Quantum Forest

Sometime ago I wrote about water pollution issues, extending the comments in this other post. Last Sunday, the Sunday program presented a feature piece on the problem, this time tackling the effects of pesticides and herbicides on human health (read a transcript).

The Sunday program was basically a rehash of the arguments conducted for months in various web sites, including the Tasmanian Times, and did not provide any new evidence. As such, it was just another example of TV following the blogosphere—while reaching more people. As a biometrician, I expected the reporter to ask questions like ‘Is the prevalence of strange diseases in St Helen any different from the rest of Tasmania?’ before jumping into easy conclusions. The data for answering that question should be available from the Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services.

Despite of this, the issue highlights the poor communication of the forest industry with the community, as well as plenty of room to improve the transparency of the system regulating the application of chemicals in the State. There are some basic conditions that should be met by all users of herbicides and pesticides in the state (including forestry and agriculture):

• People have the right to know what is being sprayed in the state, so they can make decisions accordingly. There should be a registry open to the public with products, doses, locations and dates of application.
• There must be a clear demarcation and proper buffers for areas subject to chemical spraying.
• Selection of chemicals and their doses have to be carefully established.
• If there are more environmentally friendly products they should be preferred over more toxic ones.

As an example of the last point, Forestry Tasmania (the manager of State Forests) stopped using atrazine and simazine in 1997, while Gunns and other private companies still keep using them, despite the existence of more benign chemicals.

In addition, Gunns’s and the State Premier’s attempt to stop—through legal manouvers—the TV station broadcast was, put politely, unintelligent. Firstly, the chances of stopping a TV station are very slim; secondly, it creates a very poor impression of ‘we have something to hide’; and, finally, it does not help the forest industry’s cause.

Having a healthy, profitable industry requires constant improvement of forest practices and a broad support from the community. Opportunities for closer scrutiny and external validation should be welcomed.

One of the good things of having a job is receiving an income that I can spend as I prefer. One of my monthly expenses is supporting charities. I like the feeling of contributing to something useful—and it is tax deductible. There are many good causes, and I tend to support organisations that work improving people’s lives, like Amnesty International or World Vision.

Today I friend brought to my attention the Sponsor a Giant campaign to save the Styx Valley. This is organised by the Wilderness Society to provide the Society ‘with both lobbying power and the financial support needed to protect ancient trees’. Contributors pledge A$50/month and get:

• Latest Edition of Wilderness News
• Styx information pack
• Double sided El Grande image
• Journey into the Old Growth CD Rom
• Styx sticker
• Special welcome letter with El Grande press release on the back
• Sponsor a Giant certificate

I couldn’t stop comparing with World Vision’s Sponsor a Child campaign, where for A$39/month the child’s community receives help ‘for vital development work such as providing clean water, immunisation and healthcare and training in improved farming methods’, and the sponsor receives:

• A picture folder with photo and details of your sponsored child, and information about his/her country
• A yearly report on your sponsored child’s progress plus a new photo
• Your choice of a regular online newsletter or printed magazine updating you on World Vision’s work around the world.

After thinking for two milliseconds, I chose a child.

This was the question I asked — tongue in cheek, almost a year ago — in The Agora. How come that I bought a bottle of ‘organic water’ in Scamander (north-eastern Tasmania), or the high prices for crappy ‘organic tomatoes’ (small, full of blemishes and tasting no different from a normal one), or the resistance against GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) in many parts of the world?

I have participated in a few discussions about GMO and some people have a visceral reaction against them, because they are unnatural. Well, plastics, planes, cars, computers are unnatural and we happily interact with them in a day to day basis. People eat varieties of crops and fruits that are the result of mutations induced through radiation exposure, but they will complain against GMO plants. People complain against cloning, but they will buy apple or rose varieties that are, in fact, a clone. What does make a chimera, clone or GMO so different from a ‘natural’ organism?

Similar issues arise with the distinction between native and exotic animals, for example. Of course exotic animals must be native to somewhere in the planet. A related distinction is often made between ‘cute and furry’ and ugly animals. Thusly, people complain about poisoning a possum, but will happily eat a beef steak or a chicken burger, poison a spider (normally native) or squash an insect (probably native too).

I have no answer for this situation, but my sense of curiosity makes me wonder about the differential treatment given to living organisms based mostly on cultural codes.

