The Professional Forester - Times Web Design

December 2013
The official publication of the Ontario Professional Foresters Association
Number 212
The Professional Forester
every issue
Business Cards
18
Member News
19
Coming Events
20
want to place an ad?
Located under Classifieds on the OPFA website and in The
Professional Forester you can find postings of available
employment opportunities. You may also post your resume
for potential employers to view on the website.
WEBSITE RATES:
Employment Opportunities
$60
Personal Resume
$60
NEWSLETTER RATES:
this issue
For a schedule of rates please contact the OPFA
office at [email protected].
Area and Ownership of Forest Land in Canada
3
The Economic Contribution of Private Forests
5
Forest-Related Ecosystem Goods & Services (EG&S)
7
Landowner Management Agreements Ensuring
Sustainable Forest Management on Private Land
7
Canadian Woodlot Owners and Certification of
Sustainable Forest Management Practices
8
Tembec Freehold, Kapuskasing
9
OPFA Office Reorganization Update
9
Certification of Private Woodlots in Southern Ontario
10
A Perspective on Southern Ontario Forests
11
Private Land Forests and MNR: When Private
Ownership is no Longer in the “Provincial Interest”
12
OPFA Letter to MNR re: Transformation Plan
13
CIF Letter to MNR re: Transformation Plan
15
OPFA 2013 Regional Fall Members’ Tour
16
Registrar’s Update
17
Lakehead University Ring Ceremony
19
www.opfa.ca
[email protected]
Ontario Professional Foresters Association
5 Wesleyan St., #201
Georgetown, ON
L7G 2E2
905-877-3679 or [email protected]
EDITOR
Caroline Mach, R.P.F.
[email protected]
EDITORIAL BOARD
Matt Benson, R.P.F., Chair
Sarah Bros, R.P.F., Caroline Mach, R.P.F.,
Jim McCready, R.P.F., Lauren Quist, R.P.F.,
Mike Rosen, R.P.F., Eric Thompson, R.P.F.,
Matt Wilkie, R.P.F.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
David Milton, R.P.F.
REGISTRAR
Susan Jarvis, R.P.F.
The Professional Forester is published quarterly by and for
members of the Association, as well as those interested in
the profession of forestry in Ontario.
Unless specifically stated, views and opinions expressed do
not necessarily represent those of the Association, its
Council or the employers of members.
Printed in Ontario, Canada
REPRINT PERMISSION
Requests to use material published in The Professional
Forester should be directed to the OPFA at [email protected] or
905-877-3679.
Page 2.
Canadian Association of Forest Owners
[email protected]
www.cafo-acpf.ca
C
anada’s Private Forest – An Important Resource
94% of Canada’s 402 million ha of forested land is in public ownership. This is a far higher proportion than in most other
forested countries. These 377 million ha of forests belong to all Canadians and the benefits are shared by all of us.
It is easy to forget that a significant portion (approximately 6%) of our forested land is actually privately owned. These
forests are owned by 450,000 individual woodlot owners, farmers, investors and companies. Although this is a small
proportion of the total forest area, these forests tend to produce more environmental goods and services (EG&S) and make
a greater economic contribution due to their location and management. Privately owned forests tend to be located in the
more productive regions of the country and closer to urban areas. As Canadians we all benefit from these environmental services, however it
is important to remember that the cost of providing EG&S from private forests is born solely by the individual landowner rather than the
general public that enjoys the benefits.
Canada’s Forests
Canada has the third largest (after Russia and Brazil) area of forest in the world - 402 million ha. According to the National Forestry
Database our forest includes 310 million ha of ‘Forest’ and 92 million ha of ‘Other Wooded Land’ (remote, northern and scattered).
Only 215 million ha of the 310 million ha of Forest is considered to be suitable for management and production of timber. An even smaller
area, perhaps 188 million ha, is actually under management. These figures are estimates as the area of publicly owned forest land under
management license to forest products companies’ changes periodically depending on the state of the economy.
Only 25 million ha, or 13% of the 188 million ha of managed forest land in Canada is privately owned but these lands produce 18% of
Canada’s timber supply. The location of these privately owned forests generally follows the pattern of railway construction and agricultural
settlement. 20 million ha or 80% of the private forest land is in private woodlots averaging 40 ha in size and owned by an estimated
450,000 rural families. 5 million ha or 20% is termed, ‘private industrial forest’. These properties are 10,000 ha or larger and are owned
by a mix of forest products companies, individuals, municipalities, pension funds, investors and other organizations.
Table 1 – Ownership of Forested Lands in Canada (402 million ha)
Category of Forest
Total
Territorial
Provincial
Federal
Private Industrial
Private Woodlots
Other Wooded Land
92
20 (22%)
72 (78%)
-
-
-
Forest
310
36 (12%)
243 (78%)
6 (2%)
5 (2%)
20 (6%)
Totals
402
56 (14%)
315 (78%)
6 (1.5%)
5 (1.5%)
20 (5%)
Managed Forest
188
-
163 (87%)
-
5 (3%)
20 (10%)
(Continued on page 4)
Page 3.
(Continued from page 3)
Despite the relatively small area of forests in private ownership, these privately owned forest lands provide significant
environmental and economic benefits to Canadians.
Page 4.
Canadian Association of Forest Owners
[email protected]
www.cafo-acpf.ca
P
rivate Forests – Small Area. Big Benefits.
Despite the relatively small area of forest in private ownership, the privately owned lands make a disproportionate
contribution to the national timber supply and the socio-economic well-being of families living in the rural regions of Canada.
The private forest lands cover only 6% of Canada’s total forested area but a higher proportion (13%) of the managed
forest land. The proportions vary greatly across the country.
Table 1 – Provincial Forest Land under Active Management Licences and Private Forest Ownership in Each Province
(000 ha & %) From: Unpublished reports and Dancereau & de Marsh 2003.
