The Family of Laws Fighting for Better Fibre Supply Chains

Last year the European Union issued a new regulation (the EUDR) aimed at preventing the entry of products that originate from recently deforested land or have contributed to forest degradation into the EU marketplace. The EUDR is likely the most significant, but not the only, law or rule proposed by governments around the world to ‘clean up’ their supply chains when it comes to forest and agricultural products. Policymakers are increasingly working to do their part to meet global climate and biodiversity targets. Where does Canada, and its purported leadership in sustainable forest management, fit in?
We sit down with Etelle Higonnet, who has been an advisor to the European Union on the EUDR. She explains the EU law and the other “family” of regulations on deforestation and forest degradation free products. We discuss the importance and implications of these rules, as well as the response from the Canadian government and forest industry groups. What are Canada’s arguments against these rules? Why are they making them? And what opportunities do these laws provide that we could be missing out on?

Make sure to check out the show notes on the podcast webpage for more links and helpful resources.

You can help this community grow by sharing the podcast with your friends.

Support the show

https://wildlandsleague.org/theclearcut/

Episode Transcript

Jan Sumner (00:00):
Welcome to the Clear Cut.
Hi, I'm Janet Sumner, ExecutiveDirector at Wildlands League.

Kaya Adleman (00:08):
And I'm Kaya Adelman, Carbon Manager at
Wildlands League.

Jan Sumner (00:14):
Wildlands League is a Canadian conservation
organization working onprotecting the natural world.

Kaya Adleman (00:21):
The Clear Cut is bringing to you the much needed
conversation on Canadian forestmanagement and how we can better
protect one of Canada's mostimportant ecosystems, as our
forests are reaching a tippingpoint.

Jan Sumner (00:40):
All right.
So we're here with anotherepisode of the Clear Cut.
I'm sort of a little bithesitant to start because I
don't want to give away too much.
I almost feel like it's best tohear it from Etel herself.

(01:14):
She will say some surprisingthings and things that and I
think the setup I want to givethis is that we've talked
throughout the podcast about howthe economics are changing and
where do we want to go, how dowe create the right economics,
the supply chain be better andthat it be responsive to what
the consumer is asking for,which is, you know, things that
don't damage the planet, thebiodiversity of the planet, that

(01:39):
don't damage nature, that don'tdamage the climate, and so
that's a huge push right now inthe world and there are new laws
coming online to basically say,well, we're going to check into
the supply chain and make surethat it meets certain criteria
and then, beyond that, workingwith companies that do want to
do some of the right things, andwhat does that look like, etc.
So Atel is going to talk aboutthe companies that want change,

(02:00):
the investors, the laws that arecoming and what that means in
terms of the different types ofproducts and the standards that
they have to meet.
But there's some twists andturns along the way that I think
are going to be fun to listento Kyle.

Kaya Adleman (02:17):
Yeah, I really enjoyed this conversation.
I think everyone else will geta kick out of it as well.
Lots of really interestinginitiatives on the horizon in
the world of changing our forestfiber supply and some more
permanent actions being taken tomake supply chains free of

(02:37):
deforestation and forestdegradation products.

Jan Sumner (02:42):
Yeah, and again, we'll include things in the show
notes and links to the variouspieces that Etel mentions, some
of the letters that shereferences.
We'll include those so that youcan actually see them for
yourselves and make your ownjudgments.
I mean, it's up to everybodywho's listening to make their

(03:03):
own judgment and decide onwhat's good and bad about this.
But anyway, let's dive in.
I'm really looking forward totoday's conversation.
This came out of the blue.
I got an email from Mattelasking us to work with them on
something, asking us to workwith them on something and since

(03:28):
then our conversation has justturned to all different kinds of
things and thinking from howCanada's forests are really of
global importance and othercountries are looking to Canada
as a source for fiber.
But what does that mean?
And what does it mean when westart to see other jurisdictions
putting requirements on theirsourcing and looking at what
that means for Canada and whereCanada stands on some of that?

(03:51):
Some people may know about theEuropean Union decision in terms
of their preference policies,and there are preference
policies now coming up in the US, in several states now that are
being considered.
So we're here to talk todaywith Etel and I'm going to allow
Etel to tell us how topronounce her name, because I

(04:11):
may be saying it completelyincorrectly right, jan, you're
saying it just right it's EtelYigone, that's perfect.
Okay, fantastic.
So we'd really like you tostart with some introductions
about who you are and a littlebit about you, and maybe
something that the audience canconnect with.
Like, that isn't about the workthat we talk about, that is

(04:32):
something just unique to you andI'm thrilled to be here with
you and your listeners.

Etelle Higonnet (04:43):
I'll tell you a little bit about myself.
I'm French American.
I'm a lawyer by training but anactivist by calling, and I
worked in the past fororganizations like Human Rights
Watch, amnesty International,greenpeace, mighty Earth and
National Wildlife Federation.

(05:03):
A lot of my work has been ondeforestation, but a great deal
also on human rights.
I think those two areintertwined like the two sides
of the same coin and that toonly focus on human rights
without the environment orenvironmental questions is
really missing a bigger, vitalelement of how we are all one.

(05:29):
But what can I tell you?
That is kind of personal.
Beyond the fact that I'm alawyer, I'm knighted.
I'm an environmentalist.
I've worked a lot ondeforestation and many high-risk
commodities, maybe a sad factand a happy fact.
A sad fact is that I havereceived three death threats for

(05:53):
my work in the past and I'vebeen arrested several dozen
times for my work as well.
So I think in my career I'vejust seen how hard it can be to
go toe to toe with armed groupsor governments or industries and

(06:15):
companies that are notrespecting human rights and
environmental concerns.
So that's a sadder fact aboutme.
But a happier personal factabout me is that I'm a new mom
and my baby is just the light ofmy life and the best thing in
my whole world, and that eversince he was born, I feel,

(06:39):
stronger than ever before, thisburning desire to make the world
a better place.
I really want him to inherit abeautiful planet with clean air,
clean water.
I want him to feel that I dideverything I could to protect
him from a kind of Mad Maxclimate chaos scenario and I

(07:01):
just love him to bits.
So I do a lot of this for him.

Jan Sumner (07:05):
Oh, that's so beautiful.
The latter part, not the beingarrested part.
You've worked in a lot ofdifferent countries as well,
have you, not I?

Etelle Higonnet (07:13):
have.

Jan Sumner (07:13):
Can you give us maybe some of that.
Give us a brief tour.
I mean just so you know, Ifondly in our office refer to
you as the slacker, because Ilooked at your resume and I'm
like what.
She only speaks four languagesand it's only proficient in
another four.
Like what the heck?
What has this person been doingwith their life?
So maybe you could give us abrief tour of all the different

(07:35):
places where you've worked.

