The Family of Laws Fighting for Better Fibre Supply Chains

Last year the European Union issued a new regulation (the EUDR) aimed at preventing the entry of products that originate from recently deforested land or have contributed to forest degradation into the EU marketplace. The EUDR is likely the most significant, but not the only, law or rule proposed by governments around the world to ‘clean up’ their supply chains when it comes to forest and agricultural products. Policymakers are increasingly working to do their part to meet global climate and biodiversity targets. Where does Canada, and its purported leadership in sustainable forest management, fit in?
We sit down with Etelle Higonnet, who has been an advisor to the European Union on the EUDR. She explains the EU law and the other “family” of regulations on deforestation and forest degradation free products. We discuss the importance and implications of these rules, as well as the response from the Canadian government and forest industry groups. What are Canada’s arguments against these rules? Why are they making them? And what opportunities do these laws provide that we could be missing out on?

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.

Restorers: A Water Street Podcast
Over these short episodes, we will be introducing you to the heroes who are working in...

Listen on: Apple Podcasts   Spotify

Purpose & Profit Club™ for Nonprofits
The Playbook to Raise & Reach Millions Faster Than Ever Before -- No gimmicks!

Listen on: Apple Podcasts   Spotify

Transcript

Jan Sumner: 0:00

Welcome to the Clear Cut. Hi, I'm Janet Sumner, Executive Director at Wildlands League.

Kaya Adleman: 0:08

And I'm Kaya Adelman, Carbon Manager at Wildlands League.

Jan Sumner: 0:14

Wildlands League is a Canadian conservation organization working on protecting the natural world.

Kaya Adleman: 0:21

The Clear Cut is bringing to you the much needed conversation on Canadian forest management and how we can better protect one of Canada's most important ecosystems, as our forests are reaching a tipping point.

Jan Sumner: 0:40

All right.

Jan Sumner: 0:41

So we're here with another episode of the Clear Cut.

Jan Sumner: 0:47

I'm sort of a little bit hesitant to start because I don't want to give away too much.

Jan Sumner: 0:51

I almost feel like it's best to hear it from Etel herself.

Jan Sumner: 1:14

She will say some surprising things and things that and I think the setup I want to give this is that we've talked throughout the podcast about how the economics are changing and where do we want to go, how do we create the right economics, the supply chain be better and that it be responsive to what the consumer is asking for, which is, you know, things that don't damage the planet, the biodiversity of the planet, that don't damage nature, that don't damage the climate, and so that's a huge push right now in the world and there are new laws coming online to basically say, well, we're going to check into the supply chain and make sure that it meets certain criteria and then, beyond that, working with companies that do want to do some of the right things, and what does that look like, etc.

Jan Sumner: 1:56

So Atel is going to talk about the companies that want change, the investors, the laws that are coming and what that means in terms of the different types of products and the standards that they have to meet. But there's some twists and turns along the way that I think are going to be fun to listen to Kyle.

Kaya Adleman: 2:17

Yeah, I really enjoyed this conversation. I think everyone else will get a kick out of it as well. Lots of really interesting initiatives on the horizon in the world of changing our forest fiber supply and some more permanent actions being taken to make supply chains free of deforestation and forest degradation products.

Jan Sumner: 2:42

Yeah, and again, we'll include things in the show notes and links to the various pieces that Etel mentions, some of the letters that she references. We'll include those so that you can actually see them for yourselves and make your own judgments. I mean, it's up to everybody who's listening to make their own judgment and decide on what's good and bad about this. But anyway, let's dive in. I'm really looking forward to today's conversation.

Jan Sumner: 3:17

This came out of the blue. I got an email from Mattel asking us to work with them on something, asking us to work with them on something and since then our conversation has just turned to all different kinds of things and thinking from how Canada's forests are really of global importance and other countries are looking to Canada as a source for fiber. But what does that mean? And what does it mean when we start to see other jurisdictions putting requirements on their sourcing and looking at what that means for Canada and where Canada stands on some of that? Some people may know about the European Union decision in terms of their preference policies, and there are preference policies now coming up in the US, in several states now that are being considered. So we're here to talk today with Etel and I'm going to allow Etel to tell us how to pronounce her name, because I may be saying it completely incorrectly right, jan, you're saying it just right it's Etel Yigone, that's perfect.

Jan Sumner: 4:19

Okay, fantastic. So we'd really like you to start with some introductions about who you are and a little bit about you, and maybe something that the audience can connect with. Like, that isn't about the work that we talk about, that is something just unique to you and I'm thrilled to be here with you and your listeners.

Etelle Higonnet: 4:43

I'll tell you a little bit about myself. I'm French American. I'm a lawyer by training but an activist by calling, and I worked in the past for organizations like Human Rights Watch, amnesty International, greenpeace, mighty Earth and National Wildlife Federation. A lot of my work has been on deforestation, but a great deal also on human rights. I think those two are intertwined like the two sides of the same coin and that to only focus on human rights without the environment or environmental questions is really missing a bigger, vital element of how we are all one. But what can I tell you? That is kind of personal. Beyond the fact that I'm a lawyer, I'm knighted. I'm an environmentalist.

Etelle Higonnet: 5:40

I've worked a lot on deforestation and many high-risk commodities, maybe a sad fact and a happy fact. A sad fact is that I have received three death threats for my work in the past and I've been arrested several dozen times for my work as well. So I think in my career I've just seen how hard it can be to go toe to toe with armed groups or governments or industries and companies that are not respecting human rights and environmental concerns. So that's a sadder fact about me. But a happier personal fact about me is that I'm a new mom and my baby is just the light of my life and the best thing in my whole world, and that ever since he was born, I feel, stronger than ever before, this burning desire to make the world a better place. I really want him to inherit a beautiful planet with clean air, clean water. I want him to feel that I did everything I could to protect him from a kind of Mad Max climate chaos scenario and I just love him to bits. So I do a lot of this for him.

Jan Sumner: 7:05

Oh, that's so beautiful. The latter part, not the being arrested part. You've worked in a lot of different countries as well, have you, not I?

Etelle Higonnet: 7:13

have.

