What is the State of Canada's Forests?

Every year the federal government publishes a ‘State of the Forest’ report which, touts itself as “a trusted and authoritative source of comprehensive information on the social, economic and environmental state of Canada’s forests and forest sector for 33 years.” But do these annual reports truly accomplish this promise? This year, 8 environmental organizations released their own report, The State of the Forest in Canada: Seeing Through the Spin, to challenge many of the conclusions in the government’s annual report.

We sit down with the David Suzuki Foundation’s Rachel Plotkin and the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Dr. Julee Boan to discuss the details of this investigation. Why is the government’s annual report inadequate? What is missing, and what are the ramifications?

Read  the report here.

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

Janet 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.

Janet 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.

Janet Sumner (00:40):
All right, so people are in for a treat.
We are about to play theinterview that we had with
Rachel Plotkin and Julie Bowen,two of the hardest working women
in conservation.
They work Rachel's at DavidSuzuki Foundation and Julie's
recently with Natural ResourcesDefense Council Natural
Resources Defense Council.

(01:01):
But I've known Julie since Istarted at Wildlands League,
which is over 20 years ago,because she was working for
Wildlands League at that time,and she's gone on to work at
Ontario Nature, et cetera, andnow she's with Natural Resources
Defense Council and has a PhDand has done all kinds of
amazing things in theconservation world.

(01:21):
So I'm really happy that wewere able to grab some time with
her and with Rachel, and thetwo of them have been part of
the dynamic team across Canadaworking on Canada's alternate
state of the forest report.
So I think you need to justbuckle up and go on a ride with
them, because they're going tofill your boots with as much as

(01:44):
you can absorb aboutconservation and how the state
of the forest is across Canada.
What about you, kyle?

Kaya Adleman (01:52):
Yeah, I really enjoyed reading it and I enjoyed
having this conversation withthem.
And also I just want to sayyou'll learn some, I guess,
background information about thetwo of them and Julie.
She has a hobby farm in thunderbay and that's like my ultimate
dream in life is to live on ahobby farm and just like take
care of animals all day and livein nature.

Janet Sumner (02:12):
It's, uh, very jealous in that aspect yeah, and
actually if you check out herinstagram or, I guess, socials,
you'll see the the littlebouncing uh newborns uh.
Well, they don't look likenewborns anymore, they're
bouncing around little kids.
So, yeah, it is interesting tohear about both of them.
I had not realized we all had aLondon connection.

(02:35):
That'll come up in theconversation.
You'll hear that.
But in terms of the reportitself, it's speaking truth to
some of these issues.
I mean, I find this withCanada's supposed species at
risk reports that we get out now, which are really just
commenting on all the processesthat are going on and it seems
like they're following thatmandate with Canada's state of

(02:57):
the forest report, which tellsyou all the amazing things that
are going on but doesn'tactually tell you what is
happening in the forest or not.
Realistically and what I meanby that is, wouldn't it be so
much easier, especially now thatwe've got all this satellite
data that's out there, et cetera, et cetera, to start telling us
the truth about what's going onin Canada's forest using a

(03:19):
higher resolution?
I mean, if you've listened tothe podcast and you've heard our
logging scars work, you knowthat we've been asking for
higher resolution information onthe forest.
You can use Google, for example, you can see that there's
damage out there in the forestand we're not reporting on that,
not in any substantive way, andso I find this deeply troubling

(03:42):
that the Canadian public doesnot have the information.
This State of the Forest reportis an attempt to get some of
that out with the limitedresources that environmental
groups have to offer.
Although they've gone in and,as Julie and Rachel will quite
rightly point out is, they'vedone a good canvas of a lot of
the science, and they'rebringing that to bear because
both of them are quite relianton the science and going to use

(04:05):
that to back up their arguments.
So I think it'll be a funconversation to listen in on,
and for anybody out there who isdoing conservation work, this
is a rare treat to get a chanceto talk with these two people,
as witnessed by Kaya's many,many attempts to get them both
on at the same time becausethey're just always very busy.
So, yeah, I think I know forKaya and many, many attempts to
get them both on at the sametime because they're just always

(04:25):
very busy.
So, yeah, I think, uh, I knowfor Kaya and I it was a real
treat to be able to sit downwith them.

Kaya Adleman (04:32):
Yeah, I had a good time.

Janet Sumner (04:37):
Um, kaya, I'm very , very happy that you've been
able to finally nail these twodown to a specific time where we
could chat.
We've been trying for weeks now, it seems, to have Julie and
Rachel on the podcast, and I didnot want to give up because I
knew that they'd be able to saysome fantastic things, and I've
worked with them for many, manyyears now and it's very exciting

(04:58):
for me to have them on the podbecause I think you'll be
entertained but also learn agreat deal from their years of
experience.
So I'm super excited about thisepisode.
So thanks for chasing them down, kaya.

Kaya Adleman (05:11):
Yeah, me too.
I mean, they're busy doingamazing work, so I'm excited
that we'll have a chance tofeature that on our series.

Janet Sumner (05:19):
Yeah, okay, welcome Julie, rachel, and we're
going to start with each of yougiving a little bit of an
introduction to the work thatyou do and something that's
personal that people can connectwith, and something about you.
So have at it.