This has been an interesting week if you care about the environment. During the last two days I read WWF’s ‘A blueprint for the forest industry and vegetation management in Tasmania’ document. I have to say that, although I disagree with some points, it is a commendable effort. This is the first time that I read a document coming from an environmentalist organisation about Tasmanian issues that shows good use of available information and willingness to negotiate.

The blueprint tacitly acknowledges that many environmental issues hitting the headlines in Tasmania have either no substance or have been blown out of proportion (at least from a biological point of view, and I am leaving room here for cultural values, for example). That may be heresy, blasphemy and anathema for many, but it is certainly how I perceive large proportion of the environmental debate in Tasmania.

Not surprisingly, local activist groups took no time on ditching the document and claiming that WWF has no knowledge of Tasmanian issues. However, in the past that never stopped the Wilderness Society, for example, on joining forces with the WWF on forestry issues, as a customary web search of the Society’s site will show. If you read the blueprint, it covers not only forest ecosystems but also things like grasslands, which are much more endangered than forests but are rarely mentioned by local environment activists, probably because they are not ‘cute and furry’.

The usual fringe elements will claim all sort of conspiracy theories and dark deals between WWF, the government and the forest industry. We will surely soon see some commentators involving the Tasmanian Conservation Trust in seedy deals too. Any willingness to negotiate is treason (’sell out’ was used too), because ‘we’ own the truth and ‘they’ are evil — a certainly fine example of George Bush’s view of the world. Opposing negotiation has the virtue of maintaining conflict, a situation that makes small groups look much more important than they really are.

It has also been interesting to see many environmentalist organisations trying to stifle the debate, putting pressure on WWF to delay the release of the blueprint. Furthermore, the ‘Dear Leaders’ of the environmental movement are trying to present an ‘all the community is outraged’ view of the report, as well as a monolithic opposition to it. Many readers will realise that monolithic and environmentalism are words that rarely go together.

I do not know what the forest industry will do (I am just a researcher), but I would like to see industry studying the proposal and trying to find common ground with WWF. This would certainly help to reduce, if not eliminate, some of the worst tensions present in Tasmanian society. Call it an early Christmas wish.

This post expands on a compelling invitation.

At the end of July, the Australian branch of WWF released ‘A blueprint for the forest industry and vegetation management in Tasmania’ (available here as PDF, 1.47 MB). I have to acknowledge that, despite of some errors, the document seems to be a genuine effort to provide a feasible alternative to Tasmania’s never ending environmental discussion. I always appreciate positive contributions to the debate, particularly when it will put the author(s) in a difficult position. Good on you guys!

However, some environmentalist groups have already expressed their opposition to the document, giving all sorts of excuses. The fact of the matter is that the WWF’s proposal has the potential to deactivate a big part of the environmental conflict, and many of the organisations opposing the blueprint depend on the existence of controversy and disagreements (see my previous post on the conflict industry).

A big unknown is the position that the forestry industry will take with respect to the blueprint. I hope that the industry will see the light and support it, if not in its current form, at least in a revised, consensual form. However, I will not hold my breath: there is too much mistrust in the environment.

Once again I have been admonished by environment fundamentalists. This time my sin was to question the usefulness of that sacrosanct ideal of all things green: the precautionary principle. I could start questioning the existence of THE principle; in 1999 Pers Sandin found at least nineteen vague formulations of the principle (Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5: 889-907), ranging from strong risk avoidance — making technologically advance impossible — to weak versions equivalent to motherhood statements. However, I will not go there, because the reason for this post is a broader discussion on the quality of public debate in Tasmania.

It seems that many people struggle to deal with the concept of genuine dissent and intellectual honesty. They are so convinced of their stories — repeated just too many times — that they find not possible to honestly differ from the ‘blatantly obvious truth’. The dissenters must be paid for their opinions, they have to be unethical and any attempt to point to flaws on the believer’s discourse is an attempt to silence them.

This dualistic point of view, where there is only good and evil (à la George Bush), does not accept compromise or negotiation. In this framework there are only winners and losers, and any attempt at a ‘middle of the road’ agreement is considered treason. A clear example of this point is the reception of Peter Garrett’s candidacy as a sell out in some green circles. May be Peter Garrett is being used by Labor, most likely there is a symbiotic relationship, where both the party and the candidate see an improvement for their respective positions. Not that I would even consider voting for him in an election, but it seems reasonable to give the guy a chance.

