Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0258.042 1996-1998 Hawaii County Council ~ ~ . , August 18, 1997 _ - Trees as an Asset: Technical Elements of Forestry I.eonazd A. Newell Pacific Islands Forester USDA Forest Service, Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry Honolulu, Hawaii There aze few natural systems that human beings treat more cazelessly on the one hand, nor revere more deeply on the other, than forests. Natural forests world-wide have shrunk by some 50% within the current Century, due mainly to human activities, with conversion to agriculture being the lazgest single factor. As they have diminished in area, natural forests have become more valuable--following ' the same immutable laws of supply and demand as other goods. In Hawaii, natural forests began shrinking when the first humans arrived. Reduction of azea and/or ecological degradation in Hawaii's natural forests accelerated under European and American business enterprises such as ranching, sugaz cane and pineapple, and has been exacerbated by introduced weeds and insects of all kinds. This downwazd trend has occurred in many other places and times when the art and science of forestry has not been applied. In my presentation today, I want to provide a common understanding of six basic and important forestry questions that bear on matters before you now: (1) what is forestry? (2) what objectives does forestry pursue? (3) what are forest rotations, and how are they determined? (4) How much land is needed? (5) what do forests do for the genera] community and the ecosystem of an island, and what is the "down side"? and (6) what aze the public policy options for consideration? Forestry may be defined most simply as the application of accredited forest knowledge and experience to the management of forest land, to meet the legitimate objectives of the landowner or land stewazd while protecting or enhancing the integrity of the ecosystem. Examples of such objectives that different forest land jurisdictions may have, that would involve application of technical forestry, are: ' Private ranch or comoanv: derive income; stabilize soils; improve water retention; manage trees with cattle or other livestock. Water Manap~ment District: protect watershed from disturbance and/or pollution. publicly-manaEed forest: balance benefits between many, often-conflicting recreational pursuits; manage and restore natural forests; contribute to the forestry sector's success. small Private landowner "A": invest in the future of Hawaii's natural forest by restoring native forest on mauka land; harvest forest products to finance investment and return 15% for risk. Ooaaa Dia 25--'~"r''"" t, 1N. pr"'~~te~H s eu~ - t991 ]tet. ~pUG l 8 . small private landowner "B": maximize economic return from plantation of introduced trees on former agricultural land; grow (1)short-rotation Eucalyptus to generate cash flow in 7 years and shorten carrying cost of investment, and (2) long-rotation hardwoods for high value products; protect and build up soil for maximum long-term profitability. As these four sets of objectives show, forestry is a complex field that must deploy a host of skills in silviculture, hydrology and watershed management, forest ecology, forest engineering, economics, sociology, animal science, chemistry, and in providing information to important Councils such as this one. The art and science of forestry grew up in Europe, where forest destruction proceeded apace through the Middle Ages, and exploded after the discovery of the New World and the shift to a money economy. Recognizing that forest destruction would impoverish their emerging countries, leaders in France, Germany, Switzerland, and Scandanavia encouraged the growth of forest management and silviculture--the growing and tending of trees--to reverse the destructive trend. Forestry was brought to the United States from Europe by such early pioneers as Gifford Pinchot, Carl Schenck, and B.E. Fernow. I note that "forestry" is often used by the mass media and others as though it is synonymous with "logging" or "forest destruction" or "forest exploitation". It is important to make a distinction between forest management and harvesting under the control of foresters and forest engineets--which is the casein most developed countries--and logging under the direction of the woods boss who gets the most wood out the fastest, which is the case in much of the developing world. Foresters take a long view. In Normandy, Western France today you can witness the harvesting of oaks that were regenerated in 1777, for the climate and soils of the Perche hills of Normandy reward a 220 yeaz rotation period with some of the finest oak in Europe. To manage this forest over so long a time period, the Forest of Belleme is subdivided into 220 compartments. Ideally, each year the oldest is cut and regenerated by clear-felling, when abundant acorns are own the ground. Within, one year of clear-felling and regeneration, typically there are op million seedlings hectare (400,000 per acre) on the