Julee Boan (05:37):
Hi Hi Janet, hi Kaya .
I am a longtime listener to thepodcast, first-time guest, so
delighted to be here.
My name is Dr Julie Bone.
I did a PhD in forest sciences.
I studied caribou.
I work for the NaturalResources Defense Council but

(05:57):
I've been in the environmentalsector for a couple of decades
now.
I live about 20 kilometersoutside of Thunder Bay on a
little hobby farm in the forest.
I'm surrounded by forest.
Right now I have the greatprivilege of getting to work in
the forest every day andactually we just had in Thunder

(06:17):
Bay our real first snowstorm ofthe year on Monday up to two
feet of snow in some places hereof the year on Monday up to two
feet of snow in some placeshere and on my little farm.
That was the night that one ofmy ewes decided to have two baby
lambs.
So on Monday night I wasrunning around in the only

(06:38):
snowstorm we've really had thisyear trying to collect little
lambs and rush them up to thebarn.
But they're doing great.
Thanks for having me.

Janet Sumner (06:44):
That's so fantastic.

Rachel Plotkin (06:45):
Rachel.
Hi, I'm Rachel Plotkin.
I'm with the David SuzukiFoundation.
Like Julie, I've also been inthe movement for over two
decades.
I'm in my 18th year at thefoundation and I worked for six
years at the Sierra Club ofCanada before that.
I've worked a lot on trying toprotect wildlife habitat and I
got my start when I was in myfirst year of university and I

(07:09):
wanted a summer job.
I got to work at the zoo inLondon, ontario, and I was
delighted and it took four yearsfor me to realize what a
horrible place it was.
And I ended up quitting halfwaythrough my last summer because
the animals there were sodistressed, and decided to try
to build a career out of workingto protect wildlife in the wild

(07:30):
.
And unlike Julie, who'ssurrounded by forests, I am in
downtown Toronto, but I did getto experience that first
snowstorm, which was also thebig first snowstorm in Toronto.
I brought my skis out to theLeslie Spit, skied to the
lighthouse and had two coyotesrun out in the path in front of
me.
So trying to make the best outof life in Toronto.

Janet Sumner (07:50):
That's fantastic.
I didn't know you also had aLondon connection.
I know Julie does and I grew upin London, ontario.
So interesting, three peoplewith a London connection Amazing
.
So where do you want to start?

(08:12):
Um, I know that there was agroup of organizations that came
together to write a state ofthe forest report, and maybe
I'll just start by saying thatcanada does a state of the
forest report, but this is thealternate, uh state of the
Forest report.
Maybe you could just talk abouthow that came into being and
what the purpose was.

Julee Boan (08:29):
Well, as Rachel said , both of us have been working
in the interface between scienceand policy, wildlife and
forests for a couple decades andI think the State of the Forest
report has been coming outevery year that I've been
working on policy, and this pastyear when the report came out
was, you know, right on theheels of COP 15 in Montreal, the

(08:52):
global biodiversity framework.
It was running up to the climateconference in Dubai and there
was a lot of attention at bothof these international
conferences being put on forests, in particular in Canada,
because we happen to have a lotof forest here.
We have a lot of land period.
Looking at the state of theforest report that was coming

(09:13):
out of Natural Resource Canada,it was really clear that it is
not up to the task at hand.
At the moment, we're facingbiodiversity and climate crises.
We are looking to our foreststo help us at least solve some
of these issues, and yet thisreport that was coming out from
the government, which claims tobe an authoritative report,

(09:33):
comprehensive, really was onlyreflecting on five overarching
metrics, and very simplisticallyat that.

Rachel Plotkin (09:41):
So it wasn't giving us a clear picture at
that, so it wasn't giving us aclear picture.
I'll just add that Canada hasrecently committed to halt
forest degradation, and one ofthe things that the State of the
Forest report does is masks thefact that forest degradation is
happening across Canada inforests that are managed for
logging.
Our report looked at a lotabout what is not in the annual

(10:02):
State of the Forest report, andthe things that weren't included
in the State of the forestreport were the cumulative
impacts what happens when we logyear after year and that builds
up, and how that is changingthe structure, the function and
the composition of our forests.

Kaya Adleman (10:17):
Yeah, I guess, maybe just to clarify.
So the government kind ofreleases a state of the forest
report every year.
I don't know, I'm from thestate, so, like it, government
kind of releases a state of theforest report every year.
I don't know, I'm from thestate, so it's kind of like the
NRCan's version of the State ofthe Union address that the
president gives every year thisis how the forests are doing, et
cetera.
And then your guys' report wasto respond to some of the things

(10:38):
that are consistently missingin the government's report,
right?

Rachel Plotkin (10:43):
One of the kind of hallmarks of the State of the
Forest report is to show howlittle is being logged in Canada
each year.
Usually the stat is about 1%,but the report highlights its
low rates of deforestation,which is the conversion of a
natural forest to another use.
But again it fails to look atwhat are the impacts of

(11:04):
industrial logging.
Even if 1% is being logged ayear of the managed forest, If
you move that across thelandscape over the period of 100
years, it means that all ofthose forest management units
have been accessed.
There's roads in those forestmanagement units.
Some might be decommissionedbut some remain.
There's changes in age classstructure because of the way

(11:26):
that we're doing logging andbecause of our rotation ages,
and it's impacting wildlife anddriving their decline.

Janet Sumner (11:31):
Yeah, it seems odd to me.
I mean, the federal governmentalso produces species at risk
reports, or it's supposed to beputting out Section 63 reports
on how species are doing andwhether or not we've fully
protected that.
And yet we've got caribou,which is a wide ranging species,
goes right across the borealforest where we're doing a lot
of our logging, and it is introuble.

