by Michael Smith, RFA, EcoFor
Image Barometer Forest & Wood 2008 (a German thing) shows positive influence of the nationwide information campaign as regards to sustainable forestry and wood usage.
The reputation of the German forestry and timber industry has inreased considerably during 2008. This is the conclusion to which the “Image Barometer Forest & Wood”, a topical nationwide poll of the IFAK Instituts für Markt- und Sozialforschung, has come.
Of all those questioned 42% stated that they were aware of the sustainability of the forest industry, a definite 12% increase over the previous year.
74% of all those questioned see the sustainable use of woods and forests something in which Germany leads other countries. Whether this is so or not is another question, for sure. Then again, forestry as we know it today, basically originated in Germany.
Another noticeable finding is that more than two-thirds – namely 70% - are convinced that the concerns, needs and interest of environmental protection and that of nature protection are compatible and reconcilable with the commercial management of woods and forests.
Aside from the fact that that is the way that the German people see it thus it is also the fact that this is the truth. Commercial forestry, in fact, is a protector of the forests and woods as and ecological entity.
Those results, so said Dirk Alfter, the chairman of the Holzabsatzfond, that those results are a clear confirmation that the education campaign as regards to sustainable forestry and usage of wood is bearing fruit and that has given the public fact-based information regarding commercial forestry and lumber usage.
The link between forests and protection of the climate is something that the great majority of all those questioned were aware of; 98% of all questioned are convinced – rightly so – that the forests have a positive influence as regards to the prevention of climate change. Furthermore about 61% of all of those questioned were aware that the use of wood in favor of other materials is beneficial as regards to the protection of the climate, such as in the building of homes. More than 59% said that they would be happy to buy wood in preference of other materials in order to do their bit for the environment.
It is a shame that in many countries of Europe, while the majority of the people are getting the message, those that claim to be environmentalists often have a strange attitude towards forestry and the timber industry, often go so far as to say that all commercial forestry and wood usage has to stop and all woodlands and forests have to be returned to their natural state.
In Britain this issue surfaces again and again when it comes to the “old” woodlands than have not been managed for some time, such as some old coppice woods.
Those supposed knowledgeable green people then go on record to say that those wood are “ancient” woods – ancient as in never having been worked before – and should be left to Nature and for her to do with as it would.
The problem is that in Britain there are no such things as primeval woods. All woodlands have been worked at some time in the past and those coppice woods need to be worked now or we will – in fact – lose them, as those coppice stools will simple start to break apart and that will be the end of that wood.
The additional fact is that wood rotting on the forest floor, as will be the case with those trees as and when they break apart, will immediately release CO2 into the air and while this will only be the CO2 that the trees have fixed during their lifespan it could still be held in that same wood if those trees would be worked and used for something beneficial.
The same is also true for all debris left on the forest floor, as is now common – for the wildlife – and all those so-called habitat piles, many of which are a higgledy-piggledy trown about almost. The story of leaving habitat piles is becoming an excuse for bad forestry practice and lazy woodland management.
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
Bahco Bypass Loppers PG-20-E - Product Review
I must admit that I have had this pair of loppers in question for review now for the best part of a year but it does take a while, I believe, with tools to test them properly. That I have now done.
Bypass loppers of compact design to prune in difficult-to-reach places, available in two sizes. Oval steel tube handles with comfortable plastic grip and shock absorbing plastic buffers for added comfort in use. The smaller cutting head is ideal for pruning ornamental shrubs and rose bushes. Unlike for the professional range of loppers there are no spare parts available for this one.
The PG-20-E bypass loppers which I have had for review is the smaller of the two sizes and has a cutting capacity of a maximum of 30mm. This is, in my view, all academic though and depends on the hardness of the wood. I would not like to try it or any for that matter on dead prunus branches of that diameter, for instance. I have done dead branches of up to about 20mm with those loppers and I found it hard going. Not that the loppers would have broken, maybe. I just found it physically hard and would, in such cases, rather resort to a saw.
Those bypass loppers could be, and I do that at times, for they are very light and handy to carry, referred to as “secateurs on steroids”.
The specifications, so to speak are for the PG-20-E that of a cutting diameter 30 max, with a length of 440mm and a weight 665 grams. As I have said, they are very light.
