The land of the Somali people, much of it arid and inhospitable, has been close to civilization and international trade for thousands of years.

Situated on the Horn of Africa, jutting out into the India Ocean, Somalia’s harbors are natural ports of call for traders sailing to and from India. Somalia’s coastline is frequented by many foreigners, in particular Arabs and Persians. But, in Somalia’s interior, the Somali are on their own.

Most urban households use charcoal for everyday cooking. It has been estimated that some families use a full sack of charcoal every four days due to their large family size. And, with this exacerbated charcoal use comes a significant amount of environmental fallout.

Because of an insufficient and cheaper alternative to charcoal and a large former refugee population, tree felling and a great dependence on charcoal in the self-declared republic of Somaliland are adversely affecting the environment. A 2007 study by the Academy for Peace and Development reports that greater than 2.5 million trees are felled each year and burned for charcoal in Somaliland. The report further stated that each household in Somaliland consumes an average of 10 trees a month.

Considering this extensive use of trees, the serious affects of deforestation should be noted. Deforestation not only exacerbates soil erosion, it also reduces rainfall availability. In addition, trees are a vital component in carbon fixing, which is the natural process of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Interestingly, the demand for charcoal remains very high, despite charcoal prices going up since 1991 with the resettlement of former refugees. Roughly 10 years ago, one sack of charcoal cost Somalis only about 5,000 Somaliland shillings, or 0.76 US dollars, but now the price is about 30,000 Somaliland shillings, or 5 US dollars. And, this price is only aggravated by rainfall, because when it rains, the trees become wet and the charcoal becomes more expensive.

It is not difficult to see that the ever rising gas prices have helped to encourage charcoal use. In past years, gas was actually cheaper than charcoal, but the price has increased dramatically. Now, one liter of gas costs approximately 4,000 Somaliland shillings or 0.61 US dollars, which is up from 1,500 Somaliland shillings or 0.23 US dollars.

Nowadays, charcoal is even the preferred fuel in hotels, which obviously consume even larger quantities of this valuable and environmentally important commodity. It has been estimated that some hotel chefs even use a full sack of charcoal for a single day’s cooking.

It is no wonder that researchers have determined that one of the main driving forces of African deforestation is the need for fuel.

It is also estimated that in sub-Saharan Africa, only 7.5 percent of the rural population has access to electricity. A 2009 report on the state of the world’s forests reports that “as household incomes and investment in appropriate alternatives remain low, wood is likely to remain an important energy source in Africa in the coming decades.”

Going back as far as forecasts made in 2001, it was suggested that there will be a 34 percent increase in wood fuel consumption from 2000 to 2020. However, as the price for fuel continues to rise, this increase is likely to be even greater. In other words, the share of wood fuel in the total energy supply is likely to decline, while the number of people dependent on wood for fuel and energy is likely to grow.

The report goes on to say that “the forest situation in Africa presents enormous challenges, reflecting the larger constraints of low income, weak policies and inadequately developed institutions.”

With this ever-increasing demand for fuel, many environmentalists are concerned that the trade in charcoal will eventually wipe out some species of trees. For example, one species of trees used for charcoal production is the Acacia bussei tree, which can produce between eight to 10 sacks of charcoal per tree. Researches are worried because the Acacia is the most preferred tree specie for charcoal production, timber and fencing, and its extensive use could force it to the brink of extinction in the Somaliland territories.

Efforts are being made, however, to stop or slow down the felling of Somaliland trees. On April 30, 2009, concerned with the impact of charcoal burning on the environment, Maroodi Jeeh, regional governor of Hargeisa (a city in the northwestern Somaliland region of Somalia), banned trade in charcoal as well as the burning of trees. Other attempts at protecting the environment have included the introduction of gas stoves and solar cookers in the main urban centers of Burou, Las-anod, Gabiley, Wajalea and Borama.

Since January, Somgas Company has been supplying gas to residents. A typical household uses an 11-kilogram cylinder for approximately six weeks. Although initial gas and cylinder prices remain high, an 11-kilogram gas cylinder plus gas costs $44.50 and is recharged at just $19.
This is certainly not expensive compared with the monthly charcoal consumption of about $15 for three 20-kilogram sacks of charcoal per household. (The gas cylinders range from two to 22 kilograms.)

According to Somaliland’s Ministry of Pastoral Development and Environment, there is still great cause for concern, even though charcoal consumption fell in 2008 compared with 2007.