(11:53):
Caribou are in trouble, rangesright across the country in
trouble are in the red zone, arefaced with extirpation in those
areas.
Yet at the same time State ofthe Forest report comes out and
says everything's hunky-dory,it's okay, everything's fine,
don't worry about it, logging'scontinuing.
And yet I don't understand howthose two things can be true.

Rachel Plotkin (12:18):
And that was one of the objectives of our report
was to force an honestconversation about look, not
everything is going peachy inthe woods and what are some of
the ecological impacts and howcan we work to change what needs
to be changed to have trulysustainable forest management.

Julee Boan (12:34):
And with this report we chose to take a very
scientific approach.
So we've looked at hundreds ofscientific studies in order to
evaluate some of these highlevel metrics and indicators, to
see what's actually happening.
And what we were frustratedwith is that the state of the
forest should be tellingCanadians how are forests faring

(12:57):
, what are the outcomes, what isactually happening, and instead
the report focuses mostly onwhat are the activities taking
place?
You know, what are thepartnerships taking place, what
are the regulations and rulesthat should be taking place or
could be taking place, that areon the books, but we have no
idea how they're actually beingimplemented in the forest.
We have no idea what theoutcomes of these activities are

(13:20):
.
And that lack of monitoring andlack of true reporting is even
clear with some of the currentdiscussions that the federal
government is having around eventhe definition of degradation.
Nrcan is claiming that we can'tactually evaluate a lot of these
metrics because there simplyisn't data.
So if that is true, then wehave an even more serious

(13:41):
problem, because there's lots ofscientific studies out there
and, for sure, scientificresearch is done in a specific
forest, in a specific area,looking at specific indicators,
but they are a litmus test forwhat could be happening across
the forest, and those scientificstudies as I said, we've cited
hundreds in this report areshowing indicators where there

(14:04):
are problems With the State ofthe Forest report.
As it's published, it's onlylooking at what is being done,
not what is the consequence ofwhat is being done, and that's
what the State of the Forestshould be about.

Janet Sumner (14:18):
So it's documenting all the processes
that are happening, but it's nottelling us what's the result,
what actually happens, what canyou see?
What does it mean for thisspecies?
What does it mean for how mucharea has been logged or how much
is still barren after logging?
It doesn't tell you any of thatkind of factual information.
It tells you a very cloudyversion of that, because it

(14:42):
gives you a lot of informationabout the processes that are
underway.
Is that accurate?

Julee Boan (14:48):
Yes, and even for some of the indicators that it
does look at from a fairlyqualitative and narrative
perspective, it only describeswhat it considers to be going
well.
So an example that, in terms ofIndigenous rights and
reconciliation with Indigenouspeoples, we know there's been a
lot of discussion over the lastfew years about Indigenous
protected and conserved areasand there has been some

(15:10):
incredible progress happening insome places in the country.
In other places across thecountry there's been a complete,
total failure at advancingIPCAs and working with
Indigenous peoples who areinterested in conservation,
where they lead the governance,where they determine the
knowledge systems that will beapplied.
And if you were just to look atthe State of the Forest report,

(15:31):
you would think that IPCAs aregoing well everywhere and
wouldn't think there are anybarriers to this at all.
And in fact there are manybarriers, particularly where
provinces have been unwilling tocome to the table and work with
Indigenous peoples.
Ontario, for example, hasreceived an F from one of the
reports that's out on IPCAs witha complete unwillingness to

(15:52):
have government-to governmentdiscussions around IPCAs.
So in a state-of-the-forcereport we would be looking for
the full coverage of what'shappening.
Where there are success stories, yes, we would be looking for
the full coverage of what'shappening.
Where there are success stories, yes, we should be highlighting
those.
We should be discussing what'sworking, but there are some
failures that need to beaddressed and right now, with no
report to show where we are atachieving these goals, we can't

(16:14):
improve what we're doing.

Rachel Plotkin (16:17):
I was really gobsmacked in this year's report
, which just was releasedrecently, to read that NRCan
states that in general there's amove towards ecosystem-based
forest management and, as Juliesaid, one of the things that the
report does is it cherry pickssmall examples where people
might be doing progressivethings or things that are more

(16:38):
ecologically sustainable, likethere's this one community
forest in Nova Scotia that'sdoing selective logging.
But what it definitely fails todo is outline the systemic
changes that are needed inforestry and to report on those
things like is our rotation ageviable for maintaining levels of
old growth that are naturalwithin the ecosystem?

(17:00):
Are species compositionschanging from what used to be
there to what is moreeconomically viable?
How much intact habitat is left?
How much primary forest is left, how much old growth habitat is
left?
All of those values diminishover time with cumulative
impacts of logging, but theState of the Forest report
doesn't track any of that of theForest report doesn't track any

(17:27):
of that.

Janet Sumner (17:27):
That's a pretty damning litany of things that
you've just listed there.
So those are the weaknesses ofCanada's State of the Forest
report.
And let me just be clear thatCanada actually benefits
worldwide by claiming that theyhave the most sustainable
forestry out there, that we havethe best laws, we have all the
rest of it.
But if we're not reporting andtelling Canadians, who expect

(17:48):
Natural Resources, canada and orcan to be monitoring this and
taking care of it, if we don'thave the data and we don't get
the full truth we only getcherry-picked examples in a
state of the Forest report howcan Canadians, or even the world
, be confident in Canada'sforestry?