Jan Sumner: 7:13

Can you give us maybe some of that. Give us a brief tour. I mean just so you know, I fondly in our office refer to you as the slacker, because I looked at your resume and I'm like what. She only speaks four languages and it's only proficient in another four. Like what the heck? What has this person been doing with their life? So maybe you could give us a brief tour of all the different places where you've worked.

Etelle Higonnet: 7:37

Sure, sure. It was my immense privilege when I was with Greenpeace and also Mighty Earth to work a lot in Southeast Asia, so that was a pretty recent time in my career. I got to work in Indonesia, malaysia, singapore, philippines, thailand, burma, laos, cambodia and Vietnam. It was just a fascinating experience. But before working more in Asia, I had done a lot in the Middle East. So I worked in Iraq and also Lebanon, in Egypt during the Tahrir Square times and then, of course, a great deal in Central and West Africa. I've worked in Gapon, cameroon, liberia, sierra Leone, ivory Coast, senegal, gambia, burkina Faso, mali, lots in Central and Latin America Brazil, bolivia I will just stop there but many countries.

Jan Sumner: 8:43

Yeah, you can see why.

Jan Sumner: 8:44

I fondly call a slacker, totally the opposite of and completely facetiously. So thank you for just giving us a brief tour of your career so far and I say so far because I really expect that you'll just continue to explode and do more things all over the planet. So this is fantastic and also just to give folks a chance to realize that this is a deep, rich vein of conversation that I suspect could go on for many, many episodes. We're really going to try and focus today on talking about what are some of these various laws that are coming up and proposed legislation that are coming up in the EU, the UK, the US, and what's their purpose and what's their thinking. And I know that you've been working on some of these at various different organizations. And so that's why we're doing the conversation with Etel, because she's got direct information from this and this is important for us to understand because it will inadvertently affect Canadian forestry and what's being required of it what's being required of it?

Etelle Higonnet: 10:03

Jeanne, I'm so thrilled you asked this question about laws. A lot of people find laws to be a bit overwhelming and scary, but in fact, let's dive right in. The laws we're relating to are sexy and amazing and they will save the planet. We should love them like there's no tomorrow. Let me just give a little background to that passionate chapeau. A lot of people know that fossil fuels drive a huge amount of climate change, but few people realize that actually, agriculture and food are linked to around a third of climate change and maybe 80 or 90% of global biodiversity loss. Right, so we are talking about like the drivers behind mass extinction.

Etelle Higonnet: 10:48

What many people also don't know about ag and food is the world's biggest employer is agriculture and it is rife with labor abuses. You know, in Canada we don't see this so much anymore, but if you go to a place like the Ivory Coast or Brazil or Indonesia, you start seeing up close and personal slavery, child labor, forced labor, sexual abuse of very vulnerable workers. These are pretty dark things that the food and ag system is delivering to us right. Climate chaos, biodiversity loss, human rights violations. The good news is a lot of that. Deforestation is driven by seven commodities, only seven. So we don't necessarily have to fix 700 commodities. I mean, yes, we should fix everything that we consume and eat, because the world would be a better place and a more beautiful future for my baby would be insured and everybody else's kids too. We'll get to live in a more perfect planet that we have stewarded well. But just seven commodities isn't really too much to ask to change. So the seven commodities that are driving deforestation are getting regulated in these gorgeous laws that I was telling you about. Those commodities are palm oil, pulp and paper cattle, soy, cocoa, coffee and rubber. The laws approach it in different ways, right? You mentioned the EUDR. Let's start there, because it is just bomb diggity. The EUDR is fantastic. Just bomb diggity. The EUDR is fantastic. The EUDR is now the law of the land. It has been passed. It actually got amazing support from millions of European citizens who signed petitions and sent letters and called and protested and marched. It also got huge support in the parliament and it is a very good, serious effort to curb all imported deforestation entering the EU in those high-risk commodities that I talked about. So if you try to bring in dirty palm oil that's tainted by deforestation or crimes into the EU, with EUDR, you couldn't do that anymore. So let's talk about the EUDR as like the star of this family of laws.

Etelle Higonnet: 13:07

And then, across the channel you mentioned, we have this UK Environment Act, which got Royal Assent in November 9, 2021, which is great. Thank you to the Royal family and now we're just waiting for the implementing regulation from DEFRA. So far, it looks like it's going to cover four commodities, not the seven that we have from the UDR, so you could say it's the little sister of the UDR, because it's four commodities, not seven, and it's only covering illegal deforestation, not all deforestation, and it doesn't cover all crimes. So it doesn't, for example, bar slavery or child labor. But it's a very beautiful little sister and we're halfway there, so that's awesome.

Etelle Higonnet: 13:48

Then across the pond in the US we look to the Forest Act. The Forest Act is the baby sister and it hasn't yet passed. It would cover all illegal deforestation embedded in the imports of six high-risk commodities coming into the US. Not quite as good as the EDR, because it's six and not seven. It misses coffee and it's got illegal deforestation as opposed to all deforestation. But it is a beautiful baby sister and this baby sister has bipartisan support in the House and the Senate. So that's kind of our star family.

Etelle Higonnet: 14:26

But then there's the cousins and the cousins are lovely, lovely, beautiful cousins. In the cousins we have the New York Deforestation Free Procurement Act, the California Deforestation Free Procurement Act and the Illinois Deforestation Free Procurement Act, which is the newest and youngest of the cousins, and your organization has just come out to support it. So we love you. Thank you so much. You're a star. And those bills we can dive into more, but they are so important as well and they kind of match a Welsh, French and Norwegian cousins who also are these regulations across on the other side of the ocean around. Deforestation-free procurement as opposed to imports.

Jan Sumner: 15:11

Can you say the German name actually?

Etelle Higonnet: 15:13

Oh, so that's the more distant cousin, but also a fabulous addition to the family. The Liefe Kattengesetz is the supply chain regulation of Germany. It's really similar to this French law called the Loi de Devoir de Vigilance, the Duty of Vigilance Law. Those two laws are older than the EUDR. I think we wouldn't even have the EUDR without those laws. Actually, hats off to the French and the German lawmakers who kind of paved the way and created new horizons, new imagination of what is possible in the EU. Those laws the French and German supply chain laws they're in a way so strong. They require a lot of reporting and transparency on everything in your supply chain. They also require you to minimize all the harms and then report on what you do to minimize. So it's way beyond a reporting exercise. It's about overhauling entire supply chains, which is very beautiful and that's kind of similar to the EUDR and the other laws I was talking about. Because how could you overhaul your supply chain and not look at deforestation? It's such a severe problem and so tied to human rights abuses.

