Among the lively responses to my last post, “Minnesota’s forestry hedgehog” was a comment from Terry Weber. Terry wonders why the Foundation even asks about the meaning of forest productivity, reminding us that the Minnesota Forest Resources Partnership (MFRP) has developed a clear definition: “Improving the quality, quantity and availability of wood fiber in an environmentally responsible manner.”
Clearwater County Land Commissioner Bruce Cox chimed in to clarify that MFRP’s definition concerns timber productivity. Indeed, the Vital Forests/Vital Communities Seeing the Forest AND the Trees project is intent on looking at productivity through the lens of all three forest “benefit baskets” – social, ecological and economic.
Based on lots of good input, including from blog readers, we have revised the Scandinavian tour’s key learning objective. Instead of “maximizing growth/yield” we will focus on “increasing the quality and value of forests and the products that come from the land in Minnesota and other Lake States.”
Do you think that, as Harvey Tjader suggested in his blog comment, the secret formula to getting to this Holy Grail might be managing for diversity, in the forest and the industry itself?
Do you think it’s possible to do both in Minnesota? And why or why not?
January 16, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Stakeholders tend to focus on their pet forest benefit rather than the “big thing” that provides those benefits… the forest. This focus on forest benefits ultimately pits value against value, timber productivity vs. ecological integrity; deer vs.song birds; solitude areas vs. motorized trails; you get the picture. As a result forest managers (those of us charged with managing the forest) have often been influenced by ever-changing forest benefit flavors-of-the-month, attempting to be forest-benefit providers. Our focus should be, first and foremost, on the forest. I would submit that the MN forestry hedgehog is the forest; and if MN has the best managed forest in the world, the associated benefits for our forest-based communities will fall into place. In our modern forest landscape the forest industry needs the forest; and the forest needs the forest industry. Forest-based communities in areas where the timber industry has been significantly reduced; lose jobs, lose forestland to other uses, and lose much of their community identity. We must maintain a strong and diverse forest industry and maintain a healthy and diverse forest, to enhance the quality of life in our local forest-based communities. The apparent direction of MN forest management in the 21st century, in my opinion, has us on the right path. We’re moving away from the strictly stand by stand approach to forest management; to a landscaped based approach distributing various stand-level silvicultural practices across the forest to achieve a desired forest condition. Increasingly MN forest managers are approaching forest issues at different scales (big and small). For example, improving the global competitiveness of the pulp/paper industry and enhancing our local value-added forest industry; or using landscape analysis to determine recreation trail potential and using site level practices for appropriate trail design. One way to quantify the shift to this forest management approach is the increase of third-party forest certification of forestlands (public and private) in MN. It verifies to citizens and stakeholders that our forests are well-managed and that we are on a path of continual improvement. MN forest management is pretty good now and we’re striving to be the best. I believe that we can acheive this lofty goal if we keep our eye on the prize… the forest.