Environmental Indicators
5 Natural Resources

Fresh Water

Fresh water is an important resource. It is used for drinking, irrigation, and diluting waste. It supports recreation, tourism, transportation, and fish and wildlife. It is a critical input into many industrial processes, including manufacturing, mineral extraction and the generation of thermal power. Water also has aesthetic value.

Canada is a nation rich in water. Including water captured in glaciers and the polar ice-caps, Canada's watersheds contain about 9 percent of the world's renewable water resources and 20 percent of the world's total freshwater resources (Foreign Affairs and International Trade 1999: 2). Sixty percent of Canada's water resources drain north to the Arctic Ocean, leaving roughly 40 percent readily available to most of Canada's population, which lives within 300 km of the southern border (Statistics Canada 1998: 12).

Despite the abundance of fresh water in Canada, there are concerns about the availability of water because of a number of regional shortages. In 1994, approximately 17 percent of municipalities with water systems reported water shortages. Reasons for these shortages ranged from drought to inadequate storage capacity and distribution systems (Environment Canada 1998d).

Concern about water management has also arisen because of the number of proposals for water diversions and bulk removals. These proposals include projects to transfer water both within Canada and to the United States. Currently, the provinces have the primary responsibility for water management. However, in 1999 a federal strategy was launched that proposed to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to give the federal government regulatory power to prohibit bulk removals, particularly from the Great Lakes. It also proposed to develop, in partnership with the provinces and territories, a "Canada-wide accord on bulk water removals to protect watersheds" (Foreign Affairs and International Trade 1999: 1).

There is also concern in Canada about the amount of water used since much use is perceived as wasteful. Canada's per-capita demands on water resources are the second highest in the world, about 326 litres per person per day (Environment Canada 1998d). Less than 3 percent of municipally treated water used in households is used for drinking (Environment Canada 1999a); 65 percent is used in bathrooms and, during the summer, approximately three-quarters of the treated water used domestically is sprayed onto lawns (Environment Canada 1996c: record 16441). Outside of households, rates of recirculation of industrial water used are low and low investment into municipal delivery and treatment systems has led to 14 percent of municipal water being lost through leaks in pipes (Environment Canada 1999a).

To promote water conservation, Environment Canada recommends in its State of the Environment Report that "we should pay a fair price that will recover the full cost of water delivered to the tap, one that is based on actual quantity used" (Environment Canada 1996c: record 16430). In Canada, the government subsidizes much of the cost of water use; charges for irrigation water only recover about 10 percent of the actual cost of the services, and municipalities pay up to 65 percent of residential costs (Environment Canada 1996c: record 16420; Palda 1998: 62). Some municipalities charge a flat rate for the use of water. As a result, consumers make decisions on how much water to use without considering the true cost.

Studies show that when people are required to pay the full cost of the water they use, there are significant improvements in water conservation. Economists Julie Hewitt and Michael Hanemann conducted a study in Denton, Texas and found that demand for water in the summer fell 16 percent for every 10 percent increase in price, holding all other factors constant (Palda 1998: 63). Similarly, in 1994, Canadian households paying for water by volume used 39 percent less than households paying a flat rate (Environment Canada 1998d: 4).

Changing water prices to reflect the true cost would finance the repairs that are needed in the municipal water and sewage systems. One study by Environment Canada estimates that the cost of repairing neglected municipal systems is between $7 and $10 billion (Environment Canada 1996c: record 16429). If 1994 water prices were to double to 172 cents per 1000 litres, in five years this price increase would provide enough income to fix all the leaky municipal water pipes. Considering that between 14 to 30 percent of treated water is lost through leaky pipes, these repairs would address some of the regional shortages (Environment Canada 1996c: record 16431). To put this increase in price in perspective, consider the high demand for bottled water at an average cost of $1500 for 1000 litres (Environment Canada 1996c: record 16432).

