Evidence of meeting #133 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was forests.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Director General, Ontario - Quebec Region, Science and Technology Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
I would just add microbes to the list of water, soil and air, because they are components of that system and there are some emissions associated with them.
4:35 p.m.
Davenport, Lib.
Okay. That sounds great.
I'll just move over to forestry. Part of the presentation that was made involved bioheat development and an indigenous forestry initiative. Why is that being offered for only indigenous communities and not more broadly?
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources
It's not. It is being offered more broadly. I have folks in each of our five research centres across the country who work with first nations and Métis, primarily. We are targeting the more vulnerable populations, where we actually can tie it into some socio-economic development of indigenous communities. It happens to be, so far, more impactful, although we just had our first projects announced this fall. It's not entirely scoped to indigenous, but there will be strong benefits.
4:35 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Thank you.
Mr. Lake, we will go over to you.
4:35 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
Thank you.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Sorry about the beginning part. I think that it's critically important that, if this place is going to function, we have to have clear conversations, clear debates about the things that matter to Canadians. When that doesn't happen, we as parties have a few tools at our disposal, very limited tools at our disposal, to try to get to that point. You got to witness a little bit of that.
On to the subject matter here, I want to talk a little about forest fires. It came up in a couple of previous meetings. The Paris Agreement doesn't account for emissions from forest fires, yet in Canada, I don't know if one of the guests can speak to the total emissions in Canada over the last couple of years or three years, and the amount of emissions coming from forest fires in Canada, just to give some context to the rest of the questioning.
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources
Yes.
Werner, you have those statistics.
4:35 p.m.
Senior Research Scientist, Canadian Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources
The annual emissions from forest fires vary greatly between years. In extreme years the direct emissions from forest fires can be as high as 250 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents. These are just the direct emissions. Forest fires also kill trees, so these trees will decompose in subsequent years and release more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but they will also rejuvenate the forest dynamics, allowing new forests to grow back.
If we had a system of constant forest fires, then the area burnt would be offset by the area regrowing and the emissions would be balanced by regrowth, but unfortunately, what we have experienced over recent years is a dramatic increase in the area annually burned, as was said earlier, so that has resulted in increased emissions to the atmosphere.
4:35 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
Just for anyone reading the testimony here, what were our total emissions last year, just generally, broadly? I would expect someone would have that number.
4:40 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources
It was 704 million tonnes last year.
4:40 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
Is it fair to say that, at 250 million tonnes, you're talking about over a third of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions from forest fires in years where you have that number?
4:40 p.m.
Senior Research Scientist, Canadian Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources
Yes, but as I said, that was an extreme year. There have been a couple like that since greenhouse gas reporting, 1990 to the present.
Having said that, you have to remember that much of the boreal forest across Canada is regrowing following forest fires. Yes, you have the direct emissions, but you also have vast areas of forest that are removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
By looking just at the emissions, you're not getting the full picture. You really have to look at both, the emissions and the removals, because it's a life-cycle process: forests grow, forests die and burn, forests regrow.
4:40 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that you wouldn't have those emissions being immediately absorbed in the same year. You're talking about decades down the road, as the forest is regrowing. It kind of balances out over time.
4:40 p.m.
Senior Research Scientist, Canadian Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources
The emissions that occur in one stand in one year, the stand that is burned, are offset by emissions from other stands surrounding that stand that are regrowing. So yes, the stand that burned will take 100 years or whatever to remove the carbon dioxide that was released from the fire, but the forest is characterized by stands of many different ages that are in different stages of their life cycles, and these other forests are removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
What we're doing with our tools is basically calculating the annual balance of emissions and removals of forests that are in different stages of their life, from young forests to middle-age forests to old forests that are all removing carbon. Some of these removals are offset by the emissions associated with fires, insects or harvesting.
4:40 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
The emissions that are being removed by the surrounding trees, if those emissions didn't exist.... I'm talking about that intense black. I mean, Alberta was covered in smoke for most of the summer this year. Again, I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that those emissions were not being completely absorbed by the trees around. Otherwise, all you would ever have to do is surround a coal plant with trees all the way around and, presumably, you would absorb all of the emissions from the coal plant.
4:40 p.m.
Senior Research Scientist, Canadian Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources
Actually, if the forests were large enough, they could do that.
The problem is two things. You have to remember that the area annually burned is measured in one to three.... It went from one million hectares to about three million hectares on average at the present. Recall that the forest area of Canada is about 347 million hectares. When 1% of the area burns, 99% of the forests are in various stages of regrowth. I'm ignoring harvesting for a moment here.
We have to understand that the forest fires are affecting a small proportion of the landscape, an increasing proportion and causing important emissions, but a significant part of these emissions is removed by the other 99% of the forest area that did not burn in this year.
4:40 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
If you had a strategy, let's say that in that year of 250 million tonnes—or if your year was 100 million tonnes or 150 million tonnes—you had a quick strike capability in terms of putting out forest fires that could limit it to 10 million tonnes or 25 million tonnes of emissions, it seems to me that would have a significant impact on our overall emissions in Canada. Are you saying that's not the case?
4:40 p.m.
Senior Research Scientist, Canadian Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources
No, I didn't say that at all.
I did say that we have large interannual variability in area burned. You gave the example of 25 million tonnes of emissions in a year. In years in which we have only 25 million tonnes of emissions, the forests as a whole, including the anthropogenic and natural disturbance components, would be a carbon sink. More carbon dioxide would be removed from the atmosphere.
We have years with low fires, in which our forests overall are carbon sinks, and we have years with large fires, in which the forests can be a carbon source. Of course, many other factors play into this, such as the impacts of insects and other disturbances like the mountain pine beetle.
4:45 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
I should acknowledge Mr. Cooper and welcome him to the committee.
We'll move over to Mr. Peschisolido for his six minutes.
4:45 p.m.
Steveston—Richmond East, Lib.
Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for appearing.
I'd like to begin my questioning by following up a little bit on a line of questioning by Madam Dzerowicz on the distinction between eating cows and eating plant-based protein. If there is a significant reduction in eating cows, what impact would that have on carbon? I'm assuming it would be positive. Has there been any quantitative analysis on what happens if you move from getting protein from cows, pigs and other animals to plant-based proteins?
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Ontario - Quebec Region, Science and Technology Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
I don't have a precise study I can cite to give you specific figures. I think it would be important to determine what the replacement would be and how the production systems of those proteins would be created. Scenarios would have to be developed for something to that effect. There's nothing I can cite for you in terms of scientific reference to that effect.
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Innovation Programs Directorate, Programs Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
I have seen some studies that have identified the agricultural sources by types of agricultural practice. We may be able to go back and find you a study that identifies the livestock contribution, for example, in comparison with other cropping methodologies.
4:45 p.m.
Steveston—Richmond East, Lib.
Okay.
Mr. Gracia-Garza, you mentioned types of production systems. At the agriculture committee, we're looking at the distinction between organic farming and non-organic farming. I can't remember who brought up the whole point about soil, water and fertilizer.
First, is there a difference in these two types of agriculture modes? Second, has there been any study on the impact of an organic system versus what is going on now in the mainstream?