Province
BC
Alta
Sask
Man
Ont
Que
NB
NS
PEI
N&L
Total
Provincial Forest
under Licence(e)
Private Industrial
46,700
21,700
5,800
10,300
25,000
38,800
2,900
1,000
0
11,000
163,200
900
25
-
-
744
1,000
1,210
850
-
65
4,794
Woodlots
1,200
1,535
400
987
4,795
6,800
1,785
1,780
238
36
19,577
% Private Forest
4.3
6.7
6.5
8.7
18.1
16.7
50.1
72.5
100.0
0.9
13.0
Total harvest
(000 m3)
2005 - CFS
database
Harvest on
private land
(000 m3)
% of total harvest
86,880
27,546
5,330
2,498
23,371
38,464
9,968
6,249
569
2,400
203,325
10,014
3,715
72
-
2,122
9,012
5,259
5,479
556
-
36,200
8%
13%
-
-
9%
23%
53%
88%
98%
-
18%
Socio-Economic Benefits
The annual harvest from privately owned forest land
depends greatly on the state of the market.
Over a 10-year period from 2000-9 the average harvest
from private forest forest land was 32 million cubic meters
of sawlogs and pulpwood.
This is an important contribution to the socio-economic wellbeing of rural Canadians.
Forest Land Productivity
Private forest lands are more productive than publicly
owned land. The private lands are generally located in
regions of the country where early agricultural settlement
was concentrated and where the railways were built to
serve these early settlements. The soils in these regions are generally more fertile and the climate more moderate than in the northern parts
of Canada.
Table 2 – Productivity (cubic meters/ha/year) of Forest Lands in Canada by Ownership
1The
Category of Ownership
Territorial
Provincial
Private Industrial
Private Woodlot
Totals
Managed Forest Land (M ha)
-
163 (84%)
5 (3%)
20 (10%)
188
10-yr average harvest (M m3)1
-
146 (82%)
11 (6%)
21 (12%)
178
Avg. harvest m3/ha
-
.90m3/ha
2.2m3/ha
1.05m3/ha
0.92m3/ha
10-yr average harvest is for the period 2000-9 based on data from NRCan National Forestry Database.
(Continued on page 6)
Page 5.
(Continued from page 5)
Level of Active Management
The majority of the 5 million ha of private industrial forest land is actively managed to produce timber. In many cases timber production is
the owner’s main business. The private industrial forest lands on the BC Coast and in the Maritime Provinces are among the most productive
forest lands in Canada. They are carefully managed for timber and other values. Most are SFM Certified.
The 20 million ha of private woodlots are managed by 450,000 owners
to meet a wide variety of objectives. For some owners the annual
revenues from woodlot harvesting makes an important contribution to the
family finances. For others the woodlot may be harvested periodically
when market conditions offer attractive prices or when the family needs
some extra money to cover a significant expense. It is estimated that 2030% of private woodlots are not managed for timber but for other
objectives. All private forest land, whatever the management objectives,
make a contribution to the rural economy and provide forest-related
EG&S.
It is important to note that an estimated half of the privately owned
forest is in the southeastern regions of Canada where the Deciduous,
Great Lakes - St. Lawrence and Acadian Forest Regions are located.
These three forest regions contribute the majority of the high quality
tolerant hardwoods found in Canada.
Outdoor recreation opportunities are often provided by private forest lands
adjacent to settled areas.
Page 6.
Canadian Association of Forest Owners
[email protected]
www.cafo-acpf.ca
important pool of carbon. Green wood is
about 25% pure carbon by weight. All of the
carbon in trees has been taken out of the
atmosphere through photosynthesis and tree
growth. The national forest carbon reservoir
is sustained by keeping forest land in a
healthy growing condition. Forest
management operations can take place
Wildlife Habitat: Canada has maintained the without damaging the forest carbon reservoir
provided that the harvested area is
majority of the original forest cover, except
regenerated promptly. Further, the majority
in the densely populated regions. In urban
The EG&S include:
of the harvested carbon is also stored in solid
areas and where the majority of the
wood products, resulting in net carbon
Watershed Regulation and Flood Control: A land has been cleared for agriculture, farm
uptake.
woodlots and other forested lands provide
forested watershed has a great capacity to
important areas of wildlife habitat for forest
absorb water into the soil, re-charge the
Outdoor Recreation: Forest lands together
dwelling wildlife - animals, birds and
water table and moderate surface runoff
with lakes and streams provide an excellent
amphibians.
during heavy rains and melting snows in the
resource for outdoor recreation such as
spring. Due to their location near settled
Biodiversity Conservation: Many species of hunting, fishing, hiking and camping. With
regions, private forests often play an
their proximity to settled areas, private
trees, shrubs, ground vegetation, birds,
essential role.
forests are often widely used for recreation.
animals, amphibians and insects require a
Conservation of Water Quality: Forests help forest ecosystem to thrive. Since private
Landscape Aesthetics: The forests on hills
to conserve two key aspects of water quality forest lands tend to be located in the
and mountains provide the backdrop for
southern regions of Canada they are more
- water temperature and sedimentation.
tourism and are enjoyed by all Canadians,
Trees provide shade to keep water cool. Cool productive and provide habitat for species
both urban and rural. Often, the vistas we
water can maintain a higher oxygen content that are indigenous to these regions.
enjoy the most are a result of the careful
than warmer water. Insects fall off the
management of individual landowners.
branches of trees beside the watercourse and A Reservoir of Forest Carbon: It is widely
provide food for fish and other aquatic life. recognized that forests constitute an
ociety places an increasing
value on the forest-related
EG&S contributions made by
private lands. In most cases
these contributions are taken
for granted by Canadian
society as ‘free goods’ for
which society neither
recognizes nor rewards the landowners.
S
Erosion is the main source of sedimentation. A
forested watershed has more moderate
runoff patterns and less erosion. Private
forests in particular make an important
contribution to the conservation of aquatic
habitat and to the purity of water for
community water supplies.
