Most of Canada’s largest forestry companies announced a groundbreaking deal with environmental groups on Tuesday that will restrict logging in the country’s vast northern forests.
The agreement covers 170 million acres — an area nearly twice the size of Germany — and ends years of battles over logging in Canada’s massive boreal forest, which environmentalists say plays an major role in fighting global warming by absorbing large amounts of carbon dioxide.
The forestry companies will stop all logging immediately on 75 million acres to protect woodland caribou herds under pressure from development. The two sides will then spend three years working out which restrictions to impose on logging in the remaining 95 million acres.
In return, as the agreement comes into force, the green groups will end international “Do not buy” campaigns against Canadian lumber.
The U.S.-based Pew Environment Group, which brokered the deal, said it was the largest commercial forest conservation agreement ever concluded…
“This will translate into market advantage for participating companies. We think this is a radically pragmatic agreement that will have significant ripple effects worldwide for forest products’ environmental standards.”
Kudos to both sides and especially Pew for assuming the activist role brokering the negotiations.
I find it interesting that the agreement is between the forestry companies and the environmental groups. There doesn’t appear to be any government (or native) involvement.
Without an agreement that includes government and native groups, it really doesn’t mean much.
Agreements with First Nation groups have been separately negotiated. Canada’s current Conservative control guarantees the corporate position – as usual.
Agreement? “In return, as the agreement comes into force, the green groups will end international “Do not buy” campaigns against Canadian lumber.” No. It is plain and simple extortion.
The only right thing to do is to offer natural resources for fair bidding to both industry and green groups. If green groups care enough they should be able to raise enough money voluntarily to beat industry bid based on possible profits (industry will not bid over that by simple market forces).
Holding a gun to industry head by intimidation and claiming ensuing process to be an “agreement” is worthy of 1984 language.
Well its Canadian forests, they can do what they want with it. If they want to make the entire country a do not cut wood zone, I wouldn’t mine. In fact would work well for jobs here in the US 🙂
But anyways, being an American I will let the Canadians do what they want with their land.
lets see..
For over 20 years..
the USA was sending MOST of its lumber to CHINA.
THEN importing what we needed from CANADA..
BUSH jr. put a 25% tariff on lumber AGAINST NAFTA policy.
CHINA doesnt want that much ANYMORE and the USA is in a building slump..
WE were the biggest market Canada had.
dusanmal. Both sides play politics and use whatever weapons are at their disposal. Forestry companies lobby governments directly or find friendly news organizations. It’s the way the world works. I’m guessing you just don’t like the politics of one side.
Forests, waterways, oceans are multi-generational natural resources. One reason for this agreement has come from the forestry companies learning that long term protection is in their best interests. To give it up to the “highest bidder” means opening it up to the government of China, or anyone else, which is a short sighted.
As I’m Canadian, I’ll school a few of you on things that you don’t have a clue about.
First: Bob, Canada is a very large country and we’ve done a fairly good job of protecting our natural resources, so even with a deal like this there is still lots of lumber for us to cut and sell. We compete with our superior products and dedicated work force even though the lumber industry in the U.S. is subsidized to the hilt because they could not compete without government handouts.
2nd: Dusanmal, Companies historically have not had to commit anything to be handed logging rights to our publicly owned forests in Canada. They have had to agree to “take on forestry planning and management responsibilities” in order to then be given the rights to log the forests.
It’s beyond stupid to hand the management of forests to a wood-cutting company, but that is the way it is. So in getting to your pathetic, moronic thesis, the environmental groups would commit to and would do a much better job of managing the forests on our public lands, BUT THEY WOULD NEVER GET THE CHANCE. It’s all been sealed up with lobbyists and bribes and donations and corruption.
Your summary of the situation is childish at best and closer to pathetically stupid.
It’s a good sign that this deal could be brokered.
Now if we can get the crazy environmentalist to understand that huge oil spills and spewing millions of tons of carbon is far, far worse than nuclear.