To evaluate trends in the use of fresh water, this report considers water use by sector from 1972 to 1991. Water use can be measured by two different indicators: (1) total water withdrawals, which are the total amount of water extracted and (2) total water consumption, which is the amount of water withdrawn that is not returned to a body of water after use. This section examines data for both indicators.

Trends for fresh water

Between 1972 and 1991, total water withdrawals in Canada increased by 87.4 percent (figure 5.1). The greatest increase during this period was in thermal power generation, where water withdrawals increased by 204.2 percent, from 9.8 billion cubic metres to 28.4 billion cubic metres. The second highest increase during this period was in municipal water withdrawals, which increased from 3.2 billion cubic meters to 5.1 billion cubic metres, a 61.6 percent increase. Agricultural use increased by 39.8 percent to 4.0 billion cubic metres.

Figure 5.1 Total Fresh Water Withdrawals in Canada, 1972-1991

Source: Statistics Canada 1998: 62; Supply & Services Canada 1985: 16-18.

Figure 5.1 also shows that thermal power generation withdraws the most freshwater resources in Canada, accounting for 63 percent of total withdrawals in 1991. Other industrial sources, such as manufacturing, agriculture, and mining accounted for 16 percent, 8.9 percent, and 0.8 percent of withdrawals, respectively. The remaining 11 percent of total water withdrawals were for municipal water use.

It is important to note that in some sectors water withdrawals decreased during the same period. Water withdrawals in manufacturing decreased by 12.8 percent. This decrease is due, in part, to the more efficient use of water through technical advancement and recycling efforts. An example of such initiatives is a steel plant located in Quebec that was able to reduce total volume of water used by 36 percent through water recirculation (Environment Canada 1998d). This conservation of water not only benefits the environment but also lowers operating costs because of the energy saved by pumping less water.

Even though water withdrawals are increasing, figure 5.2 shows that Canadians withdraw less than 2 percent of their renewable fresh water annually. Of this water withdrawn only a small portion of water is actually consumed. In 1991, Canadians withdrew 45 095 million cubic metres of water but only 1.9 percent of the water used was not returned after use (Statistics Canada 1998d: 62).

Figure 5.2 Withdrawals as a Percentage of Renewable Fresh Water Resources

Sources: estimate of renewable fresh water resources from OECD 1999: 72; total withdrawal data from Statistics Canada 1998: 62; OECD 1999: 72; Supply & Services Canada 1985: 16-18.

Figure 5.3 shows total water withdrawals in 1991 by region. Ontario is the major user, accounting for 63.2 percent of withdrawals. This high usage is a result of the large population, the heavy reliance on thermal power generation and the proximity to the Great Lakes, Canada's largest source of surface fresh water. Total water consumption, however, is greatest in the Prairie provinces at 67.6 percent, largely because agricultural withdrawals account for 48.4 percent of the regional total (figure 5.4). Whereas only as little as 23 percent of water withdrawn can be recycled in agricultural uses, thermal generation returns more than 99 percent of the water withdrawn to the source (Statistics Canada 1989: 1-7).

Figure 5.3 Total Water Withdrawals by Region, 1991

Source: Statistics Canada 1998: 62.

Figure 5.4 Total Water Consumption by Region, 1991

Source: Statistics Canada 1998: 62.

Forests

Canadian forests cover 45 percent of the nation's land-mass and account for 10 percent of the world's forested area (CFS 1998: 6; Environment Canada 1996c: record 9879). There are eight forest regions in Canada, ranging from the Boreal Forest Region, which stretches from British Columbia to New Brunswick, to the small deciduous forest region located just north of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. Of Canada's forests, 67 percent are softwoods, 15 percent are hardwoods, and 18 percent are mixedwoods (CFS 1998: 22). Canadian forests contain an estimated 180 species of trees (CCFM 1997: 1).

Canada's forests have many important ecological functions. Forests serve as an important carbon sink, absorbing carbon dioxide from the air and releasing oxygen. They improve soil quality by preventing or slowing erosion and sheltering non-forested land. Forests also provide diverse habitats for an estimated 93,333 species of plants, animals, and micro-organisms (CCFM 1997: 1).