Steve Bros, M.B.A., R.P.F.
Merin Forest Management
irkland Lake District contains
approximately 283,547 ha
of patent land with
approximately 42% of this
private land containing Crown
reservations on some or all of
the trees. All of this is the
legacy of mining and land
development policy created by past
governments to ensure the Crown would have
control of the forest. Under the Crown Forest
Sustainability Act this created a unique
situation where a large area of Crown forest
was on private land. The Kirkland Lake MNR
district, over the years, used various methods
to try and ensure sustainable harvest
practices, including a lottery system to
K
regulate harvest levels.
In 2006 Merin Forest Management, on behalf
of Timmins Forest Products (TFP) a large
private landowner in the district, approached
MNR with the possibility of implementing a
long term sustainable forest management
plan for these trees based on a hybrid of the
Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program
format and the Forest Management Planning
manual template. This led to the creation of a
long term Landowner Management
Agreement (LMA) which ensured sustainable
forest management of these Crown reserved
trees.
ground rules and area of concern
prescriptions from the surrounding Crown
forest (Timiskaming). The plan, the first of its
kind, took over two years to complete with
the signing of the first LMA by TFP in 2007
for the period 2007 to 2017, covering about
1,300ha. It has been a success story with the
amount of land TFP manages under LMA
currently at about 5,000ha with annual
harvests of about 10,000-20,000 m3 and
tree planting of 100,000 to 200,000 trees
combined with various natural regeneration
prescriptions, ensuring sustainable forest
management. Since 2007 the Kirkland Lake
MNR have implemented several LMA
agreements with various landowners.
The plan utilized approved silvicultural
Page 7.
Peter deMarsh,
Chair, Canadian Federation of Woodlot Owners
pproximately 9% of
Canada’s productive forests,
about 19 million ha in all, are
owned by 450,000 families,
mostly in southern parts of the
country. The average size of
ownership is 43 hectares.
Owner objectives are as
varied as any other feature of a large group
of Canadians. Production of timber and other
products has been important for many
owners, though this proportion is declining
due to demographic change and reduced
market access during and following the
industry crisis of 2006-2011. Other
objectives include recreation, real estate
investment, and nature appreciation and
conservation.
A
proud of their management record and have
sought certification as a form of public
recognition for their good practices. They
have also been able to afford what amounts
to a real luxury for an individual owner of 40
to several hundred hectares. Most of us don’t
enjoy that kind of wealth. For us to
participate in a certification program, most of
the costs for planning, record keeping and
audits would have to be covered by someone
else, most likely the company buying our
timber, a government agency, or perhaps a
Foundation.
Much of the effort of our associations has
been devoted to designing systems to reduce
the costs by developing methods to allow
large numbers of owners, several hundred to
several thousand, to participate as groups
Through our provincial associations such as the and reduce costs, especially for audits.
Economies of scale are essential. While we
Ontario Woodlot Association, and our
have had some success in developing
national Canadian Federation of Woodlot
Owners, we have followed the development approaches that would bring costs down
substantially, there remains a significant gap
and implementation of forest certification
between cost, available resources and the
standards closely since the mid 1990s. Our
main motive has been defensive: to maintain benefits that will accrue to woodlot owners.
Most of the progress in involving woodlot
market access. In some situations, forest
industries have experimented with bonuses on owners in certification has been made where
some outside resources have been available.
the price paid for timber as a tool to
encourage good management practices. This Examples include the program operated by
the association in Nova Scotia, several of the
approach has meshed nicely with the
regional associations in Québec, and the
promotion and education efforts of our
Eastern Ontario Model Forest. Generally,
associations. In most provinces, there have
these successful programs have been
been a small number of owners who are
intended as models or pilots, in the hope that
demonstration of woodlot owner interest, and
of the feasibility of practical economies of
scale would lead to increased interest from
industry. We are still waiting (with a few
modest exceptions).
Are there any prospects this will change in the
near future? Maybe timber markets will
expand enough to create some pressure on
industry to more actively develop supply
chains based on timber from woodlots and to
consider sharing the cost of certification.
There may be another possibility as well.
Payment for Environmental Services programs
are expanding quickly around the world,
especially for the conservation of water
quality. If these programs begin to be
applied to forests around Canadian towns
and cities (where most forests are familyowned woodlots), the same organizational
methods to aggregate supply and reduce
transaction costs will be needed as is the case
with forest management certification. So
maybe large scale certification of woodlots
will be directed at improvements to water
quality protection (or wildlife habitat or
maybe even carbon), rather than timber.
Many of us continue to believe it can and
should be for both.
Save the Date!
Our Natural Resources:
Changing Faces, Changing World
57th Annual OPFA Conference
April 23-25, 2014
Thunder Bay, Ontario
Details at www.opfa.ca.
Page 8.
Kevin Del Guidice, R.P.F.
Planning Superintendent
Forest Operations Northern Ontario West
Forest Resource Management Group
embec’s Private (Freehold)
land is located within the
boundaries of the Gordon
Cosens Forest (GCF),
primarily located within the
Northern Clay Belt of the
Boreal Forest Region of
northeastern Ontario. As part
of the Gordon Cosens Forest, the Freehold
has been Forest Stewardship Council® (FSC®)
certified since 2003 (RA-FM/COC-000241).
This managed land consists of one full
township and seven partial townships and
comprises approximately 73,500 hectares of
productive forest.
T
extend the current boundaries of the
Missinaibi River Provincial Park, to include the
entire length of the Missinaibi River. At the
time, SFI owned five townships adjacent to
the Missinaibi River. The five old private
townships reverted to the Crown and became
a part of the Gordon Cosens Forest while an
area of former Crown land became privately
owned.
The area within the Freehold lying south of
the Paypeeshek River has been designated
as a Quality Fisheries Zone (QFZ) in the
Chapleau District Fisheries Management Plan.
