Minutes December 2003

Edmunston NB , December 3, 2003
Meeting Notes
Compiled by Stewart Cameron, CFS-AFC

Participants

Josée Babineau, Infor
Larry Cosgrove, forest harvest contractor, PEI
Stewart Cameron, CFS-AFC
Chris Carl, BioExx
Gordon Clough, BioExx
Julie Daigle, Institut de Technologie Agroalimentaire du Quebec
Scott Doncaster, Atlantis Bioactives Corp.
Louis Fortin, Faculté de Foresterie, UMCE
Jean-Guy Gendron, Chaichem Pharmaceuticals
Khalil Gorman-Asal, Business New Brunswick
André Lalonde, Bioxel Pharma
Manuel Lamontagne, Faculté de Foresterie, UMCE
David LeBlanc, Groupement Agro-Forestier Ristigouche
John Letourneau, CFS-AFC
Claude-André Léveillé, Groupement Agro-Forestier Ristigouche
Paul McKnight, Agriculture, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Forestry PEI
Elmer McRae, forest harvest contractor, PEI
Simon Mitchell, Falls Brook Centre
Claude Pelletier, St. Jacques NB
Maurice Pettigrew, Services aux Travailleurs Saisonniers du Nord-ouest
Jay Phillips, CFS-AFC
Romain Rioux, Centre de Développement Bioalimentaire du Quebec
Eric Smith, Chatham Biotec Ltd.
Ron Smith, CFS-AFC
Paula Stewart-LeBlanc, CFS-AFC
Georges Tremblay, Chaichem Pharmaceuticals

1. Welcome and Introduction:

[R. Smith] Suggestions for items to be added to the agenda:

• [Babineau] an update on theft/the biomass market
• [Mitchell] Working group participation and membership

2. Criteria and Indicators Review

[R. Smith] The events of the January meeting were summarized, with apologies for the lateness with which the C&I first draft was submitted to WG members. It was noted that many comments were received from members not present in Edmunston, which were incorporated in the first C&I draft. The goal of this meeting is to produce a second draft which can be sent out for further comment.

The remainder of the morning and afternoon were spent discussing and modifying the first draft of the C&I document.

[Cameron] Rather than including the large number of comments and suggested changes in the meeting notes, Smith and Cameron will compile a second C&I draft using the rough notes taken during the meeting.

[Smith] A second draft will be completed for distribution to all WG members by Jan. 15, 2004. All members are asked to reply with either their acceptance or comments on the second draft by Feb. 15.

3. Auditing

[Mitchell] A joint project (FBC, CFS-AFC and the WG) will develop a procedure for field auditing. FBC is developing a third-party system which either they and/or may employ.

Cost is a concern. It must be kept low by making the auditing process efficient.

• The process would be based on an audit of: (1) the harvester and his practices, and (2) movement of the product from the site, through the contractor to the processor.
• The general practice for an initial audit is to sample using the square root of the number of harvesting sites or the square root of the number of harvesters.
• The system is designed to catch people taking shortcuts and/or undermining sustainability guidelines.
• Subsequent visits would be annual with a sampling intensity of 0.6 x the square root of the number of harvesters.
• FBC would like to: (1) field test the methods in cooperation with some of the WG members, and (2) distribute documents to the WG for comments.
• Contractors and harvesters should have their own internal monitoring procedures, with records preferably centralized in one or two databases.
• [Carl] Does the processor need to be included in the audit? [Mitchell] It is probably in the best interests of all to take the audit up the chain as far as they can, depending on the user group(s).

4. Overview: Sustainable Harvest Trials

[Stewart-LeBlanc] The objective of the trials is to document the quantitative response of ground hemlock to four harvest intensities on five sites.

• Harvest methods being employed: one as is done in PQ; based on the PEI/CFS recommendation (cut above the node); a modified CFS/PEI method (cut below the node); and one labelled “severe” where 7 years of growth is harvested.
• All methods are replicated 20 times at each site, with fall, spring and summer harvests, though the spring harvest was not done in 2003.
• Photographs documenting the process have been taken.
• Data processing for the summer collection is currently being done.
• The next site visits will be in fall 2004, at which time some initial assessments of regrowth will be done.
• No conclusions have been reached yet from the first harvests done in the fall of 2002 and the summer of 2003.