Etelle Higonnet (07:37):
Sure, sure.
It was my immense privilegewhen I was with Greenpeace and
also Mighty Earth to work a lotin Southeast Asia, so that was a
pretty recent time in my career.
I got to work in Indonesia,malaysia, singapore, philippines

(08:11):
, thailand, burma, laos,cambodia and Vietnam.
It was just a fascinatingexperience.
But before working more in Asia, I had done a lot in the Middle
East.
So I worked in Iraq and alsoLebanon, in Egypt during the
Tahrir Square times and then, ofcourse, a great deal in Central
and West Africa.
I've worked in Gapon, cameroon,liberia, sierra Leone, ivory

(08:32):
Coast, senegal, gambia, burkinaFaso, mali, lots in Central and
Latin America Brazil, bolivia Iwill just stop there but many
countries.

Jan Sumner (08:43):
Yeah, you can see why.
I fondly call a slacker, totallythe opposite of and completely
facetiously.
So thank you for just giving usa brief tour of your career so
far and I say so far because Ireally expect that you'll just
continue to explode and do morethings all over the planet.

(09:04):
So this is fantastic and alsojust to give folks a chance to
realize that this is a deep,rich vein of conversation that I
suspect could go on for many,many episodes.
We're really going to try andfocus today on talking about

(09:25):
what are some of these variouslaws that are coming up and
proposed legislation that arecoming up in the EU, the UK, the
US, and what's their purposeand what's their thinking.
And I know that you've beenworking on some of these at
various different organizations.

(09:46):
And so that's why we're doingthe conversation with Etel,
because she's got directinformation from this and this
is important for us tounderstand because it will
inadvertently affect Canadianforestry and what's being
required of it what's beingrequired of it?

Etelle Higonnet (10:03):
Jeanne, I'm so thrilled you asked this question
about laws.
A lot of people find laws to bea bit overwhelming and scary,
but in fact, let's dive right in.
The laws we're relating to aresexy and amazing and they will
save the planet.
We should love them likethere's no tomorrow.
Let me just give a littlebackground to that passionate

(10:27):
chapeau.
A lot of people know thatfossil fuels drive a huge amount
of climate change, but fewpeople realize that actually,
agriculture and food are linkedto around a third of climate
change and maybe 80 or 90% ofglobal biodiversity loss.
Right, so we are talking aboutlike the drivers behind mass
extinction.

(10:48):
What many people also don't knowabout ag and food is the
world's biggest employer isagriculture and it is rife with
labor abuses.
You know, in Canada we don'tsee this so much anymore, but if
you go to a place like theIvory Coast or Brazil or
Indonesia, you start seeing upclose and personal slavery,

(11:09):
child labor, forced labor,sexual abuse of very vulnerable
workers.
These are pretty dark thingsthat the food and ag system is
delivering to us right.
Climate chaos, biodiversityloss, human rights violations.
The good news is a lot of that.
Deforestation is driven byseven commodities, only seven.

(11:30):
So we don't necessarily have tofix 700 commodities.
I mean, yes, we should fixeverything that we consume and
eat, because the world would bea better place and a more
beautiful future for my babywould be insured and everybody
else's kids too.
We'll get to live in a moreperfect planet that we have
stewarded well.
But just seven commoditiesisn't really too much to ask to

(11:55):
change.
So the seven commodities thatare driving deforestation are
getting regulated in thesegorgeous laws that I was telling
you about.
Those commodities are palm oil,pulp and paper cattle, soy,
cocoa, coffee and rubber.
The laws approach it indifferent ways, right?

(12:16):
You mentioned the EUDR.
Let's start there, because itis just bomb diggity.
The EUDR is fantastic.
Just bomb diggity.
The EUDR is fantastic.
The EUDR is now the law of theland.
It has been passed.
It actually got amazing supportfrom millions of European

(12:37):
citizens who signed petitionsand sent letters and called and
protested and marched.
It also got huge support in theparliament and it is a very
good, serious effort to curb allimported deforestation entering
the EU in those high-riskcommodities that I talked about.
So if you try to bring in dirtypalm oil that's tainted by
deforestation or crimes into theEU, with EUDR, you couldn't do

(13:00):
that anymore.
So let's talk about the EUDR aslike the star of this family of
laws.
And then, across the channel youmentioned, we have this UK
Environment Act, which got RoyalAssent in November 9, 2021,
which is great.
Thank you to the Royal familyand now we're just waiting for

(13:22):
the implementing regulation fromDEFRA.
So far, it looks like it'sgoing to cover four commodities,
not the seven that we have fromthe UDR, so you could say it's
the little sister of the UDR,because it's four commodities,
not seven, and it's onlycovering illegal deforestation,
not all deforestation, and itdoesn't cover all crimes.
So it doesn't, for example, barslavery or child labor.

(13:42):
But it's a very beautifullittle sister and we're halfway
there, so that's awesome.
Then across the pond in the USwe look to the Forest Act.
The Forest Act is the babysister and it hasn't yet passed.
It would cover all illegaldeforestation embedded in the

(14:04):
imports of six high-riskcommodities coming into the US.
Not quite as good as the EDR,because it's six and not seven.
It misses coffee and it's gotillegal deforestation as opposed
to all deforestation.
But it is a beautiful babysister and this baby sister has
bipartisan support in the Houseand the Senate.
So that's kind of our starfamily.

(14:26):
But then there's the cousins andthe cousins are lovely, lovely,
beautiful cousins.
In the cousins we have the NewYork Deforestation Free
Procurement Act, the CaliforniaDeforestation Free Procurement
Act and the IllinoisDeforestation Free Procurement
Act, which is the newest andyoungest of the cousins, and

(14:50):
your organization has just comeout to support it.
So we love you.
Thank you so much.
You're a star.
And those bills we can diveinto more, but they are so
important as well and they kindof match a Welsh, French and
Norwegian cousins who also arethese regulations across on the
other side of the ocean around.
Deforestation-free procurementas opposed to imports.

Jan Sumner (15:11):
Can you say the German name actually?

Etelle Higonnet (15:13):
Oh, so that's the more distant cousin, but
also a fabulous addition to thefamily.
The Liefe Kattengesetz is thesupply chain regulation of
Germany.
It's really similar to thisFrench law called the Loi de
Devoir de Vigilance, the Duty ofVigilance Law.
Those two laws are older thanthe EUDR.
I think we wouldn't even havethe EUDR without those laws.

(15:35):
Actually, hats off to theFrench and the German lawmakers
who kind of paved the way andcreated new horizons, new
imagination of what is possiblein the EU.
Those laws the French andGerman supply chain laws they're
in a way so strong.
They require a lot of reportingand transparency on everything

(15:59):
in your supply chain.
They also require you tominimize all the harms and then
report on what you do tominimize.
So it's way beyond a reportingexercise.
It's about overhauling entiresupply chains, which is very
beautiful and that's kind ofsimilar to the EUDR and the
other laws I was talking about.
Because how could you overhaulyour supply chain and not look

(16:21):
at deforestation?
It's such a severe problem andso tied to human rights abuses.

Kaya Adleman (16:26):
So what's the difference between procurement
and a ban on imports?