Now if someone could design a carrying holster for it, of some sort, this would be an ideal too for any Countryside Ranger and such like to take out on a patrol, especially a foot patrol, in order to remove branches and such that may encroach on a footpath, a bridleway, or such.
This is, as all of Bahco's tools, a professional tool at a reasonable price and anyone in their right mind, especially a professional, I should think, would rather invest in quality tools than to buy cheap and find them broken in a few hours or days of use.
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
Bringing forests and woodlands “back into production”
by Michael Smith
For far too long have woodlands and forests, especially many of the smaller, privately owned ones, been doing nothing and have not been bringing in the money that they, really, should be able to.
Too many small woods have been also left to their own devices, so to speak, simply because no money could be made, often for lack of understanding as to the marketing of woodland and forest products by their owners.
The problem with leaving woods and forest to their own devices, especially woods and forests in our developed countries is that they are not natural forests or ancient forests and woodlands. They have, more often than not, been planted to be used and often there are or have been coppice woodlands. Coppice that is not being worked for anything loner than but a decade or two is in danger of collapsing and disintegrating; meaning that there will, suddenly be nothing but fallen trees and root stocks that are broken apart. Our woods need to be worked and worked for profit as well, if possible. That does not mean that they have to be exploited.
This bring me to a little subject by way of digression: we will be on track again in a second... however, it is often claimed that is we use less paper we will have less trees and forests cut down. The fact is if we did not have the paper industry and the need for wood pulp many woods and forests that we have today in Europe, for instance, would not exist and many areas would not b e having trees at all.
I know that there are many amongst the environmental activists that think they know better and who claim that if woods and forests would be left to their own devices and if we did not use paper from trees our forests and woodlands would be better but this is not the case. In fact it is a lie and most of them know that too. Why they continue to perpetuate such falsehoods I cannot say but they do do that.
If it would not bee for some of the forest product industries we would have less woods and forests, of that we can be sure, and much more of the land that is currently in wood would be either used for this or that crop – today more than likely for bio-fuel crops – or even be built upon.
Wood is also a bio fuel; in fact the most natural of all bio-fuels. Wood has been used to keep us warm, cook our food, heat the metal in our forges, and so on and so on, for centuries, nay millenniums even, well before coal and oil, and it can save us yet again.
The burning of wood, for instance, releases only the amount of carbon dioxide that the tree has absorbed and converted during its lifetime and probably less even. With the right clean burning technology and all that wood can be more efficient today than coal and oil and wood could even be gasified and vehicles run on it. Then again vehicles be best run on the fuel that old Tin Lizzy Ford designed then to run on in the first place, namely methane gas. Yes, gas from sewerage, for instance. Same as the first electrical power plant was run on as well. But, alas, I once again digressed.
Wood has so many uses that it is amazing that so many woodland owners have no idea what resources they have and how to actually make them pay and enable them to increase their forests' productivity by ploughing back resources into it that came from the woods in the first place. Owning and managing a woodland or forest is a two-way affair and not just a one-way affair of taking only and not giving back and any good woodland owner is a husbandman, a steward of the land and will always plant anew and always replenish the trees.
Coppicing has been a system that has been in use in the British Isles – and other places where suitable trees are about and abound – for the managing of woodlands and forests and it is a system that keeps a woodland nigh on indefinitely productive.
Unfortunately much of the skills of proper coppicing is getting lost and in addition to that too many of the misguided environmentalists have been ranting and raving against the rotation coppice operations.
Proper professional woodland and forest management continuously improves those environments and ecosystems in a way that benefits everyone and everything, and it is such a shame that commercial forestry has such a bad image amongst the environmental lobby.
Without commercial forestry and commercially managed woodlands our planet would be far less green, regardless of what some, who, I am afraid to say, have no real knowledge of the subject b but think that they happen to know everything just because they have read this or that book, think and say, often way to vociferously.
While woodlands and forest might still exist in their ancient form had the hand of man not touched them, in most places of the world woods and forests have been worked my man for many thousand years if more more and here is virtually no forest that has not been worked.
The truth is that the management of woods and forests – and the word forests, by the way, means different things to different countries - is what has, in most cases, preserved woods and forests rather than the opposite, as is, so often, being claimed by the misguided ones in the environmental movement.
Without commercial forestry and woodland management for profit there would be none of those woods and forest in the prime condition that they are in presently. Commercial forestry, at least the true kind of commercial forestry not only extracts timer from the woods and forest; nay it also replants and that in a large scale.
