A call for international alignment on nature protection has criticized Canada and other wealthy countries for “double standards” in managing their forests, just as a new poll reveals most Canadians support stronger safeguards for nature at home.
But that support may not be enough to sway their voting decisions.
Amid a global push to reverse forest loss and degradation by 2030, wealthy and developed countries have focused heavily on tropical deforestation while downplaying logging impacts in their own forests, writes Sikeade Egbuwalo, biodiversity lead at Nigeria’s federal environment ministry, in an op-ed for Climate Home News.
Egbuwalo calls it a “deeply rooted double standard,” adding that “primary and old-growth forests are being clearcut at alarming rates in the Global North, where forestry is driving some of the highest rates of tree cover loss in the world.”
African nations have called for the development of a global forest accountability and equity framework to standardize reporting, monitoring, and definitions of forest degradation across tropical, temperate, and boreal forests. “We cannot have a system that holds the wealthiest countries to a different standard,” Egbuwalo writes.
Canadian Preferences Split Along Party Lines
New polling data suggests most Canadians agree that stronger safeguards are needed at home—but opinions diverge when it comes to how platform and policy influence voting choices.
In a recent EKOS poll for Nature Canada [pdf], 84% of respondents across the political spectrum agreed the government should take stronger action to protect forests and wildlife. About two-thirds, or 68%, said they would be reluctant to vote for a party that made no commitments to safeguard nature.
“Even in a challenging economic time, there’s a strong desire to see parties do more to protect forests and other natural areas,” Michael Polanyi, policy and campaign manager at Nature Canada, told The Energy Mix in an interview.
However, the issue’s effect on voting decisions depends on party affiliation, with Conservative-leaning respondents standing apart from the others. Three in four Conservative Party supporters said the government needs to do more to protect forests, but the issue did not influence their voting decision nearly as much as others. Some 51% indicated a party’s commitment to protect nature would not affect their vote either way, and another 11% indicated they were more likely to vote for a party with no commitment to nature protection.
By contrast, supporters of other political parties ranged from 81 to 96% less likely to vote for a party with no commitment to protect nature and wildlife. This grouping included those who identified as Liberal, New Democrat, Green, and Bloc Québécois supporters.
The poll was conducted in October with a sample size of 1,057 adults. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.0 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Call for Greater Transparency
One issue that unites Canadians across party lines is transparency. A supermajority of 92% of respondents to one recent poll wanted the government to be transparent about the environmental impacts of logging: a sentiment consistent across regions, demographics, and political affiliations.
In early 2024, eight environmental organizations, including Nature Canada, released a forest report subtitled “Seeing through the spin,” which criticized gaps in the federal government’s reporting on forest ecosystem degradation, logging impacts, biodiversity, climate impacts, and Indigenous rights.
“It looks like we’re logging very little of the Canadian forest, like there aren’t big problems on the biodiversity side, and it looks like logging is more or less carbon neutral,” Polanyi said of the government’s portrayal. “The truth is really other than that.”
Clearcut forest areas are not categorized in Natural Resources Canada’s forest inventory as “deforestation,” he explained. Globally, clearcut forest is considered “degradation,” something which is not separated out in the Canadian inventory as the federal government is still working on a definition.
Canada has pledged to end deforestation and forest degradation by 2030, but Polanyi said there’s little accountability: “They’ve made this commitment publicly and internationally and yet there’s no real clear monitoring of how much degradation is taking place in Canada.”
Forestry’s Role in Emissions
The environmental costs of logging extend beyond deforestation. In 2023, the federal auditor general released a report recommending that Environment and Climate Change Canada start reporting the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the logging sector, something that is yet to be implemented.
“Because the government doesn’t do it, we did it ourselves, and what we found was that logging is the third-highest emitting sector in the Canadian economy after only oil and gas and the transportation sector,” Polanyi said.
The emissions link could become more politically significant as Canadians prepare for the next federal election. While nature protection plays a role in shaping voter decisions, the poll also explored how plans for emissions factor into voting behaviour.
While 54% of Canadians said they would be less likely to vote for a party with no emissions reduction plan, that figure drops sharply among Conservative voters. Among Conservative respondents, 47% said a party’s lack of a climate plan would not affect their vote, while 36% said it would make them more likely to support that party.
Among supporters of other parties, 77% to 92% said they would not vote for a party without a commitment to reducing emissions.
Polanyi emphasized that public awareness is critical. “Understanding where the public is at in terms of which policies they’re more onboard with, and which ones they may need to learn more about, is useful for us.”