Jan Sumner (16:33):
That's a fantastic question.

Etelle Higonnet (16:34):
Kaya, imagine that you are the Canadian
government and I am trying tosend a dirty shipment of
deforestation cocoa saturatedwith also child slavery, which
is often the norm in the world'sworst cocoa.
If I try to send a boat filledwith that cocoa to Canada and
you have a lot of it blocks bad,dirty imports, whether it's on

(16:59):
slavery and child labor or ondeforestation.
My boat just literally cannotdock, which means I cannot bring
my bad cocoa or my bad palm oilor my bad leather or my bad soy
or whatever commodity you'retrying to regulate.
Hopefully all I cannotliterally bring it to market, so
unsuspecting Canadian consumerswill not become innocently

(17:22):
complicit if you will in mycrimes.
That's an import bill.
A procurement bill is a bitdifferent.
It's less far reaching.
If you were the government ofCanada and I was again trying to
sell you dirty cocoa or dirtypalm oil, a procurement bill
would ensure that what youprocure for government purposes

(17:42):
is clean.
So basically it uses the marketpower of the government.
It means people's tax dollarsare not going to fund
deforestation and horriblecrimes.

Jan Sumner (17:54):
I just want to dig in a little bit deeper on the
deforestation bill.
So my understanding isdeforestation slash degradation
procurement.
Okay, okay, yeah, I just wantedto capture that.

Etelle Higonnet (18:07):
Thank you for capturing that.
That's so important.
When we start getting excited,often we rattle off and go into
this passionate excitement aboutending deforestation, but you
are so right that forestdegradation is a huge problem.
What's really interesting isthat when you look at a
commodity like soy or cattle,you tend to have these giant

(18:28):
swaths of deforestation that youcan easily see with a satellite
map.
But some of the othercommodities that I was telling
your listeners about, likecoffee and cocoa and rubber, and
actually pulp and paper, theyoften have a huge amount of
forest degradation almost even,sometimes more than

(18:51):
deforestation, and so you'reabsolutely right, jen, that's
vital to capture.

Jan Sumner (18:57):
Yeah, and I think that's important for the New
York, california and Illinoisbills.
Are deforestation anddegradation-free procurement
policy bills right?
And the reason I bring that upis because that's some of the
stuff that well, for anybodywho's been listening to the
previous podcast, you'll knowthat we've talked about this
before is that deforestation iswhen you change the purpose of

(19:19):
the land use, right.
So if you go from it being aforest to now it being a
shopping mall or a agriculturaluse, that's deforestation.
If it's forestry and you'veactually clear cut it, then
you've degraded it, but youhaven't deforested it.
Even though there's no trees,it's no longer a forest.

(19:42):
But the way the internationaldefinition works is
deforestation has to be a changein land use and degradation is
when you're degrading theecosystem.
So that's why it's reallyimportant to know that the bills
that are going on in the US areabout deforestation and
degradation, and I'm pretty surethe EUDR is also that.

(20:02):
That's, the European Unionlegislation actually talks about
deforestation and preventingdegradation as well.

Etelle Higonnet (20:10):
You are spot on and actually.
So the latest, newest, maybeeven coolest bill in the US,
which is the Illinois bill,which is brand new, hot out of
the oven, has, as you haveexactly pointed out just now, a
degradation component as well asa deforestation component.

Jan Sumner (20:38):
And I want to get to the nub of this, because one of
the things that I found alittle bit disheartening is that
Canada's ambassador wrote tothe EU last like it was last
December saying that we didn'thave any deforestation and
therefore we should not beincluded in the EU DR and
everything should be hunky-doryand Canada didn't need to do all

(21:01):
of the requirements, etc.
Need to do all of therequirements, etc.
I personally asked the federalgovernment to reconsider pushing
back on this because I feltthat our logging scars work
Again.
Go back and take a look at ouror listen to our podcast on that
.
But we clearly have outlinedhow degradation is occurring in

(21:22):
Canada and, whether you ascribeto the official deforestation
definition or not, we definitelyhave degradation of ecosystems
going on here, and and so I justwant to get your take a tell on
how's Canada responding to allof this, because all of these
requirements well, yes, they'regoing to focus on coffee and soy

(21:43):
and, you know, cocoa and otherthings that what's hitting here
for us, I think, is both goingto be on soy, which you know our
podcast is not really about soy, but the forestry angle for
pulp and paper is definitely inthe procurement around forestry
projects.
Products in Canada will be hitby these various laws that are

(22:05):
coming up.
How's Canada responding?

Kaya Adleman (22:07):
And why did you reach out to us in the first
place?

Jan Sumner (22:11):
Maybe that's a good place to start, yeah sure.
Let's start there.

Etelle Higonnet (22:15):
Zaya and Jan, I have such sad, sad news for you
.
Let me preface my sad news bysaying everyone around the world

(22:40):
usually thinks of Canada as ashining beacon of hope for
democracy and human rights, andin New York and California, to
realize that there is anextremely strong, organized and
frankly horrible Canadiangovernment and industry campaign

(23:01):
to put the kibosh on thesebeautiful, vital laws that I've
just described.
I mean, at the most basic level.
Scientists are telling us ourplanet is on fire.
Climate chaos is real, it'sserious, it's imminent.
We have to stop using fossilfuels and we've got to stop
deforestation and forestdegradation.

(23:23):
This is what every singlescientist worth their start is
telling us.
These laws do that.
These laws that you and I havejust been describing.
They do exactly what we need todo, which is to curb and end
deforestation and forestdegradation.
Canada is like Nero fiddlingwhile Rome burns, except what

(23:50):
they're doing is fiddling whileour entire planet burns.
Let me just tell you that JohnJakubowski, your Minister of
Natural Resources and Forestry,sent the most horrible letter to
all the New York lawmakers whowere fighting to pass the New
York Deforestation FreeProcurement Act.
That's the provincial minister.

Jan Sumner (24:12):
Right, that's the provincial minister.

Etelle Higonnet (24:14):
Yeah, and not only did John Yakabuski send a
letter, but around the same time, the Acting Consul General of
Canada to New York, whichrepresents your entire
government, khawar Nassim, andeven the Consul Yves Beaulieu,
sent just awful, awful lettersto California, to New York, to

(24:40):
raise all sorts of objectionsabout the Canadian and New York
Deforestation Free ProcurementAct.
And Canada has also engaged inreally reprehensible démarches
with the EU to kill, slow,hollow out, weaken, delay the
EUDR.
Most recently, the letter thatyou mentioned is very disturbing

(25:01):
, jan.
So yes, I'm aware of that andwas horrified by that letter.
That's also horrified to findthat the Canadian soy industry
lobby group was trying to meetUrsula van der Leyen to ask her
to reopen, we think to ask herto reopen and delay and water
down the EUDR.
I mean, this is a tragedy.