Kaya Adleman: 16:26

So what's the difference between procurement and a ban on imports?

Jan Sumner: 17:12

That's a fantastic question.

Etelle Higonnet: 17:13

Kaya, imagine that you are the Canadian government and I am trying to send a dirty shipment of deforestation cocoa saturated with also child slavery, which is often the norm in the world's worst cocoa.

Etelle Higonnet: 17:29

If I try to send a boat filled with that cocoa to Canada and you have a lot of it blocks bad, dirty imports, whether it's on slavery and child labor or on deforestation. My boat just literally cannot dock, which means I cannot bring my bad cocoa or my bad palm oil or my bad leather or my bad soy or whatever commodity you're trying to regulate. Hopefully all I cannot literally bring it to market, so unsuspecting Canadian consumers will not become innocently complicit if you will in my crimes. That's an import bill. A procurement bill is a bit different. It's less far reaching. If you were the government of Canada and I was again trying to sell you dirty cocoa or dirty palm oil, a procurement bill would ensure that what you procure for government purposes is clean. So basically it uses the market power of the government. It means people's tax dollars are not going to fund deforestation and horrible crimes.

Jan Sumner: 18:33

I just want to dig in a little bit deeper on the deforestation bill. So my understanding is deforestation slash degradation procurement. Okay, okay, yeah, I just wanted to capture that.

Etelle Higonnet: 18:46

Thank you for capturing that. That's so important. When we start getting excited, often we rattle off and go into this passionate excitement about ending deforestation, but you are so right that forest degradation is a huge problem. What's really interesting is that when you look at a commodity like soy or cattle, you tend to have these giant swaths of deforestation that you can easily see with a satellite map. But some of the other commodities that I was telling your listeners about, like coffee and cocoa and rubber, and actually pulp and paper, they often have a huge amount of forest degradation almost even, sometimes more than deforestation, and so you're absolutely right, jen, that's vital to capture.

Jan Sumner: 19:36

Yeah, and I think that's important for the New York, california and Illinois bills. Are deforestation and degradation-free procurement policy bills right? And the reason I bring that up is because that's some of the stuff that well, for anybody who's been listening to the previous podcast, you'll know that we've talked about this before is that deforestation is when you change the purpose of the land use, right. So if you go from it being a forest to now it being a shopping mall or a agricultural use, that's deforestation. If it's forestry and you've actually clear cut it, then you've degraded it, but you haven't deforested it. Even though there's no trees, it's no longer a forest. But the way the international definition works is deforestation has to be a change in land use and degradation is when you're degrading the ecosystem. So that's why it's really important to know that the bills that are going on in the US are about deforestation and degradation, and I'm pretty sure the EUDR is also that. That's, the European Union legislation actually talks about deforestation and preventing degradation as well.

Etelle Higonnet: 20:49

You are spot on and actually. So the latest, newest, maybe even coolest bill in the US, which is the Illinois bill, which is brand new, hot out of the oven, has, as you have exactly pointed out just now, a degradation component as well as a deforestation component.

Jan Sumner: 21:17

And I want to get to the nub of this, because one of the things that I found a little bit disheartening is that Canada's ambassador wrote to the EU last like it was last December saying that we didn't have any deforestation and therefore we should not be included in the EU DR and everything should be hunky-dory and Canada didn't need to do all of the requirements, etc.

Jan Sumner: 21:46

Need to do all of the requirements, etc. I personally asked the federal government to reconsider pushing back on this because I felt that our logging scars work Again. Go back and take a look at our or listen to our podcast on that. But we clearly have outlined how degradation is occurring in Canada and, whether you ascribe to the official deforestation definition or not, we definitely have degradation of ecosystems going on here, and and so I just want to get your take a tell on how's Canada responding to all of this, because all of these requirements well, yes, they're going to focus on coffee and soy and, you know, cocoa and other things that what's hitting here for us, I think, is both going to be on soy, which you know our podcast is not really about soy, but the forestry angle for pulp and paper is definitely in the procurement around forestry projects. Products in Canada will be hit by these various laws that are coming up. How's Canada responding?

Kaya Adleman: 22:46

And why did you reach out to us in the first place?

Jan Sumner: 22:49

Maybe that's a good place to start, yeah sure. Let's start there.

Etelle Higonnet: 22:53

Zaya and Jan, I have such sad, sad news for you. Let me preface my sad news by saying everyone around the world usually thinks of Canada as a shining beacon of hope for democracy and human rights, and in New York and California, to realize that there is an extremely strong, organized and frankly horrible Canadian government and industry campaign to put the kibosh on these beautiful, vital laws that I've just described. I mean, at the most basic level. Scientists are telling us our planet is on fire. Climate chaos is real, it's serious, it's imminent. We have to stop using fossil fuels and we've got to stop deforestation and forest degradation. This is what every single scientist worth their start is telling us.

Etelle Higonnet: 24:05

These laws do that. These laws that you and I have just been describing. They do exactly what we need to do, which is to curb and end deforestation and forest degradation. Canada is like Nero fiddling while Rome burns, except what they're doing is fiddling while our entire planet burns. Let me just tell you that John Jakubowski, your Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, sent the most horrible letter to all the New York lawmakers who were fighting to pass the New York Deforestation Free Procurement Act. That's the provincial minister.

Jan Sumner: 24:51

Right, that's the provincial minister.

