Cole Attisha
Government forestry policies and legislation aim to reduce the harmful impacts of deforestation on natural ecosystems and wildlife but must also take into consideration the economic impacts linked to overly demanding anti-deforestation policies. The optimal desired outcome from government regulation is a forestry industry that allows our nation to benefit, economically, from its rich, natural resources without causing irreversible or disproportional harm to integral ecosystems and vibrant natural habitats. Here, we take a look at how the Canadian government approaches this strenuous balancing act to protect vulnerable ecosystems and promote economic prosperity.
The Canadian federal government has many policies and programs in place to monitor and manage forestry across the country. Legislation is left up to provincial government to manage regional laws as they see fit. Through the implementation of this system, different regions can install legislation that matches the public social perception that is unique to each area, therefore reflecting the wishes of people within certain jurisdictions. That all being said, the system in place does not come without scrutiny from a variety of parties and it is constantly under pressure; adapting to match evolving public opinions and industry needs.
Current government policies are under pressure both internally & externally
According to Fred Gale & Timothy Cadman, “It is argued that a Canadian forestry policy network, under pressure internally and externally to demonstrate its environmental and social credentials, promoted an ‘economistic’ SFM [(sustainable forest management)] norm in regional negotiations” (Gale & Cadman, 170).
Essentially, there are two contrasting conceptions of “sustainable forest management” that consist of different priorities. The first view, the ‘economistic’ approach, “emphasizes growing and harvesting timber for downstream processing while taking into account the broader ecological and social impacts” (171). The second conception, an ‘eco-social’ view, “places primary emphasis on the protection of biodiversity and the involvement of indigenous peoples and community livelihoods, while recognizing the need for continued timber harvesting” (171).
Domestic politics and government policies are under pressure from both sides. Both views actively recognize the necessity of each other’s goals but have differing opinions as to which goals should be prioritized. This creates a problem for governments who must create policies that reflect the views of the public by challenging policymakers with opposing public perceptions. That all being said, the contrasting views simultaneously possess the benefit of holding policymakers accountable for maintaining a balance between recognizing an economic necessity of deforestation, and acknowledging the harmful impacts on communities and ecosystems that occur when deforestation is taken too far.
The Canadian government divides its forestry policy approach into four categories
Canada’s federal government uses four unique approaches to policy and legislation regarding the country’s natural resources. These approaches are international agreements, national commitments, legislation, and industry obligations.
Firstly, international agreements have been made with other countries across the globe to ensure the conservation of biodiversity. One example of an existing international agreement is The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which “has as its main objective ‘to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system'” (Natural Resources Canada). According to Canada’s federal government, “Links between Earth’s climate and the fundamental role biodiversity plays in the carbon cycle make the UNFCCC an important tool for conserving forest biodiversity” (Natural Resources Canada). Other examples of international agreements are the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and Forests Principles.
The second category of Canadian natural resource policies is ‘national commitments’. According to the federal government, “Canada first committed to sustainable forest management in its 1992 National Forest Strategy. Renewed every five years, the strategy identifies priorities such as forest ecosystem classification, protection of representative forested areas, and the development of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers’ Criteria and Indicator framework to measure success in sustainable forest management” (Natural Resources Canada).
Legislation, the third strategic category for Canada’s policies, allows individual provinces and territories to manage policies, legislation, and regulatory matters for their respective natural resources, “including forests, except on federal lands, such as First Nations lands and national parks” (Natural Resources Canada). Although forest management is largely left up to provincial governments, there are several forest-related laws put in place by the federal government. These include “The Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act”, “The Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA)”, and “The Species at Risk Act” (Natural Resources Canada).
Lastly, industry obligations placed on forest industries by the Canadian federal government stipulate that “Companies with long-term licenses to provincial or territorial forest land must submit sustainable forest management plans, demonstrating that their future activities respect all legislation and regulations” (Natural Resources Canada). These obligations, imposed by the federal government of Canada, ensure that forestry businesses are held accountable and allows the government to stay in the loop regarding industrial forestry plans.
Canada’s forest governance framework prevents illegal logging and protects about 400 million hectares of forest
Although forestry legislation is left up to each individual province, the basic goal of sustainable forest management (SFM) is shared amongst them all. According to Natural Resources Canada, “This is an approach to forest management that considers not just timber, but many other forest-related values, including wildlife, biodiversity, soils, water, resource-dependent communities and scenery. These SFM-focused laws address land-use planning, forest practices, forest regeneration, Aboriginal interests, public consultation, biodiversity, protected areas, natural disturbances and more” (Natural Resources Canada).
