Note: The "Compact for Maine's Forests" was rejected by Maine voters on November 4, 1997. FEN's arguments against the agreement, were important to its defeat.
The "Compact for Maine's Forests," Question 1 on the November 4, 1997 Maine Ballot, is a step backward for the Maine Woods, and for the people and communities the forests support. It was created with the express purpose of defeating the Citizen's Referendum to Ban Clearcutting, not with long-term sustainable forestry in mind. It was born outside of the democratic process with no public oversight or input. It was authored and is promoted by an industry that has a well-proven inability to behave as responsible stewards of the natural treasure with which they are entrusted.
The devastating effects to the beauty and long-term productivity of the forests wrought by industrial overcutting and clearcutting, proponents claim, will be ameliorated by the 27 page Compact. Although ingeniously crafted to sound as if it will promote "sustainable" forestry, the Compact will have no impact whatsoever on the large landowner's ability to carry on business as usual. Arguably, the Compact will make the situation even worse by more than doubling the current average size of clearcuts, increasing plantation forestry and herbicide spraying, and delaying any real forest practices reform for at least five more years.
The Forest Ecology Network is committed to defeating the Compact and working toward solutions that emphasize long-term productivity and community stability while maintaining the aesthetic and ecological integrity of the Maine Woods.
1. The Compact will more than double the average size of clearcuts.
2. If the Compact passes, an area the size of one million football fields could be clearcut in Maine over the next ten years.
3. The Compact requires that only one major landowner reduce clearcutting in Maine, and that landowner by only one-hundredth of one percent.
4. The Compact's audit program is completely voluntary and guarantees no public accountability.
5. It is likely that herbicide spraying on Maine's forests will increase if the Compact passes.
6. The legislature will not be interested in any new forestry legislation for at least five years if the Compact passes.
7. The trend toward the loss of forest-related jobs (48% in the last decade) will continue under the Compact.
8. The Compact requires that only 5/100 of 1% of the state of Maine be preserved in its natural state, and this is on public land, not paper company land.
9. The Compact is an affront to democracy, born out of a secret pact between the paper corporations and Governor Angus King.
10. Some environmental organizations in Maine are supportive of the Compact because paper corporations have contributed significant amounts of money to them and have placed their representatives on the organizations' boards of directors.
11. The Compact will cost the state of Maine $500,000 per year to administrate, money that could be better used to encourage Low Impact Forestry in the state.
12. Under the Compact, it will be much harder for local communities to pass their own local forest practices regulations.
The case against the Forest Compact:
1. The Compact will more than double the average size of clearcuts.
The average size of clearcuts in Maine is 33 acres (Maine Forest Service). Only about 5% of clearcuts in Maine are over this size, the reason being that, as outlined in diagram A on page 15 of The Maine Woods 1.2, they can leave a smaller separation zone around a clearcut less than 35 acres in size. This size clearcut allows them to clearcut the most wood per unit area. So, predictably, they will do the same in the future, which will mean that the average size of clearcuts in Maine will more than double from 33 acres to 75. In addition, the Compact decreases the buffer size around a 75 acre clearcut by 50%.
2. If the Compact passes, an area the size of one million football fields could be clearcut in Maine over the next ten years.
This figure is arrived at by examining the Compact on pages 7-8, section 3, "Maximum area clearcut limit; forest land ownerships ..." The restrictions on the percentage of land that can be clearcut per year are based on whether a landowner holds 100,000 acres or less. The large landowners in Maine own ~10,000,000 acres and the less than 100,000 acre owners own about 2,000,000.
The Compact allows 1% of a large landowner's land to be clearcut per year, and 10% of small landowners land, so 100,000 acres per year plus 200,000 times ten years equals 3,000,000 acres. A football field is a bit larger than an acre, (~1.2 acres) so well over one million football fields could be cut in the next decade. This point and 3 demonstrate that all the Compact is doing is allowing the landowners to clearcut as they have in the past and even provide room for an increase if they choose to do so.
It is also important to point out that the 1% figure includes the entire holdings of that landowner. Obviously, a significant portion of their holdings do not have value for timber harvesting -- they may be in a wetland or body of water, or on rocky or steep terrain.
3. The Compact requires that only one major landowner reduce clearcutting in Maine, and by only one-one hundredth of one percent.
Source: Maine Department of Conservation data, 1997. Quoted by Mitch Lansky in the Northern Forest Forum, Fall, 1997, p. 8.