Etelle Higonnet: 24:53

Yeah, and not only did John Yakabuski send a letter, but around the same time, the Acting Consul General of Canada to New York, which represents your entire government, khawar Nassim, and even the Consul Yves Beaulieu, sent just awful, awful letters to California, to New York, to raise all sorts of objections about the Canadian and New York Deforestation Free Procurement Act. And Canada has also engaged in really reprehensible démarches with the EU to kill, slow, hollow out, weaken, delay the EUDR. Most recently, the letter that you mentioned is very disturbing, jan. So yes, I'm aware of that and was horrified by that letter. That's also horrified to find that the Canadian soy industry lobby group was trying to meet Ursula van der Leyen to ask her to reopen, we think to ask her to reopen and delay and water down the EUDR. I mean, this is a tragedy. This is really on par with Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

Etelle Higonnet: 26:05

And the crazy thing is, why would Canada need to weaken or destroy these laws if Canada didn't have a problem? I fully believe that Canada is capable, 100% capable, of providing deforestation-free and forest degradation-free products to the world and doing good and doing well and making money and making the world a better place. Why does Canada feel the need to ensure that there's no laws that would stop the most reprehensible behavior? I mean, I believe that Canada can be its best self. Is the Canadian government saying that Canada can't be its best self, that Canada can't find a way to do good and do well at the same time? I just think that's it.

Jan Sumner: 27:00

Yeah, it seems sort of like uh, I don't know like a paradox. In a way, it's sort of like canada is well known for, or canada purports itself to have, the most sustainable forestry, etc. On the planet and likes that reputation. And so if that's your reputation, and it's true, then why would you try to to prevent these laws or challenge them in any way? Because you should be able to meet them if your forestry is that great. Thank you, so that's the part I don't get.

Etelle Higonnet: 27:35

Thank you. If you have nothing to hide, why are you afraid of the sunlight? If you're the most sustainable forestry in the world, why are you afraid of these laws? You should be the number one advocate for these laws, because it's a competitive advantage to people who do sustainable production, if, in fact, there are laws that only allow sustainable production products to be sold bought and sold right.

Jan Sumner: 28:04

Well, it's kind of consistent with well, it is consistent with the Glasgow Declaration right on forest and forest.

Etelle Higonnet: 28:11

Thank you, yes, yes.

Jan Sumner: 28:12

Which Canada is a signatory to as well where we promised to deliver deforestation, degradation, free planet, so again, these are just all confounding pieces to me.

Kaya Adleman: 28:35

I'm trying to make sense of it. So Canada's forestry doesn't meet the international definition of deforestation, but a lot of these laws now have stipulations against forest degradation. And is it because these laws define forest degradation as something that Canadian forestry practices in general would violate? Or, I don't know, maybe is it because there's no internationally standard definition of what forest degradation is? That's making Canada so nervous about these laws.

Etelle Higonnet: 29:11

So I have some of these letters that Canadian industry and government officials sent right here in front of me. I have them on my desk and I can tell you what the basic arguments are. The first argument is we don't really need these laws because we're already perfect, so please don't bother us. The second argument is we need these jobs and laws might interfere with employment. So it's jobs over planet. Essentially, the next big argument is employment. Your laws are going to raise the cost of doing business and make things more expensive. Jen, when you were saying that you don't understand how to hold these multiple things in your mind at the same time, I feel the same. If you are saying that your forestry is already perfect and sustainable and that the laws are superfluous, then why would it make it so much more expensive and why would so many jobs be lost if the laws at stake came to pass.

Etelle Higonnet: 30:23

No, I think, if you have nothing to hide, you are not afraid of the sun. Yeah, that's the bottom line, and that makes it extremely disquieting that Canadian industry and government have essentially been on some kind of warpath to shut down the laws that we so desperately need in Illinois, in New York, in Canada, we desperately need them in the UK, we desperately need them in the EU. In fact, we desperately need them everywhere in the world to save our planet and make it habitable for future generations.

Jan Sumner: 31:07

Yeah, I guess the other thing that I find disquieting is that I know that disquieting is that, uh, uh, I know that, uh, so just in, in terms of our work, we speak up, uh, and point to the truth of what's going on in canada. Many people know we've done the the logging scars work, which we deem to be either de facto deforestation, because those are areas that are barren 30, 30 or more years after harvest, and, thinking on a 2050 timeframe, there's going to be no way that things that you log today will be coming back and this is commercial full tree harvesting. I'll just provide that. But commercial full tree harvesting, when you're engaged in that, it leaves a signature footprint in the landscape. There might be a way to prevent that, but we haven't yet invented that. And right now, if we're engaged in that, by 2050, those areas, which might be about 14% on average, maybe they can make it a little bit less, but it'll still be barren.

Jan Sumner: 32:06

So we see that as either a de facto deforestation or at least a degradation, and so we know that that's occurring, occurring and we think Canada should be honest about it and talk about it, and maybe these laws will help Canada to say, okay, it's time to address this and make forestry a bit better.

Jan Sumner: 32:25

But that's actually degradation by design. We've actually designed the system to actually execute in that way. Now we're not yet taking ownership of that, but Canada and I know I've spoken out about this and I know that Canada has had conversations with other jurisdictions and said well, we agree with the principles in these deforestation, degradation, free procurement policies. We just think you should remove the boreal, which means the focus then becomes the global south, and the disquieting piece for me is, as the canada that I know and and love, I want them to not just be seeking this, to be a north, like the north is, is good. Don't look at us, only look at the South. But step up and meet these requirements and be the global leader that you can be and not just say this is just a problem that's happening in the South, because that just feels kind of icky to me.

Etelle Higonnet: 34:10

Do you know what it feels like to me? It feels kind of icky to me. Do you know what it feels like to me? It feels racist. I think the idea that we're going to have rules which only global South nations are going to have to abide by and global North nations are not going to have to abide by is, frankly, cuckoo banana pants. It's crazy.

Kaya Adleman: 34:34

And it's not just crazy and irrational and not science driven and not data driven, it is also basically racist yeah, like the optics of it are that these laws are targeting products that are associated with developing countries and it seems like Canada is looking down on and doesn't want to be lumped in with that group and is trying to other itself and raise itself up against that.

Etelle Higonnet: 35:05

I think that if Canadian industry and government officials feel that a set of laws are adequate for Indonesian palm oil and Brazilian cattle and Ivorian cocoa, then those laws should be applied, even Stephen, around the world. If they are good enough for Cameroon, they are good enough for Canada.

Etelle Higonnet: 35:34

Yeah, Canada should be able to meet them Canada should be able to meet the same level, the same threshold of due diligence and care and sustainability as Cameroon. And if Canada believes that it cannot, then we're faced with a strange situation where a French American believes that Canada can be its best self and the Canadian government seems to think less of Canada than I do, which I find to be absurd. That's very unpatriotic. I believe Canada has immense numbers of resourceful, creative, brilliant individuals who can figure out how to run its various industries in the most ethical ways.