Mohamoud Ibrahim Mohamoud currently heads the forestry section in the ministry. He says he is concerned about environmental degradation caused by the charcoal trade, and is working with several organizations to search for alternatives to charcoal energy. The problem that seems to drive the tree felling and forest burning for charcoal is the poverty throughout the countryside and the high demand for charcoal energy in the urban areas.

Overall, the demand for charcoal appears to be increasing daily and the burning of trees is also increasing. But, many leaders and environmentalists are now trying to encourage awareness and education among the people of Somalia and give them other sources of income, such as helping young people become involved in alternative activities such as bee-keeping.

It is obvious that other sources of income and further education and research are needed if the problem of deforestation and charcoal burning will be successfully addressed and redirected in Somalia.

With the enthusiastic complicity of the State and the participation of Canadian, US, British and South African transnational mining companies, Venezuela is seeing the execution of a project promoting the immediate exploitation of a rich gold reserve which, according to its promoters and beneficiaries, will turn out to be the discovery of the famous El Dorado — sought so remorselessly in the 16th century by Europeans in these lands.

View in Google Earth by downloading this placemark

In large-scale gold mining operations, enormous pits are dug out of the land; dynamite is often used to blast holes in the ground; ore is sprayed with cyanide solution to leach out the gold.
RainForestWeb.org

The most powerful force in Las Claritas is Crystallex, a Canadian-owned mining company. It’s not difficult to notice their presence: a high fence surrounds their huge swath of land, and at the main gate, beneath a watch tower, guards with helmets and riot sticks keep away unwanted persons. “No pictures”, says one of them harshly, even on public soil outside of their territory. It’s clear: these mining companies are here for the money and nothing else.

Another company is the US-based Hecla, which is the biggest gold producer in Venezuela. Hecla owns concessions in El Callao and El Dorado, a bit further up north, in the state of Bolivar. A third mining company, Toronto-based Bolivar Gold, holds concessions in El Callao as well. In June of 2006, the company announced the first extraction of gold at their Choco 10-field, which is supposed to hold ore reserves of 1.3 million ounces. And then of course there is the Venezuelan, state-owned CVG, which has a gold mining division.

The presence of mining companies like Crystallex and Hecla is a highly controversial issue among many NGOs and indigenous groups in Venezuela. The main reason for the controversy is the fact that the mining takes place in the Imataca Forest, a large forest reserve along the disputed border with Guyana. Though it doesn’t have the status of a national park, the area is under special administration. The Imataca Forest Reserve, which is bordered by the Orinoco delta in the north and the area of Las Claritas in the south, was created in 1963 and measures 3.8 million hectares, which makes it roughly as big as The Netherlands. The area is rich in different wood arts, gold, diamonds, copper, bauxite, magnesium, water, genetic diversity, and energy.
(source)

Mining, particularly gold mining, is an increasing threat to the world’s rainforests and to forest communities. The social and environmental repercussions of mining are particularly disturbing considering that nearly 80 percent of newly mined gold goes towards jewelry fabrication.
RainForestWeb.org

Because the Imataca Forest has the status of a reserve since 1963, it was supposed to have a Management Plan since then, but until 1997, such a plan never existed. This means that all logging and mining before that year was carried out on an improvised basis. In 1997 almost half of the reserve was given over to mining, leaving less than four percent of the region completely protected.

“… Cyanide and mercury is used for the extraction of the gold, both highly toxic substances which cause enormous damage to people’s health, and which easily pollutes complete rivers. According to Julio César Centeno, Professor at the Los Andes University in Mérida and Rapporteur to the Secretariat of the UNCED, the social and environmental costs will surpass the economic benefits by far. “The main beneficiaries will be the multinational companies.”
(source)

Water interacts with these wastes to generate contaminated fluids that can pollute soils, rivers, and ground waters. These fluids can be highly acidic and metal-laden or highly alkaline, and they often contain various forms of cyanide, depending on the waste source. Although tailings are often deposited in lined facilities, leaks are not uncommon. High rainfall, typical in the Guayana region, can aggravate this problem by causing tailings ponds to exceed their recommended capacity and either overflow or rupture dams, contaminating groundwater and nearby streams, as was the case at the Omai mine in Guyana.
source

View in Google Earth by downloading this placemark

Like so many African cities, Brazzaville’s history is one of imperialism and being dominated by European culture. The Portugese controlled the area as part of the slave trade until the late nineteenth century. The area then came under the influence of the French, who made it a protectorate and renamed it Middle Congo. Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza negotiated a treaty with King Teke on behalf of the French and the village of Nkuna was re-named in Brazza’s honour. It became the capital and the central city in French Equatorial Africa.