compartment. One year later there may a calf a mi ton, an over the ensuing 218 years the forest is tended and thinned until at Yeaz 220, the finest 120 or so trees per hectare (48 trees acre) aze clear-felled, and the stand is regenerated again. The wood produced in this long rotation system has helped to keep France in quality oak for a lucrative furniture, door, and craftwood sector that has earned much foreign exchange and has beautified France and many other countries for centuries. It is (demonstratedly) sustainable forestry. Of course if you are purchasing or leasing the land, or have strong cash-flow objectives, 220 year forest rotations are unthinkable. We may bracket the time horizons of forestry objectives, then, as between 2-3 years or so (for some agroforestry applications) to 220 years or so for some of the world's premier hardwoods. During my first six years with the U.S. Forest Service, I worked on the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire, where the trees grow only from May to September. We were regulated on a 120 yeaz rotation, and the value of our output per unit of land was roughly two-thirds that of Normandy. Herein Hawaii the same volume and value of hardwood C can be grown, per unit of land area, in 20-50 years as can be grown in Normandy in 220. Hawaii's t 3 t forestry potential, then, is a minimum of 4.4 times the efficiency of Normandy's excellent temperate forests, and a maximum of 6 or more times. This advantage over temperate climate areas is significant. Eazlier today I discussed the pressures on timber interests to keep rotations short, and we recognize this as a factor pushing investors in Hawaii forest enterprises toward the shorter-roatation species. However, long-term investors have reason to see Hawaii's potential for high-value hardwoods as in the range of a million dollars per 20 acres of land at maturity in 20-50 years, plus incremental returns from thinnings etc. within a rotation. ~1~ Fundamental to forestry, agricultural, or other land-intensive operations is control of sufficient land base--for at least the time of one rotation--to meet the objectives of the enterprise and hence to make the investment rational. We are witnessing today, in the bidding for available land in Hawaii, exactly these kinds of negotiations and strategy-seeking. What is a "sufficient land base"? This depends upon the intended product, and the economics of its conversion from raw material. Under current best technology, as analyzed by Groome-Poyry for Hawaii in 19f4, forestry land requirements aze: for wood chip export only 30,000 acres For a veneer mill 15,000 acres for a medium density fiberboard mill 10,000 acres for a saw mill 4,000 acres. Any of these options require significant commitments of land, hence are of concern to residents of an azea and to bodies such as yours. What benefits does forestry bring, other than the raw material for an industry that could employ a thousand people or so on this island? Perhaps the first and most important benefit that forests provide is that they are among the best means of soil retention and soil-building that can be attained in using land. Even the much-maligned Eucalyptus a"Ts, wtt(~ good silviculture, superior rates of soil retention [o any annual or short- periodicity agricultural crop. This is due to the large amounts of leaves, [wigs, and small branches etc. that are continuously falling in closed-canopy forests, that keep the soil covered with a surface that is complex, energy-and-moisture absorbent, and that builds soil fertility as it decomposes. What else do forests do for us and our human communities? Water absorption by soils is generally better under forest cover than under neazly all other land cover types. This means that (1) heavy storms are leers likely to cause floodintt in forested watersheds; (2) more water enters aquifer recharge areas; (3) surface runoff is decreased, so water in streams is generally cleaner during and after storm events, thus (4) offshore (reef) ecosystems are impacted less by forests than by other land uses. Thus in so-called "non-market" values, or "ecological services" performed by forests, we see substantial benefits to the general community, as well as direct economic benefits to investors, managers, and workers in a forestry enterprise. Along with the absorption of so much water from the ground goes the release of much of that water, as trees emit water vapor from the stomata of billions of leaves. Thus trees act as air conditioners, not only cleansing the air of carbon dioxide and replenishing oxygen, but cooling the air as they do. The physical shade of forest and tree canopies allows many opportunities for forest-based recreation, which is becoming increasingly popular given today's facts about the harmful effects of sunlight on unprotected skin. The cooling effect of forests and trees on tropical islands is of enormous value. Another technical aspect of forestry that is seen by many as a benefit is the large subject of agroforestry, by which is generally meant the growing