Climate change has often been cited as justification for many of the governments recent policies and actions.
This Earth Day Michael fittingly chose to bring up this controversial concept in the House.
Below you fill find the official transcript of the discussion.
2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2010
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 15, Number 5
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
AND RANGE
M. Sather: I wanted to engage the minister in a little discussion about, I think, a very interesting piece of work that’s been done by Dr. Jim Pojar. He did a report for a number of environmental organizations in British Columbia.
It’s an involved paper, and it’s fairly complex, so I’m going to try my best to simplify and make some sense and get some comments from the minister. The thesis of it is basically about conserving biodiversity as it relates to fighting climate change. I’ll say a few words to try to get into the subject and then turn to the minister for some questions.
Climate change is expected to happen faster and be more pronounced in B.C. than the global average, with mean annual temperatures warming by 3 to 5 degrees Celsius over the next 70 to 100 years. Dr. Pojar says we can expect a general shift of the province’s biogeoclimatic zones. For example, the mountain hemlock zone is a biogeoclimatic zone; there are a number of them in the province.
We can expect a shift from the southern half to the northern half of B.C., and we can expect further diebacks of tree species such as we have experienced, of course, with the beetle kill. We can expect expansion of dry forests in the south and central Interior and moister, warmer forests farther north. He says that the ability of species to adjust to these shifts will take decades, if not centuries.
These events will increase “summer droughts, spring frosts, fierce storms and floods,” and we’re seeing some of that now, of course. Greater genetic diversity — and this is a subject that he dwells on a fair bit — leads to greater adaptability to change. Those with insufficient genetic variability may not be able to adapt to climate change. Landscapes that lose natural biodiversity become less productive, less stable, less resistant to environmental disturbances and thus less resilient.
Of course I want to focus his discussion around forests, because this is the Ministry of Forests and Range that we’re discussing. Forests are important for maintaining the diversity of all organisms. Natural forests have more diversity in terms of “genes, species, ecosystems, structure, function and interactions” than do “industrially managed forests,” he says.
“Climate change will erode the genetic diversity, contemporary ranges and current degree of protection of…species and ecosystems.” It will draw down the province’s natural capital and ecosystem services. The term “ecosystem services” certainly may not be familiar with everyone. He defines them as “services provided by ecosystems that benefit humans and are necessary for a healthy planet, like oxygen production, carbon sequestration, water purification, pollination, soil formation and nutrient recycling” — all things, of course, that are very essential to us.
[ Page 4778 ]
Here, for this discussion, I want to focus most on carbon sequestration — which, for those that may be listening in, simply means the fact of the matter that forests store carbon. They’re made of carbon, and they store carbon. That’s where it becomes, of course, the issue around fighting climate change, because it’s the release of carbon, as we all know, that’s the major issue with climate change. Protected areas, Dr. Pojar says, are “the pillars of biodiversity conservation,” but protected areas planning in the province “has not incorporated large-scale climate change” to this point.
Can the minister comment on any of this, but particularly with regard to protected areas planning and incorporation of large-scale climate change?
Hon. P. Bell: The member went into a fair bit of detail there, and it’s kind of hard for me to respond to all the individual points, but I think that one of the key themes of the question that the member opposite is asking is: is the province contemplating Dr. Pojar’s work? And what is the province doing to consider the possibility that we may see a significant change in our climate? I think those were kind of two of the key themes. The answer to the first question is yes. We’re familiar with Dr. Pojar’s work, and we do contemplate his work as we consider what we need to do.
The real key question, though, that I think the member is asking is: is the province or is the Ministry of Forests and Range contemplating the issues of resilience and adaptation in the light of the potential that Dr. Pojar has indicated? The answer to that is very much yes, that we have had a reasonably aggressive program for a number of years now, looking at the issue of adaptation.
As we plan our silviculture activities, we are very careful planting the appropriate species. Not just for what we think the weather patterns or the climate will be like today, but also we try and plant species that will adapt to a new climate that we may encounter in 50 or 70 or 100 years or further on, depending on the nature of what it is that we’re trying to accomplish.