Jan Sumner: 36:25

I would also say I just want to put this out there is that at Wildlandsley we've worked with some very progressive forestry companies who really want to do some of the right things, are doing amazing work, both from community forests or First Nations Indigenous-owned forests and smaller forestry companies and some large commercial forestry companies.

Jan Sumner: 36:47

And so when we talk about the industry, I think this is often industry representation, et cetera, that really catches the big players but doesn't necessarily capture the whole. So I want to differentiate on that just a little bit, because I know not all industry is in support of the pushback. One of those progressive forestry companies that wants to do different things, wants to meet these regulations, wants to take advantage of that competitive advantage that you can get, because if these laws come into place, then it leaves the space for Canada to step up and say, hey, if you can't get fiber from here, we meet the test, come here, get your fiber here, and so I think that's a great position for Canada to be in. And so I think that is that's a great position for Canada to be in.

Etelle Higonnet: 37:34

Not only do I agree wholeheartedly with you, jen, but I want to add that thousands of companies came out to publicly support the EUDR. They came out to publicly support a stronger version of the UK Environment Bill Sched, schedule 17, than even the UK government was proposing at the time has come out to support the Forest Act or the New York or California Bill, etc. In fact, ikea has come out to support the EUTR very strongly. When I say thousands of companies, I don't mean just companies like Patagonia and Seventh Generation. I'm talking about Ikea. It's not a muumuu-wearing corner hippie-dippie shop for baskets. It's the biggest furniture shop in the world. I'm talking about Mars. It's not, you know, some kind of bean to bar, mom and pop chocolate high end. You know fancy pants, bougie chocolate store. Mars is huge. We're talking about companies like Unilever. Huge companies have come out to support bills like the EUDR, the Forest Act, nike, adidas, h&m, primark.

Etelle Higonnet: 39:01

Here's a really interesting statement from H&M. He said we undertake human rights due diligence in line with UN guiding principles on business and human rights. We want to see others doing the same it's almost exactly what you were saying, jan which is, companies that are committing to no deforestation and no forest degradation that are getting on the path. They want these laws because they want to do good business. They want to do good and do well laws because they want to do good business. They want to do good and do well. There are industry players in Canada that, I'm sure, do want these laws. So why is the Canadian government listening to the worst part of industry and not the best part of industry, not seeing that you can be your best self and make money off of it and have a competitive advantage against companies in other countries that aren't going to do the same? And also, please, can somebody ask the Canadian government to stop scraping the bottom of the barrel with the most absurd arguments known to man?

Etelle Higonnet: 40:05

There's this hilarious thing that Yves Bollier, the consul, wrote. He said Canada is a friend of California forests in a letter, basically trying to kill the California bill. He said in the fall of 2020, canada sent more than 60 firefighters to California to assist in battling the devastating wildfires. It reminds me of an oil company that said we are going to have recyclable paper cups instead of styrofoam cups on this giant drilling rig that'll be up in the arctic. You're drilling in the arctic and you're gonna have compostable cups. What are you talking about?

Kaya Adleman: 40:44

it's like, yeah, like the ceo of ryan air when, like I think it was um bbc pan Panorama was criticizing his or their, their carbon credit scheme, and then he was like, but we donate to dolphins, like we've saved dolphins.

Jan Sumner: 41:04

Being in the trenches, sometimes you want to zero in on what you were just talking about these big companies. So that's the other thing that I think is very interesting in the landscape that's starting to shift really supply chains and the demand for products and so many people are aware of the climate, the car, the climate cop and the nature cop and companies come to that large companies like you're saying, like unilever and liptons and, uh, denon and many, many, many, many, many other companies who come to these conclusions that they finally go. You know what we're tired of getting hammered about our climate portfolio or our nature um, where we access products, and we'd really like it if there could be some solid laws that would help us guide this. But they represent an enormous buying power that is also going to be shifting how and what gets produced, and so it's good to have laws that help support that, because then at least that's the bar you have to get over and then you can have the companies out there leading the pack and actually driving even bigger change. But they need the support of these laws because it actually then creates the supply, the very supply chain that they need, and then they can get out and support it. So I mean, that's just the dynamics.

Jan Sumner: 42:33

Many of us in the environmental field we think about these things, about, well, what's driving the demand for these products or what's driving this deforestation or degradation? And when you have good companies out there saying we demand more and better, and you have laws that are saying, okay, here's the bet, here's the bar, it actually then creates a marketplace that can support these companies who want to do good. And I guess my question to you that's my summary. But my question to you, atel, is you talked about some of these companies and I forget it was in some notes that we passed back and forth before the episode but you talked about a certain amount of investment or money that this represents, and I forget the figure that you used, but it was astonishing to me. So can you maybe just talk about that a little bit?

Etelle Higonnet: 43:27

Yeah, yeah, so you know, a number of companies came out to support all these laws. In fact, thousands, literally thousands, in the regulated spaces. By the way, these are companies that are directly affected by the law because what they produce and sell is going to be regulated by the EUDR or the Forest Act or the UK Environment Bill or the New York or California or, most recently, the Illinois bill. But, in addition to companies, investors worth trillions of dollars of assets under management came out to support bills like this. There are, to my knowledge, four major investor letters. There's one investor letter that I'm more familiar with just because I helped to get it launched, and that's a letter that's almost $3 trillion of assets under management, which those investors supported the Forest Act in the United States being passed. They supported the California and the New York bills and at the time, the Illinois bill did not yet exist. And also, at that time, the executive order in Colorado, which is thanks to the Colorado governor, also did not exist. But across the pond in the EU, there were investor letters that were even larger the EU investor statement from the Investor Alliance for Human Rights, with 94 investors, over 6 trillion in assets under management. Another letter with over 105 institutional investors, 5 trillion assets under management and I don't remember the exact details of the other investor letters. But we're talking huge support from the investor community.