In addition to their ecological value, forests play an important role in Canada's economy. Canada's forest industry is the world's largest exporter of wood and paper products, contributing 31.7 billion to the country's net balance of trade in 1997 (CFS 1998: 4). The forestry industry also provided employment to over 365,000 Canadians directly and to 465,000 indirectly in 1997 (CFS 1998: 22).

In Canada, the government owns the majority of the forested land: 71 percent of forests are owned by the provincial governments, 23 percent are under federal jurisdiction, and 6 percent are managed privately by an estimated 425,000 landowners (CFS 1998: 5). As illustrated in table 5.1 there is variance amongst provinces in the percentage of forests that are privately owned. There is a higher percentage of privately owned forests in the Maritime provinces, largely because of patterns of colonization: whereas early settlers coming to the east coast were given large areas of land as an incentive to come to Canada, the Crown retained ownership of most forested land in areas settled later (CFS 1998: 41).

Table 5.1 Ownership of Canada's Forests (millions of hectares)

	Total Forest Area	Federal (%)	Provincial (%)	Private (%)
Newfoundland	22.5	0	99	1
Prince Edward Island	0.29	1	7	92
Nova Scotia	3.9	3	28	69
New Brunswick	6.1	1	48	51
Quebec	83.9	0	89	11
Ontario	58	1	88	11
Manitoba	26.3	1	94	5
Saskatchewan	28.8	2	97	1
Alberta	38.2	9	87	4
British Columbia	60.6	1	95	4
Yukon	27.5	100	0	0
Northwest Territories	61.4	100	0	0
Canada	417.6	23	71	6

Source: CFS 1998: 22-28.

Not only do the provinces own most of Canada's forested land, under the Canadian Constitution they are also responsible for forest management. This responsibility includes determining and monitoring harvesting levels and practices in Canada as well as ensuring regeneration. To fulfil this responsibility, each province allocates to business operators permits or specific rights to harvest timber on Crown land. These licenses are typically for periods of 15 years to 25 years and carry with them the responsibility of ensuring successful regeneration. In addition to meeting standards set out in the licence, licensees are encouraged to meet the national standards for Sustainable Forest Management that were developed in 1996 by the Canada Standards Association. Compliance with these standards is voluntary (Armson 1999: 25-26).

To allocate harvesting permits the government determines acceptable harvesting levels for specified areas by the allowable annual cut (AAC). The AAC calculation is not a measure of total new growth but rather a measure of growth available for commercial harvesting. It is calculated by considering the quantity and quality of species, the accessibility of the trees, growth rates, sensitivity of the site, and potential or existing competing uses.

To evaluate trends in forests, this section examines trends in harvesting, replanting, and regeneration. The preservation of old-growth stands and the practice of clear-cutting are also addressed separately since they remain topical environmental concerns.

Harvesting, replanting, regeneration

The area of forest harvested in Canada increased by 48.7 percent between 1975 and 1995 (figure 5.5). The largest increase was in Quebec at 164.6 percent. This increase is substantially higher than that of the other two main roundwood-producing provinces, British Columbia and Ontario, where the area harvested increased by 20.8 percent and 7.6 percent, respectively.32 In the Prairie provinces, the area harvested increased by 60.0 percent (Manitoba 18.1 percent; Saskatchewan 25.2 percent; and Alberta 107.1 percent). In the Maritime provinces, the area harvested increased by 23.0 percent (Newfoundland 25.7 percent; Prince Edward Island 95.7 percent; Nova Scotia 83.3 percent, New Brunswick 3.8 percent).

Figure 5.5 Total Area Harvested, 1975-1995

Source: Statistics Canada 1999a: databank numbers F3314, F3344, F3350, F3356, F3362, F3368, F3374, F3380, F3386, F3320, F3326, F3332, F3338.