We do that by using different types of seed that are categorized by geoclimatic zone. We have tree trials running all the way from California to Alaska, covering off the complete kind of climate zonations that we might expect sometime in the future.
We have excellent research. We have a number of research facilities, but certainly the research facility at Kalamalka is one that I’d recommend that the member opposite do a tour of next time he’s in the Okanagan. I think he’d be very surprised at the work that’s gone on in the region and how far B.C. has advanced in this particular area.
M. Sather: I may have a chance to respond to what the minister said about planting. That’s interesting. It’s good to hear that the ministry is considering this body of work as they move forward with the important job of protecting our forests and promoting our forests.
In terms of the protection of biodiversity, parks come into the question. Dr. Pojar says that B.C. parks will not protect all of B.C.’s biodiversity. The physical and biological diversity of the province is still not represented. Most of the parks are too small and isolated to withstand human impacts, let alone climate change. The system is also skewed toward high elevations and less productive ecosystems.
He poses the question: “What is needed to protect biodiversity in a changing world beyond the incompletely representative 14 percent of the land base that is currently in protected areas? In other words, how much is enough?”
He goes on to talk about meta-analysis. I don’t want to get into that. I’m not even that familiar with it. “Meta-analyses of land use planning for conservation” — but notwithstanding, it’s comprehensive analysis — “have found that the protected proportion of a region’s land base necessary to meet these conservation objectives lies between 25 and 75 percent,” the median recommendation being 50 percent.
In essence, what Dr. Pojar is saying is that we have 15 percent or 14 percent conservation now. In order to maintain the biodiversity in our ecosystems, it’s necessary that we have the resilience — the minister mentioned that word as well — to fight climate change, and that we would need to move to a figure of about 50 percent conservation. I’m wondering if the minister could comment on that perspective that Dr. Pojar has put forward.
Hon. P. Bell: Although the member mentioned the number 14 percent a few times in terms of the parks, that does not even begin to represent the amount of protection of the landscape that exists in the province.
Just starting out though, there are roughly 95 million hectares in the province. Of that — I used to say 25 million — I’m now advised it’s 23 million hectares of actively managed timber-harvesting land base. So roughly 25 percent of the province is used for timber harvesting. The remaining 75 percent doesn’t have timber harvesting on it.
I would also point to the fact that while only 14 percent of the province is technically in park, there are many other forms of protection like old-growth management areas, wildlife management areas, riparian management areas — all those sort of things that preclude any form of development on them.
When you add all of those together, I am advised that it represents about 30 percent of the province. Those are obviously all timbered areas. While I think 75 percent would be, perhaps, a laudable goal, I do think that we
[ Page 4779 ]
are well advanced. In fact, when you compare British Columbia to jurisdictions around the world, you’re hard pressed to find any that have the level of protection that we have in British Columbia.
The other key element I want to add for the member opposite…. I often turn my mind to the work that was done in the Great Bear rain forest. I think that was a great example of a collaborative model that provided significant incremental protection — roughly 2.2 million hectares, a little over a third of the total landscape under protection in one form or another — and ecosystem-based management, a very light footprint form of harvesting on the remainder of the landscape.
That area continues to receive the endorsation of organizations like ForestEthics and Greenpeace and has recently received Forest Stewardship Council certification as well. So I don’t think it is as simple as to say that you need a Class A park to have a representative ecosystem. We have a very, very high standard in this province. I think that is something that all of us, as well as our children and our grandchildren, can be very proud of.
M. Sather: Certainly, Dr. Pojar wasn’t saying 50 percent. It was 50 percent…. He chose that number as sort of the median between the 25 and the 75. He wasn’t saying that they need to all be Class A parks.
He also says that we don’t have accurate information about which ecosystems remain in a degraded state. Degraded — I want to clarify — from his point of view, he’s talking about the loss of biodiversity and the loss of carbon, not the fact that…. I mean, they may be harvested. It’s not a pejorative word, but it’s a descriptive word of an ecologist.
He says that we need to address that knowledge gap. So with regard then to the ecosystems that would remain in a degraded state, as Dr. Pojar puts it — and I think staff are fairly familiar, as the minister has indicated, with his work — is the ministry doing anything to address that gap then?
Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite referred to Dr. Pojar’s work around degraded ecosystems, and I just have to point out that the objective that we have, and continue to maintain in the province, is representation of ecosystems. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you would have every piece of a specific ecotype in every area maintained at that level but that there would be representation of that ecotype available in a healthy state.
That is the mandate that we have and the objective that we pursue. It may be one that the member opposite disagrees with. I’m not sure.
The other thing I would refer to is that we do issue a report annually, the state of the forest report, that does look at representation and the quality of various ecosystems. If we were to find that there was a lack of adequate representation….
A good example for the member opposite would be CDF — the coastal Douglas fir ecotype. It’s very challenging to find a model that allows us to protect that. It’s only a very small portion of the CDF that is located on Crown lands. The majority of it is on private lands. So we’re working very hard to have adequate representation of the CDF ecosystem available and protected. We’ve done lots of work around that recently, as I think the member knows.
The goal is not necessarily to have every single ecosystem in every location protected. It is to have adequate representation. That’s why you have parks and protected areas and all those other sorts of things.
M. Sather: Well, I can see I’m going to run short of time to ask a lot of the questions I wanted to ask the minister. I’ll move on, I think, at this point and perhaps come back to some of the other questions if I have time.
One of the things that Dr. Pojar endorses is carbon offsets. I know that that’s a very contentious issue. A lot of people are not convinced — or some people are not — that that is a mechanism that is worthy, I guess you could say, and that it has a lot of downsides to it.
He’s talking about conservation as a carbon offset. In other words, if we’re maintaining carbon in our forests by not harvesting them, for example, then should we have a carbon offset for that? I wonder what the minister’s thinking, what the government’s thinking, is on that — if they’re going that way or what kind of deliberations they’ve had around that question.
Hon. P. Bell: That work is being done by the Pacific Carbon Trust and by the Western Climate Initiative, both of which…. Well, the Pacific Carbon Trust, I guess, we have some role in. The Western Climate Initiative we have significant representation on.
I will probably ask the member opposite to ask those questions under the estimates of the Minister of State for Climate Action. He is closer to this file than I am.
I will say that I think, generally, the Ministry of Forests and Range believes that you need to have a scientifically quantifiable demonstration that carbon is truly being incrementally sequestered and stored in order to qualify for carbon offsets.
The Pacific Carbon Trust recently released a call for carbon offsets. There were three different qualifying offsets. The one that was not called for was conservation.
One of the challenges that is out there in the public being debated right now is the issue of leakage. I think the member’s nodding, so he probably understands that.
For those at home that might be watching us and probably bored — and we always apologize for that if
[ Page 4780 ]
we bore you — leakage is where although a forest is protected in one area and the timber that was planned to be harvested in that area was not harvested, there has to be clear demonstration that that simply hasn’t meant a shift of harvesting to another location. Otherwise, that would not be justifiable as a stored offset.
Again, the member’s nodding, and I’m assuming he agrees with me.
Interjection.
Hon. P. Bell: The boring part he agrees with me.
That is one of the very challenging aspects of this debate and discussion. I find it a stimulating and interesting one because it’s not often that we as legislators have the opportunity to engage in this level of discussion. It is something that’s never been done. No one’s ever talked about the idea of how you establish appropriate offsets. How do you measure them? It will change the way that forest-based activities function in decades to come, and it will change the way we all live in decades to come.
I think it’s a very interesting time to be involved. For those of you that are really bored at home, I would encourage you to go and look at the Western Climate Initiative website and get some information on this topic, because it is a very, very important topic and a very important discussion. That’s only if we’re really boring you at home, you can go do that. Otherwise, stay and watch us.
M. Sather: I have a couple of specific questions about specific areas that I wanted to ask the minister about. The coastal Douglas fir zone, which he referred to earlier, located primarily on southeastern Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast, is an ecosystem so endangered that the province’s own Environment Ministry, in this case, suggests it could face extinction. Only one-half of 1 percent of low coastal plain is covered by relatively undisturbed old forest — far below what scientists consider to be a minimum required for the ecosystem’s continued survival.