Etelle Higonnet: 45:24

And why do I want to emphasize this? A lot of investors, a lot of investors. Their money is going up in smoke along with our planet. Right, because there is no economy without a planet. When the rivers run dry and you cannot run ships through the traditional trading routes, which has just started to happen in the last couple of years I am not making this up, this is a real thing. Rivers running dry, they get super low. The traditional cargo ships cannot go on their routes. When that happens, you can't get your stuff from point A to point B. The supply chain starts falling apart. There are huge delays, everything gets wonky. You lose money.

Etelle Higonnet: 46:06

But it's not just shipping, it's agriculture. Surprise, surprise. If you want to grow things, you need rain and you need predictable weather. You can't have super storms and heat domes and mega droughts. It actually doesn't work very well for agriculture. Shocker. So investors who are invested at scale in agriculture they don't actually like climate chaos. But it's not just that.

Etelle Higonnet: 46:28

The pharmaceutical industry depends on forests and on nature. The vast majority of our medicines. They originate from products that were found in forests, which we then tweak and work on in labs and replicate and produce and sell at scale to save people from things like cancer. If you destroy all of our forests and, by the way, also our coral reefs you're basically shutting down the future of the pharmaceutical industry. It's not just that Energy. If you're interested in hydro energy, well, guess what? There's no hydro energy when there's no rain. So mega droughts are not great for hydro energy. Mega droughts are not great for hydro energy. There's so many investors whose portfolios are getting hit and hit and hit again by climate chaos. That's why they supported these laws. It should be a no brainer. The truth is, without these laws, we are not going to have a habitable planet and we are not going to have an economy, and that means we're not going to have jobs and we're not going to have money. So we need these laws if we want jobs and money.

Jan Sumner: 47:39

But I mean, yes, we absolutely do need them if we want. But even if you don't think of it in an environmental perspective, the fact that there's this much investor money in the trillions under management, like trillions, like multiple trillions that seems like a space you want to be skating to, to use a Canadian phrase, like you want to skate to where the puck is, and the puck is in the trillions of dollars of investment that are supporting anti-degradation and deforestation procurement policies. That seems like a good space to be in.

Etelle Higonnet: 48:14

That's where we should be skating forward, not backwards. It's really not 1400, actually, last time I checked it was also not 1830. Like we are in a different age, you know, it's as if some of these lawmakers are living firmly in the Middle Ages, like the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. When are they going to get the memo?

Kaya Adleman: 48:39

Yeah, I was thinking also about how, when we did our fiber economy episode, we were talking about how fiber that comes from Canadian forests is usually like saw logs that are bought by other companies to be used. Pulp is usually as like primary inputs for other products. And I'm just thinking, if Canada doesn't want to sign on to these deforestation and degradation free procurement policies and laws, they're isolating themselves from these huge companies who want to source sustainable fiber. So, especially because if Canadian forests are at the beginning of the supply chain and then they're in the business of selling their products to secondary manufacturers, it would just make sense to sign on to these laws. No, you say it sister.

Jan Sumner: 49:42

So I'm going to take this in a slightly different direction, because one of the things that has happened in Canada in response to this has been the Canadian government is actually trying to create a degradation, a definition of degradation, and they are consulting broadly. They're having conversations with the Canadian forest ministers, they're having conversations with some environmentalists, including Wildlands League. We've been engaged in some of those conversations and very rich conversations, I will say that and brought forward some great ideas. There are a number of environmental groups Wildlands, nature, canada and several others that came out with their own definition. We tried to inform the process by saying you know, let's just as environmentalists start to think about this and put it on a sheet of paper and say this is the definition that we think we should start from, and we've put that out there to the Canadian government.

Jan Sumner: 50:39

I think one of the challenges is going to be in how Canada operates as a country, because, well, the federal government may want to create a really good solid, very good definition. That would actually start to push the envelope. The challenge has to be for them that they've got to get all of the provinces to agree to it, and that's because forestry is regulated for the most part at a provincial scale. So Canada is out there having a conversation about signing on to the Glasgow Declaration and wanting to deal with deforestation and degradation, creating its own definition, but the regulatory framework and the responsibility is at the provincial level, and so this is going to be a challenge. And then you've got the environmentalists who are saying, well, we really need to go in this direction. So I'm not sure where it's going to land, but that is kind of the framework.

Jan Sumner: 51:41

And when Attell was referencing some of these letters, some of these letters are coming from provincial governments who are definitely in opposition to these various bills etc. And then sometimes the federal government is being urged on not only by industry but by provinces who have a vested interest in a certain outcome. So for those of you who may want to express your voice or have a conversation at the political level, it would not be just with the federal government, but also with your provincial governments who are in charge of regulating forestry and how they see degradation and what their pushback might be on this. And it would be great if people could start to see this as a clear opportunity versus. You know what it feels like right now, or the response feels like is being perceived as an attack on Canadian forestry, and I feel more that it's an opportunity for Canadian forestry to stand up and be a leader.

Etelle Higonnet: 52:41

I just want to provide that context.

Etelle Higonnet: 52:44

I think it's an opportunity for the best of Canadian industry to absolutely step up and lead the entire world. I think it is probably an attack on the worst parts of Canadian industry, which, frankly, canada deserves better than that, and I'm a firm believer that Canada is a beautiful, fantastic, well-run government that, when it wants to, it can do great things. And they signed onto the Glasgow Declaration. They signed numerous other international treaties, and if you talk the talk, you got to walk the walk. But, more importantly, let's walk the walk towards a habitable planet and a good future, instead of walking the walk off the doom cliff of climate chaos, which is going to engulf all of us if we don't all step up. Yeah, we're seeing the ravages of wildfires right now in Canada, so I think there's a lot of us who feel that deep pain. Tweet Insta, go on Facebook somehow, get through to your elected representatives and your local government and tell them to get behind all these bills.

Etelle Higonnet: 54:13

Not just to stop being the nattering nabob of negativity that's trying to put the kibosh on all these beautiful laws and bills. Tell your elected representatives they work for you, they work for you. Tell them you want a better future for your kids and grandchildren. You love this beautiful planet. That is the only planet we can inhabit. I'm sorry, elon Musk, I do not want to go to Mars. Pretty much no one I know wants to go to Mars. This is it. This is our home. You tell your elected representatives that work for you that Canada has got to be its best self, has got to step up, has got to be a champion for all these bills. You can do it.