I shall ascribe the nastiness of the debate to parochialism rather than to malice. It may well be that people here has never had the opportunity to participate in a real discussion. It is possible that targeting people rather than ideas is just a left over from more isolated, colonial times. It is likely that people are just repeating old examples and following some bizarre models of conversation.

Independently of the reason, what is the consequence of this style of ‘discussion’? I think that it will alienate everybody but the most patient or recalcitrant people and will end up with an apologia rather than a debate. Maybe that is the idea: to create the perfect echo chamber effect, without dissenting voices, where all of ‘us’ know that all of ‘them’ are wrong. Good luck with that.

After being flamed in Tasmanian Times due to my previous post, I sent the following reply:

I am sorry to disappoint some of my correspondents, but the precautionary principle is not one of the pillars of modern science, despite its Often Capitalised Name. In addition, I did provide a link with a proper definition and discussion of the principle, actually, one of the plethora of definitions that populate internet. My interpretation of the principle was used to characterise the no-to-whatever attitude so prevalent in Tasmania.

I am also familiar with the principle; in fact, I even contributed to write part of the page that I linked to, particularly the mention to ignoring opportunity costs. As such, the principle is favoured by many people with a static rather than a dynamic view of the world, who put a large emphasis on the potential negative effects without consideration to the potential again benefits of a technology. Some people would like to have proof that [insert your pet topic here] does not have a negative effect. Sorry, it is not possible to prove that, and even our legal system uses not guilty rather than innocent when dealing with evidence. You will also find many scientists, not only in industry, who are not big fans of the principle.

I would propose the following thought exercise for supporters of the principle. Let’s suppose that we are in the 1940s and that we need to decide if we should go ahead with the green revolution, i.e., the increase on the use of fertilisers, pesticides and genetically improved varieties for food production. If we had applied the precautionary principle, we would still be waiting to see if we should implement the revolution. As a result, we would have had hundreds of millions of people dying of starvation and much larger areas of land converted from forests to agricultural land in a vane attempt to feed them. Some may argue that this is the wise way to go but, of course, they are not part of the people struggling to survive. The green revolution had both positive and negative effects, but judging technology based only on its negative effects ignoring the cost of making a decision certainly does not sound wise to me.

Going back to the Scammell report, it seems that many people participating in the debate confuse correlation and causation. The fact that two variables are associated does not mean that one is causing the other. An exercise for the reader would be to plot house prices on year or number of interstate visitors on year. You will get a similar relationship to the one on number of plantations shown in the report. I do not see anybody suggesting that tourism or real estate prices are responsible for the fate of oysters. Returning to the Percival report, is it too painful to read and understand its conclusions?

P.S. 2004-08-06: On 2^nd August, the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment (DPIWE) released a Review of the Scammell Report (PDF 234 KB). The executive summary starts:

The Scammell report is an unscientific report that provides no evidence of a link between aerial spraying of chemicals in the George River catchment and either oyster deaths in Georges Bay or Devil Facial Tumours. Furthermore, the report provides no evidence of contamination of water supplies and no evidence to support its alarmist calls for a ban on aerial spraying either in the catchment, or more generally.

This is the second review of the report with the same conclusions, and even yesterday’s The Mercury editorial comments on the low quality of the report.

Open a newspaper in Tasmania and you would be forgiven for thinking that ‘the end of the world is near’. The rivers will dry, wildlife will go extinct, forests will disappear, etc. Whatever we do we are warming the planet, destroying the environment, etc. Whatever we do should be stopped and regulated. We should
apply the precautionary principle and do not perform any activity that may have an environmental impact. Note: of course if we apply the precautionary principle to current technologies, we could not use electricity, cars, computers, mobile phones, etc, but I am digressing here.

Then one realises… hang on a minute! Do we have so many real environmental problems? And then we proceed to discard some not-so-real problems. Later, from the list of real problems, we may study them and see that not all of them are equally important. This is an extremely important idea that is often (almost always) lost in the discussion. If we are going to tackle environmental (or any other kind of problem for that matter) issues, we are making a better use of resources if we deal with the ones with the highest benefit/cost relationship. Try to convince some activists about that!

