From: Brian Haddon (bhaddon@nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca)
Date: Tue Sep 09 1997 - 11:43:49 EDT
First, let me thank everyone who participated in the discussion about
old-growth forests. IUFRO Working Unit 6.03.02 established this
discussion group to explore the concept of "old-growth forests,"
together with "natural forests," "primary forests," "virgin forests,"
and other related terms. The discussion group operated from January to
July, and was, in effect, an experiment on our part. From our point of
view, the experience was a positive one.
The primary objective of this discussion group was to provide a forum
for people around the world to make others aware of the concept of
"old-growth forests" as it exists in their part of the world, and the
different factors that affect their thinking. Our role as members of a
broadly-based, international organization is to make people aware of
terminological differences rather than to hide them, and, whenever
relevant, also to point out conceptual convergences behind
terminological differences.
>From the discussion, it is evident that there are key differences in the
definition of old-growth forests and its relationship to related terms
like "virgin forests" and "primeval forests." I think it is fair to say
that the differences in definition are usually related to differences in
the objectives for defining and identifying old-growth forests around
the world.
Many existing definitions of old-growth forests imply that, once
significantly disturbed by human causes, a forest can never again be
considered to be old-growth forest, even though secondary stands may
redevelop most features of a primary forest.
We were told that in Australia the objective was creation of a national
system of conservation reserves and the provision of resource security
for industry. The operational definition proposed in Australia's
Information Paper, "Old-Growth Forest Definition and Inventory for the
Comprehensive Regional Assessment Process: A National Operational
Definition" allows forests that have been previously significantly
disturbed by human influences to be considered as old-growth forest if
the disturbance effects are now negligible.
This is in contrast to the case in Quebec, Canada where the Ministère
des Ressources naturelles has adopted a definition by which old-growth
forests show little or no evidence of human disturbance. The definition
also indirectly implies the absence of catastrophic natural events for a
significant period of time. The objective in Quebec is identification
of old-growth forests for conservation of biological diversity, and the
ministry is looking for those forests that provide a stable environment
for unique species like fungi, micro-organisms or insects.
There seems to be general agreement that not every virgin or primeval
forest is of great age; that young stands may be of virgin or primeval
character although they are not old-growth. These would be stands that
have regenerated after natural disturbances and have not been subjected
to human disturbances. Such stands will likely become more significant
around the world as forest areas are set aside as "hands off" nature
reserves.
Again, our thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussion. The
list archive will be linked to the SylvaVoc database for access by a
wide audience.
Best regards,
Brian Haddon
Deputy Coordinator, IUFRO Unit 6.03.02, Trends in forest terminology
Ottawa, Canada
bhaddon@mailhost.NRCan.gc.ca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Fri Apr 21 2006 - 07:15:06 EDT