Any professional forester knows that he does not work for the immediate gain and for the present or even a year or ten hence; he knows that he works for the future generations. Most foresters will never see the tree they they plant now or the ten year or so old trees they care for now to grow to maturity. This is for others in the future.
Without that kind of woodland and forest management, however, most woods and forests that there are today would not, as I said already, exist.
Urban forestry too can play a great role and here too the woods and forest could and indeed should be manageable for income. Whether or not then the income is wholly or partly used to replenish is another question but the income can be used to do so. Any forester in his or her right mind would also do just that.
Woods and forests are are source that can and must be managed for sustainable use in that the timber must be cut as when when ready – why else would such woods be managed otherwise. At the same time any such managed woods and forests, whether privately owned or publicly owned, in whichever way, need to have replanting schemes in operation at all times and also, as and where possible, should be expanded.
We need more woods and forests and that not only in the United Kingdom though the British Isles definitely need more woodlands. They are one of the less wooded countries in Europe.
Trees are the lungs of the planet and – while some have claimed otherwise – are what can keep the CO2 balanced to some degree.
So let's plant more trees and properly manage them, for the benefit of the planet as well as for income and, dare I mention it, profit. But then, some will say, he would say that seeing that he comes from the commercial forestry sector.
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
For far too long have woodlands and forests, especially many of the smaller, privately owned ones, been doing nothing and have not been bringing in the money that they, really, should be able to.
Too many small woods have been also left to their own devices, so to speak, simply because no money could be made, often for lack of understanding as to the marketing of woodland and forest products by their owners.
The problem with leaving woods and forest to their own devices, especially woods and forests in our developed countries is that they are not natural forests or ancient forests and woodlands. They have, more often than not, been planted to be used and often there are or have been coppice woodlands. Coppice that is not being worked for anything loner than but a decade or two is in danger of collapsing and disintegrating; meaning that there will, suddenly be nothing but fallen trees and root stocks that are broken apart. Our woods need to be worked and worked for profit as well, if possible. That does not mean that they have to be exploited.
This bring me to a little subject by way of digression: we will be on track again in a second... however, it is often claimed that is we use less paper we will have less trees and forests cut down. The fact is if we did not have the paper industry and the need for wood pulp many woods and forests that we have today in Europe, for instance, would not exist and many areas would not b e having trees at all.
I know that there are many amongst the environmental activists that think they know better and who claim that if woods and forests would be left to their own devices and if we did not use paper from trees our forests and woodlands would be better but this is not the case. In fact it is a lie and most of them know that too. Why they continue to perpetuate such falsehoods I cannot say but they do do that.
If it would not bee for some of the forest product industries we would have less woods and forests, of that we can be sure, and much more of the land that is currently in wood would be either used for this or that crop – today more than likely for bio-fuel crops – or even be built upon.
Wood is also a bio fuel; in fact the most natural of all bio-fuels. Wood has been used to keep us warm, cook our food, heat the metal in our forges, and so on and so on, for centuries, nay millenniums even, well before coal and oil, and it can save us yet again.
The burning of wood, for instance, releases only the amount of carbon dioxide that the tree has absorbed and converted during its lifetime and probably less even. With the right clean burning technology and all that wood can be more efficient today than coal and oil and wood could even be gasified and vehicles run on it. Then again vehicles be best run on the fuel that old Tin Lizzy Ford designed then to run on in the first place, namely methane gas. Yes, gas from sewerage, for instance. Same as the first electrical power plant was run on as well. But, alas, I once again digressed.
Wood has so many uses that it is amazing that so many woodland owners have no idea what resources they have and how to actually make them pay and enable them to increase their forests' productivity by ploughing back resources into it that came from the woods in the first place. Owning and managing a woodland or forest is a two-way affair and not just a one-way affair of taking only and not giving back and any good woodland owner is a husbandman, a steward of the land and will always plant anew and always replenish the trees.
Coppicing has been a system that has been in use in the British Isles – and other places where suitable trees are about and abound – for the managing of woodlands and forests and it is a system that keeps a woodland nigh on indefinitely productive.
Unfortunately much of the skills of proper coppicing is getting lost and in addition to that too many of the misguided environmentalists have been ranting and raving against the rotation coppice operations.
Proper professional woodland and forest management continuously improves those environments and ecosystems in a way that benefits everyone and everything, and it is such a shame that commercial forestry has such a bad image amongst the environmental lobby.
