ago in this country. That way of thinking by colonial settlers conveniently defined all the land and water as “terra nullis,” or “legally unoccupied or uninhabited.” This gave way to the subjugation and genocide, both overt and covert, of the Indigenous people, the rightful owners and inhabitants of all of Canada. The colonial paradigm quickly led to an extractive, exploitive view of nature. Indigenous people maintained a responsible, gratitude-filled, and reciprocal relationship with nature. However, settlers ignored this wisdom and adopted an irresponsible, one-way relationship where nature was renamed to be “natural resources” that had no value until extracted and made into human stuff. From what Robin Wall Kimmerer beautifully describes as a living “basket of benefits” that furnishes the full spectrum of the needs for all life, colonial settlers and governments relegated nature to inanimate “things” that only had value if they served human wants and greed. Our current relationship with forests, as defined by forestry or forest management, follows the colonial paradigm. We have ignored our hearts and common sense as we reduced complex forests—nature—to timber, allowable annual cuts, rotation ages, dimensional lumber, tree planting, excessive corporate profit taking, and far fewer jobs in forest communities than warranted by the high levels of logging. To add insult to injury, our assault on forests has been, and continues to be, massively subsidized by government. We need to give voice to this story of our past to understand why and how, as just one small part of nature, we have arrived at this ominous now. Our short-sighted unfeeling treatment of Earth, often propped up by misdirected, dogmatic science leaves us on the brink of runaway climate disturbances, biodiversity collapse, and social and economic inequities that threaten the future of settler and Indigenous societies, alike. In his poignant book, Change the Story, Change the Future: A Living Economy for a Living Earth, economist David Korten reminds us that the current framing story—the dominant ethic for society—is the sacred money and markets story. Under this story, our efforts for meaningful change are constrained. Colonial attitudes toward nature, and more recently the omnipresent corporate control of land and governments, keep this story alive. Based on his decades of experience working with communities around the world, Korten urges us to shift to a sacred life, living Earth story. He defines “sacred” as “what is most important, most essential to the well-being of the community and its members, and therefore most worthy of special respect and care.” To solve the problems that beset our forests, from old-growth, biodiversity, and water protection to equitable sharing of benefits and meaningful employment, we need a new story to guide our relationship with forests. That story, that new relationship with forests is grounded in protection of natural ecological integrity and resilience and made manifest through nature-based planning. The priority for protection of nature is publicly established through an overriding law that requires compliance from all other laws, regulations, and policies that affect forests—that affect all of nature. A hierarchical relationship underpins nature-based plans and facilitates ecologically and culturally sustainable protection and use of forests—of ecosystems in total. Economies are part of human cultures, and human cultures are part of ecosystems. Therefore, first protecting ecosystem parts and processes provides for healthy human cultures and the economies that are part of these cultures. This understanding is the foundation for what Indigenous people refer to as a kincentric relationship with nature where human beings see themselves as related to all beings and as dependent upon the ongoing integrity of all aspects of ecosystems, i.e. home systems. Moving to nature-based planning and living may be achieved through a short transition period where human activities shift from exploitation to restoration and regeneration. Transition provides redistribution of wealth to fund restorative and regenerative activities. Transition shifts perverse subsidies that facilitate ecosystem exploitation, to ecologically and socially responsible subsidies that promote protection, restoration and regeneration. The cornerstone of an effective transition period and beyond is the development of diverse, inclusive community-based economies founded upon nature-based plans. From the knowledge learned from many Indigenous mentors and Western science, I have developed more than 25 nature-based plans (NBPs) across Canada, and have facilitated NBPs in other parts of the world. Without fail these plans inspire and empower communities to embrace a new relationship with nature—a relationship that has always been in their hearts. Where communities have access to forests and choose forestry as one way of relating to forests, application of nature-based approaches produces 3-5 times the number of jobs per tree cut compared to most industrial forestry. If this approach was followed across BC, we could reduce the volume of timber cut by 60 to 80 percent. If politicians denounce this new relationship as “not politically achievable,” we need to remind them that the electorate defines what is politically achievable. If we are told a new relationship is not realistic, we need to explain that there is more than one reality and the reality we advocate is inclusive for a very wide range of people and all forest beings. We know enough to change. Indigenous, observation-based knowledge, particularly that gained through extensive times living as part of ecosystems—not apart from them—needs to be embraced as a holistic basis for decisions. And, linear, reductionist western scientific methods may be used in appropriate places to complement observation-based knowledge. The time is way past due for Indigenous, observation-based, and precautionary knowledge to shape our relationship with forests—with nature. The use of “a lack of science,” “a lack of understanding” to justify aggressive relationships with forest, often through assumptions of convenience, needs to stop. Herb Hammond is a Registered Professional Forester and forest ecologist with 30 years of experience in research, industry, teaching and consulting. Together with his wife Susan, he founded the Silva Forest Foundation, a charitable society dedicated to research and education in ecosystem-based conservation planning. Herb has worked cooperatively with Indigenous Nations and rural communities to develop more than 20 ecosystem-based plans across Canada, and in Russia, the United States, and Indonesia.