Canada’s forest governance framework offers unique governance strategies for three different categories of forests across the country: provincial and territorial forests, federal and aboriginal forests, and privately-owned forests. Over ninety percent of the country’s forests are provincial and territorial, and legislation’s main concern for these forests is sustainable forest management. Governments personally oversee industrial harvesting plans, and “Failure by a tenure holder to comply with approved plans and harvesting permits can result in stiff penalties, from fines or the suspension of harvesting authorities to seizure of timber and even imprisonment” (Natural Resources Canada). Enforcement of forest management legislation is enacted by governments as well.
Almost four percent of Canada’s forests are under federal government and Aboriginal ownership (Natural Resources Canada). This includes national parks, land owned by the Department of National Defence (DND) and lands held in reserve. Oversight of these forests is not left up to provincial government, but rather a variety of federal government agencies. Very little harvesting is conducted in these forests. The remaining six percent of Canadian forests is made up of privately-owned land, which includes forest tracts owned by timber companies and family-owned forests and woodlots. According to the federal government, “About one-tenth of the total volume of roundwood and pulpwood harvested in Canada comes from private lands” (Natural Resources Canada). Private forests follow similar legislation to public forests but are additionally overseen by private enforcement such as community programs and private security.
Canada uses the “Allowable Cut Effect” to incentivize sustainable forestry practices
Policies imposed on private industries that participate in deforestation require businesses to pay penalties based on the volume of their product. Stumpage fees are placed on businesses based on volumes of timber that is logged from forests and export fees are used to ensure that some of the profits made from exporting our natural resources can be used as tax revenue to increase social services or to be repurposed to encourage reforestation.
In addition to stumpage rates and export fees, the Canadian government uses the allowable cut effect “as a policy instrument to guide the behaviour of Crown tenure holders towards socially desirable objectives” (Luckert & Haley, 1823). Essentially, policies allow for businesses to increase the volume of timber they may harvest as a reward for sustainable practices (Luckert & Haley, 1822), thus incentivizing private corporations to act according to socially-determined forestry standards as it benefits them financially to do so.
The allowable cut effect is an example of a policy put in place as a result of ongoing discussion and collaboration between government policymakers and private forestry industrialists. In an effort to create policy that aims to encourage sustainable industry practices by incentivizing positive efforts rather than penalizing negative efforts, the implementation of the allowable cut effect aims to achieve a win-win scenario for as many parties involved as possible.
Canada’s forest policies are under perpetual scrutiny
According to Wellstead, Leslie, and Weetman, there are “three necessary interacting components to understanding policy-making regimes [that] are present: actors, institutions, and ideas/issues” (Wellstead et. Al, 628). The general initiatives towards conservation is the general idea, publicly-held forest tenures are the institutions, and timber companies, governments, and forestry professionals are the actors (628). Additional factors, such as First Nations and international environment groups have also come into play in recent years (628).
Many commentators have been critical of the effectiveness of Canada’s forestry policies and legislation. Wellstead et. Al cite a paradigm shift in terms of the government’s relation to forestry corporations, suggesting the government’s role has moved from “playing less of a coordinating and more of a collaborating role” (628), thus inherently granting forestry corporations a greater balance of power versus governments which attempt to control and regulate the industry. This also raises questions about the intent of government control and how much the private industry has infiltrated the goals of forestry policy and legislation.
Wellstead et. Al describe in their article the necessity of involving third party actors into discussions surrounding forest policies and initiatives to increase their effectiveness. They state in their article that “successful policy-making results from social interaction and the incorporation of public values. Effective forest policy must be supported with rigorous information of the best quality” (629). Thus, for forest policies and legislation to be successful, it must accurately represent the desires of the general public population rather than be simply the result of a discussion between government actors and private industrialists.
Policies and legislation should represent an ongoing discussion
Canada’s forestry policies and legislation represent the first line of defence against harmful deforestation, which results in the loss of vital habitats and ecosystems. Laws created to protect the country’s forests against exploitative logging and industrial practices must maintain a careful balancing act, allowing for necessary industry to operate for the sake of economic benefit, while simultaneously preventing harmful practices and destructive exploitation.
Policies and legislations are constantly under pressure and therefore change and adapt over time to accommodate an evolving landscape of social perceptions, industrial needs, and conservation efforts. The most effective policies exist as a result of continuous interaction between all actors involved in such matters, including federal, provincial, and municipal governments, residents and citizens of Canada, First Nations communities, corporations involved in forestry industries, forestry professionals, and international environmental groups.
Canada’s forest policy and legislation framework is an expansive structure that consists of many jurisdictions, task forces, federal agencies, governments, corporations, and the general public. Its main goal is to ensure the sustainable harvesting of Canadian forests and to allow for our country to benefit economically from timber exports, but also reflects our population’s wishes to conserve vital natural habitats and ecosystems that make Canadians proud to call this land home. The forest governance framework also represents a microcosm of general legislation in Canada, in that it emphasizes the important of public involvement and equal voices of all parties involved to ensure an outcome that is effective and morally just.