(25:22):
This is really on par with Nerofiddling while Rome burns.
And the crazy thing is, whywould Canada need to weaken or
destroy these laws if Canadadidn't have a problem?
I fully believe that Canada iscapable, 100% capable, of

(25:46):
providing deforestation-free andforest degradation-free
products to the world and doinggood and doing well and making
money and making the world abetter place.
Why does Canada feel the needto ensure that there's no laws
that would stop the mostreprehensible behavior?
I mean, I believe that Canadacan be its best self.

(26:12):
Is the Canadian governmentsaying that Canada can't be its
best self, that Canada can'tfind a way to do good and do
well at the same time?
I just think that's it.

Jan Sumner (26:21):
Yeah, it seems sort of like uh, I don't know like a
paradox.
In a way, it's sort of likecanada is well known for, or
canada purports itself to have,the most sustainable forestry,
etc.
On the planet and likes thatreputation.
And so if that's yourreputation, and it's true, then

(26:43):
why would you try to to preventthese laws or challenge them in
any way?
Because you should be able tomeet them if your forestry is
that great.
Thank you, so that's the part Idon't get.

Etelle Higonnet (26:56):
Thank you.
If you have nothing to hide,why are you afraid of the
sunlight?
If you're the most sustainableforestry in the world, why are
you afraid of these laws?
You should be the number oneadvocate for these laws, because
it's a competitive advantage topeople who do sustainable
production, if, in fact, thereare laws that only allow

(27:20):
sustainable production productsto be sold bought and sold right
.

Jan Sumner (27:25):
Well, it's kind of consistent with well, it is
consistent with the GlasgowDeclaration right on forest and
forest.

Etelle Higonnet (27:32):
Thank you, yes, yes.

Jan Sumner (27:33):
Which Canada is a signatory to as well where we
promised to deliverdeforestation, degradation, free
planet, so again, these arejust all confounding pieces to
me.

Kaya Adleman (27:56):
I'm trying to make sense of it.
So Canada's forestry doesn'tmeet the international
definition of deforestation, buta lot of these laws now have
stipulations against forestdegradation.
And is it because these lawsdefine forest degradation as
something that Canadian forestrypractices in general would

(28:17):
violate?
Or, I don't know, maybe is itbecause there's no
internationally standarddefinition of what forest
degradation is?
That's making Canada so nervousabout these laws.

Etelle Higonnet (28:32):
So I have some of these letters that Canadian
industry and governmentofficials sent right here in
front of me.
I have them on my desk and Ican tell you what the basic
arguments are.
The first argument is we don'treally need these laws because
we're already perfect, so pleasedon't bother us.
The second argument is we needthese jobs and laws might

(29:01):
interfere with employment.
So it's jobs over planet.
Essentially, the next bigargument is employment.
Your laws are going to raisethe cost of doing business and
make things more expensive.
Jen, when you were saying thatyou don't understand how to hold
these multiple things in yourmind at the same time, I feel

(29:25):
the same.
If you are saying that yourforestry is already perfect and
sustainable and that the lawsare superfluous, then why would
it make it so much moreexpensive and why would so many
jobs be lost if the laws atstake came to pass.
No, I think, if you have nothingto hide, you are not afraid of

(29:49):
the sun.
Yeah, that's the bottom line,and that makes it extremely
disquieting that Canadianindustry and government have
essentially been on some kind ofwarpath to shut down the laws

(30:11):
that we so desperately need inIllinois, in New York, in Canada
, we desperately need them inthe UK, we desperately need them
in the EU.
In fact, we desperately needthem everywhere in the world to
save our planet and make ithabitable for future generations
.

Jan Sumner (30:28):
Yeah, I guess the other thing that I find
disquieting is that I know thatdisquieting is that, uh, uh, I
know that, uh, so just in, interms of our work, we speak up,
uh, and point to the truth ofwhat's going on in canada.
Many people know we've done thethe logging scars work, which

(30:48):
we deem to be either de factodeforestation, because those are
areas that are barren 30, 30 ormore years after harvest, and,
thinking on a 2050 timeframe,there's going to be no way that
things that you log today willbe coming back and this is
commercial full tree harvesting.
I'll just provide that.
But commercial full treeharvesting, when you're engaged

(31:10):
in that, it leaves a signaturefootprint in the landscape.
There might be a way to preventthat, but we haven't yet
invented that.
And right now, if we're engagedin that, by 2050, those areas,
which might be about 14% onaverage, maybe they can make it
a little bit less, but it'llstill be barren.
So we see that as either a defacto deforestation or at least

(31:32):
a degradation, and so we knowthat that's occurring, occurring
and we think Canada should behonest about it and talk about
it, and maybe these laws willhelp Canada to say, okay, it's
time to address this and makeforestry a bit better.
But that's actually degradationby design.
We've actually designed thesystem to actually execute in

(31:52):
that way.
Now we're not yet takingownership of that, but Canada
and I know I've spoken out aboutthis and I know that Canada has
had conversations with otherjurisdictions and said well, we
agree with the principles inthese deforestation, degradation
, free procurement policies.
We just think you should removethe boreal, which means the

(32:16):
focus then becomes the globalsouth, and the disquieting piece
for me is, as the canada that Iknow and and love, I want them
to not just be seeking this, tobe a north, like the north is,
is good.
Don't look at us, only look atthe South.

(32:36):
But step up and meet theserequirements and be the global
leader that you can be and notjust say this is just a problem
that's happening in the South,because that just feels kind of
icky to me.

Etelle Higonnet (32:54):
Do you know what it feels like to me?
It feels kind of icky to me.
Do you know what it feels liketo me?
It feels racist.
I think the idea that we'regoing to have rules which only
global South nations are goingto have to abide by and global
North nations are not going tohave to abide by is, frankly,
cuckoo banana pants.
It's crazy.

Kaya Adleman (33:18):
And it's not just crazy and irrational and not
science driven and not datadriven, it is also basically
racist yeah, like the optics ofit are that these laws are
targeting products that areassociated with developing
countries and it seems likeCanada is looking down on and

(33:41):
doesn't want to be lumped inwith that group and is trying to
other itself and raise itselfup against that.

Etelle Higonnet (33:49):
I think that if Canadian industry and
government officials feel that aset of laws are adequate for
Indonesian palm oil andBrazilian cattle and Ivorian
cocoa, then those laws should beapplied, even Stephen, around

(34:12):
the world.
If they are good enough forCameroon, they are good enough
for Canada.
Yeah, Canada should be able tomeet them Canada should be able
to meet the same level, the samethreshold of due diligence and
care and sustainability asCameroon.
And if Canada believes that itcannot, then we're faced with a

(34:37):
strange situation where a FrenchAmerican believes that Canada
can be its best self and theCanadian government seems to
think less of Canada than I do,which I find to be absurd.
That's very unpatriotic.
I believe Canada has immensenumbers of resourceful, creative

(34:57):
, brilliant individuals who canfigure out how to run its
various industries in the mostethical ways.