Without commercial forestry and commercially managed woodlands our planet would be far less green, regardless of what some, who, I am afraid to say, have no real knowledge of the subject b but think that they happen to know everything just because they have read this or that book, think and say, often way to vociferously.
While woodlands and forest might still exist in their ancient form had the hand of man not touched them, in most places of the world woods and forests have been worked my man for many thousand years if more more and here is virtually no forest that has not been worked.
The truth is that the management of woods and forests – and the word forests, by the way, means different things to different countries - is what has, in most cases, preserved woods and forests rather than the opposite, as is, so often, being claimed by the misguided ones in the environmental movement.
Without commercial forestry and woodland management for profit there would be none of those woods and forest in the prime condition that they are in presently. Commercial forestry, at least the true kind of commercial forestry not only extracts timer from the woods and forest; nay it also replants and that in a large scale.
Any professional forester knows that he does not work for the immediate gain and for the present or even a year or ten hence; he knows that he works for the future generations. Most foresters will never see the tree they they plant now or the ten year or so old trees they care for now to grow to maturity. This is for others in the future.
Without that kind of woodland and forest management, however, most woods and forests that there are today would not, as I said already, exist.
Urban forestry too can play a great role and here too the woods and forest could and indeed should be manageable for income. Whether or not then the income is wholly or partly used to replenish is another question but the income can be used to do so. Any forester in his or her right mind would also do just that.
Woods and forests are are source that can and must be managed for sustainable use in that the timber must be cut as when when ready – why else would such woods be managed otherwise. At the same time any such managed woods and forests, whether privately owned or publicly owned, in whichever way, need to have replanting schemes in operation at all times and also, as and where possible, should be expanded.
We need more woods and forests and that not only in the United Kingdom though the British Isles definitely need more woodlands. They are one of the less wooded countries in Europe.
Trees are the lungs of the planet and – while some have claimed otherwise – are what can keep the CO2 balanced to some degree.
So let's plant more trees and properly manage them, for the benefit of the planet as well as for income and, dare I mention it, profit. But then, some will say, he would say that seeing that he comes from the commercial forestry sector.
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
Bulldog Ratchet Pruning Shears BD31303 – Product Review
20mm cutting diameter ratchet pruning shears
Review by Michael Smith
I have to say that this is the first of those kinds of pruning shears that I ever really have had an opportunity to use and review.
Other manufacturers and vendors for some reason have been more than reluctant, to say the least, to part with one of those for a proper and thorough product review and I leave the reader to draw his or her own conclusions as to the why and wherefore of this.
Bulldog's representatives on IOG Saltex 2008 were more than happy to supply me with one of those and so far I must say that I am quite impressed with this tool.
It took a little while for me to get the proper hang of it as to the best way of using it but once that had been mastered it is just a great piece of kit.
The maximum cutting size, in my opinion, should not be exceeded when cutting hardwoods, whether green or not, such as apply, plum, oak, etc. While it may work alright with slightly larger branch diameters, I must say that I would not recommend doing it.
Once the “trick” of properly using the ratchet is mastered this pair of pruners cuts through quite thick branches without any real effort. Small pruning is best done with the topmost tip of the pruners as it is then just the single snip. This is very good for dead heading of roses and also general small pruning rather than using the cutting jaws further down that then still employs the ratchet, making the cutting process a little slower.
On larger material the ratchet makes cutting virtually effortless and I recently used it to cut back a Willow (Salix) and in this instance cutting material with diameters of 35mm and such without any problems. It must be considered thought that green willow is a rather soft wood.
I also used it to prune some apple trees and in that case I restricted myself to about the maximum given diameter for this pair of pruners and there as well very little effort and strength was needed for the cutting.
From what I have seen so far as to the performance and reliability I can, I think, very much recommend this model of Bulldog's pruners without any hesitation.
Once again another piece of kit that is of fine quality at a very reasonable price.
© M Smith (Veshengro), October 2008
<>
Review by Michael Smith
I have to say that this is the first of those kinds of pruning shears that I ever really have had an opportunity to use and review.
Other manufacturers and vendors for some reason have been more than reluctant, to say the least, to part with one of those for a proper and thorough product review and I leave the reader to draw his or her own conclusions as to the why and wherefore of this.