Good luck with that.
This makes me proud to be a Canadian. Well done!
Now to refuse the drilling proposal by BP in the Beaufort Sea.
… um … Do not buy BP oil! Do not buy BP oil! Do not buy BP oil!
What will Japan do now?
#7 Canadian
I curious as to the government subsidies you say the US forestry industry gets. Care to elaborate on exactly what they are.
“…the environmental groups would commit to and would do a much better job of managing the forests on our public lands,…”
Much like PETA running an animal rescue shelter?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549
It’s all about the money…both sides.
Maybe I’m missing something. I think it’s great to protect 75 million acres, of course. But, let’s not kid ourselves. It would take quite a while to log it all. Meanwhile, the greens have to stop boycotting the timber companies while they race to log the other 95 million acres before anyone can form the agreement to stop it?
That’s still more than half being logged, no?
This doesn’t sound like such a wonderful agreement to me, despite the truly great part of it that protects 75 million acres. But, let’s not kid ourselves that 170 million are now protected. The real translation is that 95 million are likely to be logged at an unprecedented rate without “greens” boycotting to stop it.
Sorry, Eideard, no kudos to me since I am still looking at the glass as more than half clearcut. Let the Canadian chainsaw massacre begin! (Oh the cordage.)
#11 – http://tinyurl.com/2cdqdrb
bob said “…being an American I will let the Canadians do what they want with their land.”
Gosh, that’s awfully darn Christian of you.
I can only quote from experience, that given half the chance the three “F’s” (Fishing, Farming and Forestry) will solidly “F” the natural environment for a quick buck, and then scooter off to some other country to begin again. I applaud Canada for it’s forbearance and hope that subsequent governments will honor the new arrangements.
Obamaville tree huggers have come to convince lumber company execs in Canada
Give me a break
Hello hosers
sargasso, government?
#9 When you stop driving or riding in motor vehicles or buying or using products shipped in same including trans and planes then say stop buying BP products.
I doubt that the agreement is going to have much impact on those who oppose all logging and very little impact on those who purchase wood products. Price and quality are what matter most to most of them.
Using the alternatives to wood products isn’t actually likely to do much to improve the environment.
It is of course reasonable and prudent for any nation to protect its forests and the resources to be found there including clean water.
A funny thing happens when you cut a tree down. The sun gets down to the soil and a new tree grows. It’s been happening for a long time now. Get over it.
#20. a Bornean orangutan, would like a quiet word with you about that.
What’s going on here? First, the subhead on the story in last Sunday’s paper about Britain’s new coalition government reads “Spirit of compromise takes nation by surprise” and now this? What’s up? Is there a “reasonable” virus going around? If so, how can I help spread it?
#20 – Lou,
A funny thing happens when you cut a tree down. The sun gets down to the soil and a new tree grows. It’s been happening for a long time now. Get over it.
A funny thing happens when you cut down all of the trees in the forest. Most of the soil erodes. The trees decompose a lot faster, releasing carbon dioxide instead of sequestering it. The soil also releases CO2. In temperate locals, over 99% of the carbon sequestered in an old growth forest is actually locked up in the soil. So, eroding the soil releases more tonnage of CO2 than burning all of the trees would. Oh, and when the soil erodes, it gets washed out into the ocean forming hypoxic dead zones that are increasing world wide.
Oh, and getting that forest back after it has been clear cut takes hundreds of years, in the best case scenario.
(Oops, that should read temperate locales, of course, not locals.)
More importantly though, I forgot to mention that your tree regrowth, in order to be sustainable, actually requires leaving the tree there to decay.
Re: #19, Deowll, I thought my sarcasm was obvious. It’s impossible to have an effective campaign against the oil of one oil company. It pretty much gets mixed into the general pot of oil.
I’ve said this for years — if you’re not an environmentalist, you’re not a true conservative.
Well said GregAllen