top of page
Search
Writer's pictureHarris Barnard-Davidson

Hidden in Plain Sight: Sustainable Forest Management in Canada

Updated: Dec 10, 2020


A clear-cut block in British Columbia, near Fort St James. The patchwork of Canadian forests is shown in the distance, which are replanted with one or two specific species of trees. Also pictured are the logging roads requirement to reach these patchworks. Credit: Harris Barnard-Davidson

 

The world has become increasingly aware in recent years that humanity has entered a new epoch, the Anthropocene, defined by humans’ significant and altering impact on Earth’s geology and ecosystems. From oil fracking to mountaintop removals for coal mining, it is clear that our current resource extraction practices have extremely damaging effects on the environment. This impact even stretches to so-called “sustainable” industries such as Canada’s sustainable forest management and lumber practices. Regardless of how “green” a certain industry’s resource extraction activities supposedly are, such practices will inherently lead to harmful environmental impacts. At the root of this degradation of ecosystems and geology lies the concept of a liberal economy. A capitalist, market-based economy requires an ever-growing production of goods, standing in direct conflict with our scarce earthly resources.


Canadian Forest Management

Canadian lumber is a booming, multibillion-dollar industry accounting for almost 10% of the country’s exports. It is renowned for its sustainable practices which require the replanting of extracted trees and which make use of byproducts such as pulp, representing a circular economy. Through forests’ storing of CO2 emissions, sustainable forestry also largely contributes to helping Canada meet its Paris agreement requirements. However, Canada’s lumber industry better serves as an example of a liberal economy requiring continual growth and expansion and thus being conflicting with the material limits of our planet, despite its efforts to achieve sustainability.


Sustainable Practices’ Conflicting Nature

Many authors have critiqued capitalist enterprises as the primary cause of our ecological crises. James O’Connor focuses on the contradiction between capitalism’s requirement for economic growth and material abundance and the limited nature of ecology. John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett help demonstrate that governments cannot create truly sustainable industries, as whatever solutions that arise to deal with their harmful environmental impacts are either inadequate or lead to further degradation.


Johan Rockstrom’s works are also helpful when discussing the limited nature of resource extraction on our planet through its focus on planetary bounds, the idea that the Earth has threshold limits and “safe” operating spaces. Three planetary systems have already been exceeded, including the rate of biodiversity loss. It is essentially impossible for resource extraction efforts to simply be concentrated within one boundary without affecting certain aspects of another.


Third Party Certification

In an effort to deem its lumber extraction sustainable, the Canadian government uses third party certification systems to set forestry management standards. Canada in fact leads the world in third party forest certifications through its use of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (FSI), and the Forest Stewardship Council of Canada (FSC). These certifications vary in the standards they promote, as some require the conservation of old growth forests, while others support tree plantations. Initially designed to address the deforestation of tropical forests in developing countries, they have faced significant criticism and have been accused of greenwashing the lumber industry. Canada has also been criticized for its move away from the FSC system and towards the less strict SFI system, which allows for clear cutting and does not require the protection of old growth forests, both unsustainable practices.


Old Growth vs Second Growth Forests

Old growth forests trap carbon dioxide and support diverse wildlife, making them vital in maintaining healthy ecosystems. Large trees in particular are extremely valuable; a single coniferous giant can be worth thousands of dollars. Although these forests don’t appear to be affected on paper, they are unfortunately shrinking in Canada, as many forests that are SFI certified support patchwork clear cutting. Recently, the British Columbian forest management has decided to protect over 350,000 hectares of forests in old growth areas, yet less than 200,000 of those hectares are actual old growth trees, the rest being extracted and replanted as second growth. The clear-cut areas formed in these patchwork forests are known as cut blocks and have irreversible impacts on biodiversity loss.


Additionally, the definition of old growth forests is ambiguous; a recent report shows that only about 1% of forests in British Columbia are truly old growth forests, from an ecological standpoint. From a forest management standpoint, the definition of old growth is largely arbitrary, on average maxing out at about 250 years old. The ongoing debate surrounding old growth forests demonstrates that industries will simply meet the bare minimum required to achieve sustainability, as it is defined by policies rather than from an ecological perspective.


Logging Scars

A recent study from the Wildlands League focusing on the logging of the Ontarian boreal forest shows that the rate of deforestation in Canada is higher than previously shown by about 7%. Although tree harvesting was not believed to significantly contribute to deforestation rates, as forests are expected to either regrow or be replanted, this did not take into account the impact of roadways and landing areas. Known as logging scars, these areas make up between 10 and 20% of forests requiring regrowth and have only been studied in Ontario, meaning their impact has not been catalogued in other major logging provinces such as British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec.


Forest Spraying

The process of spraying is another problematic aspect of the forest sector. Used to prepare forests for reforestation, spraying uses glyphosate herbicide to kill competing plants and help support the growth of specific species such as pine and spruce trees. Spraying perpetuates a homogenized tree culture and only supports certain commercially valuable trees, demonstrating again the conflict between the expansion of the forest industry and forests’ biodiversity. A number of protests have taken place against this practice, mostly against the use of forests as “tree plantations” but also bringing up the harmful effects that glyphosate has on humans and wildlife. Tree plantations also do not support fire-resistance deciduous trees, potentially creating fire corridors. Once again, this evidence brings into question the potential for sustainability in a liberal economy, as industry standards leave clear permanent scars on our environment.


Our current capitalist economic system is in clear and strict conflict with the dire need for sustainability in our current climate and ecological crisis. Even industries who claim to have a good grasp on sustainability, like the Canadian forest management systems, are not adequately addressing the environmental degradation caused by our resource extraction practices.


Comentarios


bottom of page