Bulldog's representatives on IOG Saltex 2008 were more than happy to supply me with one of those and so far I must say that I am quite impressed with this tool.
It took a little while for me to get the proper hang of it as to the best way of using it but once that had been mastered it is just a great piece of kit.
The maximum cutting size, in my opinion, should not be exceeded when cutting hardwoods, whether green or not, such as apply, plum, oak, etc. While it may work alright with slightly larger branch diameters, I must say that I would not recommend doing it.
Once the “trick” of properly using the ratchet is mastered this pair of pruners cuts through quite thick branches without any real effort. Small pruning is best done with the topmost tip of the pruners as it is then just the single snip. This is very good for dead heading of roses and also general small pruning rather than using the cutting jaws further down that then still employs the ratchet, making the cutting process a little slower.
On larger material the ratchet makes cutting virtually effortless and I recently used it to cut back a Willow (Salix) and in this instance cutting material with diameters of 35mm and such without any problems. It must be considered thought that green willow is a rather soft wood.
I also used it to prune some apple trees and in that case I restricted myself to about the maximum given diameter for this pair of pruners and there as well very little effort and strength was needed for the cutting.
From what I have seen so far as to the performance and reliability I can, I think, very much recommend this model of Bulldog's pruners without any hesitation.
Once again another piece of kit that is of fine quality at a very reasonable price.
© M Smith (Veshengro), October 2008
<>
Forests back in fashion as weapon to combat climate change
by Michael Smith, RFA
The Earth's forests, which are perhaps one of the greatest, if not indeed the greatest, natural defenses against climate change, got somewhat of a boost recently with Britain's Prime Minister and a host of environmental lawyers throwing their support behind plans to protect them and eventually include the forestry sector in carbon markets.
Now who would have thought that the experts suddenly realize what we who have had dealings and have been working in forestry and related sectors for most of our lives have known all the time and those that set up managed forestry have known for centuries, namely that forests are good for the Earth.
A review commissioned by Gordon Brown and led by advisor Johan Eliasch has concluded that deforestation in countries heavily covered by rainforest could be halved in the next 12 years and the world's forestry sector could be carbon neutral – effectively sustainable in the long term – by 2030.
The review looks at the financial mechanisms needed to make this happen and comes down heavily in favour of wealthy industrialized nations offering funding to support forestry in poorer nations and somehow incorporating the carbon sink effect of existing forests into global carbon trading.
In a nutshell, the report says that countries that protect their forests should be rewarded for doing so by the international community.
The specific mechanisms recommended for doing this are slightly more complex.
Mr Eliasch said: “Saving forests is critical for tackling climate change. Without action on deforestation, avoiding the worst impacts of climate change will be next to impossible, and could lead to additional climate change damages of $1 trillion a year by 2100.
“Including the forest sector in a new global deal could reduce the costs of tackling climate change by up to 50% and therefore achieve deeper cuts in emissions, as well as reducing poverty in some of the world's poorest areas and protecting biodiversity.
“Deforestation will continue as long as cutting down and burning trees is more economic than preserving them. Access to finance from carbon markets and other funding initiatives will be essential for supporting forest nations to meet this challenge.”
I wonder whether readers remember that a while ago the papers and the media were full of suggestions that forests actually are bad for the environment. Don't ask me what those experts had been drinking but... Forests are more than carbon neutral; they are carbon sinks, and we need more of them and not just old forests. New planted and commercially managed forests and woodlands have been proven to be as useful as primal forests.
The review has been broadly welcomed in political circles, but environmental NGOs have given it a frostier reception.
Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Tom Picken said: “Allowing rich countries and businesses to 'offset' their carbon dioxide emissions by buying up huge tracts of forest is riddled with problems and will do little to tackle climate change.
“The industrialised world must rapidly cut its dependency on fossil fuels if we are to prevent catastrophic climate change from taking hold. The Eliasch plan will simply create a smokescreen allowing us to carry on polluting - it's the climate change equivalent of sub-prime mortgages.
“Forests and forest communities urgently require protection. Financial packages are needed - but we must also address the underlying causes of deforestation, such as biofuels, excessive meat consumption and industrial logging.”
We can but agree with the statements by the Friends of the Earth, though I also know that often FoE have a problem with commercial forestry per se and would like to see forests and woodlands remain unmanaged. This is not something that works and is not good for the forests and woodlands either, especially not with those, say, in Europe who have always been managed for the last millennia and if they would be no longer managed they would soon completely fall apart, literally. This is something that I have spoken about as regards to the coppice woodlands in the South of England, for instance.