The Copenhagen Consensus is a brave attempt to rank big challenges faced by humanity, considering the impact of the challenge, the cost of dealing with the challenge and the existence of limited resources. Their recently released list of priorities (PDF, 74KB) considered the answer to the following question: ‘if the world would come together and be willing to spend, say, US$50 billion over the next five years on improving the world, which projects would yield the greatest net benefits?’ The answer classified by area and project quality (VGP: very good project, GP: good project, FP: fair project and BP: bad project) was:

• Control of HIV/AIDS (Diseases, VGP)
• Providing micronutrients (Malnutrition, VGP)
• Trade liberalization (Subsidies and Trade Barriers, VGP)
• Control of malaria (Diseases, VGP)
• Development of new agricultural technologies (Malnutrition, GP)
• Small-scale water technology for livelihoods (Water and Sanitation, GP)
• Community-managed water supply and sanitation (Water and Sanitation, GP)
• Research on water productivity in food production (Water and Sanitation, GP)
• Lowering the cost of starting a new business (Governance and Corruption, GP)
• Lowering barriers to migration for skilled workers (Migration, FP)
• Improving infant and child nutrition (Malnutrition, FP)
• Reducing the prevalence of low birth-weight (Malnutrition, FP)
• Scaled-up basic health service (Diseases, FP)
• Guest-worker programs for the unskilled (Migration, BP)
• Optimal carbon tax (Climate, BP)
• The Kyoto Protocol (Climate, BP)
• Value-at-risk carbon tax (Climate, BP)

in that order. Before you start complaining about the low priority for climate change, please read the extensive discussion and documentation for making the decision about the ranking. If you do not agree with these priorities, ask yourself how would I try to objectively rank the challenges faced by humanity? Then, please follow your recipe and do it!

If you see groups always complaining about the environment, but not prioritising their complaints, please ask them: do you have an interest on perpetuating conflict?

My previous post was a quick reply to some concerns on the effects of forestry activities on carbon. The reasoning behind the concerns seems to be that forestry activities in Tasmania have a profound impact on the carbon cycle and, therefore, on a global scale climate change (aka global warming). During my first reply I did not have much time to elaborate on the basis of the claims, point that I want to tackle with some ‘back of an envelope’ calculations, using information freely available in internet.

According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), in charge of compiling official forest statistics, there are 3,869 million ha of forests in the world (State of the Forests 2003, Table 2. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there are approximately 3.4 million ha of forests in Tasmania, or 0.088% of the World’s forests. From this, 1.268 million ha are reserved, leaving us with 2.085 million ha that could potentially be harvested, or 0.05% of the world’s forests.

The annual report of the Tasmanian Forestry Practices Board shows that harvesting in Tasmania for 2002/03 was: 35,320 ha of Native Forest (14,600 ha of clearfelling and 20,720 ha of partial logging) and 10,110 ha of plantations (7,870 ha clearfelling and 2,240 ha thinning). Just to make things easier (and being generous with carbon) we will assume that the total 45,430 ha were completely harvested. This would be 0.001% of the World’s forest cover.

In addition, we need to consider that forests are carbon sinks for only one third of the carbon, with another third sank in the oceans and the last third remaining in the atmosphere. So, we are talking of 0.001% of one third of the carbon. Furthermore, I should mention that the same statistics that I presented above, show that at least 76% of the harvested native forest in Tasmania is regenerated as native, 16% is converted and the rest goes to other land uses (agriculture?, not sure). Thus, the proportion of short rotation plantations in the total estate is small, particularly considering that the current priority for plantations in State Forests is longer rotations (25-30 years) for solid wood products.

In summary, the concern about the effects of forestry on global climate change seems misplaced, because I am sure that there are much more pressing environmental issues to be considered at a global scale (for example, poverty). In general terms, I would consider the forest industry as either neutral or with slight positive effects on carbon. If Australians really want to make a difference on greenhouse gases emissions, the first step would be a reduction on fossil fuels (PDF file) consumption in mainland Australia.

Of course this explanation somewhat assumes that society should be deeply worried about carbon emissions and global warming, which is not necessarily the case. But that is another post.

