BP and Basic Research

Of the countless number of lessons one might learn from the BP blowout in the Gulf, the lack of basic research is one lesson I have not heard anyone mention.

Industry, whether it is oil, food, forestry, or finance has been completely focused in the past few decades upon increasing production and revenue flow. I'm not sure if there is either an assumption that science has already done the basic research to support extending current technologies, or that there is just a belief that engineering and product design can circumvent any complication encountered. Well, it hasn't and it can't.

The BP blowout is a classic example of extending technology beyond what is known about the environment in which that technology is being applied. The fact that no one understood that gas hydrates would form within their first effort at containment was a certain indicator that this crisis was not going to be resolved quickly.

I'm guessing, that if the oil industry is like any other, they have been approached by scientists interested in establishing that basic understanding. I'm also guessing that industry wasn't interested in supporting that research because it did not directly translate into production and revenue flow. Government, heavily influenced by industry in directing their research funding, probably didn't see a need, or more specifically, an 'application,' either.

BP is just one example and I am left to wonder how many other examples we will see over the next few years. Funding for basic research is down everywhere.

In British Columbia, the provincial government has drastically reduced forestry research in the Ministry of Forests and Range. I'm thinking that they do not understand how basic research was aiding 'growth and yield.' As just one example, an entirely new bioenergy industry is emerging in British Columbia, but we know almost nothing about the ecology of the woody debris that they wish to remove for burning. The failures in these areas won't be as acutely dramatic as what is currently unfolding in the Gulf, but they could be just as damaging and even longer lasting.

YouTube Video Credit: UCBcomedy.com

Dead Wood is Needed for Living Forests

What do we mean by a word like 'Waste?'

Generally we mean that it is useless and is a burden just to discard.  The less the better.

Why then do we use this word to refer to the dead standing or fallen wood in our forests?  It is anything but waste.  Rather, it is a vital resource for countless animals, plants and micro-organisms in our forests.  Its decayed fibre contributes organic material to our forest soils and helps to buffer soil pH.  It also acts as a water reservoir in forests where drought is common.

It can be called it waste only if we do not understand its function in forest ecosystems or it can be called waste by those who want to use it for other purposes.  This is the term used today by the BC government and the bioenergy industry to describe this resource.

Despite the desire by the modern forest industry to emulate (i.e., imitate) natural disturbances in log harvesting operations, the massive removal of tree biomass in no way emulates what normally occurs in nature.  How much biomass can be removed before we see a serious disruption to the ability of forest soils to regenerate new growth is uncertain.  Traditionally though, forestry operations in British Columbia have left more wood behind on cutblocks than occurs most areas of the world.  Still, this may not be enough.

Now, the bioenergy industry wants to greatly reduce the volume of remaining wood.  On a visit to a local bioenergy facility I once heard a manager talk about obtaining a Swedish machine to scrape and bundle the smallest pieces of wood from the forest floor.  Worse, the claim is made that this is a 'Green' technology. 

This month the Williams Lake Field Naturalists will present a resolution to the Annual General Meeting of the Federation of BC Naturalists.  It reads:

"Whereas, coarse woody debris (CWD) is a fundamental component of forest ecosystems, critical to:

1) providing habitat to many dead wood dependent organisms (e.g., fungi, insects, vertebrates) which in turn support a broader food web (e.g., insectivorous birds, bears);

2) providing energy to support forest resilience (e.g., ability to resist extensive damage from forest pests, climate change or invasive species);

3) providing water storage in ecosystems frequently experiencing drought;

4) providing pH buffering capacity to forest soils which become acidic as a result of biomass removal;

5) providing nutrient and structural components to forest soils in a province noted for low-productivity soils.

Whereas, management guidelines for CWD retention under the Forest and Range Practices Act are inadequate for protecting this resource under existing harvesting pressures, there is concern that additional plans for biomass removal by the bioenergy industry will exacerbate this problem.

Be It Resolved:  That Nature BC communicate to the Government of BC the need to develop a science-based woody debris (organic matter) management system with the view that maintaining CWD is fundamental to the sound ecological management of our forests."

I hope this helps to raise this issue in the minds of BC naturalists.

Photo Credit: Me