Julee Boan (18:09):
This talking point that Canada has the best
forestry in the world is alwaysperplexing to me because I
actually don't know.
Maybe Canada does have the bestforestry in the world, but that
doesn't mean it's up to thetask of what we're asking our
forestry to do for forests.
We know there are manyindicators that some of the

(18:30):
values we want to see protected,things we want to see sustained
, are failing.
They're not being achieved.
So that statement's always abit off to me because it's sort
of moot in a way.
It could be the best of theworst.
We don't know, and that's whywe need a report that helps us
to understand what is actuallyhappening in the forest and what

(18:51):
can we do to achieve the goalswe want to.

Rachel Plotkin (18:55):
And, as Julie mentioned, science has provided
quite clear metrics on theecological health of forests,
and that is examining thestructure of forests, the
function and the composition ofspecies within forests, and
those metrics should be usedagain in a cumulative way, to
track how those three corevalues of a healthy forest are

(19:15):
changing over time.

Janet Sumner (19:18):
If you like listening to the Clear Cut and
want to keep the content coming,support the show.
It would mean a lot to Kai andI.
The link to do so will be inthe episode description below.

Kaya Adleman (19:30):
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.

Julee Boan (19:46):
We were responding to the federal government's
State of the Forest report, sowe were responding to the issues
that they had highlighted, butwhat was missing from how they
looked at that picture?
So that includes howbiodiversity is faring in
forests across Canada.
It includes the discussionaround forest carbon how are
forestry activities contributingto or helping us in this fight

(20:11):
against climate change?
And we also looked atreconciliation with Indigenous
peoples to take a deeper look athow is Canada fulfilling these
commitments.

Rachel Plotkin (20:23):
And our report is called the State of the
forest seeing through the spin,because one of the things that
the federal government does isjust paints an overly rosy
picture that everything is goinggreat in forestry, there's
nothing to worry about, and youknow.
It tips its hat a lot of timesto things like biodiversity, but
it doesn't acknowledge the factthat there are forest dependent
species that are declining dueto linear disturbances such as

(20:46):
logging roads.

Julee Boan (20:48):
There were eight major environmental groups
across Canada, mostly nationalgroups, a few provincial groups
that did participate in writingand conceptualizing the report.
And conceptualizing the report,I think, for me.

(21:25):
I wasn't sure this was going tobe what was needed at first,
but I knew something was half ofthe forest and it was
interesting to me.
Because I've been involved in alot of forest management
planning, I understand there area lot of different tools that
attempt to conserve wildlifevalues, riparian values and such
.
So I thought, okay, yes, it'spossible.
If all those things are talliedup, they do equate to a fairly

(21:46):
large number.
Now, whether or not thoseshould be considered
conservation was what wasperplexing to me.
Especially things that areseasonal, temporary and will be
logged anyways, didn't seem tome to fit into a different
definition than conservation.
Maybe a sustainable forestmanagement strategy or something
like that.

(22:06):
So, coming out of COP 15 andtalking about how to protect
biological diversity, I felt itwas time to start looking at
some of the reports and thestructures that are being used
by governments and by industryin the international arena, and
the State of the Forest Reportis certainly one of those

(22:26):
reports.
It is building on what iscalled the Montreal Process,
which is an internationalagreement in the forestry realm
that has specific indicatorsaround how sustainability of
forests can be measured.
So it is, in essence, somethingthat is reinserted into the
international arena to discusssustainability in Canada.

(22:49):
So just the timing with lookingat reports that are out there
this one is done every year.
We can compare previous yearsand there was actually one just
released last week.
So it's an ongoing process thatwe can continue to comment on.

Rachel Plotkin (23:08):
I think for me, part of the motivation was to
shift the conversation away fromdeforestation and into the
landscape of degradation,especially in light of the fact
that Canada has committed toboth define and halt forest
degradation by 20.
It has to define forestdegradation sooner, but it has
to halt it by 2030.
And that's actually anopportunity to have the honest

(23:34):
conversations and bring aboutsome of the systemic changes
that are needed in forestry, ifwe can talk honestly about what
are the ecological impacts ofcurrent forestry practices and
what is needed to change.
But I think another thing isthat you know, julie and I have
been working in this forumcollaboratively for a long time
and a lot of it is fightingindustry spin, and that spin has

(23:57):
actually changed.
The spin used to be things likeoh well, don't worry, caribou
aren't really doing that badly,there's more caribou than deer.
Or oh yeah, well, forestrymight be impacting caribou, but
we still don't know aboutclimate change.
Like, maybe most of the faultis climate change and we should
not do anything aboutconservation until we're sure

(24:17):
about the impact that climatechange is having.
But now forestry has moved toan even bolder narrative, which
is that they are saying thatCanadian forestry can save the
world.
That's their podcast, that's onthe homepage of their podcast
and I think that part of it istrying to increase literacy

(24:37):
about the spin that comes fromour federal government, which is
often just repackaging what theforestry industry itself says
and trying to show what is leftout of those reports and show
what is the stories that aren'tbeing told about what's
happening in forests acrossCanada.

Janet Sumner (24:58):
It's one of the things that I was so pleased
that you were doing this reportwas because I think there was a
sense, and maybe it was a moment, but where eight environmental
groups all had the sameconclusion, which was we're just
bloody well tired of thefederal government putting out,
year after year, a report thattells everybody everything's

(25:21):
a-okay and the state of theforest is fantastic, yet at the
same time, we're seeing theseother indicators with species at
risk declining, et cetera, andso it just felt like there was
this huge burst of energy fromthe environmental groups wanting
to say you know what?
We actually need to write downthe truth.
We actually need to record andput on the record what's really

(25:45):
happening.
And for me, when I read it andlooked at it, like Julie
mentioned, it referenced so manyother studies and it was
shocking to me that you know Imean, these environmental groups
are not wealthy groups, it'snot like they have industry
backing and money but they'redeciding to put their efforts

(26:08):
and your hard work into this andyet they are able to uncover
all of this science and put itto good use and reveal the true
state of what's happening.
And it is shocking to me thatour governments are not
providing this information,whether it's at the federal
level or provincial level,because the provinces are

(26:29):
responsible for regulatingforestry.
Yet the federal government doesa state of the forest report.
I'm assuming they rely onprovinces and territories to
tell them what's happening intheir areas, but it I think I
think Canadians are not beingwell served by the State of the
Forest report and I applaud youboth for the work that you did
on this report and I was verypleased to see all of the

(26:52):
references and how that canreally help Canadians be able to
go and dig further and find outwhat's going on in their neck
of the woods.