In 1944, as French influence in the region ebbed and Free French forces defeated the forces from France, Charles DeGaulle agreed to a meeting between leaders of French colonies in Africa, Free French political leaders, and French colonialists. The meeting, known as the Brazzaville Conference, resulted in the Brazzaville Declaration.

That declaration granted unprecedented rights to Africans living in French Equatorial Africa, including a statement that the French Empire would remain united; semi-autonomous assemblies, a form of self-government, would represent each colony; citizens colonies would have the same rights as French citizens. And be allowed to vote in French parliamentary elections; and the native population would be eligible for employment in the French colonial public service. The Brazzaville Declaration also began the establishment of economic reforms to reduce the worst effects of the exploitative system that had developed along with French colonialism.

While the results of the Brazzaville Declaration are not as positive as the declaration makes them sound, and western paternalism continues in the region to this day, they marked a major turning point in both French imperialism in Africa and African history.

In 1946, DeGaulle granted full French citizenship to the members of all colonies in French Equatorial Africa as recognition of the important role the area had played during World War Two. In 1959 Congo became fully autonomous and in 1960 it gained full independence. Three years later a period of unrest centred around the labour movement removed the president. A civilian government was then instituted and lasted until 1968.

In 1968 a military coup overthrew the government and over two decades of one-party rule, leaning heavily to Marxist-Leninist policy followed. The Soviet Union played heavily in the politics of the region until its collapse.

In the early 1990′s multi-party rule was established, but the 1993 elections were marked by violence and the 1997 elections brought a four month civil conflict that destroyed much of the capital of Brazzaville. In 1998, unrest broke out again and the Brazzaville-Pointe Noire railroad, which was economically crucial to the country and especially to the capital of Brazzaville. Many civilians were killed during the unrest and refugees from the fighting reached crisis levels. In 1999 the Congolese government began meeting with several rebel groups that had formed.

In the early 2000′s, former president Lissouba and ex-Prime Minister Kolelas were tried for treason in absentia. In 2002 the people of Congo ratified a new constitution and the country began repairing itself. In 2003, southern rebel groups agreed to a final peace accord.

Brazzaville, and the rest of the Republic of Congo, has been relatively peaceful since the ratification of the constitution, but the peace is tenuous at best. The problem of un-repatriated refugees represents a humanitarian crisis and is the source of some unrest.

In 2003, a survey found Brazzaville the worst city in the world in which to live. It finished 215 out of 215 candidate cities, below Baghdad which placed 213. Nearby Pointe Noire finished 212 in the survey which, according to the BBC, “was based on an evaluation of 39 quality of life criteria for each city including political, social, economic and environmental factors, personal safety and health, education, transport and other public services.”

Parasol in Pointe Noire. Photo credit: FredR

A related survey done around the same time found Brazzaville to be the sixth most dangerous city, which is not surprising since it is the capital of a country that has an estimated 40,000 weapons in the hands of civilians. The population of the country is under 4 million and half of that population is under 15 years of age, making that amount of weaponry in the hands of civilians a major threat to stability.

AIDS is a major killer in Africa, and the Republic of Congo is no exception. The pandemic has had devastating effects on young adults, reducing the median age of the population to 16 years old. Because it affects the immune system, those suffering from AIDS are more likely to contract and be unable to fight off other diseases. Malaria and tuberculosis are rampant in and around Brazzaville.

A lack of proper infrastructure for sewage and trash removal has left Brazzaville with some serious health issues. Water borne diseases are common in children and among adults. Diarrheal disease are common and fresh drinking water is often unavailable, which further spreads the illness.

AIDS and other illness has lead to a shortage of people of working age. In a major city like Brazzaville, that leaves infrastructure crumbling, schools and hospitals short-staffed. It has greatly increased the stresses on systems that were already struggling from years of internal strife. Children are often orphaned and in the poorest sections of the city, it is not unusual to see children as young as eight trying to raise their younger siblings or look after their sick parents.