Figure 5.5 also shows the location of the areas harvested. In 1995, 35.3 percent of the total area harvested was located in Quebec, 20.9 percent was in Ontario, 18.7 percent was in British Columbia and 8.0 percent and 7.2 percent was in the Prairie and Maritime provinces.

Although harvest areas are increasing, only a small portion of Canada's forest resources is harvested each year (figure 5.6). Of Canada's 418 million hectares of forestland, 56 percent (234.5 million hectares) are classified as commercially viable forests. However, of these 234.5 million hectares only 28 percent (119 million hectares) are being managed for timber purposes. Only 1 million hectares were actually harvested in 1997. This is 0.4 percent of commercial forests and less than 0.2 percent of total forests--less than the amount of forest lost annually to natural events: approximately 0.5 percent of Canada's total forests are lost to outbreaks of fire or infestation by insects each year (CFS 1998: 5).

Figure 5.6 Canada's Forests (millions of hectares)

Source: Adapted from CFS 1998: 6.

Harvest levels have also remained within the defined sustainable limits. Figure 5.7 shows that the national harvest level has remained below the Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) throughout the period from 1970 to 1996. Data for both hardwood and softwood up to 1993 similarly shows that, with the exception of 1989, harvest levels for hardwood and softwood have remained below their respective AACs (Environment Canada 1996c: record 5731).

Most provincial harvest levels are below the AAC as well (table 5.2). The percentage of the AAC that is actually harvested is especially low in Manitoba (22 percent). Nova Scotia is the only province where the harvest level exceeds the AAC. Although it appears that British Columbia has also harvested above its AAC level, the AAC for this province does not include all private lands whereas the harvest level does. Harvest levels in British Columbia have been below the AAC in the past few years.

Figure 5.7 Annual Harvest and Annual Allowable Cut in Canada

Source: data from 1970 to 1995 from Environment Canada 1997d; data from 1996 from Canadian Forest Service 1998.
Notes 1: Ontario measures its AAC in hectares, whereas all other provinces and territories measure AAC in cubic metres. Note 2: British Columbia does not include all private lands in its AAC. Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario do not include any private lands. Note 3: Harvesting data only considers data for industrial roundwood even though the harvest level for fuel-wood or firewood for a single province may range as high as 2.2 million cubic metres. Note 4: Harvesting levels on federal lands are not included.

Table 5.2 Provincial and Territorial Harvest Levels and AAC, 1996 (million cubic metres, except Ontario in millions of hectares)

	Harvest Level	Annual Allowable Cut	% of AAC harvested
Newfoundland	2.1	2.6	80.8%
Prince Edward Island	0.4	0.5	80.0%
Nova Scotia	5.6	5.3	105.7%
New Brunswick	10.8	11.2	96.4%
Quebec	35.9	58	61.9%
Ontario	0.212	0.4	53.0%
Manitoba	2.1	9.7	21.6%
Saskatchewan	4	7.6	52.6%
Alberta	20	24	83.3%
British Columbia	72.1	71.6	100.7%
Yukon	0.38	0.5	76.0%
Northwest Territories	0.18	0.24	75.0%

Source: CFS 1998: 22-28.

While harvest levels have been increasing, there has also been an increase in the amount of harvested land that is replanted. Table 5.3 displays the area that is replanted annually as a percentage of the area harvested from 1975 to 1995. During this period, the percentage of harvested land replanted in Canada more than doubled from 18.7 percent to 43.1 percent. In 1995, the percentage of harvested area replanted in British Columbia was 108.9 percent, in Ontario, 30.6 percent, and in Quebec, 21.2 percent. Since 1975, these values have increased by 170 percent, 100 percent and 80 percent, respectively: although harvesting levels are increasing, the area replanted is increasing at a greater rate. In British Columbia and Alberta for some years the percentage of area harvested that is replanted is greater than 100 percent: in these years more areas were replanted than harvested.