of trees and crops or animals in combination and under many different systems, with beneficial effects for the proprietor and (usually) the land due to beneficial interactions between the trees and crops. Examples aze tall high-value hazdwoods over coffee in Central America, windbreaks on the American prairie and in Puna, and nitrogen-fixing trees with many kinds of crops and animal operations world-wide. Agroforestry systems provide opportunities for tree farmers to add cash income early in their rotations by intereropping vegetables, and at mid-through-late rotation by culturing shade-tolerant medicinal and herbaceous crops, edible mushrooms, and native plants such as maile in the understories of their forests. Agroforestry is the marriage of agriculture and forestry--the place where the disciplines meet. It has been successfully practiced in the tropics for many hundreds of years. While its advocates claim that "agroforestry is sustainable", the burden of proof is definitely on the proponent of any particular system to prove this. Any system from which more is extracted than is replaced will run down. Agroforestry systems tend to be more labor-intensive than mono-crop agriculture or multi-species high forest, hence are generally limited to a scale of some tens of acres that can be operated by a family working together. I think that such agroforests would add greatly to the quality and abundance of Hawaii's food supply, and could contribute substantial "foreign exchange" through sale of processed Hawaii-grown foods to visitors, while providing a healthy and wholesome life style to thousands of Hawaii residents. What is the "down side" of forestry as a land use to replace sugar cane? You have listened to some very scary things from people who appear to have an agenda other than forestry, and whose selection of facts to bolster dubious contentions may confuse you. I stand before you as one disinterested personally in any particular land use, though hoping as I think you do for one that tends to enhance, rather than deplete, the natural and human capital of the Big Island. Here are some of the negative things that will happen as a result of growing forests in addition to other agricultural products: ''1. Increased heavy truck traffic on roads, through towns, and around harbors. "`l. Increased noise from chainsaws, harvesting equipment, chippers etc. ~3. Temporary disruption of soil stability during harvesting. ~4. Increased demand on infrastructure (power, water, and sewer systems mainly). ~5. The "viewscape" will change unacceptably for some, from rolling fields of cane (now _ growing up in weeds) to large stands of trees. Given all of this, what are the policy options? You undoubtably have several of your own to add to this list, but I see them as four: 1. Other things being equal, favor the land use that promises the largest long-term income stream and multipliers, consistent with environmental and social goals. In simpler terms, favor the companies in any sector that invest in clean processing , as close to the end-product as possible, within Hawaii. 2. If other things are not equal, as if one company brings infrastructure chips to the table, consider carefully the values and decide which company's plan provides the greatest long- term public benefit. If this option is chosen, public participation in the decision-making process is essential where public lands are involved. 3. Establish a process whereby a panel or task group of respected community, private, and state leaders reviews the "best and most reasonable" allocation of public lands among competing uses, given a set of objective criteria such as rainfall, availability of irrigation water, etc. (Generally, irrigated land should not be used for growing forest trees, though young seedlings may need to be irrigated for a while at outplanting. Agroforestry systems and traditional agriculture should have priority for irrigation). Make the recommendations of this group binding upon the County, and get the State to buy in, if possible. 4. Decide that forestry/agroforestry is to be a major economic sector in the Big Island's future, and commission a comprehensive plan to determine how public resources (land, tax incentives, enterprise zones, etc.) should be deployed to encourage a product and species mix that complements and synergises roles of each company in the sector, while meeting County economic development objectives. Working within the framework of the Hawaii Forestry and Communities Initiative would facilitate implementation of this option. This concludes my presentation to you today. I thank you sincerely for the opportunity [o share these thoughts with you, wish you well in your deliberations, and stand ready to assist in any way within my capacity. ' References Groome Poyry Ltd., 1994. Hawaii Forestry Investment Memorandum, State of Hawaii, Dept. Of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. Newell, Leonard A. & Michael G. Buck, 1996. Hawaii Forestry: Opportunities and Uncertainties. Journal of Forestry, Vol. 94 No. 10.