Presentation to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Environment by Gary Schneider

1. My background:

I recently made a presentation to the Potato Producers Association and heard Morley Wood use the term "once removed" to identify people who's parents had farmed or grown up on farms but they didn't. That's me, my parents both grew up on prairie farms during the Depression, I have many relatives still trying to eke out a living growing grain on some inhospitable land in southwestern Saskatchewan. Though I did work on orchards all through school and now operate a large native tree and shrub nursery, I am once removed. But I am not removed from issues that affect land use in this province.

I have worked as a tree planter, silviculture worker and log home builder. In 1991 I started the Macphail Woods Ecological Forestry Project in Orwell. It was set up to help the public learn about forest restoration, wildlife habitat improvement and biodiversity. We have a wide range of ongoing projects, including nature walks, a children's program, research on wildlife, silviculture and biodiversity, and forest restoration demonstrations. Though it had humble beginnings, it has grown significantly each year, winning awards and attracting attention in both the local and national media. It was for this work on forest issues that I was asked to participate on the Round Table. I have no degrees at all, but have studied forests for decades, spent time with some of the best ecological foresters in North America, and have listened to woodlot owners talk about what they have learned.

2. Round table experience:

To be brief, I was thrown in with 15 other people, most I had never even heard of much less met. Four of these people were potato farmers, as well as a beef farmer, hog farmer, dairy farmer, an orchardist. Others had strong farming backgrounds. In the beginning the process was poor, since few of us had experience working in this kind of situation. We were asked to identify the present situation and come up with solutions and you know this was no easy task.

We did look at success stories, the great efforts made by many farmers across the province, things like terracing, strip cropping, cover cropping, using crop scouts to reduce pesticides, partnerships between potato and beef farmers and better manure storage. But we heard from a variety of presenters that the Island continues to lose topsoil at rates we can never hope to rebuild, siltation is having harmful effects on the fisheries, pesticides are getting into streams, people are experiencing chemical sensitivities in increasing numbers, nitrates in some wells are at unacceptably high levels, forests are being overharvested.

Over 16 months of regular meetings, we went from defending positions and being mistrustful to educating ourselves about the issues, developing some analysis of the situation and looking at practical, workable solutions. As you know, initially the great majority of members thought no legislation would come out of this, but the key was that everyone was around the table. People were convinced that a whole series of problems did truly exist and were inter-connected, and that solutions had to come from all sectors. So it was not urban versus rural, farmer versus non- farmer, farmer versus environmentalist, but a cross-section of people working together to find solutions. It was far harder to ignore downstream results of erosion and pesticide use when there was a mussel farmer and a recreational fisheries worker around the table. And when things had to be given up, compromises had to be made, everyone pitched in. When the forestry folks didn't want to give up access to any woodlands at all, it seemed unfair because members of the farming community had already agreed that they would have to give up some of their land to buffer zones. The bed and breakfast operator saw the cutting going on in the greenbelt along the Morell River and talked of the needs of her guests.

I am so proud of the report and feel honoured to have been able to work with Elmer MacDonald, who gave so much and provided such tireless leadership, and other members and staff. I am also proud that farmers would be instrumental in coming up with solutions to the problems, that potato and livestock farmers would agree that without legislation, certain people would not act in the best interests of the people of Prince Edward Island. That people had the right not to be sprayed, that everyone had a role to play in solving the problems.

3. What the Round Table said:

So what did we recommend as a Round Table, what were the best ideas we came up with after all our research and thought and hard work? One of the most important themes was to protect the riparian zones of the province. Buffer zones will help keep fecal coliform bacteria, silt, pesticides and fertilizers out of our waters. As the presenters from Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada have already pointed out, there is existing legislation to keep these "deleterious substances" out of waterways and they are coming under increasing public pressure to enforce this legislation. The benefits are numerous - improved fish habitat, healthy aquaculture and recreational fisheries industries, increased tourist and recreation opportunities, clean water, better herd health, excellent habitat for other wildlife species, erosion control and on and on.

Before I get to the specific buffer zone recommendations, let me repeat that the Round Table report is a package. The buffer zone recommendations are a crucial part, but no buffer zone will work if you do not improve upslope practices. So the "no row-cropping on slopes greater than 9%", recommendation and many others are critical to protecting riparian zones and making real improvements in other areas.

