Preserve half of rainforest, scientists urge - Up to 50 per cent of coastal region should be set aside to maintain ecosystems

Gordon Hamilton
Vancouver Sun

Thursday, November 20, 2003

A team of independent scientists examining British Columbia's coastal rainforest -- an 11-million-hectare swath of green stretching from northern Vancouver Island to Alaska -- says at least 44 to 50 per cent of the land needs to be protected to maintain eco-systems.

That compares with the 32 per cent of the land base the province has said is the maximum it is willing to consider conserving and is more than even environmentalists have demanded.

A draft version of the report -- commissioned by the provincial government -- is the culmination of two years of work and is first time such a comprehensive study has been undertaken.

It was released this week at a conservation seminar at the University of B.C., prompting calls from environmentalists for greater protection of the region, which they have dubbed the Great Bear Rainforest.

"We don't think we can turn our backs on the science, which is painting a clear picture that some large-scale protection on the coast is going to be important to maintain the unique bio-diversity there," said Merran Smith of the eco-group ForestEthics. "Our hope is this doesn't lead us back into conflict, but the science is telling us a direction we need to go in. "

In commissioning the team, Victoria committed to incorporate its findings in its final land-use decision for the region.

Sustainable Resource Minister Stan Hagen said Wednesday the report is only one piece of information in determining the final outcome. A table of stakeholders is developing land-use recommendations for the region, to be presented to the government by Dec. 31. Victoria then intends to hold negotiations with the region's First Nations before making the final determination.

"I understand that is the team's view, but all of the other views need to be considered while this [land-use] discussion is taking place," Hagen said.

"I am certainly going to pay attention to this because it is important. We are committed to incorporating the science-based information. We helped fund it. But at the same time you need to balance that with community well-being and with the economy."

Hagen was critical of eco-groups for promoting the report's findings.

"This is somewhat frustrating. Environmental groups are part of the land-use planning table. I can only assume they are playing some politics here."

The team of 17 scientists was commissioned by the province to identify priority areas for conservation in the 11-million-hectares of coast extending north from Knight Inlet to the Alaska border and the Queen Charlottes. Its $3 million budget was funded equally by government, industry and eco-groups.

It is the first time an independent body of scientists has examined the coastal rainforest in such depth.

"It's come as somewhat of a surprise to a number of people and it's putting a challenge out there to everyone," said Jody Holmes, who heads the management team that prepared the team's terms of references.

"We said we are going to stand by the science, but this puts an onus back on us all to be creative about protecting that much and at the same time ensuring we have community well-being, jobs and an economy that functions on the coast."

The key finding in their two-year study is that between 44 and 50 per cent of the land base needs to be to be set aside for conservation to ensure at least 30 per cent of the habitat is maintained.

Setting aside up to 50 per cent of the land base to protect 30 per cent of the habitat of rare and threatened species is the minimum for ensuring species survival, said biologist Chuck Rumsey, manager of the scientific team.

He said the team is not making recommendations, but is pointing out the consequences of some land-use decisions.

"We are talking about thresholds beyond which the long-term viability of species and eco-systems cannot be guaranteed," he said. "If you want a healthy functioning coastal forestry system and you want to feel safe about it, you need more than that 30 per cent. If you go below 30 per cent, we are saying, as scientists, we don't feel with any certainty at all that you are doing enough to ensure those species and forest types are going to be there long-term."

Planning table chair Jim Lornie said the science report is the first of three reports. The other two, yet to be completed, deal with social and economic needs. He did not want to speculate on the report's implications for land-use decisions, saying it is up to the table of stakeholders.