Nor is the AIDs pandemic the only major issue facing the population of Brazzaville. The Republic of Congo depends heavily on oil money to keep its economy rolling. It took out massive loans in the past, using oil production as collateral, to back the loans. While the current high oil prices are providing somewhat of an economic boom, Congolese oil fields are beginning to run out. When the oil ceases to flow the economy will be cut by more than half.

Next to oil, logging is the second largest portion on the economy. That is threatened both by global warming which, combined with wood used for cooking fuel, and tracts of land being cleared for agriculture, is causing desertification. The excess heat now related to climate change by many experts has caused a seasonal shift that has changed the timing and amount of rains, making agriculture difficult. The agricultural subsidy regimes of the US and European Union have also made it uneconomical for farmers to grow food crops while pushing the price of food up for those living in cities such as Brazzaville.

The poverty, disease and hunger, combined with the easy availability of weapons, a history soaked in the blood of colonialism and unrest in neighbouring countries, could easily lead to further political instability. That would drag the Republic of Congo and the city of Brazzaville back into the cycle of violence that it has tried for so long to escape.

Karimov’s human rights record is abysmal. He has been known to boil political dissenters alive. He has repressed religious rights, ostensibly as part of the war on terror. When it comes to human rights in Uzbekistan, there aren’t any. Karimov has detained human rights workers and ordered his troops to fire into crowds of demonstrators. Political opponents end up in prison and are tortured or killed.

The violent restriction of human rights grows from the paranoia so commonly seen among totalitarian dictators. Karimov even banned the playing of billiards because he was afraid that people would talk about politics while playing. While that may sound humourous, it goes a long way towards demonstrating the depth of Karimov’s paranoia.

Despite all of the well-documented problems in Uzbekistan over a decade of Karimov’s rule, the United States and allies such as Britain welcomed Karimov into the war against terror. In exchange for military aid, the US received the use of the Karshi-Khanabad air base and facilities for 800 US troops. The Bush administration ignored criticism of having such a brutal regime as an ally until last year.

Even with the criticism of their relationship with Karimov, a relationship that echoed the Reagan administration’s relationship with Saddam Hussein, The US maintained a relationship with Uzbekistan while choosing to ignore Karimov’s abuses in exchange for his cooperation. While the need for an ally in the war on terror is often cited, Uzbekistan is strategically located between Russia and China and has sizable natural gas reserves, estimated in 2005 to be 1.875 trillion cubic meters, and a small amount of oil. Considering the strategic importance of energy in the area, relations with Uzbekistan could have more to do with natural gas reserves than the war on terror.

The relationship between Uzbekistan and the US, as well the European Union did finally begin to sour in 2005, however. A small armed uprising in the province of Andizhan was followed by a large, peaceful demonstration. Reports vary, and there may or may not have been a few armed militants among the protestors, but the Uzbek military responded to the demonstration by firing into the crowd. The true extent of the casualties is not known, but human rights experts have responded to the incident as being on a par with the Tiananmen Square massacre. The government crackdown on political opponents and human rights advocates since the massacre is brutal and repressive, with torture, disappearances, and politically-motivated murder becoming commonplace.

After the incident in Andizhan, pressure began to grow in the EU for sanctions to be put in place against Uzbekistan and the accounts of officials in the Karimov regime frozen, although no comprehensive action was taken. There was little reaction in the United States, with aid ( $91.6 million in 2005) continuing to flow, but some harsh words about human rights from the Bush administration caused Karimov to kick the US military out of the Karshi-Khanabad air base. Since that time, both Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) and Congressman Christopher Smith (R-New Jersey) have introduced bills calling for an end to all aid to Uzbekistan and the freezing of foreign accounts and travel restrictions for Uzbek officials.

Karimov is now currying favour with Russia and China, who have far less interest in human rights abuses than western countries claim to have, and are even more likely to ignore, or partake in, gross abuses to gain access to energy reserves or strategic military advantage.

The spectre of further human rights abuses and the poverty that is so pervasive under totalitarian regimes points to an unhappy future for the people of Uzbekistan, but making things worse is trying to eke out a living in a country that has suffered serious environmental damage.

During the Soviet era the excessive use herbicides, pesticides, defoliants, and other chemicals combined with the diversion of water for irrigation from two major rivers devastated the environment. The diversion of the Amu Darya and Syrdariya Rivers has caused the Aral Sea, once the world’s fourth largest inland body of fresh water, to shrink in size. The Aral Sea is now less than half the size it was in the 1960s, holding only about one third of the water it once did.