Jan Sumner: 54:54

Yeah, notwithstanding my childhood dream to be in Star Trek, I do want the Earth to be a habitable planet, absolutely 100 percent. Um, can you maybe forecast the future and and kind of go through all the laws, the sisters, the cousins and and where we're tracking right now, where we can expect, like the eudr is in, it's in, it's passed, but, um, it's not being implemented yet and we're still kind of waiting to see how that all happens. Can you maybe just take us on a tour, etel, and help us understand where it's all going?

Etelle Higonnet: 55:33

I'm a super glass-half-full person. I am not a glass-half-empty person, so let me start out with all the good news first. The EUDR has passed it's the law of the land. It's awesome, it rocks. It's a super sexy law. I think it's going to be well enforced. It may take a little while before all the law enforcement folks around the EU fully wrap their mind around how to do that because it's new, but I'm confident that will happen, even though it's been attacked by industry. The UK environment bill similarly it's passed. It's the law of the land. It got royal assent. We're now just waiting for implementing regulation from DEFRA. That will come. I fully believe that the UK can make it good. I'm still a little hesitant because you don't want to count your chicks before they hatch, but I believe the UK could do a great job. The Forest Act if we cross over to this side of the pond, it has bipartisan support in the House and the Senate. It could pass that's incredible actually.

Etelle Higonnet: 56:39

I mean given where things are with that.

Jan Sumner: 56:41

I mean watching from the north here, watching where things are in the Senate. It's kind of like whoa, you have a bipartisan support bill. I know.

Etelle Higonnet: 56:51

Oh, it's amazing. This is a fantastic bill. It's got real bipartisan support in the House and the Senate. The New York bill just passed like a hot knife through butter with flying colors in the House and the Senate. In New York it's called Subtrees Act. Now we're just waiting for the governor to see if she will pass it or veto it as she did last year. We hope she'll pass this year.

Jan Sumner: 57:10

Does that one include the boreal, though it does not? Now, that's what I thought, yeah.

Etelle Higonnet: 57:15

The California bill passed like a hot knife for butter in the House and the Senate but it's now on ice because the governor vetoed it, I think in part maybe because of Canadian lobbying, which was quite harmful. But you know, I think that if Illinois gets across the finish line and or New York, then California will come back and I believe that these things it's inevitable. Either we are going to all burn on a dead planet or we're going to end up with good laws like this to all burn on a dead planet or we're going to end up with good laws like this.

Jan Sumner: 57:47

So it's our choice, well, well, and the companies who are, you know, making the products? You know they're not the necessarily the forestry companies. They're companies that are making products and want to source things from good places. At the end of the day, they're asking for these laws to get passed they are thousands of them, thousands, like you know. We need to give them some help and actually make sure that the supply is there for them. Let's help them.

Jan Sumner: 58:15

So for somebody who has received death threats, intimidation letters has been arrested, been arrested letters and has been arrested, been arrested, I tell us, like the nicest person and she talks about all these laws as being cousins and daughters and children of, and I just found it so absolutely pleasant to speak with her and yet she is driving some of the some arguably some of the biggest change and setting up the global frameworks for change to occur, because a lot of our economic system is driving the behavior on the ground.

Kaya Adleman: 58:56

I'm thinking also about the state procurement bills that have been in California, that one that has been kiboshed, and the California state government saying we don't want state taxpayer monies going towards fiber products that are associated with forest degradation and deforestation. That's such a small and insignificant blow to the Canadian forest industry. So my question is why? Why are they fighting so hard to to lobby against that law? Um, is it because they're afraid that it will apply to them like I don't know?

Jan Sumner: 59:33

these are just questions that I have coming out of this conversation and it's happening behind closed doors right. Most canadians don't know that their government or their provincial government is fighting against this. So Kaya and I decided that it might be interesting for the two of us to go back and look at some of the letters that she refers to, letters that were sent from various governments in Canada to explain the Canadian perspective on these procurement pieces of legislation. So we thought we would read a few of those, and then Kaya is going to put them into the episode and provide them, et cetera. So we'll the suggestion. My suggestion is, kaya, that we start with the letter from British Columbia, the Alberta government, the Ontario government and the Quebec government that was sent in 2021, june 15th, to the Honorable Senator, bill Dodd Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization in California regarding the California Deforestation Free Procurement Act for public works projects wood and wood products.

Jan Sumner: 1:00:51

I don't know if you have a section of it, your favorite section of it you might want to read, or.

Kaya Adleman: 1:00:56

Sure the provinces say. We write you jointly to express the shared concern of the governments Ontario, quebec, alberta and British Columbia have with respect to the AB 416 California Deforestation Free Procurement Act. While the intent of the legislation, ensuring forest sustainability, is certainly commendable, the bill, as written, does not consider the world-class sustainable forest management practices to which our Canadian and provincial forestry sectors adhere. These practices specify environmental forest stewardship requirements and prevent deforestation of the boreal forest. If enacted as written, this legislation could result, intentionally or unintentionally, in discrimination against wood products originating from Canada and increase the costs associated with California's forest product trade with Canada.

Jan Sumner: 1:01:54

Yeah, what I find really incredible about that is, at the same time Canada put out a Section 63 report which reports on the health of caribou populations across the country. And every year for the last few years, every time they put out these reports, it unequivocally says caribou habitat is not protected. And we know that caribou, their probability of persistence and surviving are often a good indicator of whether or not the border forest is doing well. And yet we continue to put out these reports saying caribou are not doing well and they're not protected in these regions. But at the same time we tell other governments that we've got the best forestry practices out there.

Jan Sumner: 1:02:38

And those two things seem to be, in my mind, kind of in opposition. And they go on to say our, our world-leading sustainable forest management practices are underpinned by robust legislative and regulatory frameworks. These laws and regulations prevent illegal forest practices and deforestation. So it's definitely true, they can prevent illegal forest practices. But what about forest practices that are legal but are still leading to degradation and, in our world, world view, a de facto deforestation of trees aren't coming back there, and that's certainly with our logging scarves work in ontario very specifically, we can demonstrate that those trees have not come back on about 40 14 of the places where poultry harvesting has happened they also say that approximately 77% of Ontario's, over 80% of Alberta's, 90% of Quebec's and 85% of British Columbia's managed public forests are sustainably certified by independent third party certification bodies like the Forest Stewardship Council and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative.