Table 5.3 Percentage Replanted of Area Harvested Annually

	Canada	NF	PE	NS	NB	QC	ON	MB	SK	AB	BC	YT	NT
1975	18.7	0.0	5.5	5.2	7.1	11.8	15.3	12.6	20.9	23.4	40.2	0.0	0.0
1976	17.1	0.0	7.5	4.7	8.7	8.4	16.7	6.2	20.7	25.2	34.2	0.0	0.0
1977	16.5	0.0	7.5	8.2	11.1	8.6	14.1	4.6	27.8	25.6	33.6	0.0	0.0
1978	15.6	0.0	5.9	10.2	12.0	6.2	14.1	6.1	27.0	32.3	29.6	0.0	0.0
1979	16.3	1.0	4.7	7.9	15.7	5.8	14.1	2.3	27.9	33.5	34.0	0.0	0.0
1980	16.8	2.4	22.7	10.2	25.7	5.6	13.3	4.9	34.2	14.7	33.9	0.0	0.0
1981	20.3	13.8	17.3	13.9	33.8	6.4	16.8	15.6	22.0	26.9	45.0	0.0	0.0
1982	23.8	10.0	13.8	12.1	31.0	8.8	17.1	21.1	38.2	19.4	51.1	0.0	0.0
1983	25.6	13.2	23.2	19.4	24.5	9.5	26.6	18.2	32.4	21.6	50.3	0.0	0.0
1984	26.9	13.8	18.9	16.1	23.4	10.4	29.1	16.3	22.2	47.1	50.4	0.0	0.0
1985	29.1	16.8	16.6	22.1	22.3	14.7	33.3	37.0	26.8	26.7	48.2	0.0	0.0
1986	31.8	4.6	36.7	26.8	23.6	21.7	33.0	37.3	23.2	37.9	48.2	0.0	0.0
1987	37.4	25.3	40.1	23.4	21.3	28.0	32.9	46.1	12.1	33.0	65.0	0.0	0.0
1988	38.9	22.8	39.4	28.1	19.3	29.6	35.3	56.8	31.8	43.9	62.7	0.0	0.0
1989	42.6	17.4	30.7	26.6	22.5	30.1	37.0	54.8	26.9	58.2	79.8	0.0	0.0
1990	53.2	16.1	33.2	28.2	27.6	43.4	33.9	60.7	32.4	54.3	115.2	NA	24.6
1991	54.6	15.2	45.5	21.5	21.2	45.2	42.0	94.4	37.4	61.3	103.0	NA	8.8
1992	47.6	18.4	42.8	21.5	16.6	37.9	37.7	62.6	34.7	66.6	83.4	NA	13.6
1993	43.9	13.2	39.0	12.0	13.4	29.5	35.8	51.4	34.0	61.3	91.5	27.4	11.6
1994	46.5	15.5	22.7	13.1	16.6	24.4	35.1	53.5	29.2	68.3	114.0	20.3	15.9
1995	43.1	17.5	26.7	14.4	16.5	21.2	30.6	40.2	34.5	107.6	108.9	74.3	16.2

Source: Statistics Canada 1999a: databank numbers F3314, F3344, F3350, F3356, F3362, F3368, F3374, F3380, F3386, F3320, F3326, F3332, F3338; Statistics Canada 1999b: databank numbers F3483, F3583, F3603, F3623, F3643, F3663, F3683, F3703, F3723, F3503, F3523, F3543, F3563.

Trend data also illustrate that Canadian forests that are harvested are being successfully regenerated. Figure 5.8 shows the forest-regeneration status of harvested land from 1975 to 1995. The data is presented cumulatively meaning that each year displays the status of the area harvested that year as well as all previous years back to 1975. For example, the area displayed for 1975 represents the regeneration status of the area harvested during 1975. The area displayed for 1976 shows the regeneration status of the area harvested in both 1975 and 1976 and so on.