The carbon offset idea, in my opinion, is a total stupidity anyway and we must get away from this notion that we can pay our way out of polluting the planet by paying, say, Brazil or such, to conserve their forests. I am sorry, but this notion is ludicrous. The developed world cannot be allowed to continue polluting just because they can buy carbon credits from the Third World. This is just not sustainable.
© M Smith (Veshengro), December 2008
<>
The Earth's forests, which are perhaps one of the greatest, if not indeed the greatest, natural defenses against climate change, got somewhat of a boost recently with Britain's Prime Minister and a host of environmental lawyers throwing their support behind plans to protect them and eventually include the forestry sector in carbon markets.
Now who would have thought that the experts suddenly realize what we who have had dealings and have been working in forestry and related sectors for most of our lives have known all the time and those that set up managed forestry have known for centuries, namely that forests are good for the Earth.
A review commissioned by Gordon Brown and led by advisor Johan Eliasch has concluded that deforestation in countries heavily covered by rainforest could be halved in the next 12 years and the world's forestry sector could be carbon neutral – effectively sustainable in the long term – by 2030.
The review looks at the financial mechanisms needed to make this happen and comes down heavily in favour of wealthy industrialized nations offering funding to support forestry in poorer nations and somehow incorporating the carbon sink effect of existing forests into global carbon trading.
In a nutshell, the report says that countries that protect their forests should be rewarded for doing so by the international community.
The specific mechanisms recommended for doing this are slightly more complex.
Mr Eliasch said: “Saving forests is critical for tackling climate change. Without action on deforestation, avoiding the worst impacts of climate change will be next to impossible, and could lead to additional climate change damages of $1 trillion a year by 2100.
“Including the forest sector in a new global deal could reduce the costs of tackling climate change by up to 50% and therefore achieve deeper cuts in emissions, as well as reducing poverty in some of the world's poorest areas and protecting biodiversity.
“Deforestation will continue as long as cutting down and burning trees is more economic than preserving them. Access to finance from carbon markets and other funding initiatives will be essential for supporting forest nations to meet this challenge.”
I wonder whether readers remember that a while ago the papers and the media were full of suggestions that forests actually are bad for the environment. Don't ask me what those experts had been drinking but... Forests are more than carbon neutral; they are carbon sinks, and we need more of them and not just old forests. New planted and commercially managed forests and woodlands have been proven to be as useful as primal forests.
The review has been broadly welcomed in political circles, but environmental NGOs have given it a frostier reception.
Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Tom Picken said: “Allowing rich countries and businesses to 'offset' their carbon dioxide emissions by buying up huge tracts of forest is riddled with problems and will do little to tackle climate change.
“The industrialised world must rapidly cut its dependency on fossil fuels if we are to prevent catastrophic climate change from taking hold. The Eliasch plan will simply create a smokescreen allowing us to carry on polluting - it's the climate change equivalent of sub-prime mortgages.
“Forests and forest communities urgently require protection. Financial packages are needed - but we must also address the underlying causes of deforestation, such as biofuels, excessive meat consumption and industrial logging.”
We can but agree with the statements by the Friends of the Earth, though I also know that often FoE have a problem with commercial forestry per se and would like to see forests and woodlands remain unmanaged. This is not something that works and is not good for the forests and woodlands either, especially not with those, say, in Europe who have always been managed for the last millennia and if they would be no longer managed they would soon completely fall apart, literally. This is something that I have spoken about as regards to the coppice woodlands in the South of England, for instance.
The carbon offset idea, in my opinion, is a total stupidity anyway and we must get away from this notion that we can pay our way out of polluting the planet by paying, say, Brazil or such, to conserve their forests. I am sorry, but this notion is ludicrous. The developed world cannot be allowed to continue polluting just because they can buy carbon credits from the Third World. This is just not sustainable.
© M Smith (Veshengro), December 2008
<>
Can timber companies prove that they source good wood?
by Michael Smith, RFA
In general, it would appear, the environmental community tends to be rather supportive of Forest Stewardship Council certification – often referred to as the “gold standard” of sustainable forestry.