The Ministry of Forests and Range is considering protection for Crown parcels of forest land on Vancouver Island in Bowser, Little Qualicum, Nanoose and Linley Valley and one on the Sunshine Coast. Other coastal fir forests on Crown land are at imminent risk of being logged. One such forest is located near Nanoose Bay and is known in the B.C. Forest Service as DL 33.
Public support for preserving this parcel is widespread, with many questioning the logic of logging in a known endangered ecosystem, including the regional district of Nanaimo, which has called for a moratorium on all logging in such parcels.
My question is: will the Minister of Forests take steps to ensure that DL 33 is not logged, and will he ban the logging of the few remaining stands of older coastal Douglas fir forests remaining on Crown lands as so many have called for? This is a question that has been put to me to ask the minister.
Hon. P. Bell: Backing up here to coastal CDF. That actually is being done through the integrated land management bureau side of the ministry. That’s because of their responsibility for planning and making those sorts of decisions. Unfortunately, I just have Forest Service staff with me right now, so we’re relying on my memory. It’s a very dangerous thing when we do that, as opposed to the corporate memory that I would normally be surrounded with.
We did announce a commitment to move forward on a significant amount of protection around CDF. As I mentioned earlier, it’s a very small component that’s actually publicly held. That’s a challenge for us, because a good bulk of CDF is privately held lands. We have been working with private land owners to try and get voluntary compliance. We’ve got some good success in that area as well. So we do move forward on that.
If the member wants some specific details, we can provide that to him in this format on Monday, or if the member would like a briefing from staff, I’d be happy to do that. Whatever the member finds the most acceptable method of communicating that.
Specific to the Nanoose parcel, I think the member opposite knows this is a First Nations licence. I was asked the question about this licence about a week or ten days ago by the media. The response I gave them at the time was that there’d been no…. Although it was a part of a forest development plan, there has not been a permit applied for on the particular site for harvesting.
Coincidentally, apparently the day after I had told the media that, there was actually an application that came for a cutting permit. That is under review at this point. I don’t want to predetermine what the outcome of that review is. I think we have to understand what the outcome is. The statutory decision-maker in this case, clearly, will have a look at the ecotype and see if it’s appropriate to harvest in that zone.
I will point out, though, one thing I found interesting. I saw an aerial photograph of this site the other day. It’s very interesting, because this one particular area is still forested, but everything around it has been developed. It’s not a large parcel of land, so the aerial photo that I saw of it was quite interesting, in that everything else has been developed in the region. For some reason, this one parcel still exists.
What I found very interesting was that it wasn’t private. It clearly is squared off and in a shape that would indicate that it was privately held land. Perhaps it was at one point and reverted to the Crown. If the mem-
[ Page 4781 ]
ber would like more information, I’m happy to get that either in this format on Monday if he chooses or in a briefing to him — either-or.
M. Sather: I’m going poof here in about two minutes. I have to disappear. I’m going to read another question quickly, and I’ll read the minister’s response in Hansard. The Ministries of Environment and Forests have been working together to designate as spotted owl habitat 295,000 hectares of forests on provincial Crown and provincial parklands. These lands have been — and in some cases, soon will be — put off-limits to logging in order to protect the owls’ habitat so the species can recover in its Canadian range.
Over the past century the owl has declined because of logging in its habitat, from an estimated 500 pairs to only two known pairs today. All in all, only six individuals are known to still survive. The province has undertaken a captive-breeding program, and the stated goal is to bring the population back up to 250 owls.
The biggest problem is that the spotted owl habitat outside of the designated areas is still being logged under Ministry of Forests permits, due to the government’s maximum 1 percent cap on lowering the annual allowable cut for protecting habitat for species at risk, such as the spotted owl.
The question that has been put to me is: will the minister abolish the cap on forest protection so that all remaining habitat of the spotted owl can be fully protected and that this and other species at risk can be brought back from the brink?
Hon. P. Bell: I know something about this file, because I used to be responsible for the species-at-risk coordination office in my previous role as Minister of Agriculture and Lands. That office now resides with the Ministry of Environment, and that question would be better put to the Minister of Environment during his estimates process.
