In yesterday's blog on Tree Identification, I presented a photo of a healthy Acadian Forest vista. From an ecological perspective, the ideal Acadian Forest structure is an multi-aged mix of hardwoods and softwoods. The vertical structure of an ideal Acadian Forest consists of a top, middle, and bottom layer of growing tree, shrub, and fern biomass. There would also be dead standing trees and windfall to provide habitat for insects, wood peckers, fungi, trout, and many other species.

What is ideal from an ecological perspective is far from ideal from a current economic perspective. On that perspective, the only value the forest has is in terms of the timber products that can be made from it. The most profitable way to get at that product is often by clearcutting the forest to extract all the hardwood and softwood product on it. After a forest is clearcut the forest will likely eventually recover again if it has not been clearcut too many times before and is given enough time for forest succession processes to occur. In the long run, however, the biomass that could have been grown on that area, the quality of the soil on that area, and the biodiversity would have all been much better had trees been selectively harvested according to a regime where trees are selectively culled to optimize growth in the understories and canopy.

How can we protect the Acadian Forest, and by extension, all forests of the world, from the current short-sighted economic perspective?

An important first step, in my opinion, is to be able to formulate an ecological account of what an ideal forest ecosystem in your area should consist off. For me, the phrases "mixed hardwoods and softwoods", "multi-aged", and "multi-storied" have helped me to begin to clarify what might be the ideal ecological structure for an Acadian Forest. I might be willing to add to that account the idea of culling trees for the purpose of optimizing growth in the understories and canopy.

After we formulate a concept of what our ecologically ideal forest consists of, the next step is to show how forestry practices aimed a achieving that ecological ideal are simultaneously more economically attractive than practices that would do significant harm to the ideal.

I believe we are now reaching a point in history where we can better appreciate that a forest has more primary uses than supplying us with raw timber product. There are a broad range of eco-system services that an ecologically ideal forest supplies better than a non-ideal forest. It fosters more biodiversity in an age of rapidly diminishing biodiversity. It can also supplies a variety of other "products" like Maple Syrup, medicines, foods, recreation, renewable power, and eco-tourism. The ideal forest eco-system still allows tree-harvesting but done in a much more intelligent manner than clear cutting, high grading, or other similarly damaging forestry practices.

Preservation and restroration of an Acadian Forest can be financed by selective harvesting and selling non-timber products that a forest offers. If you are obtaining renewable power from the forest than this can also lower your operating costs considerably and relieve you of the need to make as much money to get by.

There is also the possibility of financing ideal Acadian Forests through the development of new financial instruments that assign a price value to the ecosystem services that a forest provides. In this vein, the Canadian Model Forest Network has recently released an interesting document:

Valuing ecological goods and services from the forest, Canadian Model Forest Network, November 30, 2008

This report provides a clear and concise synopsis of what is being done regarding provision of ecological goods and services on private lands in Canada. It summarizes the proceedings of a series of regional workshops held in 2007 to address this emerging social policy issue. Valuation of Ecological Goods and Services is one of the CMFN’s national initiatives.

I'm not done reading this report or mulling it over, however, I'm starting to form the opinion that financing for global warming mitigation should be done in terms of "ecosystem credits" instead of "carbon credits". When you buy a "forestry ecosystem credit" you would be buying into more than just offsetting your carbon emissions, you would also be buying into the preservation or restroration of an ideal forest ecosystem.