Jan Sumner (35:09):
I would also say I just want to put this out there
is that at Wildlandsley we'veworked with some very
progressive forestry companieswho really want to do some of
the right things, are doingamazing work, both from
community forests or FirstNations Indigenous-owned forests
and smaller forestry companiesand some large commercial

(35:30):
forestry companies.
And so when we talk about theindustry, I think this is often
industry representation, etcetera, that really catches the
big players but doesn'tnecessarily capture the whole.
So I want to differentiate onthat just a little bit, because
I know not all industry is insupport of the pushback.
One of those progressiveforestry companies that wants to

(35:57):
do different things, wants tomeet these regulations, wants to
take advantage of thatcompetitive advantage that you
can get, because if these lawscome into place, then it leaves
the space for Canada to step upand say, hey, if you can't get
fiber from here, we meet thetest, come here, get your fiber
here, and so I think that's agreat position for Canada to be
in.
And so I think that is that's agreat position for Canada to be

(36:17):
in.

Etelle Higonnet (36:18):
Not only do I agree wholeheartedly with you,
jen, but I want to add thatthousands of companies came out
to publicly support the EUDR.
They came out to publiclysupport a stronger version of

(36:39):
the UK Environment Bill Sched,schedule 17, than even the UK
government was proposing at thetime has come out to support the
Forest Act or the New York orCalifornia Bill, etc.
In fact, ikea has come out tosupport the EUTR very strongly.
When I say thousands ofcompanies, I don't mean just
companies like Patagonia andSeventh Generation.
I'm talking about Ikea.

(37:00):
It's not a muumuu-wearingcorner hippie-dippie shop for
baskets.
It's the biggest furniture shopin the world.
I'm talking about Mars.
It's not, you know, some kindof bean to bar, mom and pop
chocolate high end.
You know fancy pants, bougiechocolate store.

(37:22):
Mars is huge.
We're talking about companieslike Unilever.
Huge companies have come out tosupport bills like the EUDR,
the Forest Act, nike, adidas,h&m, primark.

(37:45):
Here's a really interestingstatement from H&M.
He said we undertake humanrights due diligence in line
with UN guiding principles onbusiness and human rights.
We want to see others doing thesame it's almost exactly what
you were saying, jan which is,companies that are committing to

(38:06):
no deforestation and no forestdegradation that are getting on
the path.
They want these laws becausethey want to do good business.
They want to do good and dowell laws because they want to
do good business.
They want to do good and dowell.
There are industry players inCanada that, I'm sure, do want
these laws.
So why is the Canadiangovernment listening to the
worst part of industry and notthe best part of industry, not

(38:29):
seeing that you can be your bestself and make money off of it
and have a competitive advantageagainst companies in other
countries that aren't going todo the same?
And also, please, can somebodyask the Canadian government to
stop scraping the bottom of thebarrel with the most absurd
arguments known to man?
There's this hilarious thingthat Yves Bollier, the consul,

(38:54):
wrote.
He said Canada is a friend ofCalifornia forests in a letter,
basically trying to kill theCalifornia bill.
He said in the fall of 2020,canada sent more than 60
firefighters to California toassist in battling the
devastating wildfires.
It reminds me of an oil companythat said we are going to have
recyclable paper cups instead ofstyrofoam cups on this giant

(39:18):
drilling rig that'll be up inthe arctic.
You're drilling in the arcticand you're gonna have
compostable cups.
What are you talking about?

Kaya Adleman (39:28):
it's like, yeah, like the ceo of ryan air when,
like I think it was um bbc panPanorama was criticizing his or
their, their carbon creditscheme, and then he was like,
but we donate to dolphins, likewe've saved dolphins.

Jan Sumner (39:48):
Being in the trenches, sometimes you want to
zero in on what you were justtalking about these big
companies.
So that's the other thing thatI think is very interesting in
the landscape that's starting toshift really supply chains and

(40:10):
the demand for products and somany people are aware of the
climate, the car, the climatecop and the nature cop and
companies come to that largecompanies like you're saying,
like unilever and liptons and,uh, denon and many, many, many,
many, many other companies whocome to these conclusions that
they finally go.

(40:30):
You know what we're tired ofgetting hammered about our
climate portfolio or our natureum, where we access products,
and we'd really like it if therecould be some solid laws that
would help us guide this.
But they represent an enormousbuying power that is also going
to be shifting how and what getsproduced, and so it's good to

(40:53):
have laws that help support that, because then at least that's
the bar you have to get over andthen you can have the companies
out there leading the pack andactually driving even bigger
change.
But they need the support ofthese laws because it actually
then creates the supply, thevery supply chain that they need
, and then they can get out andsupport it.

(41:15):
So I mean, that's just thedynamics.
Many of us in the environmentalfield we think about these
things, about, well, what'sdriving the demand for these
products or what's driving thisdeforestation or degradation?
And when you have goodcompanies out there saying we
demand more and better, and youhave laws that are saying, okay,
here's the bet, here's the bar,it actually then creates a

(41:39):
marketplace that can supportthese companies who want to do
good.
And I guess my question to youthat's my summary.
But my question to you, atel,is you talked about some of
these companies and I forget itwas in some notes that we passed
back and forth before theepisode but you talked about a
certain amount of investment ormoney that this represents, and

(42:01):
I forget the figure that youused, but it was astonishing to
me.
So can you maybe just talkabout that a little bit?

Etelle Higonnet (42:11):
Yeah, yeah, so you know, a number of companies
came out to support all theselaws.
In fact, thousands, literallythousands, in the regulated
spaces.
By the way, these are companiesthat are directly affected by
the law because what theyproduce and sell is going to be
regulated by the EUDR or theForest Act or the UK Environment
Bill or the New York orCalifornia or, most recently,

(42:34):
the Illinois bill.
But, in addition to companies,investors worth trillions of
dollars of assets undermanagement came out to support
bills like this.
There are, to my knowledge,four major investor letters.

(42:55):
There's one investor letterthat I'm more familiar with just
because I helped to get itlaunched, and that's a letter
that's almost $3 trillion ofassets under management, which
those investors supported theForest Act in the United States

(43:16):
being passed.
They supported the Californiaand the New York bills and at
the time, the Illinois bill didnot yet exist.
And also, at that time, theexecutive order in Colorado,
which is thanks to the Coloradogovernor, also did not exist.
But across the pond in the EU,there were investor letters that

(43:38):
were even larger the EUinvestor statement from the
Investor Alliance for HumanRights, with 94 investors, over
6 trillion in assets undermanagement.
Another letter with over 105institutional investors, 5
trillion assets under managementand I don't remember the exact

(44:00):
details of the other investorletters.
But we're talking huge supportfrom the investor community.
And why do I want to emphasizethis?
A lot of investors, a lot ofinvestors.