The Freehold has been enrolled in the
Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program
(MFTIP) since January 1, 2002. The current
Managed Forest Plan for the Freehold is for
the period from January 1, 2010 to
December 31, 2030 with a detailed
The property has a large portion of mature
management program for the ten year
to over-mature boreal forest which
period from January 1, 2010 to December
developed from large fires in the 1800s as
well as second growth harvest areas from the 31, 2020.
1940s, 1950s and 1960s, which are now
vigorous young boreal forests. The Freehold
also has concentrations of white pine (and
The Tembec Freehold was acquired in June
some red pine) and black ash scattered
1999 as a result of a land exchange
throughout the property. There is also an
between the Ontario Government and
area in the southeast corner that has a
Tembec, formerly Spruce Falls Inc. (SFI). This
concentration of elm trees of various sizes,
land exchange was initiated in 1993 to
satisfy a desire by the Province of Ontario to which is quite unique at this northerly latitude.
membership.
Council and the Executive Committee will be
undertaking a search for our permanent
Executive Director early in the New Year with Tony developed strong and enduring
I wanted to share with you
a selection being confirmed by May 1, 2014. relationships with MNR and a multitude of
the following update on the
other associations and stakeholder groups. He
OPFA head office
was a great advocate of forestry and our
Effective November 1, 2013, Ms. Susan
organization:
Association.
Jarvis, R.P.F. has been appointed to the
Effective November 1, 2013, position of Registrar for the OPFA and will be
taking on all matters related to the Registrar Tony’s legacy to the OPFA is best captured in
your executive committee has approved the
function. Susan will have as her primary focus the theme he always used in expressing the
appointment of Mr. David Milton, R.P.F. as
importance of the OPFA in serving the public
responsibility for discharging the duties of
Interim Executive Director for the OPFA.
interest. The OPFA Member focus is on
Registrar as prescribed in the Professional
Minding Our Forests, Managing Their Use.
In his role as Interim Executive Director, David Foresters Act, 2000 and OPFA by-laws,
including registration and enforcement.
will be responsible for the day-to-day
Best regards,
management of the Ontario Professional
On behalf of Council and the membership of
Foresters Association (OPFA) within its
Graeme Davis, R.P.F.
the OPFA, I want to thank our outgoing
mandate as defined by the Professional
President
Executive Director/Registrar, Tony Jennings,
Foresters Act, 2000. He will be responsible
for the planning and execution of OPFA’s by- R.P.F. for his efforts and successes in achieving
laws (except those related to the Registrar’s the OPFA strategic directions. He worked
diligently to serve Council, our standing and
responsibilities), strategies and policies.
advisory committees, and the entire
G
reetings to All Members,
Page 9.
Scott Davis
Forest Certification Coordinator
Eastern Ontario Model Forest
I
ntroduction
Generally speaking, forest
certification is a process
designed to encourage the
responsible management of
forests. Independent third
party auditors evaluate
forestry policies and
operations to determine whether their
managers and owners are in compliance with
established forestry standards. Owners who
meet the required standards will have their
forests certified as “well-managed.” This
label will provide assurance to both forest
owners and consumers of wood products that
their forests are being managed to a set of
standards that are measured against
environmental, social and economic indicators.
Certification includes two components:
certification of the forest and certification of
the forest products through chain of custody.
Chain of custody certification is earned by a
facility that uses an accounting system to
track raw materials from certified forests and
other sources through each manufacturing and
ownership stage until the resulting product
reaches the store shelf or the end-user.
The three certification systems used in
Canada are: the Canadian Standards
Association (CSA), the Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC®), and the Sustainable Forestry
Initiative® (SFI). Forest certification is
accepted to be management that maintains
and enhances the long-term health of forest
ecosystems for the benefit of all while
providing environmental, economic, social,
and cultural opportunities.
Private Land Certification
The Eastern Ontario Model Forest (EOMF) is a
not-for-profit, charitable organization that
brings together stakeholders from different
interest groups to research, implement and
practice sustainable forest management
principles. We take a practical, ground level
approach to developing quality programs
that will ensure the health and sustainability
of southern Ontario forests.
In 1999 forest certification became a topic of
interest in the EOMF region. The interest
originated from forest owners, members, and
partners who wanted to know if forest
certification was an appropriate, affordable
and applicable management option for
private forest owners in the region. Led by
the EOMF, with support of key partners like
Page 10.
the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
Ontario Woodlot Association and Domtar
(Cornwall), a pilot project was initiated in
June of 2000 to engage private woodlot
owners in certification.
forestry focused workshops a year. The other
method by which woodlot owners can get
certified is working through a Forest Manager
that has been endorsed or accredited by the
EOMF. Regardless of which option woodlot
owners choose all certified members must
In January 2003 the EOMF achieved a forest have a forest management plan, pay an
management certificate under the FSC
annual certification fee and sign an
certification system for 3,500 hectares of
agreement to manage to the FSC principles.
private forests on behalf of 13 private land
owners. The EOMF selected the FSC
Reasons Forest Owners Get
certification system primarily because there
Certified
were performance based draft standards for
The Eastern Ontario Model Forest has worked
the Great Lakes St. Lawrence forest region
for many years with forest owners to make
and the FSC logo and label had presence in
FSC certification an affordable, realistic
the marketplace.
management option for their woodlots.
Participating forest owners manage their
Today the EOMF manages a Type 1 FSC
woodlots for multiple diverse values and in
Group Certificate issued by the Rainforest
turn get certified for a number of different
Alliance. The Group Certificate currently
reasons. In our experience FSC certification
includes 135 private forest owners in three
has provided participants:
groups, accredited Forest Managers, nine
 Assurance of responsible management. Not
Community Forests and an urban forest,
all landowners know and understand
collectively representing over 55,000
operational forestry. FSC certification
hectares of forest. The EOMF recently
celebrated its 10 year anniversary of being provides the framework to implement
certified and was recognized as a leader in responsible resource management and
southern Ontario’s certification movement by ensures the integrity of the woodlot remains.