Rachel Plotkin (27:01):
One of the reports that had the biggest
splash kind of came out when wewere wrapping up our State of
the Forest report, which was apaper by Mackey and colleagues
that looked at the cumulativeimpacts of logging in Ontario
and Quebec.
It really validated everythingthat we were digging up in our
research.
His report looked at again whatare the cumulative impacts of

(27:23):
logging year after year inOntario and Quebec and what he
documented was that the levelsof old growth were decreasing
and that the fragmentationbecause of logging roads was
driving caribou decline and thatmost of the caribou populations
in Ontario and Quebec werefacing a trend of downward
decline because of the habitatfragmentation due to logging

(27:46):
activities.
And it got into the New YorkTimes.
So it was like it was oh andafter the New York Times it was
like running in local papersjust week after week after week.
So it really kind of opened thegates of changing the narrative
.

Julee Boan (28:08):
Like.
We published our State of theForest report in January of this
year, but Rachel and I havecontinued to accumulate more
science and possibly will updateit or, at the very least,
update sections of it, becausewe're finding more and more and
more science out there that issupporting that forestry across
Canada is, at least, far lesssustainable than it's being
promoted and the situation isworrisome and we need to be

(28:29):
having good metrics and sounddata and solid, clear,
transparent reports on what'shappening if we're going to
address these issues to addressthese issues.

Janet Sumner (28:46):
Yeah, and I think for everybody who's listening to
the podcast, one of the greatthings that we'll be able to do
is, in the show notes, peoplecan.
There'll be a link to the Stateof the Forest report, seeing
Through the Spin and any otherdocumentation that you want to
provide, and so, people who arelistening, if you want to dig
into the details, find out moreabout the science that's going

(29:08):
on and what is truly happeningin our forests, you can rely on
us to be able to publish thatand you can access it.
Maybe we can dig a little bitdeeper no-transcript is about

(29:49):
the forest carbon.

Julee Boan (29:50):
So a couple of years ago I remember attending a
meeting with Dr Matthew Bramley,who had done a deep dive into
the National Inventory Report sothose are the reports Canada
has to submit every year to theUN on greenhouse gas emissions
and reductions and in hispresentation he unpacked all of
these numbers and he saidforestry is a high emitter of

(30:13):
GHG.
And I remember thinking thatcan't possibly be true at the
time because we had been facinga narrative for at least a
decade that forestry is justsimply carbon neutral.
It kind of gets a free pass inthe climate change discussion
and, if anything, actually itcan solve the climate crisis.

(30:33):
And no real serious critique ofany of that and because of some
of the assumptions that havegone into the way that we
account for forest carbon,that's played out in multiple
reports and multiple assessmentsand even like created some
incentives in policy and how wemanage forests.
That all comes back to asituation that is not what it's

(30:58):
been portrayed to be.
So that was really interestingto me to understand that and
unfortunately Dr Bramley passedaway in 2022.
But researchers from UFT, unb,guelph and myself actually took
the work that he had doneforward to make sure that this
really got into the conversationaround forest carbon At the end

(31:23):
of 2023,.
We did publish all of thoseresults in a peer-reviewed
journal called Frontiers.
We know that there's carbonemissions because the trees are
taken out of the forest forlogging and then we can minus
from that carbon that's beingstored in wood products and the
regeneration that's happening intrees that are growing after

(31:44):
logging and when.
Looking at those numbers alone,the emissions are actually
exceptionally high around nine,around 90 megatons on average
per year, which is similar toenergy, agriculture and other
high emitting sectors.
And the reason why this is likeis portrayed this way is

(32:05):
basically the uh canada up intotwo types of forests the managed
forest and the unmanaged forest.
And in the managed forest, yes,there are forest tenures,
there's logging, but there'salso big parks.
There's also areas that havefire suppression and there's a
huge amount of forest that hasnever been logged, may never be
logged, but it is technically inthe managed forest and that

(32:25):
area where those forests arethat haven't been logged or have
been fire suppressed or are inparks, have actually stored and
sequestering carbon.
Those have been used.
That sink has been used tobasically as a green veil over
what the forestry emissions are.
So for me anyways, digging intothat and understanding a lot
better, both through workingwith those scientists as well as

(32:46):
writing the State of the ForestReport was, was really shocking
to me, and I think it's still aconversation that isn't really
being had in the in the publicsphere, and we need to be
talking about it more.

Janet Sumner (33:00):
And that has made me insane over the years,
because I've always felt thatforestry was underreporting in
terms of its carbon and it wasgetting shielded by a lot of
very creative math.
And so we do a deeper dive onthat in the podcast and people
can listen to other episodes andwe'll actually have Brendan

(33:22):
Mackey on future episodes totalk both about his report and
also to talk about carbonaccounting.
So look forward to actuallyopening up that box a lot more
to talk about it.
And Matthew was a greatscientist and fantastic to work
with and none better to look atthe carbon accounting numbers
because he was a mathematicianin his heart.