(44:21):
Their money is going up insmoke along with our planet.
Right, because there is noeconomy without a planet.
When the rivers run dry and youcannot run ships through the
traditional trading routes,which has just started to happen
in the last couple of years Iam not making this up, this is a
real thing.
Rivers running dry, they getsuper low.
The traditional cargo shipscannot go on their routes.
When that happens, you can'tget your stuff from point A to

(44:44):
point B.
The supply chain starts fallingapart.
There are huge delays,everything gets wonky.
You lose money.
But it's not just shipping, it'sagriculture.
Surprise, surprise.
If you want to grow things, youneed rain and you need
predictable weather.
You can't have super storms andheat domes and mega droughts.
It actually doesn't work verywell for agriculture.
Shocker.

(45:04):
So investors who are investedat scale in agriculture they
don't actually like climatechaos.
But it's not just that.
The pharmaceutical industrydepends on forests and on nature
.
The vast majority of ourmedicines.

(45:26):
They originate from productsthat were found in forests,
which we then tweak and work onin labs and replicate and
produce and sell at scale tosave people from things like
cancer.
If you destroy all of ourforests and, by the way, also
our coral reefs you're basicallyshutting down the future of the
pharmaceutical industry.
It's not just that Energy.
If you're interested in hydroenergy, well, guess what?

(45:48):
There's no hydro energy whenthere's no rain.
So mega droughts are not greatfor hydro energy.
Mega droughts are not great forhydro energy.
There's so many investors whoseportfolios are getting hit and
hit and hit again by climatechaos.
That's why they supported theselaws.
It should be a no brainer.
The truth is, without theselaws, we are not going to have a

(46:12):
habitable planet and we are notgoing to have an economy, and
that means we're not going tohave jobs and we're not going to
have money.
So we need these laws if wewant jobs and money.

Jan Sumner (46:23):
But I mean, yes, we absolutely do need them if we
want.
But even if you don't think ofit in an environmental
perspective, the fact thatthere's this much investor money
in the trillions undermanagement, like trillions, like
multiple trillions that seemslike a space you want to be
skating to, to use a Canadianphrase, like you want to skate

(46:44):
to where the puck is, and thepuck is in the trillions of
dollars of investment that aresupporting anti-degradation and
deforestation procurementpolicies.
That seems like a good space tobe in.

Etelle Higonnet (46:58):
That's where we should be skating forward, not
backwards.
It's really not 1400, actually,last time I checked it was also
not 1830.
Like we are in a different age,you know, it's as if some of
these lawmakers are livingfirmly in the Middle Ages, like
the beginning of the IndustrialRevolution.

(47:19):
When are they going to get thememo?

Kaya Adleman (47:23):
Yeah, I was thinking also about how, when we
did our fiber economy episode,we were talking about how fiber
that comes from Canadian forestsis usually like saw logs that
are bought by other companies tobe used.
Pulp is usually as like primaryinputs for other products.
And I'm just thinking, ifCanada doesn't want to sign on

(47:45):
to these deforestation anddegradation free procurement
policies and laws, they'reisolating themselves from these
huge companies who want tosource sustainable fiber.
So, especially because ifCanadian forests are at the
beginning of the supply chainand then they're in the business

(48:09):
of selling their products tosecondary manufacturers, it
would just make sense to sign onto these laws.
No, you say it sister.

Jan Sumner (48:26):
So I'm going to take this in a slightly different
direction, because one of thethings that has happened in
Canada in response to this hasbeen the Canadian government is
actually trying to create adegradation, a definition of
degradation, and they areconsulting broadly.
They're having conversationswith the Canadian forest
ministers, they're havingconversations with some

(48:47):
environmentalists, includingWildlands League.
We've been engaged in some ofthose conversations and very
rich conversations, I will saythat and brought forward some
great ideas.
There are a number ofenvironmental groups Wildlands,
nature, canada and severalothers that came out with their
own definition.

(49:08):
We tried to inform the processby saying you know, let's just
as environmentalists start tothink about this and put it on a
sheet of paper and say this isthe definition that we think we
should start from, and we've putthat out there to the Canadian
government.
I think one of the challenges isgoing to be in how Canada

(49:29):
operates as a country, because,well, the federal government may
want to create a really goodsolid, very good definition.
That would actually start topush the envelope.
The challenge has to be forthem that they've got to get all
of the provinces to agree to it, and that's because forestry is

(49:49):
regulated for the most part ata provincial scale.
So Canada is out there having aconversation about signing on
to the Glasgow Declaration andwanting to deal with
deforestation and degradation,creating its own definition, but
the regulatory framework andthe responsibility is at the

(50:14):
provincial level, and so this isgoing to be a challenge.
And then you've got theenvironmentalists who are saying
, well, we really need to go inthis direction.
So I'm not sure where it'sgoing to land, but that is kind
of the framework.
And when Attell was referencingsome of these letters, some of
these letters are coming fromprovincial governments who are
definitely in opposition tothese various bills etc.

(50:36):
And then sometimes the federalgovernment is being urged on not
only by industry but byprovinces who have a vested
interest in a certain outcome.
So for those of you who maywant to express your voice or
have a conversation at thepolitical level, it would not be
just with the federalgovernment, but also with your

(50:58):
provincial governments who arein charge of regulating forestry
and how they see degradationand what their pushback might be
on this.
And it would be great if peoplecould start to see this as a
clear opportunity versus.
You know what it feels likeright now, or the response feels
like is being perceived as anattack on Canadian forestry, and

(51:18):
I feel more that it's anopportunity for Canadian
forestry to stand up and be aleader.

Etelle Higonnet (51:25):
I just want to provide that context.
I think it's an opportunity forthe best of Canadian industry to
absolutely step up and lead theentire world.
I think it is probably anattack on the worst parts of
Canadian industry, which,frankly, canada deserves better
than that, and I'm a firmbeliever that Canada is a

(51:47):
beautiful, fantastic, well-rungovernment that, when it wants
to, it can do great things.
And they signed onto theGlasgow Declaration.
They signed numerous otherinternational treaties, and if

(52:07):
you talk the talk, you got towalk the walk.
But, more importantly, let'swalk the walk towards a
habitable planet and a goodfuture, instead of walking the
walk off the doom cliff ofclimate chaos, which is going to
engulf all of us if we don'tall step up.
Yeah, we're seeing the ravagesof wildfires right now in Canada

(52:41):
, so I think there's a lot of uswho feel that deep pain.
Tweet Insta, go on Facebooksomehow, get through to your
elected representatives and yourlocal government and tell them
to get behind all these bills.
Not just to stop being thenattering nabob of negativity

(53:01):
that's trying to put the kiboshon all these beautiful laws and
bills.
Tell your electedrepresentatives they work for
you, they work for you.
Tell them you want a betterfuture for your kids and
grandchildren.
You love this beautiful planet.
That is the only planet we caninhabit.
I'm sorry, elon Musk, I do notwant to go to Mars.
Pretty much no one I know wantsto go to Mars.

(53:22):
This is it.
This is our home.
You tell your electedrepresentatives that work for
you that Canada has got to beits best self, has got to step
up, has got to be a champion forall these bills.
You can do it.