 Pride of ownership and leaving a legacy is
the Rainforest Alliance.
another theme common with owners we have
worked with over the years. Woodlot owners
The EOMF has assisted others interested in
are a hardy and proud group and generally
certification by providing:
want to show others their hard work and
 Local and regional forestry workshops
efforts and having a FSC certified forest sign
related to FSC certification;
 Assistance to 20 forest based businesses in nailed to the gate represents to them their
years of work and effort.
achieving chain of custody certification;

Access to markets for certified timber. In
 A suite of videos and relevant resource
2000, when the EOMF started the project,
materials to assist forest managers and forest
there were limited markets for wood and it
based businesses interpret and implement
was primarily only in pulp. Although it has
forest and chain of custody certification;
taken a number of years the demand for FSC
 Provincial training workshops for forest
certified solid wood has increased and
based businesses related to chain of custody; landowners and County forests are selling
and
wood to primary forest product producers
 Access to a professional network of
who now have a chain of custody and market
organizations and partners related to natural those FSC credits.
resource management and forest certification  The ability to sell FSC certified maple
in southern Ontario.
syrup. The EOMF region is home to many
families that have made maple syrup for
How Landowners Achieve Forest many generations. Producers who have their
woodlot certified and produce maple syrup
Certification Through the EOMF
Woodlot owners that are interested in having can now apply a FSC label to their syrup and
promote good forestry through this certified
their woodlot certified have a couple of
options for inclusion. The first option is to join non timber forest product. The EOMF was
among the first in Canada to produce FSC
one of the three forest owner groups in
certified maple products.
eastern Ontario. These forest owner groups
have a volunteer board of directors, pay an
(Continued on page 11)
annual membership fee and host a few
Peter Williams, R.P.F., Terry Schwan,
R.P.F., and Ken Elliott, R.P.F.
rivately owned forests in
southern Ontario are among
the most ecologically and
economically important
forests in Canada. In the
developed landscapes of
southwestern and eastern
Ontario, the forests are
special because of the moderate climate,
variety of species, site qualities and
accessibility. Since settlement, the landscape
has historically been dominated by
agricultural uses with forests retained as
wood reserves or on challenging sites.
Woodlands that recovered after settlement
were heavily impacted by cutting during
WWI, the depression and WWII. Recently,
woodlands have been under increasing
pressure for urban development and
agriculture. According to MNR SOLRIS
mapping, about 3,500 hectares of forest
have been lost between 2000 and 2010.
Most of this has been lost to urban
development and clearing for farming. In
Chatham Kent alone (with very little forest)
over 400 hectares of forest has been
converted to agriculture in the past two
years.
P
While the percentage of forests varies from
3% in parts of the southwest to over 50% in
some counties in eastern Ontario, they play
important roles ecologically and
economically. Thirty percent forest cover is
now suggested as a minimum threshold at the
watershed level. Clearly much of southern
Ontario has less than 30% forest cover,
suggesting that the forests have increased
(Continued from page 10)
personal consumption also provide economic
benefits to landowners and others. The forest
industry provides important employment and
business opportunities in rural areas and
significant contributions to the farm/rural
The economic productivity of southern Ontario economy. While the economy has taken its
toll over the past five years, the industry
woodlands is weakly documented, although
continues to employ as many or more people
work in the southwest documents that wellin the same geographical range as in
managed forests can compete well with
agricultural uses economically over a 30 year Northern Ontario.
time frame. In many cases, the quality and
Southern Ontario forests face severe threats
growth of valuable hardwoods and conifers
can provide exceptional short and long term from many sources. Chestnut and elm have
returns. On good sites in southern Ontario, the disappeared or been reduced to marginal
tree quality, veneer potential, site index and species. Beech and butternut are suffering
from exotic diseases. Ash is undergoing
volume growth are well above published
serious loss due to emerald ash borer. In
figures. This makes sense when you consider
many areas the remnant woodlots are small
that where soils can produce 150 bushels of
and fragmented. Exotic flora and fauna are
corn per acre, forests on similar sites would
affecting native biota. Farm woodlots in the
also be very productive. In addition, when
rural areas are heavily exploited and in
managed through sustainable partial
many cases harvests are not done in a
harvests, forests provide numerous other
sustainable manner involving members of the
environmental services including: oxygen
OPFA. Thus forest structure and composition
production, erosion control, pollution
abatement, and wildlife habitat; to mention a are highly altered.
few.
In addition to providing forest productsbased benefits, the forests receive intense
The economic values of southern forests are
recreational use from landowners in rural
supported by an industry that, while nearly
areas and urbanites. Rural and urban
invisible, is active, diverse and innovative.
residents spend countless hours walking,
Many sawmills, fuelwood, post and pole
biking, studying nature, relaxing, hunting, and
producers, and other facilities are scattered
cutting wood (as recreation). The exposure to
throughout the landscape, ranging in size
nature many Ontarians receive from outdoor
from a few to many employees. They make
activity provide significant mental and
valuable forest products from working in
physical health benefits that are difficult to
woodlands that start at a hectare or so in a
quantify.
heavily-settled, agricultural and urban
landscape. Wood products harvested for
significance as wildlife and species refuges,
sources of forest products, for passive and
active recreation and for the many other
aspects of human and environmental health.
of private forest owners, has the potential to
provide these sought-after high value
certified forest products.
In conclusion, forest certification can be a
For more information on the EOMF or their
good tool to assist private woodlot owners
with the management of their woodlots, from FSC certification program contact Scott Davis
the planning phase right through until the post at 613-258-8422 or [email protected].
operational monitoring and in some cases
may attract added value for the timber.