One of the constants of the forestry debate in Tasmania, is that once the current hot issue starts to deflate, environmentalist groups move to ‘the all new issue’^TM. After a few weeks on water, now we are moving into carbon, probably trying to catch the wave of Hollywood’s latest disaster movie: ‘The day after tomorrow’. By the way, you can read critical comments on the movie by David Suzuki — hardly anti-green — who doesn’t take the movie seriously and by Bjorn Lomborg –the author of ‘The skeptical environmentalist’ — who certainly points out that the premise of the movie is rubbish.

Coming back to the topic of this letter, I sent the following letter to Tasmanian Times on reply to someone pointing out how we dare not to do enough on carbon capture:

Dr Geoff Couser (letters, June 4) refers to Table II, page six of Richards, K.R. and Stokes, C. 2004. A review of forest carbon sequestration cost studies: a dozen years of research. Climatic Change 63(1): 1–48 (Paper available through the University of Tasmania library if anybody is interested). The paper includes a list of forestry practices to increase carbon sequestration on forestland, including:

1. Afforestation of agricultural land: the forest industry has been doing this for years, planting land that at some stage was cleared of forest cover for agricultural production. Of course some environmentalists will then claim that this practice undermines rural social structures…

2. Reforestation of harvested or burned timberland: This is normal practice in Tasmania, where harvested land is either regenerated to native forest or replanted into plantations.

3. Modification of forestry management practices to emphasize carbon storage: one of the largest modifications is to increase forest productivity per ha, because there is a direct relationship between above ground biomass (the part of the tree that we see), and below ground biomass (the part of the trees that most contributes to long term carbon storage). We are increasing productivity through management including fertilisation, tree breeding, etc.

4. Adoption of low impact harvesting methods to decrease carbon release: in some forest types (e.g., dry eucalypt forests) harvesting methods involve gradual removal of biomass. In other forest types (e.g., wet eucalypt forests) harvesting involves quick releases of carbon. You may be aware of the current discussion on alternative silvicultural schemes for wet eucalypt forests, which results will address — at least in part — the impact of harvesting methods.

5. Lengthening forest rotation cycles: rotation lengths for native forest are still under study, while for plantations in State Forests have tended to increase, because of the emphasis on obtaining solid wood products, which require larger trees.

6. Preservation of forestland from conversion: forty percent of native forests are already in reserves and will not be converted. Most of the remaining sixty percent will not be converted and, although part of it will be harvested, it will be regenerated as native forest. Some parts will be converted from native forest to plantations, thus still keeping a forest cover. Plantations will be replanted after harvesting. Therefore, most of the forestland will continue as forest cover.

7. Adoption of agroforestry practices: I think that is one of the main aims of Private Forests Tasmania and is also included as part of the output for the CRC for Sustainable Production Forestry (particularly of project B3). Both organisations are based on Tasmania and receive public and private (from the forest industry including FT) funding and technical support.

8. Establishment of short-rotation woody biomass plantations: this is constantly being done, although some environmentalist groups tend to paint an apocalyptic view of plantations (after initially supporting their establishment).

9. Urban forestry practices: I guess that at least this part should be responsibility of city councils.

I have been personally involved in estimations of the carbon capture capacity of plantations and the effects of tree breeding on it (a PhD student is working on this, publications coming soon). Thus, this topic has filtered to forest policy and practical research, although it seems that news of its application in Tasmania have not filtered enough to the general public.

Finally, the claim that the science done by forestry only refers to tree harvesting is utterly wrong. A quick look to the not-so-up-to-date list of publications coming from the Warra Long Term Ecological Research Site will reveal a much richer research reality. Ironically for Dr Couser, there is even a publications category entitled Climatology, Carbon & Biomass. The fact that the research conducted in Warra is only a fraction of the total research effort, highlights even more the unfairness of the correspondent’s claims.

I certainly believe that the multiple use of forests is possible in Tasmania, particularly if people are willing to see the big picture rather than getting stuck in the numerous, always changing, pet topics that flood the discussion. Land management will always be a complex activity, because we are dealing with a myriad issues. However, at the end of the day the decisions boil down to a cost/benefit analysis — and I am not talking only about money here. Do the benefits justify the costs? I think so.

P.S. This post has a follow up over the envelope calculation.