(33:44):
Rachel, was there somethingthat you worked on or that you
saw in the State of the Forest?
Seeing through the spin reportthat you went, wow, that either
confirmed or really shocked me.

Rachel Plotkin (33:59):
I think, just seeing the new one, one of the
things that the federalgovernment loves to do is have a
bar graph where it's justcompletely even and it shows the
amount of forest cover from1920 to 2020.
And it's just a straight line.
It's just such a grossoversimplification of the state
of the forest.

(34:19):
For one thing, it masks thefact that areas that have been
clear-cut, even if they wereclear-cut yesterday, count as
forests.
That's not the fault of ourfederal government per se,
because that's usinginternationally agreed-upon
definitions.
But it certainly masks the factthat not all of that is

(34:39):
actually forest cover at present, forest cover at present.
And again it hides behind thelow levels of deforestation,
although it also doesn't accountfor all of the deforestation
that does happen.
I think the thing that I reallynoticed this time in the most

(35:00):
recent State of the Forestreport is that they really just
include all of the language ofthe things that we're pushing
for and say that it's done.
You know, they're like we careabout forest biodiversity and
are working to protect speciesat risk habitat and it's like
well, where Caribou aredeclining in almost every
province except for three ofthem, and they don't even.
You know, sometimes they'll saylike oh, here's a specific
project that someone is doing,like looking at caribou poo or

(35:22):
something you know like they'lltip their hat and mention
caribou but they never talkabout the very significant and
unavoidable issue thatindustrial logging is impacting
caribou decline and, as Juliementioned there, you know there
are a number of Indigenouspeople that are meaningfully
employed by logging but they,you know, they tip their hat

(35:43):
towards things like the UnitedDeclaration on the Rights of
Indigenous People, withoutrecognizing that free, prior and
informed consent isn't a partof current forest management
planning processes and should be.

Kaya Adleman (35:59):
Hey, are you liking the clear cut as much as
we like making it?
Your donation helps us bringmore of these important stories
to life.
You can actually support ourwork by going to our website,
wwwwildlandsleagueorg.
Slash the clear cut, or you canclick the link in the episode

(36:20):
description below.
Your support means the world tous.
Episode description below yoursupport means the world to us.

Janet Sumner (36:27):
So essentially, they have this bar graph that
says from 1920 to 2020, wehaven't lost any forest, it's
all the same.
We've all got forest.
But that's going by thisinternational definition under
LULUCF land use, land change andForestry or something.
I can never remember thatacronym and we're going to put

(36:47):
it in so that everybody can seeit.
But essentially it's calledLulu CF and it means that if you
have a bunch of trees standingtoday and you cut them down but
you don't convert it to adifferent land use, like it's
not going to be a shopping mall,it's not going to be a new city
, it's not going to be ashopping mall, it's not going to
be a new city, it's not goingto be a housing development or
whatever, but it's it's.
It's barren, it's clear cut,and you're going to cut it again

(37:10):
in 80 years because, or ahundred or whatever it is,
because it was a forest and iteventually will be a forest or
it'll be trees.
We're still going to call itforest area.
So, therefore, Canada has notlost any forest area.
Now for me and this is somethingthat makes me a little bit
crazy or a lot crazier is we allhave in the back of our heads,

(37:36):
this ticking clock that says by2050, we've got to solve the
climate crisis and by 2030, wehave to have made huge strides
on biodiversity loss.
So if you cut a tree today, orclear cut an entire area, that
area is not going to re regrownby 2030.
It's not going to be regrown by2050.

(37:57):
So, for all intents andpurposes, the general public
sees no trees.
That means no forest.
It doesn't mean, oh, it'lleventually be a forest in 100
years.
It means no forest.
And yet we mask that in ourvery reporting to the public by
saying, nope, we've still gotthe same amount of forest.
So that's what you were sayingwith that.
That's a pretty shockingreality.

Julee Boan (38:20):
So essentially, as long as a forest is not a
parking lot or a field of corn,it's still a forest and still
included in this sort of overalltree cover over time.
But one of the studies we citedin our State of the Forest
report was research that's beendone on the East Coast in
Acadian forests.

(38:40):
So what that study showed wasthat over the decades of logging
that they looked at, the foresthad changed.
There was forest still there,but it had changed so
substantially that at least ninespecies of birds had declined
by 30%, which is enough to putthose birds up for potential

(39:01):
status under Canada's endangeredspecies laws.
So a significant decline.
But what was really interestingabout what they showed was that
the tree cover had not changedat all.
In fact it had increasedslightly during that time.
So when we're only looking atwhether there are trees or not
trees which is really what thedeforestation conversation is
about it's a very poor metricfor how biodiversity is doing.

Rachel Plotkin (39:26):
Our organizations aren't opposed to
logging.
We criticize forestry.
It's not without recognitionthat it could be done better,
and I think that's again.
What we're trying to do is opendoors to have conversations
about what systemic changes canoccur in forestry so that it is

(39:48):
ecologically sustainable and notleading to degradation, and
those things are the things thataren't being reported on.
So that includes, like whatprotection measures can we put
into place in our forestmanagement planning to ensure
that the intact and unfragmentedhabitats that species like
caribou need are maintained,that levels of old growth are

(40:10):
maintained again to support thespecies that depend upon them?

