Editor's Column

Guest Columns

Woods Wisdom

Notes From All Over

Brian Emmett

Editor’s note:
Brian Emmett is Assistant Deputy Minister of the Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada—a position that casts him in a role similar to that of Dale Bosworth, Chief of the U.S. Forest Service. But unlike our U.S. Forest Service, the Canadian Forest Service is mainly a forestry research organization. It has no direct involvement in managing public forestlands. Mr. Emmett directs the research. He is also responsible for strengthening national consensus as it relates to Canadian forest policies and practices, and he represents his country in international forestry forums that focus on global environmental issues including sustainable forestry, biological diversity and CO2 emissions. In 1996, he was appointed Canada’s first Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. He began his career in public service with Environment Canada in 1973; then worked for ten years in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, now Natural Resources Canada. He holds a master’s degree in economics from the University of Essex in England. In his youth he worked in his father’s lumberyard at Sarnia, Ontario, just across the border from Port Huron, Michigan.

Mr. Emmett, what role does the Canadian Forest Service play in caring for Canada’s forests?

Our basic job is science and technology development in forestry, upstream from the forest products industry. Our present research priorities are on developing management strategies for reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires as well as insect and disease infestations that undermine forest productivity. We’re also heavily involved in the design of harvesting methods that more closely resemble natural disturbance patterns. As you know this is seen as a cornerstone in the implementation of sustainable forestry practices.

How does your role differ from that of provincial foresters and their staffs?

The provinces own most of Canada’s forests and are directly engaged in forest management, including harvest licensing agreements. The federal government owns about 63 million hectares or 16% of the 400 million or so hectares of forests in Canada. However, most of this area is in the territories, where the management of forests has been devolved to the three territorial governments. The federal government itself, through the Department of National Defence and Parks Canada, for instance, manages around 7.6 million hectares of forests.

Does the Canadian federal government have any control over the management of provincial forestlands?

While the Canadian federal government has very little to say directly about how the provinces manage their forests, there are a number of federal laws and international obligations that do influence provincial policies and practices—the Species at Risk Act and the Biodiversity Convention, just to name two.

Do you have federal laws—an endangered species act for example—that allow you to control harvest levels, or whether harvesting can even occur, on provincial or private forestlands in Canada?

We do have a federal Species at Risk Act, but we don’t lock up land and throw away the key, if that’s your question. But our law does require development of a management plan that satisfies Environment Canada, which is a federal agency. The forest management plans go through a public consultation phase, so that in the end, we have a balanced management plan that groups with disparate interests can live with. Once the plan is developed, it is implemented, usually with little or no controversy.

CFS is Canada’s foremost forestry research organization. What are the focal points of your research program and what is your annual budget?

Our total annual budget is about $161 million. Of this approximately $100 million is allocated to research and development. We do laboratory as well as field work. Much of the long-term focus is on improving forest productivity through the design of protection as well as harvesting systems that more closely approximate natural processes. We also do a good deal of lab work at the genetic level, particularly with insects and diseases. We’re also searching for new biological agents that can replace pesticides that are environmentally harmful. Invasive species like the gypsy moth and the emerald ash borer are a major focus for us. We also do a lot of seedling research mainly in cloning to produce better quality, disease-resistant trees. And we’re doing some major work in the wildfire arena, trying to come up with better tools for predicting when and where big fires will occur. I’m an economist by training, so a good deal of this is way over my head. But as a layman I can assure that our work is elegant and very convincing.

How do you interface with other forestry research organizations in the world?

Most of our international work is through global organizations including the United Nations. We work to keep the playing field level. We also assist other developing nations that are struggling to get their economic legs under them. We believe a strong economy is the first step toward improving environmental quality. Here in Canada we also participate in joint research programs with our forestry universities and several institutes funded through partnerships (government and industry) including the Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada and Forintek Canada Corp., separate organizations respectively engaged in forest operations research and improved wood utilization.

CFS also provides leadership to Canadian stakeholders for whom sustainable forestry is both an issue and a worry. How do you define sustainable forestry and can you enumerate the specific concerns stakeholders express?

I know this will sound trite, but for Canadians sustainable forestry is a journey, not a destination. We believe the working definition must include both scientific and social elements. We start from a belief that healthy economies and environments go hand in hand. As the world’s leading lumber, pulp and paper exporter we also recognize that we must factually demonstrate to our customers that our forests are being sustainably managed. Otherwise, they will not want to buy our products. Our industry understands this, which is why there is such strong support for independent, third party forest certification.
 
What conflicts, if any, do you perceive between your sustainable forestry program and the parallel need to maintain harvests at levels sufficient to support Canada’s forest products industry?

So long as we get the science right, balance the interests of those who use the forest and pay attention to the public’s concerns, as well as those of our customers, we do not see any conflicts between sustainable forestry and the need to continue providing our forest industries with adequate supplies of harvestable timber. This isn’t to say there won’t be changes in harvesting levels from time to time, brought on by refinements in science or public policy or by losses due to fire and insect infestations. It’s to say that we believe our forests and our industry can both be sustained in the long term.

Has third-party forest certification altered the way in which commercial timberlands are managed in Canada and, if so, how?

Yes, third-party certification is altering the way forestlands are being managed. Variable retention harvesting is replacing more simplified clearcuts, and there is, on the part of companies and on-the-ground foresters, an effort to inject real creativity into harvesting practices. As well, companies find that forest certification schemes bring greater consistency across jurisdictions in many areas. People share best practices. Certification has also changed the way companies build and maintain relationships with local people and environmental groups, through a better understanding of common interests.

Various interest groups are calling for preserving large portions of Canada’s boreal forest. Some say current forest practices are destroying the boreal forest ecosystem. What is your response to this challenge?

We work for the taxpayers of Canada. My expectation is that we will settle this matter amiably using the same consensus-building techniques we’ve used so successfully in the past. It is my personal view that the ecological integrity of the boreal forest is not being threatened, but I recognize we need to prove this point with solid science.

Frankly, I think we are on the same page with most environmentalists. We recognize that we share a responsibility to protect the ecological integrity of boreal forests, as well as of other forests, while also protecting the economies of rural communities that depend on the forests.

Those who are concerned about the boreal must remember that its forests belong primarily to the provinces, not the Canadian federal government. I can’t imagine that the provinces will want to get bogged down in boycotts or other actions that threaten their industries’ relationships with their big box customers, such as Home Depot or Lowes.

What would you say are the most striking differences between Canada and the United States?

Oh my, I’m not sure I can answer your question. Your country is so much larger in population, and you are so much richer than we are. But I suppose if I had to contrast our two countries I would say that our national psyches are different. Yours is a far more individualistic society. We are more willing to tolerate ambiguity. Peace, order and good government are our watchwords. You chose life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.