There seems to be a current demand for solid
wood certified products and southern
Ontario, through established forest-based
businesses, community forests and a network
Page 11.
Michael Rosen, R.P.F.
he writing of this article is
almost the story itself – a
virtual moving target where,
due to MNR “transformation”,
I saw many of my MNR
contacts that I sought to help
write this article “surplussed”
from a world I was so much a
part of a scant 11 years ago. Truth be
known, the story of how I entered forestry
begins with my fascination with private land
forests. After completing a B.A. at Trent
University in the late 70s I took a year off to
cut firewood at a professor’s house outside
Peterborough in my own rural paradise (much
to my urban parents’ chagrin). I remember the
MNR truck pulling up one beautiful afternoon
to “check on the trees”. There was a
Woodlands Improvement Act agreement
(“WIA”) on the property and I watched in
fascination as the MNR forester walked
through the five year old plantation of red
pine and white spruce doing a survival
assessment. My dream (at that point in my
life) was to be that MNR private land
forester, going farm-to-farm giving
reforestation and woodlot management
advice.
T
When I graduated from forestry in the early
80s and was posted to MNR’s Cochrane
District (an area of 98% Crown land) I made
sure that I maintained a private land
component to the job – I signed the first two
WIAs in Cochrane District history. To do that I
had to convince the Timber Supervisor and
District Manager that planting these trees on
private land was in the “provincial interest” –
that these highly productive, close to mills,
and easily accessible areas would be part of
the future fibre, employment, and
recreational requirements of the province. In
1988, I transferred to MNR Maple District as
a Management Forester and eventually
became a Stewardship Coordinator in
Ottawa after the “Common Sense Revolution”
cuts to the private land program in the mid90s. I left MNR in 2002 to live the NGO life
with Tree Canada in Ottawa, but I obviously
missed my calling. I should have stayed with
MNR and taken a run at convincing those who
make strategic decisions that eliminating the
private land forestry program in Ontario was
really not in “the provincial interest”. The
other piece to this story is that I moved to
Québec in the mid-90s so that I developed a
very unique opportunity to contrast the two
provinces’ approaches to private land forests.
Page 12.
What a disappointment it is to see private
lands, which make up about 10% of Ontario’s
forests (and house about 90% of Ontario’s
population) and are frequently the most
productive, biodiverse and valuable forests,
relegated to the ever-increasing list of “we
used to do thats”, leaving private
landowners, in need of expertise and
incentives to manage their forested lands for
the provincial good, to their own devices. Yes,
there remains a Managed Forest Tax
Incentive Program to help offset some of the
taxation on the forested portions of private
land – but this is an extremely far cry from a
“private land forestry program”.
way substitute for the previous MNR private
land program which involved tree planting –
over 30 million trees a year in southern
Ontario in the early 80s – and full extension,
advisory and WIA services.
Today there are very few within the Ontario
government who dare even breathe the
words “private land forests” together with
“public resource”. I often wonder about the
professor’s pine and spruce plantation the
MNR forester visited in Douro Twp, Ontario
so many years ago. At this point they would
be about 40 years old and have probably
never been thinned or pruned. There have
probably been at least three landowners
What a contrast this is to Québec where
since the property was sold in the 80s. No
private landowners are encouraged by
doubt well-meaning but uninformed exprograms to do silvicultural work (including
urbanites who trundle off to a big box store
tree planting), based on plans formulated by to buy wood imported from who-knowsforest engineers of the province’s own
where and are now the proud landowners of
professional forester organization, the OIFQ. 20 acres of crown-heavy sticks that could
Where there are: professional foresters at
very well be 20 metres in height. Thin and
virtually every upper tier municipality,
top-heavy, these sticks are now waving
subsidized by the provincial government, and awkwardly in the wind, subject to storm
marketing boards to encourage wood sales, damage, insect infestation and stand
in addition to a municipal tax incentive
stagnation with a dark, undeveloped
offered to “wood producers”... Indeed, even understory. And that may well be the legacy
in times of restraint, Québec has continued to of MNR’s private land program in Ontario –
maintain a “forest culture” on rural, private
a public resource...wasted.
lands.
Indeed, it was only two years before I wrote
the two WIAs in Cochrane District that the
MNR unveiled its 1982 “Private Forests... A
Public Resource” green paper – a research
document into the world of private land
forests in Ontario and other jurisdictions. It
was supposed to be followed by a “white
paper” - an actual policy document that
would guide a new approach to managing
private land forests. It never came...the
political will was not there. Instead, what
followed was a litany of withdrawals of
services from southern (read: private) Ontario
in the name of “protecting core business”,
“bolstering a field presence in the Area of
the Undertaking” etc. etc. Ontario quickly
witnessed the closing of its forest nurseries,
the cancelling of the WIA program, the
withdrawal of the Agreement Forest and
Extension Service programs – keystones of a
provincially funded private land program.
The vacuum left was partially filled with the
tree planting services of the Conservation
Authorities and the formation of Trees
Ontario and its mainly provincially funded
“50 Million Tree” program. But these in no
Page 13.
Page 14.
Page 15.