And while there have been scandals before, I grant you that, like Asia Pulp & Paper’s controversial certification, most of the conscious and conscientious consumers still look at the FSC mark as a fairly safe guarantee that the wood does not come from ancient forests, and that it was sustainably logged.
It would seem, however, that we can no longer accept it completely at face value if we can believe Friends of the Earth.
According to a statement from their website it would appear as if FoE are are taking a step back from its endorsement of the FSC certification and this statements it reproduced hereunder in full:
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification is the strongest available standard for new wood.
Most of its timber certifications have improved forestry standards in many countries.
However, we are deeply concerned by the number of FSC certifications that are now sparking controversy and threatening the credibility of the scheme.
We cannot support a scheme that fails to guarantee high environmental and social standards. As a result we can no longer recommend the FSC standard.
The best environmental choice is to repair, restore or adapt an existing item. You could buy second hand.
If you have to buy new, make sure the timber is locally sourced.
Source: Friends of the Earth
As a professional forester I would like to add that while logging ancient forests is not a very good practice and more than likely non-sustainable the woods and forests in most countries on Europe and North America are no longer ancient and primary forests. Many so-called ecologists insist on claiming that the old woodlands in, for instance, the south of Britain are “ancient woodlands”, which, alas, they are not. There are no primary woodlands and forests in the British Isles; all of them have been more-or-less commercially worked in their life, many of them of the claimed to be “ancient” woodlands within the last 50 years. They are primarily old coppice woods that have gone wild again and, contrary to the belief of many of the previously mentioned environmentalists, should not be allowed to carry on running wild. They must, if we are to save them as woods, be worked once again and that rather pronto. The longer they are left the greater the change of the coppice stools breaking apart. That would be the end of those woodlands and they would become scrub land of one from or the others but would lose their woodland characteristics.
It is wood from such local sourced that should be sourced and used for whatever projects, whether building or furniture.
On the other hand, the advice of Friends of the Earth as to secondhand and repairing is also a very valid one, as would be DIY from waste building lumber, for instance. This would divert at least a small amount of the ten million plus tonnes of waste building lumber that are annually in the UK sent to landfill. A practice that to me is just very difficult to understand.
© M Smith (Veshengro), October 2008
<>
In general, it would appear, the environmental community tends to be rather supportive of Forest Stewardship Council certification – often referred to as the “gold standard” of sustainable forestry.
And while there have been scandals before, I grant you that, like Asia Pulp & Paper’s controversial certification, most of the conscious and conscientious consumers still look at the FSC mark as a fairly safe guarantee that the wood does not come from ancient forests, and that it was sustainably logged.
It would seem, however, that we can no longer accept it completely at face value if we can believe Friends of the Earth.
According to a statement from their website it would appear as if FoE are are taking a step back from its endorsement of the FSC certification and this statements it reproduced hereunder in full:
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification is the strongest available standard for new wood.
Most of its timber certifications have improved forestry standards in many countries.
However, we are deeply concerned by the number of FSC certifications that are now sparking controversy and threatening the credibility of the scheme.
We cannot support a scheme that fails to guarantee high environmental and social standards. As a result we can no longer recommend the FSC standard.
The best environmental choice is to repair, restore or adapt an existing item. You could buy second hand.
If you have to buy new, make sure the timber is locally sourced.
Source: Friends of the Earth
As a professional forester I would like to add that while logging ancient forests is not a very good practice and more than likely non-sustainable the woods and forests in most countries on Europe and North America are no longer ancient and primary forests. Many so-called ecologists insist on claiming that the old woodlands in, for instance, the south of Britain are “ancient woodlands”, which, alas, they are not. There are no primary woodlands and forests in the British Isles; all of them have been more-or-less commercially worked in their life, many of them of the claimed to be “ancient” woodlands within the last 50 years. They are primarily old coppice woods that have gone wild again and, contrary to the belief of many of the previously mentioned environmentalists, should not be allowed to carry on running wild. They must, if we are to save them as woods, be worked once again and that rather pronto. The longer they are left the greater the change of the coppice stools breaking apart. That would be the end of those woodlands and they would become scrub land of one from or the others but would lose their woodland characteristics.
It is wood from such local sourced that should be sourced and used for whatever projects, whether building or furniture.
On the other hand, the advice of Friends of the Earth as to secondhand and repairing is also a very valid one, as would be DIY from waste building lumber, for instance. This would divert at least a small amount of the ten million plus tonnes of waste building lumber that are annually in the UK sent to landfill. A practice that to me is just very difficult to understand.