Jan Sumner (53:38):
Yeah, notwithstanding my childhood
dream to be in Star Trek, I dowant the Earth to be a habitable
planet, absolutely 100 percent.
Um, can you maybe forecast thefuture and and kind of go
through all the laws, thesisters, the cousins and and
where we're tracking right now,where we can expect, like the

(53:59):
eudr is in, it's in, it's passed, but, um, it's not being
implemented yet and we're stillkind of waiting to see how that
all happens.
Can you maybe just take us on atour, etel, and help us
understand where it's all going?

Etelle Higonnet (54:17):
I'm a super glass-half-full person.
I am not a glass-half-emptyperson, so let me start out with
all the good news first.
The EUDR has passed it's thelaw of the land.
It's awesome, it rocks.
It's a super sexy law.
I think it's going to be wellenforced.
It may take a little whilebefore all the law enforcement
folks around the EU fully wraptheir mind around how to do that

(54:38):
because it's new, but I'mconfident that will happen, even
though it's been attacked byindustry.
The UK environment billsimilarly it's passed.
It's the law of the land.
It got royal assent.
We're now just waiting forimplementing regulation from
DEFRA.
That will come.
I fully believe that the UK canmake it good.

(55:02):
I'm still a little hesitantbecause you don't want to count
your chicks before they hatch,but I believe the UK could do a
great job.
The Forest Act if we cross overto this side of the pond, it
has bipartisan support in theHouse and the Senate.
It could pass that's incredibleactually.

(55:23):
I mean given where things arewith that.

Jan Sumner (55:25):
I mean watching from the north here, watching where
things are in the Senate.
It's kind of like whoa, youhave a bipartisan support bill.
I know.

Etelle Higonnet (55:35):
Oh, it's amazing.
This is a fantastic bill.
It's got real bipartisansupport in the House and the
Senate.
The New York bill just passedlike a hot knife through butter
with flying colors in the Houseand the Senate.
In New York it's calledSubtrees Act.
Now we're just waiting for thegovernor to see if she will pass
it or veto it as she did lastyear.
We hope she'll pass this year.

Jan Sumner (55:54):
Does that one include the boreal, though it
does not?
Now, that's what I thought,yeah.

Etelle Higonnet (55:59):
The California bill passed like a hot knife for
butter in the House and theSenate but it's now on ice
because the governor vetoed it,I think in part maybe because of
Canadian lobbying, which wasquite harmful.
But you know, I think that ifIllinois gets across the finish
line and or New York, thenCalifornia will come back and I

(56:20):
believe that these things it'sinevitable.
Either we are going to all burnon a dead planet or we're going
to end up with good laws likethis to all burn on a dead
planet or we're going to end upwith good laws like this.

Jan Sumner (56:31):
So it's our choice, well, well, and the companies
who are, you know, making theproducts?
You know they're not thenecessarily the forestry
companies.
They're companies that aremaking products and want to
source things from good places.
At the end of the day, they'reasking for these laws to get
passed they are thousands ofthem, thousands, like you know.
We need to give them some helpand actually make sure that the
supply is there for them.

(56:53):
Let's help them.
So for somebody who has receiveddeath threats, intimidation
letters has been arrested, beenarrested letters and has been
arrested, been arrested, I tellus, like the nicest person and

(57:14):
she talks about all these lawsas being cousins and daughters
and children of, and I justfound it so absolutely pleasant
to speak with her and yet she isdriving some of the some
arguably some of the biggestchange and setting up the global
frameworks for change to occur,because a lot of our economic

(57:37):
system is driving the behavioron the ground.

Kaya Adleman (57:40):
I'm thinking also about the state procurement
bills that have been inCalifornia, that one that has
been kiboshed, and theCalifornia state government
saying we don't want statetaxpayer monies going towards
fiber products that areassociated with forest
degradation and deforestation.
That's such a small andinsignificant blow to the

(58:04):
Canadian forest industry.
So my question is why?
Why are they fighting so hardto to lobby against that law?
Um, is it because they'reafraid that it will apply to
them like I don't know?

Jan Sumner (58:17):
these are just questions that I have coming out
of this conversation and it'shappening behind closed doors
right.
Most canadians don't know thattheir government or their
provincial government isfighting against this.
So Kaya and I decided that itmight be interesting for the two

(58:38):
of us to go back and look atsome of the letters that she
refers to, letters that weresent from various governments in
Canada to explain the Canadianperspective on these procurement
pieces of legislation.
So we thought we would read afew of those, and then Kaya is

(58:59):
going to put them into theepisode and provide them, et
cetera.
So we'll the suggestion.
My suggestion is, kaya, that westart with the letter from
British Columbia, the Albertagovernment, the Ontario
government and the Quebecgovernment that was sent in 2021
, june 15th, to the HonorableSenator, bill Dodd Chair of the

(59:21):
Senate Standing Committee onGovernmental Organization in
California regarding theCalifornia Deforestation Free
Procurement Act for public worksprojects wood and wood products
.
I don't know if you have asection of it, your favorite
section of it you might want toread, or.

Kaya Adleman (59:40):
Sure the provinces say.
We write you jointly to expressthe shared concern of the
governments Ontario, quebec,alberta and British Columbia
have with respect to the AB 416California Deforestation Free
Procurement Act.
While the intent of thelegislation, ensuring forest

(01:00:00):
sustainability, is certainlycommendable, the bill, as
written, does not consider theworld-class sustainable forest
management practices to whichour Canadian and provincial
forestry sectors adhere.
These practices specifyenvironmental forest stewardship
requirements and preventdeforestation of the boreal
forest.

(01:00:20):
If enacted as written, thislegislation could result,
intentionally or unintentionally, in discrimination against wood
products originating fromCanada and increase the costs
associated with California'sforest product trade with Canada
.

Jan Sumner (01:00:38):
Yeah, what I find really incredible about that is,
at the same time Canada put outa Section 63 report which
reports on the health of cariboupopulations across the country.
And every year for the last fewyears, every time they put out
these reports, it unequivocallysays caribou habitat is not

(01:00:58):
protected.
And we know that caribou, theirprobability of persistence and
surviving are often a goodindicator of whether or not the
border forest is doing well.
And yet we continue to put outthese reports saying caribou are
not doing well and they're notprotected in these regions.
But at the same time we tellother governments that we've got

(01:01:20):
the best forestry practices outthere.
And those two things seem to be,in my mind, kind of in
opposition.
And they go on to say our, ourworld-leading sustainable forest
management practices areunderpinned by robust
legislative and regulatoryframeworks.
These laws and regulationsprevent illegal forest practices
and deforestation.
So it's definitely true, theycan prevent illegal forest

(01:01:43):
practices.
But what about forest practicesthat are legal but are still
leading to degradation and, inour world, world view, a de
facto deforestation of treesaren't coming back there, and
that's certainly with ourlogging scarves work in ontario
very specifically, we candemonstrate that those trees
have not come back on about 4014 of the places where poultry

(01:02:04):
harvesting has happened theyalso say that approximately 77%
of Ontario's, over 80% ofAlberta's, 90% of Quebec's and
85% of British Columbia'smanaged public forests are
sustainably certified byindependent third party
certification bodies like theForest Stewardship Council and
the Sustainable ForestryInitiative.