David G. Milton, R.P.F.,
Executive Director
The Members are generally supportive of the
Peer Review approach to the competence
maintenance audit function of the
requirements for Members...and, they would
This fall I had the pleasure of welcome the opportunity of a webinar or an
online tutorial with advice on how best to
being the road warrior for
the annual OPFA regional fall complete the required documents covering
Members tour. In the past – as competencies, plan and scope.
a willing and often attendee of the OPFA
The Members are pleased to see the
seminar in Toronto or Huntsville or
“advocating for the profession” activity being
Peterborough - this year I was in the chair
given more emphasis. They were cautious in
(literally) to get out on the road and travel
their enthusiasm – given the resources that
the province.
can get consumed in a consuming file. A
From October 15 through November 12 from couple of notes were offered. Concentrate
Midhurst (first) to Sudbury (last), sessions were the visibility profile of the OPFA within
held with collections of OPFA Members across Ontario (take a pass on the national/
international stage) and among those groups
Ontario, as well as the chance in Toronto to
meet with the Masters of Forest Conservation that need to be aware that professional
forestry is a regulated practice. Associate
class and in Thunder Bay with collections of
the BScF undergrads. All the local organizers with like and complimentary organizations
that are in the business of promoting forestry
did a fabulous job in making arrangements
on the landscape, avoid getting caught up
and encouraging their peers to attend. A
unnecessarily in the front end.
couple of rooms were filled to overflowing
with more than two dozen ...and there was
The Members continue to have divergent
one date with just one Member.
opinions of the OPFA special initiative,
Growing Professionalism in the Forest. There
Each of the sessions was to operate over a
four hour time frame, to offer the chance for are those that support the “how OPFA might
best participate in enhancing professionalism
OPFA-centric news and views for discussion
in the forest” that includes the directed action
among the group ...and for reaction of the
to draw forest and natural resources
Members to what the OPFA was doing. In
technicians into a regulated forum with the
broad terms there were three topics in each
foresters...and at the other end of the
session – the melding of the OPFA strategic
plan with the team approach to management; spectrum those that are against any move
that will “diminish “ the foresters brand and
the highlights of the year’s activities of the
standing committees – crown/private/urban recognition. The GPITF portion of the sessions
forests and career awareness; and, the status was often the most animated...and the topic
that generated many of the one-on-one
of the OPFA special initiative, Growing
conversations with me afterward.
Professionalism in the Forest. Of the three,
Members were particularly interested in a
good hearing of...and discussion around...the One of the sessions was a “chat over lunch”
among a half a dozen of us in The
team approach to management, and in
particular how the regulatory and advocacy Woodlands in Longlac halfway through the
one day trek from Thunder Bay to
core activities were being delivered.
Kapuskasing. For an hour and a half we
talked around the three themes ....and had a
A few take-away notes:
really fine conversation among us. If time and
distance prohibit a half day session, just go
The Members are all very positive as to the
and have lunch.
rigour and new energy they see has been
brought to the concerns/complaints/
discipline/unauthorized practice focus of the One snippet on the logistics – don’t combine
OPFA responsibilities as the regulator of the the fly and drive format. Make your plans ex
practice of professional forestry. They are all Toronto and do the complete counter
clockwise loop near north northeast northwest
interested in the outcomes of OPFA cases
and return. That is likely more efficient for
related to those activities.
T
Page 16.
wenty two days out...19 tour
stops...218 OPFA Members
and friends attending...
time and effort than the combination
trip...and it saves schlepping all the gear you
need for a road trip on and off Bearskin and
Porter.
And one last important reminder...for all those
that attended...the four hours is credited to
your continuing education credit accumulation.
So...if I don’t see you at the AGM in Thunder
Bay in April...or any other happenstance
before Thanksgiving 2014...
... I’ll see you on the OPFA 2014 Regional
Fall Members Tour...
(with my thanks to OPFA’s Judy Biggar who
did all the heavy lifting to organize me)
Susan Jarvis, R.P.F.,
Registrar
due Dec. 1. If you have not already done so, 2“Concerns” represents matters brought to the
please pay your dues promptly to avoid
attention of the Registrar that are not formal
possible late payment fees. Online payments complaints. These are evaluated and
are an option available to you.
reviewed with Executive Committee and
decisions taken related to further action.
 Competency Reporting – Practising
members are required to complete their
Firstly, I am pleased to have competency reporting by Jan. 15 (see The
Registration and enforcement activities of the
been recently appointed as
OPFA continue to increase and more activity
Professional Forester, September 2013
your OPFA Registrar effective November 1,
is expected due to our focus on the
edition, for instructions on how to complete
2013. This role expands the registration
maintenance of a high standard of
this requirement).
duties I performed as Associate Registrar and  Review of OPFA By-laws – Some revisions professional forestry practice in Ontario.
now includes additional enforcement duties as to OPFA by-laws and registration forms are
outlined in the Professional Foresters Act,
In closing, I wish all of you a safe and
being considered by your OPFA Council.
2000, regulations and by-laws.
Changes are being considered to improve the enjoyable holiday season. I look forward to
working on your behalf as Registrar as we
application processes and to improve
Before going further, I would like to express transparency, objectivity, impartiality and
move forward into 2014.
my sincere thanks to Tony Jennings, R.P.F. for fairness for all applicants. Details will follow
his mentorship and guidance as I transitioned in March, before any by-law changes are
into this position. As your past Registrar, Tony discussed and voted on by the membership at
was instrumental in the design and
the Annual General Meeting.
implementation of the national Credential

Registration Practices Assessment – The
Assessment Process (CAP) – a competencyOffice of the Fairness Commissioner will
based assessment for full membership
complete a second general assessment of
applicants. This process was developed and
OPFA registration practices in February,
approved by the Canadian Federation of
Professional Forester Associations (CFPFA), of 2014. These assessments occur every three
years (last occurred in 2010) with the
which the OPFA is a standing member. The
resulting action plan being developed and
CAP process provides an avenue for
implemented in the intervening years.
applicants that have not graduated from
accredited forestry programs to be assessed
Enforcement Activities:
in accordance with nationally approved
professional forestry Certification Standards.  The Discipline Committee received training
Our registration practices, including the CAP on the discipline process, conducting a public
process, were reviewed by the Ontario
hearing, making to decision, and developing
Office of the Fairness Commissioner (OFC).
and writing reasons. This training was
The CAP process was identified by the OFC
delivered in Toronto on November 30, 2013.
as an “exemplary practice” within the
 Public Discipline Hearing occurred
Ontario regulatory community. This success
December 6t 2013, in accordance with the
was achieved to a great extent as a result of OPFA Discipline Process.