Widespread irrigation has contaminated what water still exists with agricultural chemicals. Naturally occurring soil salt, has become concentrated from excessive irrigation. The dried lake bed where large portions of the Aral Sea used to be now produces dust storms full of agricultural and industrial chemicals which, combined with the salt, blow for up to 800 miles. The contaminated dust in these storms kills plant life, causing desrtification.

The environmental devastation continues. Although Uzbekistan is a signatory to several environmental treaties, including clean air and water agreements and the Kyoto protocol, less than half of the smokestacks in the country have filtration devices. The most common method of chemical disposal remains dumping it into a rudimentary sewer system if one exists in the area.. Only about 50% of urban areas and 25% of rural villages have sewers in Afghanistan, so chemicals are often just dumped in the nearest ditch or river.

The result is that most of the underground water supplies are contaminated and the rivers and ditches are basically open sewers. Water-borne illness is common and chemical-related disease is not unusual. Respiratory illness is common in both rural and urban areas.

All indications are that the environmental situation will continue to worsen under the reign of Islam Karimov. Those who speak out against it risk imprisonment, torture, and death. Complaints from international agencies have little impact on the Karimov regime and local activists are silenced, so the environmental issues worsen with the human rights abuses.

There is no end in sight to the suffering of the people of Uzbekistan. The west failed to help them for strategic and economic reasons. Russia and China have shown even less of a compunction to use their influence to better human rights or environmental conditions. Unless some way is found to intervene, Uzbekistan will continue to be one of the worst places on earth in the foreseeable future.

Kilimanjaro, the highest mountain in Africa, is an inactive stratovolcano, which peaks at 19,340 feet. It is located on the edge of the great Rift Valley, in the nation of Tanzania. The ice on the mountain has been there for about 11,000 years, but the quantity has been reduced by 82% in the last century. According to Ohio State University Professor Lonnie Thompson, who published his findings four years ago, in the journal Science, this is a particularly troubling fact; given that several prior global climate changes failed to cause a significant reduction in the quantity of ice on the mountain. In other words, something has changed. That something, according to scientists, is called global warming — and not the kind nature occasionally bestows upon us.

The evidence of glacial retreat, documented over the past several decades, is causing scientists to become more and more concerned about the global warming they attribute to manmade causes: specifically, the release of heat trapping gases into the atmosphere by corporate polluters, gas guzzling vehicles and the generation of electricity. In 2001, scientists at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, projected that if the current rate of ice deterioration were to continue, most of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers would disappear within just 15 years and the summit would be completely free of ice by the year 2020.

The dwindling quantity of ice on Kilimanjaro may be an abstract issue for most of us, but experts believe that tropical glaciers like those on Kilimanjaro are highly sensitive to climate change and, therefore, are good indicators of more serious global warming trends. If they’re correct, the melting ice on Kilimanjaro is just one in a series of events that will be triggered by climate change–and they’re not all taking place in Africa. In Peru, “the rate of glacier shrinkage is increasing exponentially — one glacier is racing uphill at 155 metres each year, 33 times the rate between 1963 and 1978.”

So what does all this mean? According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), it means that we are seeing the inevitable effects of our failure to curtail the introduction of harmful pollutants into our atmosphere: “With our industries billowing a relentless stream of gases into the atmosphere, trapping heat, we’re decimating our natural ecosystems, exacting an incalculable toll on our planet and future health.”

So why is it so hard to convince people to cut back on the practices that cause such disturbing trends? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the evidence to support the damage that will result from global warming includes so many hypotheticals–many of which are not expected to take place for many years. The challenge, it appears, is convincing people to act, now, on a problem that may not manifest, in undeniable and serious ways, for years to come.

But what about Hurricane Katrina, you may ask? Didn’t that prove global warming is problematic? Didn’t the entire scientific community agree that the degree of devastation left in her wake was attributable, at least in part, to global warming? Well, actually, no.

If you visit the web site for the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, you will see a collection of quotes from scientists debunking the idea that Hurricane Katrina was the result of global warming. But notice the phraseology. Even here they are not saying the intensity of the storm was unaffected by global warming; they are simply saying they can’t prove that the storm was more intense as a result of global warming — nobody can:

“. . . attribution of the 30-year trends [in hurricane intensity] to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state.”