Janet Sumner (40:13):
So the State of the Forest report, Seeing
Through the Spin, is aboutuncovering some of the truth,
and the truth is to understandwhat's going on, but also to
understand what we can improveso that we could have more
sustained forestry and jobs ifwe start to fix some of these
challenges.
Is what you're saying?

Rachel Plotkin (40:34):
Yeah, I think sometimes Julie and I are
hesitant to use words, like youknow the absolute truth.
But I think what the State ofthe Forestry Report does really
well is it shows what questionsare not being asked by the
federal government when it'slooking at how it evaluates
forestry in Canada today.

Julee Boan (40:52):
I want to be really careful about suggesting that
simply tweaking and makingincremental changes to practices
is going to address the issueswe face.
I would say that I think theentire way we go about managing
forests is actually incorrectand it is ripe for conflict.

(41:13):
So, basically, what hashappened is there's most of the
managed forests which is wheremost of the people are and a lot
of biodiversity is in Canada,are part of the forest
management planning process, andthat varies across provinces
and jurisdictions.
But fundamentally that's aprocess where forests are seen
as providing wood to mills andthat triggers a planning process

(41:38):
whereby a company or a tenureholder needs to go out and get
wood to mills and also address arange of social and
environmental values.
So there's been this hierarchythat's developed.
That that's why we're out therequote managing these forests to
get woods to mills and tomitigate the impacts on other

(41:59):
users.
And, for sure, like thoseregulations and policies, they
change over time, they'rere-evaluated, but the
fundamental essence of why we'reeven out there doing the
management is problematic.
It creates, first of all, itcreates a hierarchy where you
have the wood interest on theland first and foremost, has the
highest interest and everyoneelse falls below that interest

(42:21):
and what's happened is then, ina planning process we'll have,
you know, a forest technicianwill have may have just
graduated a few years fromuniversity knows how to use a
model to develop wildlife.
Quote wildlife habit in thehabitat, in this framework of
forestry, is consideredequivalent to a biologist who
has spent decades studying thatspecies.

(42:42):
Is considered equivalent to abiologist who has spent decades
studying that species.
Is considered equivalent to atrapper who has been on that
land base their entire life.
And the decisions that arebeing made are coming from that
framework.
What we need is tofundamentally rethink If we
expect our forests to do whatwe're expecting them to do.
We need to fundamentally rethinkour relationship with forests.

(43:04):
We need to fundamentallyrethink about how we plan
forests and we should be outthere planning at a watershed
scale from the environmental,social perspective of what those
forests are, and work back fromthere and decide in which areas
how much fiber should beavailable and be basing our
economy around that rather thanhaving it go the other way

(43:26):
around.
And I think with that is whythere's been so much conflict
over all these years.
And I would say, even thoughthere's more and more models
available, there's more and moremapping available.
The window for people toactually participate and
meaningfully influence howforests are managed, I would say
, is shrinking.

Janet Sumner (43:44):
That's a great conversation starter piece there
, julie, because just havingdone this podcast for almost a
year, we've had conversationslike with Francois, who's the
head of FSC Canada, and he talksabout, instead of trying to
maximize the amount of fiber tothe mill, start thinking about,

(44:06):
as you suggest, what can theforest provide?
And then working from thatperspective and starting to
diversify even the types ofspecies that we're talking about
, etc.
And what we have right now,what you're talking about, is
this hierarchy where it's noteven just a hierarchy of getting
fiber, but it's maximizing theamount of fiber to feed the mill

(44:27):
and that has a certain demandor draw.
And I think in BC, even theirsustainable forestry is about
sustaining the yield, it's notabout actually having
sustainable forests, so it's avery different perspective.

Rachel Plotkin (44:47):
Rachel, you look like you want to jump in on
that.
It's not only BC that definessustainable forestry as
sustained yield.
I think that has been thepremise of the concept of
sustainable forestry in Canada.
Is that forestry is sustainableif we are regrowing the amount
that we log every year and itdoes not have any anchor in

(45:08):
ecological integrity andmaintaining ecosystem health?

Kaya Adleman (45:12):
Are we even regrowing the amount that we log
every year?
I can't imagine that.
That's that sounds verydifficult to do.

Julee Boan (45:20):
We might be able to regenerate every tree that is
logged, but the forest thatcomes back is not just about the
trees, it's everything elseplanted two, three, four, five
times as many trees as we cut,but how many actually survived?

Janet Sumner (45:52):
What came back?
What is the success ofregeneration?
Now, I'm not suggesting thatregeneration isn't successful.
I know that there are somefantastic areas of Canada where
we've had incredibleregeneration.
I know that growing aspen, forexample, in Alberta, works quite
well.
But, to Julie's point, itdoesn't necessarily bring back
the forest, it brings back trees, and sometimes we're planting
to bring back merchantabletimber and not necessarily the

(46:16):
full diversity of species.
And again we just don't havethe data, we don't know.

Rachel Plotkin (46:22):
Even when you picture a forest that's been
replanted, then right away youcan imagine that the forest that
grows is even age stands andyou lose the diversity of age
classes within a natural forestand you also lose, in many
places, species composition.
I tree planted in NorthernOntario.
I was given my two species oftrees to plant and I was told if

(46:47):
I see a species that's growingthat's not one of those two,
then I should pull it outbecause it's not the most
economically viable species.
So what we're left with, eventhough forests do regenerate,
and I've driven around withloggers who say, like what are
you enviros going on about?
Look at that area, it waslogged 40 years ago and now look
, it's green, Like it's acompletely renewable resource

(47:07):
and it's ecologicallysustainable.
But again, the species that arethere might be different than
what were there before.
The age classes are differentand there's, in most areas that
have been logged, logging roadsremain that completely disrupt
predator prey dynamics.