Kaya Adleman (01:02:25):
So they're also using this as a reason why they
don't need additionalregulations on their products.

Jan Sumner (01:02:33):
I also don't understand why they're making
the argument if enacted, thislegislation would also unjustly
impact Canada's northern andindigenous communities dependent
on forestry and could affectmore than 200,000 jobs.
I'm not sure how it could dothat.
If you're saying that you aresustainable, how would it impact
you?
Because wouldn't you just passwith flying colors anyway?

(01:02:55):
That's, that's what's in theletter, and and then they write
that they appreciate theamendment removing the specific
reference to Canada's borealforest from the legislation, but
do not believe that itaddresses our shared concern
with the impact the bill willhave.
We commend California'scommitment to enacting measures
for safeguarding thesustainability of forests by

(01:03:16):
ensuring procurement of legallyand ethically sourced wood
products, and look forward to anopportunity to discuss how the
legislation could be furtheramended to account for Canada's
world-leading sustainabilitypractices.

Kaya Adleman (01:03:28):
The big red flag for me is they're asking this
law to remove references toboreal forests, but emphasizing
Canada's commitment to ensuringsustainable forestry around the
world, and that, to me, issaying we don't think this law
should apply to us, but itshould definitely apply to all
those countries in the globalsouth and their forestry

(01:03:51):
practices yeah, okay.

Jan Sumner (01:03:56):
So then let's see who else wrote what else we got
here.
Yeah, there's the chair of theFinance Committee, or at that
time, in April of 2022, that washer position, yeah.

(01:04:19):
So again, this letter is inresponse to Senate Bill 5921A
and Assembly Bill 6872A New YorkDeforestation Free Procurement
Act, and it reads inconversation with you and your
good offices over the past year,my provincial colleagues and I
have stressed our opposition tothe inclusion of boreal forests

(01:04:43):
in these bills, for in so doing,new York is including its most
responsible and reliablesupplier of forest products in a
bill best directed at others.
Canada has exceptional forestmanagement and shares New York's
commitment to a green,sustainable future.
We are concerned that theinclusion of Canada in these
bills is misguided and a risk toour shared prosperity.

(01:05:04):
As such, we will refrain fromoffering amendments at this time
, but reiterate our opposition.
It goes on to say a few otherthings as well, but again,
that's like we shouldn't becovered by this.
Everybody else should be.
Don't target us, because we'regood.

Kaya Adleman (01:05:23):
Yeah, best directed at others, right?
And how can the bill beincluding Canadian forest
products if they are so good andwould meet the requirements
outlined in the legislation?

Jan Sumner (01:05:38):
Those two things don't make sense, or they don't
make sense to me.

Kaya Adleman (01:05:42):
Yeah, I have a hard time holding those two
thoughts in my head at the sametime, I think.

Jan Sumner (01:05:47):
There's another letter that we have.
I think this one is from theMinister of Natural Resources
and Forestry at the time, johnJakubowski.
It was written in again.
I think it was 2021.
Let me just confirm thatWritten again to Senator in New
York State who's the chairman ofthe Committee on Procurement

(01:06:07):
and Contracts and it's regardingthose same two bills in New
York state, who's the chairmanof the committee on procurement
and contracts and it's regardingthose same two bills that New
York was considering theDeforestation Free Procurement
Act and the removal of borealforest reference.
So he was writing to SenatorFranklin Melnick to express
concern on behalf of Ontarianswith respect to those bills at

(01:06:31):
your committee hearing,procurement contracts, etc.
While the intentions to ensureforest sustainability are
commendable, it does notconsider Ontario's world-class
sustainable forest managementpractices which specifically
prevent forest degradation ordeforestation of the boreal
forest.
Now that one in particular Ifind really interesting because
it says it does not considerOntario's world-class

(01:06:53):
sustainable forest managementpractices which specifically
prevent forest degradation.
So I know that Canada andprovinces could argue that we do
not, under the internationaldefinition, have deforestation
because it's not about a landuse change but in terms of

(01:07:17):
forest degradation, if you havean intact existing natural
forest area and you are enteringin there and you're going to
log.
That is, by definition, goingto degrade that forest.
It's going to take a naturalsystem and turn it into a
managed system.
It won't have the sameecological integrity.
It may, over time, grow thetrees back, but it may grow a

(01:07:39):
different complement.
It will certainly change theage class.
You'll have all one age class,or very much within a few years,
as opposed to an ecosystem thathas a variety of age classes.
So by virtue of opening up anew intact area, that is, not
only is it degradation, but itis degradation by design, and

(01:08:02):
that is currently what we'redoing in Ontario.
We're opening up new intactareas.
We move where we harvest aroundinto new natural areas all the
time.

Kaya Adleman (01:08:13):
So to make the statement that we prevent forest
degradation, I'm completelybefuddled by how that can be
true letter has the samelanguage as the previous ones,
asking the bill to removereferences to boreal forest and
saying that, um, you know,ontario and canada's uh world

(01:08:37):
leading sustainable forestmanagement shouldn't have to be
subject to these regulations,and then also putting the threat
of canadian jobs at risk.

Jan Sumner (01:08:50):
It also seems like there's a concerted effort right
Like this is almost the sameletter changed a little bit
nuanced, a little bit differentways, but essentially the same
messages.
Right, we're perfectlysustainable.
Therefore, we shouldn't becovered by this.
And, as Zatel said, you know,and that's why you should just
take boreal out of the landscapedirect requests to remove

(01:09:10):
boreal from from all of thereferences.
So that's that's significant aswell, and I I just um, yeah,
it's, it's uh shocking uh, yeswell, thanks for reading the
letters.
That was an interesting uhexercise yeah, and and just to
see, see what Canadiangovernments, provincial and

(01:09:33):
federal governments, are outthere telling the world about
our forestry and I think itdefinitely is interesting to see
that these exact arguments arebeing replicated across
officials from throughout thecountry.

Kaya Adleman (01:09:46):
I think that's something that maybe we see in
isolation yeah.

Jan Sumner (01:09:49):
Or it's a coordinated response.
Yes, we don't know.
We're just guessing, but wehave that question.
If you like listening to theClear Cut and want to keep the
content coming, support the show.
It would mean a lot to Kaya andI.
The link to do so will be inthe episode description below.

Kaya Adleman (01:10:10):
You can also become a supporter by going to
our website atwwwwildlandsleagueorg.
Slash the clear cut and alsomake sure to leave us a review
on your favorite podcaststreaming platform.
It would really help thepodcast and stay tuned for new
episodes by following us onsocial media.

Jan Sumner (01:10:31):
That's at Wildlands League on Instagram, twitter and
Facebook or LinkedIn, of course.

Kaya Adleman (01:10:37):
See you next time.