EDITORIAL
Canada opts out of managing for forest carbon
by Dirk Brinkman

Canada has chosen to pass on a great opportunity. The last editorial invited the Prime Minister to “champion a national initiative for forest carbon restoration, protection, and conservation.” The official response of the Prime Minister’s office advised that this is the Minister of Natural Resources’ responsibility. 
While we waited for the Natural Resource Minister’s response, Canada filed its Initial Report on the Kyoto Protocol with the United Nations. Fifteen months late, the Minister of the Environment declared that Canada is now meeting all of its Kyoto reporting obligations - just not its targets. In the report, Canada also elected to not include “managed forests” on its carbon account.

Silviculture workers in search of a sense of purpose in the daily grind may find the government’s decisions ludicrous - meeting reporting obligations but not reduction targets and reporting on the forests, but not acting in the forest. The silviculture industry is keen to enhance forest health in ways that increase the forest ecosystem carbon reservoir. 

Some high profile projects will go ahead anyway. Haida Gwaii’s Climate Forest Pilot Project is one such initiative. It plans to restore degraded lands back to old growth forests and conserve intact carbon-absorbing old growth. The Prime Minister’s decision to not account for the carbon benefits of the Climate Forest Project may not stop this project. The world is impatient for climate action and a project in high profile Haida Gwaii with such obvious benefits to the traditional community may still be financed. However, the government decision to not put carbon from the managed forests on its account smothers worthwhile initiatives all across the country that may not be as high profile. 

Environment Minister Baird indicates the government’s decision is based on a forecast analysis of historic and projected incidences of fires, insect infestations, and forest growth. Every year from 1990 to 2005 (except in 1995, 1998 and 2004), Canada’s forests have been net sinks. Canada’s Fourth National Report on Climate Change (4NR) for 2004 reports that in that year Canada’s forests emitted an estimated 81 MT (mega tonnes) of greenhouse gases (GHG). It notes that if Canada included its managed forests it “would…increase the total Canadian GHG emissions by 11%”. This makes the decision sound reasonable but over those fifteen years the forests have been a net sink. The 4NR report warns the highest degree of flux takes place in the managed forests with a maximum absorption of 82 MT and a maximum release of 81 MT. 
This just highlights why the decision is wrong. The higher flux in the managed forests is because it has accumulated a century of timber volume from tenure protection. The very presence of these healthy managed forests is proof that granting private rights can result in forest conservation. The historical analysis of forest carbon flux has been done on managed forests which only had timber tenures for harvest. These forests did not have the added advantage of being managed to optimize carbon.

The decision is even more wrong because it was taken, not only because of high flux in managed forests, but because of the risk of releases like 2004 becoming worse due to the reality of climate change. These warming risks simply put a greater accountability for its forests on a developed nation like Canada and make it more shameful to have opted out.

In 2003 the forests and ecosystems of Europe released more carbon than their industry. 

Canada negotiated mostly against EU resistance, for the right to not include its managed forests on its Kyoto account in case disturbances like the pine bark beetle get worse. European countries wanted Canada to be accountable for protecting its incredible forest carbon reservoirs. Now Canada is opting out, and European countries have elected to include their managed forests. 

We are giving the EU an advantage by opting out. Europe was the first to grant carbon benefits for bioenergy. Now the leading edge pellet equipment is all manufactured there. Granting carbon rights to those with forest tenures creates the kind of forest management innovation the Haida Gwaii Climate Forest Pilot Project exhibits. 

Denying these rights puts Canadian tenure managers at a competitive disadvantage. Granting carbon rights in other countries creates environmental subsidies. California, Oregon, and Washington companies hiding behind the recent countervail agreement can now integrate carbon value to reduce the cost of managing their tenures. 

It is a time of crisis in our forest’s health and our forest sector. Canada has led the world in sustainable forest management and demonstrated that it is ready to find a way to integrate forest carbon. 

Canada can still notify the UN that it has changed its mind and elected to include its managed forests. Let’s support government in finding a way to grant our incredible Canadian forest management pioneers, innovative First Nation managers, and resourceful silviculture industry, the competitive advantages of trading forest carbon within a national covenant.