Our recommendations are to keep cattle out of the streams and to have a 10 metre buffer zone on all streams that would not be seen as a source of wood supply. On year round streams, an additional 10-20 metres would be necessary, and in this area some restoration and light harvesting would be allowed, but it "must not detract from its buffering ability; nor from the quality of wildlife habitat contained therein." Buffers zones by definition can't be clearcut every 25 years, they are meant to be long-term, stable protection for streams and wildlife. Buffer zones were also seen to be the ideal place to begin restoring Prince Edward Island's native Acadian forests, as these would be areas where trees would be allowed to grow old and regain their diversity. So I was delighted that the Round Table came up with these recommendations, signed on to by the chair of the Forest Partnership Council and another member of that council.

4. How the Discussion Paper recommendations missed the mark:

Unfortunately, the Discussion Paper Respecting Watercourse Buffer Zones was very upsetting, and showed me again that serious changes must be made. The Forestry Division's response is not based on science. The two main problems are that the suggested amounts that you can harvest are totally unsustainable, and that there is no possible way to enforce partial cutting without permits. Forests on Prince Edward Island generally grow at ½ cord per acre per year. Some grow faster and some grow slower, let's take that as an average. This isn't my number, it's the number of Dr. Stephen Manley, who teaches genetics at the University College of Cape Breton and in the late 1970's was director of the PEI Forestry Division. Let's look at some of the recommendations in the Discussion Paper Respecting Watercourse Buffer Zones. Page 12 of your Report lists the harvesting that can be done within buffer zones without a permit. I'll go over each with my comments, based on cords per acre and each acre producing ½ cord per year.

1. On a mixed wood forest, a maximum 35% basal area can be cut every decade. So a stand that contains 30 cords per acre in the year 2000 gets cut and has 20 cords left. In 10 years it grows 5 new cords of wood so it is back to 25 cords by the year 2010. Then you can remove 35% again, so you've got less than 17 cords per acre. In 10 years it grows 5 new cords of wood, so that it is just under 22 cords per acre by 2020 and it goes on and on. These stands can be consistently harvested to the point they are not very healthy or stable, and provide little in the way of buffering. And that is not even considering two other points:

(a) that for many people if you are allowed to harvest 1/3, you will take the best third and be seriously degrading the stand over a relatively short period of time; (b) that unless each area is measured just before the cut (and remember you don't need a permit for these) it is humanly impossible to tell how much wood has been harvested. I would love to go to court and have anyone prove me wrong when I claim "they were short trees", or "there was a lot of dead wood I didn't use". It is just impossible to police and relatively silly to propose.

2. again, without a permit, white spruce stands or balsam fir stands (which are defined as having 70% white spruce) can be clearcut, leaving pine, hemlock, red spruce and hardwoods unless there is a permit to take them. As has been demonstrated at Macphail Woods and other places, there are many other options besides clearcutting these stands, and especially around streams, it is not the best option. You will hear from fisheries people far better qualified than myself to talk about this issue, but again think of the practicalities. A woodlot owner doesn't need a permit, so he/she clearcuts and then afterwards, someone has to notice it, charge the owner, and measure and type the trees cut from the stumps. I wouldn't say impossible, but if we have the army of qualified staff around surely they could be put to better use.

3. again, without a permit, black spruce and larch over 40 years old can be clearcut, removing 50% every 25 years. The same problems occur with the stands never being allowed to get old. You've got 30 cords per acre in the year 2000, you clearcut half the stand so you have 15 cords per acre. By the year 2025 you have regrown 12.5 cords, so you are up to 27.5 cords and can cut half again and you keep degrading the stands. The same problems with highgrading and lack of enforceability exist with this as well.