5. Website

[Smith] The WG website is now in translation. Because it is hotlinked to the CFS website, federal policy dictates translation must be done for all items prior to their release to the public. I is anticipated that the WG site will be up and running by Jan/Feb.

6. Other Taxus Research

[Phillips] The CFS provenance trial was described: “the growth and development of plants of known origin”. (See handout titled “Ground Hemlock Provenance Trials”.)

• Cuttings were taken from 5 plants per site on sites located in Ont, PQ, NS, PEI, NF and USA, and rooted to a maximum of 67 plants per clone.
• The rooted cuttings – 1200 clones from 300 sites – are now growing in replicated trials (blocks of 100 plants) at four sites.
• Some blocks are harvested in year 1 to determine dry weight, shoot length and nutrient analysis. A second subset is done in year 2, followed by a complete harvest in year 3 at which time taxane levels are determined.
• All clones have been set aside and archived in clone banks located in several different areas.
• Differences in growth and taxane levels in a small subset of the clones have already been observed.
• Weed control is being done by the industrial collaborators. Manual weeding has been used but is uneconomical. Pesticides are being used, but mainly in areas outside the rows in the beds. [R. Smith] Pre-planting application of simazine and mulching are also being employed for wee control.
• [ Doncaster] Typically, residual pesticides are not a problem, but if a very simple extraction is used (e.g., of the type used for nutraceuticals), residues may be present in significant quantities.
• Concerning intellectual property, the 1200 clones are owned by CFS (the Canadian taxpayer), and are not patentable.

[Letourneau] A planned semi-commercial agricultural trial was described, the goal of which is to demonstrate the feasibility of growing ground hemlock as a nursery crop:

• Four sites located across the range of the species have been identified. (See handout titled “Semi-Commercial Agricultural Trials for Taxus canadensis”.)
• There are 12 treatments into which 1000 plants/treatment will be planted in spring 2004. (The planting stock is currently in frozen storage.)
• Growth, disease etc. will be monitored between 2004 and 2007.
• The width of the beds varies by site according to the equipment available through the industrial collaborator.

[Daigle] The focus of the applied research group in La Pocatiere, Groupe de Recherche Appliquée en Agroforesterie (GRAAF), is to work on shelterbelts, riparian strips, and NTFP’s. GRAAF wishes to develop applied collaborative studies with external partners.

They are currently organizing a NTFP conference in La Pocatiere to be held on Feb. 25, 2004.

7. Other Agenda Items

[Babineau] A pamphlet is being produced by Infor on harvesting practices and issues like trespassing.

• They will have a draft available for comments by February.
• Can the harvest contractors comment on contracts/the market for 2004? They are attempting to generate interest within the NB marketing boards.
• They already have been contacted by landowners concerned about theft.
• [Mitchell] It might be worthwhile to incorporate monthly biomass price updates on the WG website.
• [Carl] How is Infor funded? [Babineau] Funding comes from the Federation of Woodlot Owners in NB.

[R. Smith] Concerning the scheduling of meetings, the timing of the next WG meeting should depend on the response to the second C&I draft.

• [Babineau] Can translation services be provided? [R. Smith] Unfortunately, translation is expensive and someone would have to pay for it.
• [R. Smith] Additional WG member participation is being solicited: it would be advantageous to share the load, and it would encourage buy-in by other WG members.
• Completion of the final version of the C&I is probably not realistic in under 6 months.

[Mitchell] There are several concerns about WG discussion and participation:

• The group has grown in size, and large groups tend to be unwieldy, with perhaps a need to examine a protocol for inclusion in discussions.
• Under-representation may be a problem – e.g., woodlot owners aboriginal interests and stakeholders from the environmental/social side.
• There is currently no formal process for agreement – e.g., raising motions, methods of voting etc..

[E. Smith] Pictures and samples from biomass harvested in 1999, and the subsequent effects of harvesting on regrowth, are available for examination after the WG meeting concludes.