This is the essence of the current debate between those who insist global warming is already affecting our planet in adverse ways and those who insist on pointing out that we if can’t prove it, we shouldn’t legislate the pollutants that we believe cause it. If we continue to go back and forth regarding how much we know, or can’t know, or merely suppose, we will argue indefinitely and never really get to the heart of the problem; which is that we simply don’t have the renewable, clean energy technology we need to sustain our current usage. Or do we?

According to Mark Jaccard, author of Sustainable Fossil Fuels: The Unusual Suspect in the Quest for Clean and Enduring Energy, we should stop insisting on eliminating fossil fuels as a way of saving the environment and instead focus on modifying our fossil fuel use. Jaccard believes we have the technological capability to use fossil fuels without emitting climate-threatening greenhouse gases or other pollutants. In fact, several well-respected scientists have reviewed his book and agree with him.

Among them is Professor John Weyant, from the Department of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford University:

Mark Jaccard skillfully makes the case that those who leave modifying the way we use fossil fuels out of any plan to achieve ‘sustainability’ in our energy systems surely confuse means with ends. If our objectives are to improve energy security and protect the environment at reasonable cost, he makes clear that, with a little bit of ingenuity and resolve, our extensive fossil fuel resources could well be our best friend rather than our worst enemy.

In fact, NRDC’s Climate Center Director, David Hawkins agrees: “Jaccard makes a strong case that significant fossil fuel use and climate protection can co-exist, without harming economic growth.”

Let’s hope he’s right.

The settling of New England by immigrating Europeans took place mostly in the eighteenth century. As people began making their way to America, the Colonial government gave large pieces of land to groups of people known as ‘proprietors’. Often made up of 6-10 families (sometimes more), these groups had a select number of years to develop the land. “Developing” meant clearing the forest to create open spaces for crops and livestock, and cutting down trees for houses, fences, and businesses.

The peak of the deforestation occurred between 1830 and 1880. It is estimated that, with the exception of northern Maine and the more mountainous regions, nearly 80% of forested regions in New England had been cleared during this time.

Consequently, New England saw a shift in wildlife as well. Where wolves, turkeys, beavers, moose, and cougars once roamed, there was an influx of open-land species like skunks, meadowlarks, rabbits, and foxes.

As settlers moved farther west, many of the New England farms were abandoned, allowing the forests time to re-populate. The tree most common in the first phase of re-population was the white pine, which dominated most of the re-growth in New England. As the white pine stands began to mature, the opening of the Panama Canal and establishing of the railroad created a simultaneous demand for solid shipping containers. Portable sawmills depleted what little re-growth had occurred, and the 1938 hurricane depleted it even further.

In 1897, a group of men formed the Massachusetts Forests and Parks Association, intending to address some of New England’s environmental concerns. Though its primary focus was wildlife conservation, one member – Harry Reynolds – was mainly concerned about New England’s forests. He communicated with several government officials, both state and federal, pushing for measures to protect the land. Responding to a need for forest management, Mr. Reynolds and some of his colleagues formed the New England Forestry Foundation in 1944.

The NEFF set clear guidelines on tree harvesting, and began working with both landowners and lumber companies to enforce the guidelines. Though they met with some resistance in the beginning, by 1946 the Foundation was working with 20 properties that each averaged about 150 acres. By June of 2005, the NEFF managed over 20,000 acres of New England’s forests.

The NEFF’s forest management is multi-faceted. They start by analyzing the current condition of a stand or plot of land. Often, the previous manager has begun a “treatment”, or forest management system, of his own. NEFF’s forest manager must determine whether it is best to continue with the current treatment, or start fresh. The first step is usually one of three harvesting methods: Intermediate Thinning, Regeneration, and Allowable Harvests. After that, the forest is monitored and maintained, which is far more complex than it sounds!

In 1907, just a few years before Mr. Reynolds began making his pleas for forest conservation, a Harvard professor by the name of Richard T Fisher founded Harvard Forest. As its founder and first Director, he began working with his students to develop a comprehensive reforestation plan. What made Mr. Fisher’s plan different was that it took into consideration things like land-use history, human activity, and natural disturbances like hurricanes and thunderstorms. He initiated a series of studies, out of which came the concept of “ecological forestry”. It has revolutionized New England forest management. In the process, he also developed a set of world-renowned dioramas depicting the New England landscape and all its dramatic changes.