© M Smith (Veshengro), October 2008
<>
Wood – A professional in the Kitchen
by Michael Smith, RFA
Cooking is on the up. Kitchens and utensils made from wood are easy to care for and are antibacterial.
Cooking is everywhere. On the TV and in the home. Cooking has become a pastime rather than just a means of creating a meal for the family. It has become a lifestyle and a creative expression and also an expression of creativity.
For this very reason the kitchen has now become functional workplace and an object for design at the same time. In the kitchen of today there is not just roasting a frying and generally cooking being done. This is where one meets, sits together and talks over a glass of wine. A bit of trip back-to-the-future for we have been here once before, in the days when out kitchen were large and useful, and where the family gathered, while the parlour, the room that we refer to today as “living room”, was used only on very special days and occasions. It was the kitchen were everyone gathered and listened to the radio and talked about the day. The kitchen table served as a desk for the children's homework in the same way as it was used for the eating of meals, or the mending of clothes.
Because of the fact that kitchens are, once again, more living space than just the area where the food is being cooked, the designers of kitchen furniture are once again reverting to the age-old material of wood. Wood is natural and warm and a great material.
Wooden kitchens with properly sealed surfaces are easy to clean and as wood has antibacterial quality they are much more hygienic than other materials, even stainless steel. But, I guess, I would say that as someone deeply rooted in commercial forestry.
In addition to the furniture in the kitchen being of wood again wooden kitchen utensils too are making a genuine comeback. Wooden spoons, spatulas, cutting- and chopping boards, and such, all once again are seen in kitchens. Wooden utensils are taste neutral and are easy to care for. They also do not absorb any foreign tastes. As they are wood we have the same antibacterial properties and hence they are much more hygienic than other materials and one can but wonder if we should not carry, once again, a wooden eating spoon, as people did in ages past, instead of relying on throwaway flatware.
As wood, as said, has antibacterial properties it is enough to wipe a chopping board clean between uses. This also satisfies hygiene because even salmonella has little survival chance on wood. This was proven already in 1993 by the University of Wisconsin. Especially pine, larch and oak have some of the best antibacterial and virus killing properties.
© M Smith (Veshengro), September 2008
<>
Cooking is on the up. Kitchens and utensils made from wood are easy to care for and are antibacterial.
Cooking is everywhere. On the TV and in the home. Cooking has become a pastime rather than just a means of creating a meal for the family. It has become a lifestyle and a creative expression and also an expression of creativity.
For this very reason the kitchen has now become functional workplace and an object for design at the same time. In the kitchen of today there is not just roasting a frying and generally cooking being done. This is where one meets, sits together and talks over a glass of wine. A bit of trip back-to-the-future for we have been here once before, in the days when out kitchen were large and useful, and where the family gathered, while the parlour, the room that we refer to today as “living room”, was used only on very special days and occasions. It was the kitchen were everyone gathered and listened to the radio and talked about the day. The kitchen table served as a desk for the children's homework in the same way as it was used for the eating of meals, or the mending of clothes.
Because of the fact that kitchens are, once again, more living space than just the area where the food is being cooked, the designers of kitchen furniture are once again reverting to the age-old material of wood. Wood is natural and warm and a great material.
Wooden kitchens with properly sealed surfaces are easy to clean and as wood has antibacterial quality they are much more hygienic than other materials, even stainless steel. But, I guess, I would say that as someone deeply rooted in commercial forestry.
In addition to the furniture in the kitchen being of wood again wooden kitchen utensils too are making a genuine comeback. Wooden spoons, spatulas, cutting- and chopping boards, and such, all once again are seen in kitchens. Wooden utensils are taste neutral and are easy to care for. They also do not absorb any foreign tastes. As they are wood we have the same antibacterial properties and hence they are much more hygienic than other materials and one can but wonder if we should not carry, once again, a wooden eating spoon, as people did in ages past, instead of relying on throwaway flatware.
As wood, as said, has antibacterial properties it is enough to wipe a chopping board clean between uses. This also satisfies hygiene because even salmonella has little survival chance on wood. This was proven already in 1993 by the University of Wisconsin. Especially pine, larch and oak have some of the best antibacterial and virus killing properties.
© M Smith (Veshengro), September 2008
<>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