Photo by TJ Watt THE FOREST IS IN TROUBLE, which means that we are all in trouble. The problems in the forest have little or nothing to do with natural disturbances or other natural forest processes. We are the trouble with forests. We are the forest’s pest. From climate disruption, floods, and droughts to insect outbreaks, degradation of water and soil, and loss of biodiversity, human manipulation of forests is the root cause. Our activities have been carried out under the guise of “sustainable forestry.” However there is little about our management that protects forests, and a lot about our management that protects the financial well-being of a few privileged individuals and companies engaged in timber exploitation. Management means to “control things or people.” Forestry in BC, indeed across Canada, has been firmly entrenched in a colonial paradigm, a way of thinking that started about 150 years ago in this country. That way of thinking by colonial settlers conveniently defined all the land and water as “terra nullis,” or “legally unoccupied or uninhabited.” This gave way to the subjugation and genocide, both overt and covert, of the Indigenous people, the rightful owners and inhabitants of all of Canada. The colonial paradigm quickly led to an extractive, exploitive view of nature. Indigenous people maintained a responsible, gratitude-filled, and reciprocal relationship with nature. However, settlers ignored this wisdom and adopted an irresponsible, one-way relationship where nature was renamed to be “natural resources” that had no value until extracted and made into human stuff. From what Robin Wall Kimmerer beautifully describes as a living “basket of benefits” that furnishes the full spectrum of the needs for all life, colonial settlers and governments relegated nature to inanimate “things” that only had value if they served human wants and greed. Our current relationship with forests, as defined by forestry or forest management, follows the colonial paradigm. We have ignored our hearts and common sense as we reduced complex forests—nature—to timber, allowable annual cuts, rotation ages, dimensional lumber, tree planting, excessive corporate profit taking, and far fewer jobs in forest communities than warranted by the high levels of logging. To add insult to injury, our assault on forests has been, and continues to be, massively subsidized by government. We need to give voice to this story of our past to understand why and how, as just one small part of nature, we have arrived at this ominous now. Our short-sighted unfeeling treatment of Earth, often propped up by misdirected, dogmatic science leaves us on the brink of runaway climate disturbances, biodiversity collapse, and social and economic inequities that threaten the future of settler and Indigenous societies, alike. In his poignant book, Change the Story, Change the Future: A Living Economy for a Living Earth, economist David Korten reminds us that the current framing story—the dominant ethic for society—is the sacred money and markets story. Under this story, our efforts for meaningful change are constrained. Colonial attitudes toward nature, and more recently the omnipresent corporate control of land and governments, keep this story alive. Based on his decades of experience working with communities around the world, Korten urges us to shift to a sacred life, living Earth story. He defines “sacred” as “what is most important, most essential to the well-being of the community and its members, and therefore most worthy of special respect and care.” To solve the problems that beset our forests, from old-growth, biodiversity, and water protection to equitable sharing of benefits and meaningful employment, we need a new story to guide our relationship with forests. That story, that new relationship with forests is grounded in protection of natural ecological integrity and resilience and made manifest through nature-based planning. The priority for protection of nature is publicly established through an overriding law that requires compliance from all other laws, regulations, and policies that affect forests—that affect all of nature. A hierarchical relationship underpins nature-based plans and facilitates ecologically and culturally sustainable protection and use of forests—of ecosystems in total. Economies are part of human cultures, and human cultures are part of ecosystems. Therefore, first protecting ecosystem parts and processes provides for healthy human cultures and the economies that are part of these cultures. This understanding is the foundation for what Indigenous people refer to as a kincentric relationship with nature where human beings see themselves as related to all beings and as dependent upon the ongoing integrity of all aspects of ecosystems, i.e. home systems. Moving to nature-based planning and living may be achieved through a short transition period where human activities shift from exploitation to restoration and regeneration. Transition provides redistribution of wealth to fund restorative and regenerative activities. Transition shifts perverse subsidies that facilitate ecosystem exploitation, to ecologically and socially responsible subsidies that promote protection, restoration and regeneration. The cornerstone of an effective transition period and beyond is the development of diverse, inclusive community-based economies founded upon nature-based plans. From the knowledge learned from many Indigenous mentors and Western science, I have developed more than 25 nature-based plans (NBPs) across Canada, and have facilitated NBPs in other parts of the world. Without fail these plans inspire and empower communities to embrace a new relationship with nature—a relationship that has always been in their hearts. Where communities have access to forests and choose forestry as one way of relating to forests, application of nature-based approaches produces 3-5 times the number of jobs per tree cut compared to most industrial forestry. If this approach was followed across BC, we could reduce the volume of timber cut by 60 to 80 percent. If politicians denounce this new relationship as “not politically achievable,” we need to remind them that the electorate defines what is politically achievable. If we are told a new relationship is not realistic, we need to explain that there is more than one reality and the reality we advocate is inclusive for a very wide range of people and all forest beings. We know enough to change. Indigenous, observation-based knowledge, particularly that gained through extensive times living as part of ecosystems—not apart from them—needs to be embraced as a holistic basis for decisions. And, linear, reductionist western scientific methods may be used in appropriate places to complement observation-based knowledge. The time is way past due for Indigenous, observation-based, and precautionary knowledge to shape our relationship with forests—with nature. The use of “a lack of science,” “a lack of understanding” to justify aggressive relationships with forest, often through assumptions of convenience, needs to stop. Herb Hammond is a Registered Professional Forester and forest ecologist with 30 years of experience in research, industry, teaching and consulting. Together with his wife Susan, he founded the Silva Forest Foundation, a charitable society dedicated to research and education in ecosystem-based conservation planning. Herb has worked cooperatively with Indigenous Nations and rural communities to develop more than 20 ecosystem-based plans across Canada, and in Russia, the United States, and Indonesia.