"By 1995, only one landowner [South African Pulp & Paper- SAPPI] cut more than 1% -- this time 1.01%. It appears that as a result of the intense negotiations between environmentalists [NRCM et al] and landowners, the landowners agreed to abide by standards they were already following. The one landowner cutting above the limit by a small fraction of 1% could cut nearly as heavily by switching to "overstory removals" (cuts that remove all mature trees but leave advanced regeneration over five feet high). Such a concession is a rather dubious achievement -- one landowner will have to make insignificant changes. One wonders why we need a statewide vote to decide if landowners will continue to do as they please. Passage of the Compact would not prevent landowners from improving their practices."
4. The Compact's audit program is completely voluntary and guarantees no public accountability.
See Mitch Lansky in TMW 1.2, p. 7, section 6.
5. It is likely that herbicide spraying on Maine's forests will increase if the Compact passes, as the Compact encourages the conversion of native forests to chemical-intensive tree plantations.
The Compact (p. 7-8, section 3B) gives a one acre clearcut credit for every acre that is converted to a monoculture tree planation. The Compact therefore encourages the creation of monocultures and the destruction of native forests. Tree plantations require an intensive herbicide and pesticide treatment, so the spraying of these toxic chemicals will likely increase over current levels.
6. The legislature will not be interested in any new forestry legislation for at least five years if the Compact passes, while another million acres of the North Woods is clearcut.
From Mitch Lansky in TMW 1.2, p. 7.
"If the Compact passes, the legislature will not be interested in any new forestry legislation for at least 5 years when the Compact comes up for review. Until then, we will be told to "give it time to work," just as we were admonished over the last five years with the FPA (Forest Practices Act)."
7. The trend toward the loss of forest-related jobs (48% in the last decade) will continue under the Compact.
The Compact and Clearcuts Show Negative Impact on the Economy
Every economic analysis in the last ten years which has examined the relationship between resource extraction (timber harvesting) and long term economic growth has come up with the same conclusion: states dependent on resource depleting industries show the poorest growth in gross state product. The Compact with its continued dependence on the ecologically unsound silvicultural practices of clearcutting and herbiciding, its lack of any scientifically based harvest standards, and its total disregard for sustainable harvest levels will continue to undermine all economic vitality, particularly in forest based communities. As Stephen Myers of M.I.T. has pointed out, states "with stronger environmental policies consistently out-perform the weaker environmental states on all economic measures".
In Maine there is an inverse relationship between forest employment and fiber extraction. In the last 15 years, over 1.5 million acres have been clearcut, fiber output has increased 32%, forest products employment has decreased 12%, and logging jobs have declined by 48%. Trends continue through 1997.
According to the Maine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Maine's competitive advantages are quality of life, physical beauty, clean air and water, and forest resources. The forests of Maine provide a vital component to economic well being through forest products, tourism, and recreation (The North Woods are within a days drive of 70 million people).
How may businesses will want to expand or locate in environmentally compromised regions? It is time for us to embrace an economic paradigm which recognizes that the environment is the economy. In so much as the Compact will continue to allow the wanton destruction of the forests, it will only perpetrate further economic dislocation.
8. The Compact requires that only 5/100 of 1% of the state of Maine be preserved in its natural state, and that on public land.
The Compact may (Compact, page 24) set up these reserves, there is no guarantee that they will. Exactly zero acres owned by the large landowners will be set aside in the reserve system, the Compact (page 22) would designate these reserves on "state-owned land."
Also see article by Mitch Lansky, TMW 1.2, page 6, section 4.
9. The Compact is an affront to democracy, born out of a secret pact between the paper corporations and Governor Angus King.
See article by Conrad Heeschen, TMW 1.2, page 3.
10. Some environmental organizations in Maine are supportive of the Compact because paper corporations have contributed significant amounts of money to them and have placed their representatives on the organizations' boards of directors.
See article by Paul Donahue, TMW 1.2, page 4.
11. The Compact will cost the state of Maine $500,000 per year to administrate, money that could be better used to encourage Low Impact Forestry in the state.
This figure is from a Maine State Budget Office analysis of the economic costs of administrating the Compact.
12. Under the Compact, it will be much harder for local communities to pass their own local forest practices regulations.
The paper corporations do not like the idea of local communities coming up with their own forest practices regulations. The Compact devotes 3 pages erecting hurdles for local communities that do want to implement their own ordinances, and cancels . Regardless of what a community proposes, as the open-ended section F on page 11 shows, the regulations could easily be quashed by state authorities that deemed the local ordinances "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious".