Kaya Adleman: 1:03:41

So they're also using this as a reason why they don't need additional regulations on their products.

Jan Sumner: 1:03:49

I also don't understand why they're making the argument if enacted, this legislation would also unjustly impact Canada's northern and indigenous communities dependent on forestry and could affect more than 200,000 jobs. I'm not sure how it could do that. If you're saying that you are sustainable, how would it impact you? Because wouldn't you just pass with flying colors anyway? That's, that's what's in the letter, and and then they write that they appreciate the amendment removing the specific reference to Canada's boreal forest from the legislation, but do not believe that it addresses our shared concern with the impact the bill will have. We commend California's commitment to enacting measures for safeguarding the sustainability of forests by ensuring procurement of legally and ethically sourced wood products, and look forward to an opportunity to discuss how the legislation could be further amended to account for Canada's world-leading sustainability practices.

Kaya Adleman: 1:04:44

The big red flag for me is they're asking this law to remove references to boreal forests, but emphasizing Canada's commitment to ensuring sustainable forestry around the world, and that, to me, is saying we don't think this law should apply to us, but it should definitely apply to all those countries in the global south and their forestry practices yeah, okay.

Jan Sumner: 1:05:12

So then let's see who else wrote what else we got here. Yeah, there's the chair of the Finance Committee, or at that time, in April of 2022, that was her position, yeah. So again, this letter is in response to Senate Bill 5921A and Assembly Bill 6872A New York Deforestation Free Procurement Act, and it reads in conversation with you and your good offices over the past year, my provincial colleagues and I have stressed our opposition to the inclusion of boreal forests in these bills, for in so doing, new York is including its most responsible and reliable supplier of forest products in a bill best directed at others. Canada has exceptional forest management and shares New York's commitment to a green, sustainable future. We are concerned that the inclusion of Canada in these bills is misguided and a risk to our shared prosperity. As such, we will refrain from offering amendments at this time, but reiterate our opposition. It goes on to say a few other things as well, but again, that's like we shouldn't be covered by this. Everybody else should be. Don't target us, because we're good.

Kaya Adleman: 1:06:39

Yeah, best directed at others, right? And how can the bill be including Canadian forest products if they are so good and would meet the requirements outlined in the legislation?

Jan Sumner: 1:06:54

Those two things don't make sense, or they don't make sense to me.

Kaya Adleman: 1:06:57

Yeah, I have a hard time holding those two thoughts in my head at the same time, I think.

Jan Sumner: 1:07:03

There's another letter that we have. I think this one is from the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry at the time, john Jakubowski. It was written in again. I think it was 2021. Let me just confirm that Written again to Senator in New York State who's the chairman of the Committee on Procurement and Contracts and it's regarding those same two bills in New York state, who's the chairman of the committee on procurement and contracts and it's regarding those same two bills that New York was considering the Deforestation Free Procurement Act and the removal of boreal forest reference. So he was writing to Senator Franklin Melnick to express concern on behalf of Ontarians with respect to those bills at your committee hearing, procurement contracts, etc.

Jan Sumner: 1:07:50

While the intentions to ensure forest sustainability are commendable, it does not consider Ontario's world-class sustainable forest management practices which specifically prevent forest degradation or deforestation of the boreal forest.

Jan Sumner: 1:08:04

Now that one in particular I find really interesting because it says it does not consider Ontario's world-class sustainable forest management practices which specifically prevent forest degradation.

Jan Sumner: 1:08:15

So I know that Canada and provinces could argue that we do not, under the international definition, have deforestation because it's not about a land use change but in terms of forest degradation, if you have an intact existing natural forest area and you are entering in there and you're going to log. That is, by definition, going to degrade that forest. It's going to take a natural system and turn it into a managed system. It won't have the same ecological integrity. It may, over time, grow the trees back, but it may grow a different complement. It will certainly change the age class. You'll have all one age class, or very much within a few years, as opposed to an ecosystem that has a variety of age classes. So by virtue of opening up a new intact area, that is, not only is it degradation, but it is degradation by design, and that is currently what we're doing in Ontario. We're opening up new intact areas. We move where we harvest around into new natural areas all the time.

Kaya Adleman: 1:09:29

So to make the statement that we prevent forest degradation, I'm completely befuddled by how that can be true letter has the same language as the previous ones, asking the bill to remove references to boreal forest and saying that, um, you know, ontario and canada's uh world leading sustainable forest management shouldn't have to be subject to these regulations, and then also putting the threat of canadian jobs at risk.

Jan Sumner: 1:10:06

It also seems like there's a concerted effort right Like this is almost the same letter changed a little bit nuanced, a little bit different ways, but essentially the same messages. Right, we're perfectly sustainable. Therefore, we shouldn't be covered by this. And, as Zatel said, you know, and that's why you should just take boreal out of the landscape direct requests to remove boreal from from all of the references. So that's that's significant as well, and I I just um, yeah, it's, it's uh shocking uh, yes well, thanks for reading the letters.

Jan Sumner: 1:10:40

That was an interesting uh exercise yeah, and and just to see, see what Canadian governments, provincial and federal governments, are out there telling the world about our forestry and I think it definitely is interesting to see that these exact arguments are being replicated across officials from throughout the country.

Kaya Adleman: 1:11:02

I think that's something that maybe we see in isolation yeah.

Jan Sumner: 1:11:05

Or it's a coordinated response. Yes, we don't know. We're just guessing, but we have that question. If you like listening to the Clear Cut and want to keep the content coming, support the show. It would mean a lot to Kaya and I. The link to do so will be in the episode description below.

Kaya Adleman: 1:11:26

You can also become a supporter by going to our website at wwwwildlandsleagueorg. Slash the clear cut and also make sure to leave us a review on your favorite podcast streaming platform. It would really help the podcast and stay tuned for new episodes by following us on social media.

Jan Sumner: 1:11:47

That's at Wildlands League on Instagram, twitter and Facebook or LinkedIn, of course.

Kaya Adleman: 1:11:53

See you next time.