4. and once again, without a permit, you can remove less than 2 cords per acre per year on a property. This is the worst recommendation and makes little sense if you think about it. If you have miles of riparian zone, it would be less of a problem, but with a 20 metre buffer zone, an acre would be about 700' of stream frontage, or 350' if you owned both sides. So here's one example: you have a property with a stream running across it, the total buffer zone is one acre. So in the year 2000, you have 30 cords of wood in the buffer zone and harvest just under two cords; in 2001 you have 28.5 cords and you cut just under two cords, leaving 26.5 cords and it goes downhill from there. This is not a worst case scenario by any means. Many people have far less than an acre of buffer zone, so if you start out with 15 cords of wood in your buffer zone, you deplete it that much faster. Anyone who tells you an average stand on Prince Edward Island grows 2 cords per acre per year knows nothing about forests. So if you have a stream flowing across your property, you can, without a permit, reduce the buffer zone to next to nothing. And remember that all the same problems of highgrading and lack of enforceability exist with this one as well. I'm sure I could remove four cords of wood from an area and if caught and the stumps measured, say it was only two cords, the trees were short, and never even get to court.

The idea behind a "hands-off" area of the first 10 metres is that other than specific restoration work to achieve a better, long-term buffer zone in certain areas, it is very easy to police. If someone sees stumps in the first 10 metres of a buffer zone, you can be pretty sure something illegal has taken place. Enforcement of regulations should be very easy. If you allow random cutting, there are not enough enforcement people to check all the waterways and there is no way to measure what has been cut.

5. Sharing responsibility:

On the Round Table, we looked at how connected things are, especially in a small place like Prince Edward Island. The potato farmer is also a recreational fisherman; the beef farmer with cattle in the stream eats mussels; we all have friends who are looking for employment; dairy farmers have trouble competing with the potato growers for renting land since the prices have shot up; poor agricultural prices are reflected in economic downswings. There seem to be strings attached to all of us. This is exactly what I have learned from forests, that things are connected, that you can't look at anything in isolation, that all parts must be strong and intact.

Some of the comments around buffer zones I have heard seem to be attempts to shift blame. People blame causeways, beavers, muskrats, ducks and gulls, a shellfish plant, recreational fishers walking in streams and the Department of Highways for causing the problems downstream. Granted, some of these are serious contributors, especially Highways, but they should not be used to avoid taking action on immediate problems. People also want buffers for feedlots but not small herds; buffers for row crops, but not for cattle. Pointing fingers at others to deflect criticism is not a useful tool, it just makes others defensive and takes you out of the web of people trying to find solutions to our problems.

6. How not to consult with the public:

I did not come here to slam any organization, but I will point out that the Forestry Division seems to think that they do not have to discuss things with the public. When addressing the forest recommendations, your Standing Committee report consistently talks of consulting with the Forest Partnership Council, not the public. That might be convenient, but the FPC is made up of five industrial partners from the forest sector (including a woodlot owners group with few members), four forestry officials who hold the purse strings, and someone from the Southeast Environmental Association who has personally told me he's "not up to speed on the issues". They have offered me a seat, but the structure is so poor that I'd have to be masochistic to be involved. It would be as though government had set up the Round Table with eight people from the Potato Producers Association, seven Department of Agriculture reps who funded it and myself. I never would take part in such a process. So please find some way to respect the views of the public and truly value their input. Otherwise we keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

7. Government's role in providing leadership:

There will be no more round tables or royal commissions; people are tired of talking and hoping that some government-appointed body would find answers and then be taken seriously. It took a lot of work to get people to buy into this process, because the fine recommendations of other bodies had been ignored in the past. I would urge the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Environment to stick with the recommendations from the Round Table, the 10 metre buffer zone on seasonal streams and an additional 10-20 metres on year round waterways. Look at the riparian zones not as a source of wood fibre but for all the other values that have greater importance. Fence cattle out of the streams and improve upslope farming practices. Seek partnerships with other groups, both farming and non-farming. Push the federal government to help fund progressive initiatives that benefit the entire community, such as windbreak and buffer zone plantings, Environmental Farm Plans, and subsidies for new techniques to control soil erosion. There is always money around to do good work.

If we all contribute, we can help farmers, through tax breaks and incentives and make it a situation where everyone benefits. Things are changing on Prince Edward Island, and one of the skills that is desperately needed are ways to manage that change. I would be much happier to see Islanders working together and solving these problems than Federal agencies taking people to court. How could anyone on any side of the issue ever hope to win a court battle? The lawyers would win, but everyone else would lose respect, time and money. If the Round Table report is not supported, we will have all wasted a lot of time and money, and squandered a golden opportunity to be leaders in the field of sustainable resource development and sustainable communities.