Janet Sumner (47:23):
Yeah, I think that's a good point about the
age class.
When you get essentially oneage class, then different ages
of trees are used by differentspecies, and so then you start
to mess around with the actualspecies that exist in that
ecosystem.

Rachel Plotkin (47:38):
And you're also fragmenting the nutrient cycle
things like nitrogen and carbon,which, if a tree is left to
grow old and die and fall over,in addition to providing habitat
and providing a source for newsaplings to grow from it, also
contributes to a nutrient cyclein the forest that is removed,
if trees are removed from themanaged area.

Janet Sumner (48:01):
Hey, do you have anything else you want to say
about the state of the forestseeing through the SPIN report?

Kaya Adleman (48:06):
Yeah, I think one thing I'd like to add just to
that is if there were like Imean, I know that we have,
there's the three section, orthe sorry, the four sections
forest segregation, biodiversity, climate impacts and indigenous
rights, like, what are the,what are some, what are, like,
the key takeaways from someonethat might make them interested
in reading, reading the report.

Janet Sumner (48:29):
What's the top line message?

Rachel Plotkin (48:32):
Our federal government is gearing specific
questions that it can answer andmake itself look good, and
avoiding all of the questionsabout indicators that would
point to the forest degradationthat is occurring in forests.

Julee Boan (48:47):
If we are going to continue to expect our forests
to deliver climate changesolutions, protect, halt and
reverse biodiversity loss,provide jobs, provide all sorts
of things for us, we needtransparent and accurate
accounting from our federalgovernment.
This report should not be apublic relations pamphlet to

(49:10):
share with the public.
It should be an honestaccounting of what's happening
with forests what's working,what's not working, what are we
missing, what do we not havedata for?
If we don't have goodinformation, then the chances of
having good policy come out ata critical time in our history
are almost nil.

Janet Sumner (49:32):
I think Julie says it all at that conclusion.
If it is just a publicrelations pamphlet, which is you
know what she's callingCanada's State of the Forest
Report, one could argue thatit's just all the good stuff and
good process, but not givingyou the details on what's truly
going on in the forest, and Imean the data, the details how
much is disturbed.

(49:53):
It is just revealing to me thatwe have caribou ranges that are
in trouble in all but threeprovinces, and yet the State of
the Forest report tells us thateverything's just hunky-dory.
So how are those two messages,which are coming out in separate
reports, the same?
And that's the difficulty thatI have, that it doesn't add up,

(50:14):
and so I think she's very rightto call it out a public
relations pamphlet.
And if you don't have good data, you can't be making assertions
that, yes, our forestry is bestin the world and we're doing
all these amazing things.
And how can you actuallyimplement policy if you don't
have good data?

Kaya Adleman (50:32):
Yeah, I mean, and that was said to like, does
Canada have the best forestry inthe world?
And that might be true to someextent, but compared to what?
Like what are you stacking upthat assertion against,
especially now as we're startingto see more and more of the
conversation being centered ondegradation, as opposed to

(50:52):
deforestation, which Canadaconveniently has nearly 0%
deforestation every year, and wetalked about this on our
Logging Scars podcast as wellhow the impacts of full tree
harvesting in that wildlandsleague study that was released
in 2019 really did show thatthere is that there is a mark

(51:13):
that there is a consequence tothe ecosystems, to carbon values
that existed on those forestsbefore they were logged.

Janet Sumner (51:22):
So, um yeah, areas , areas are barren, 35 years old
, right, so it's it.
You can say it's still a forestbecause it's under forestry
management, but there are notrees on those areas that once
had trees, and those are visible.

(51:42):
You can see them, and that is Imean.
Yes, let's call it degradationif you wish, but we still need
to measure it, we still need toknow what's out there, and right
now, canada is not reporting onthose because, based on their
resolution, they can't see them.

Kaya Adleman (51:58):
Yeah, because Canada only maps forests at a
30-meter resolution, maps for usat a 30 meter resolution and
how can you?
See logging roads that are 10meters wide if you're only
seeing things that are 30 meterswide, yeah, or large, any.

Janet Sumner (52:13):
Anyway, a depressing uh conversation, or
maybe an enlighteningconversation about canada's
alternate state of the forestreports.
What is it seeing through thespin?
And?
Yes I think that this was agood conversation to have with
them.

Kaya Adleman (52:26):
I love julie summary and, uh, some some great
uh comments in there aboutcaribou coming up in our next
episode, so yeah yeah, um, andif you want to check out the
state of the forest in canada,seeing through the spin report
yourself, um, it has its ownwebsite, which is really
convenient.
It's stateoftheforestca.
You can go there, read thereport, read the background of

(52:50):
the report, see all of thewealth of scientific information
that's in there.

Janet Sumner (52:58):
I'm also encouraged by the fact that both
Julie and Rachel are going tobe updating this on an ongoing
basis as new science comes out,as new reports come out.
They'll be updating the Stateof the Forest report, which
people should keep checking out.
Yeah, good conversation.

Kaya Adleman (53:14):
Yeah, yeah, thank you.

Janet Sumner (53:18):
If you like listening to the Clear Cut and
want to keep the content coming,support the show.
It would mean a lot to Kai andI.
The link to do so will be inthe episode description below.

Kaya Adleman (53:29):
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.

Janet Sumner (53:49):
That's at Wildlands League on Instagram,
twitter and Facebook or LinkedIn, of course.

Kaya Adleman (53:56):
See you next time.