Green is Everywhere?
June 10, 2013 10:08 am Leave your thoughts
Hello everyone once again. Since my last entry, I’ve recognized an aspect of the forest industry that I had never really considered prior to about a week ago. Given that my own field is engineering, not forestry, I hadn’t fully realized that collaborating with different companies, groups and people is an integral and crucial part of this particular industry. Oil companies, municipal, federal and – especially – provincial governments, who deal with wildfire prevention and other aspects of forest management, post-secondary institutions, aboriginal communities, recreational groups and many others all have to work together to a certain degree, regardless of their individual end goals. I had never really given it much thought. I just assumed Millar Western had a certain set of company goals and was free to pursue them. In reality, however, much more cooperation is required to allow for smooth operations to occur among all industries and stakeholders operating on the same land base. Whether it is harvesting timber, building a pipeline or protecting endangered wildlife, everyone that has a direct or indirect influence needs to assist with advice or insight into the issue at hand. They all are doing something different, but all of them are dealing with the same medium – our environment and natural resources. The term used to describe this process is called integrated land management. I am fairly certain that attending the Millar Western Public Advisory Committee meeting last week was the reason for this profound realization.
Now that I have had this knowledge epiphany, and physically seen company personnel implementing this process with community stakeholders, I’m thinking that this approach is likely applied in many macro situations across the world — but is it applied at the micro scale as well? Should it be if it isn’t? Now, for me, just looking at the implications of if its use in every situation, I can see some obvious issues already. You can’t have every single person provide their opinions on every minute detail of every project that must be done, regardless of whether it’s a 20-year forest management plan or the installation of new technology in a plant. For example, say an engineer needs to change a certain flow rate at a specific point in a pulp mill, he/she would not go and ask every single person in the plant how that would affect them individually or whether he/she should actually change it or not. That’s simply not realistic or necessary. But there are certain situations that would warrant the need for collaboration. An example I can think of for this is HAZOPS, which is essentially a hazard assessment and reaction planning meeting – like the one Millar Western just completed for the bioenergy project it is implementing at the pulp mill. It makes perfect sense to get multiple insights into potential issues that could arise and come up with proper plans to deal with the problems from multiple perspectives. However, because it is on a broader scale, this situation makes sense in comparison to the previously mentioned day-to-day matters.
Companies like Millar Western must take into account the interests of many parties prior to the start of operations, whether in the forest, at the mill or between both locations.
Now I use engineering-related examples, because they are the first thing to come into my head, but there would be numerous other non-technical situations that would either support or discourage the application of consultation on a small scale. Moreover, if one applies this idea intelligently, then only beneficial outcomes can result, I’m sure. Maybe this is common knowledge to everyone, but I had always taken sociological aspects of industry for granted. Until recently, I never really wondered why something functions the way it does, until I really analyzed it. I think I’ll just stick to math; it’s easier that way for me. Thanks for reading this, and I will talk to you next time.