Efforts like these have paid off. Between 1885 and 1925, forest cover more than doubled, and exceeded 70% by 1952. It has steadily increased ever since. Over time, New England has learned how to effectively combine natural and managed re-growth to create forests that are much more diverse and ecologically sound.

While most people celebrate the return of the forests, some consider the loss of grassland and agricultural habitats tragic. They believe the “natural” forests in New England are less natural than the ones that were converted to farmland when the area was first settled, and to some extent, they’re right. The forests are not left to grow as they would naturally.

Instead, they are carefully managed by people who have spent considerable time learning the about the history, and the ecological impact, of New England’s changing landscape. By doing so, they are able to build heartier, more robust forests. Trees are still harvested, but they are harvested carefully. With consideration for how each tree, and its absence, will affect the ecology. New England’s forests may not be 100% natural, but they are being built to last.

Sources: “Legacies of the agricultural past..”, Jesse Bellemare, Glenn Motzkin and David R. Foster; D. R. Foster. Thoreau’s Country: Journey Through a Transformed Landscape. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999; New England Forestry Foundation; Harvard Forest

British Columbia, Québec and New Brunswick are the 3 major lumber producers of Canada. This year, the Québec government had to impose a 20% reduction in wood cut because the resource is simply not there anymore.

For centuries lumber was synonymous with Canada and the mechanization of the industry in the late 20th century devastated forests for decades. The industry is actually lobbying to push the northern limit of legal lumber from the 50th to the 60th parallel. Trees take almost 100 years to reach maturity at this latitude.

These images show the Gaspésie region, eastern Québec. Notice the “beige” spots and, particularly, the biggest spot in the middle. Not much population here, the principal economic activity is lumber, then tourism, then fisheries (not much tough, stocks have depleted as in the Newfoundland banks). There was mining but the mines are now closed down.

As it is a peninsula at the end of the St-Lawrence corridor right under the North American jet stream, it is a windy region. It could be the home of the biggest wind-powered generators park north of California but the right wing government and lobbies are trying to kill the project.

Above: a major clear-cut area, almost 150 square kilometers. Clear-cut the old fashioned way between 1990 and 2004. The desolation of the land is
evident. Here’s an overview by the Global Environment Outlook from the
United Nation Environment Programme.

This image shows what the forest ministry call an “evolution”: eco-friendly cuts (sic). That cute little green patch in the middle is supposed to seed the whole cutted area. Ten years later, we are still waiting for trees to grow. The soil has been compacted so much by the lumber equipment that only weeds can grow. It could take another 20 years before a well-aerated hummus coat regenerates, allowing trees to grow roots.

—

A little update on windpower production, Québec’s Environment Minister Thomas Mulcair announced that he refuse to nationalise the windpower production in the province. Thus putting a little more stress on the lumber industry, windgenerator conception/production was seen as a sustainable industry for the workers of the declining lumber opportunity. People are going to fight to keep their job, and lumber is all they got.

Electric power production (thermal and hydro) is a state monopoly in Québec and the announcement is seen a breach in the government policy. There are concerns about the ownership of the land where the wind generators will be placed (mostly crown land), if it will be leased or sold to private interests and if royalties will be paid to local communities (Gaspésie has one the highest unemployment rate in North-America). People also worry about the lack of local impact on local economies since wind generators are actually not conceived locally. Actually the government loans money to contractors so they can run and install generators produced by General Electric in southern Québec, Ontario and the great lakes region whilst technology/knowledge and industries are capable of doing it in Gaspésie. Nationalisation was seen as a mean to force investment in the region, wich desperatly needs durable jobs.

On another hand, local farmers see the possibility of leasing some of their land to private contractors or install a wind generator themselves for their own consumption or to sell power back to the gridlock. Although such projects represent a minor part of the windpower capacity of the peninsula since the best wind fields are located on crown land and that large windgenerators are too expensive for small investors like farmers. Economic impact is also low when generators are not produced locally and run by corporations from outside of the region, profits being spent abroad instead of locally.

You can see the NPR press release in French on page 2 of this .pdf. I haven’t been able to find the Canadian Press release (in both French and English) for free on the internet, I’ll post when I’ll find it.

http://www.metronews.ca/uploadedFiles/Metro_Montreal_1213_2005.pdf