Tony’s extensive knowledge of, and
 Enforcement Statistics for the period
experience in, registration and best
December 1, 2012 to November 30, 2013,
governance practices. Tony’s work as
on Unauthorized Practice, Complaints,
Registrar over the past eight years will
Discipline and Concerns are provided in the
benefit Ontario, our members, applicants,
table below:
and other national professional forester
Enforcement Action
Total Files With Action Files Open1
Files Closed in 2013
applicants for decades to come.
(updated 2013-12-01)
in 2013
Updates on the OPFA Core Business of
Unauthorized Practice
4
3
1
Registration and Enforcement:
Complaints
7
2
5
Registration Activities:
Discipline
1
1
 Annual Membership Renewal is ongoing.
4
4
Concerns2
Please check the website (www.opfa.ca) and
1“Files Open” can mean under investigation,
ensure your personal information is up to
being reviewed by Complaints or Discipline
date. Annual dues for all members (except
Life, Honourary and Student members) were Committees or matters before the court.
T
his section of The Professional
Forester will provide regular
quarterly updates on
registration and enforcement
activities.
Page 17.
Your Business Card Here!
Advertise your company or services here.
Members
$25 per single issue
$80 per year (four issues)
Non Members
$40 per single issue
$140 per year (four issues)
If you would like to be included in the Business Card section
please email [email protected].
The benefits of being a member! The OPFA has
arranged a Corporate Class Business Rental
Program agreement with Enterprise Rent-a-Car. To
receive your special rate you can do one of three
things:
1. Book online at www.enterprise.com
2. Call 1-800-736-8222
3. Contact your local branch
You will be asked to provide your Corporate Class
ID number which has been mailed to all members.
Your Corporate Class Business Rental Program
offers special pricing anytime, any day with
unlimited mileage. And you can rent anywhere in
North America – even for the family trip! If you have
any questions, call the OPFA office at 905-8773679.
Have you ever wondered what you can do to support the OPFA?
The OPFA functions because of the volunteer contributions of its members who serve on the Association’s many Committees.
Have you considered volunteering some of your time to an OPFA Committee? Would you like to participate but are concerned about
lengthy time commitments and travel?
The Editorial Board of The Professional Forester may meet your requirements and we are eagerly looking for additional members.
Editorial Board members work remotely. Twice yearly we meet by conference call to determine the upcoming themes for each issue.
Editorial Board members are expected to solicit articles in support of each theme. The work is rewarding and requires only a small
contribution of your time. If you are interested in joining the Board please contact the Chair, Matthew Benson, R.P.F. at
[email protected].
Page 18.
New Members
Suspension Lifted
Full
Chris Pereira
The following member resolved all
outstanding administrative issues and the
suspension of their certificate of registration
was lifted effective October 3, 2013:
Provisional
Steve Purves
Amanda Tremblay
Brandon Williamson
Student
Will Merritt
Resigned
Ernie Gardy
Tim Reece
requested a paper copy. A copy is also
available on the website (www.opfa.ca). To
make sure that you receive all important
member information, please check that your
email address and other personal
information is accurate on the website.
Thank you.
∞∞∞
Eric Thompson, R.P.F. has been appointed
as Executive Director of the Ontario Woodlot
Association.
∞∞∞
The Professional Forester is now delivered
electronically except for those who have
Paul McAlister, Chair, Ontario
Professional Forestry Foundation
n Saturday June 1, Kevin
Ride, R.P.F., the Councillor for
the NW Section and I
attended the 2013 Silver
Ring Ceremony for Lakehead
University – Faculty of
Natural Resources
Management. The main
purpose was to present the graduates of the
Honours Bachelor of Environmental
Management (HBEM) (10 Students) and the
Honours Bachelor of Science in Forestry
(HBScF) (20 Students) with the traditional
Canadian Institute of Forestry silver rings. The
event was held prior to the University’s
regular convocation exercise.
O
Kevin and I also had the privilege of
presenting the Ontario Professional Foresters
Association Award. This honour is awarded
annually on the recommendation of the
Faculty of Natural Resources Management to
a graduating student from the HBScF Degree
program. The student must
have demonstrated both
academic excellence and
an interest in
professionalism during
his/her undergraduate
years. This year the
award went to Steve
Purves, who graduated
from the HBScF program.
Steve is a student who
returned to school
specially to obtain the
educational credits
necessary for
accreditation for
membership in the OPFA (left to right) Kevin Ride, R.P.F., Councillor NW Section, OPFA; Paul
and, as such, is well
McAlister, Chair, Ontario Professional Forestry Foundation and Steve
deserving of the award. Purves, Recipient OPFA Award
Page 19.
The Professional Forester
Publications Mail Agreement Number
40026838
Undeliverable copies can be sent to:
5 Wesleyan St., #201, Box 91523
Georgetown, ON L7G 2E2
Coming Events
EVENT
DATE
LOCATION
Kawartha Lakes (Lindsay) Woodlot
Conference & Trade Show
Feb. 15
Lindsay, ON
Kemptville Winter Woodlot Conference
Feb. 19
Kemptville, ON
Mary 613-258-8241 or
[email protected]
Ontario Forestry Association AGM and
Conference
Feb. 21
Alliston, ON
www.oforest.ca
Ontario Woodlot Association AGM and
Conference
March 8
Peterborough, ON
www.ont-woodlot-assoc.org
April 23-25
Thunder Bay, ON
www.opfa.ca
October 5 - 11
Salt Lake City,
Utah
www.cif-ifc.org
57th Annual OPFA AGM and Conference
CIF and SAF AGMs and XXIV IUFRO World
Congress
CONTACT
Arthur Gladstone 705-439-3891
If you know about an event that should be listed here, please send the information to the Editor at [email protected].
Submissions
Submissions are welcome, please send them to:
Caroline Mach, R.P.F., Editor
[email protected]
Deadline for the next issue:
February 15, 2014
Page 20.