Figure 5.8 Cumulative Forest Regeneration Status at One-Year Intervals, 1975-1995

Source: Haddon 1999; calculations by authors.
Note: national data was obtained by summing up provincial data. With the exception of Alberta and British Columbia, these numbers are based on estimates; only Alberta and British Columbia complete a comprehensive survey of cutblocks. Data for the Northwest Territories is not included; however, the total harvested area since 1975 for the Northwest Territories is less than 5000 hectares.

The four classes in figure 5.8 are defined by the National Forestry Database Program as follows:

• Non-production: Areas such as roads, landings, and non-forestry developments that have no timber-production objective. These areas also include land where erosion, a rising water table, or other forms of site degradation make a site unsuitable for forestry purposes.
• Understocked: Disturbed forest land that will require silvicultural treatment to meet stocking standards.
• Stocked: Disturbed forest land that has regenerated naturally or through planting and seeding. This class includes some recently disturbed areas that are expected to regenerate within an acceptable time without further silvicultural treatment.
• Enhanced: Stocked areas that meet density control standards. These are areas in which the required number of trees per hectare is distributed evenly over the regenerated are for optimal growth. (CCFM 1996: 5-6)

With the exception of the non-production class, these categories are progressive. An understocked area that is replanted properly should eventually reach stocked status. A stocked area will become enhanced as the trees grow and density-control objectives are met. Although data on fully regenerated areas are not displayed on the graph, it is expected that all areas classified as stocked or enhanced will fully regenerate naturally.

As illustrated in figure 5.8 , the area of harvested land that is understocked is no longer increasing. Instead, it peaked at the 1992 level of 2.4 million hectares and has levelled off since. This illustrates that even though harvesting levels are increasing, more land is being properly regenerated. The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers attributes this decrease in understocked land in proportion to the total amount harvested to expanding silviculture programs (CCFM 1996: 13). It is important to note that, although 20 percent of the cumulative area harvested was classified as understocked in 1995, most of this land is reported as understocked because of a time lag between treatments and observable results.

Old-growth forests

An old-growth forest is defined broadly as "a forest dominated by mature trees that has not been significantly influenced by human activity" (CCFM 1997: 124). Under this definition, old-growth forests could have one or more of the following characteristics: very large trees, very old trees, a distinct species composition, a multilayered canopy, a large accumulation of organic matter (Kimmins 1997: 144-46). The old-growth stage may be reached at different ages depending on the location of the site and the species of the trees.

Old-growth forests have considerable environmental and commercial value. Public interest in the conservation of old-growth forests focuses on the ecosystem as a whole: these forests contain a reservoir of gene diversity, provide habitat for diverse wildlife, and have recreational and aesthetic value. Foresters appreciate old-growth forests as a source of high-value timber. Approximately 90 percent of all territory logged in Canada is virgin forest, which usually has a higher volume of wood than the younger forests that will replace them (Environment Canada 1995a). Not all these virgin forests are old-growth forests, however, as natural disturbances such as fire and insects will alter forests untouched by humans.

The controversy over old-growth forests arises because these environmental and commercial uses are mutually exclusive. Even though rapid tree growth can produce large trees in some climates in 100 to 150 years (Kimmins 1997: 148), today's commercial cutting cycle of 50 to 80 years means that once harvested, old-growth ecosystems will not be re-established. As a result, while only 25 percent of professional foresters agreed with the statement that "most old growth forests should be protected," 86 percent of the public supported the view (CFS 1992: 41).

It is difficult to measure trends in old-growth forests since there is no comprehensive national inventory of Canada's old-growth forests and the definition for such forests remains vague. Data from the national forest inventory, however, do provide an inventory for commercial forests. These data suggest that there has been a decrease in the amount of old-growth forest. It reports that between 1981 and 1995 the total amount of mature, old or mixed-age forest fell from 103.87 million hectares to 102.23 million hectares, a difference of 1.64 million hectares. This decrease is quite small, however, as in 1981 44.29 percent of commercial forests were in the category of mature, old, or mixed-aged forests whereas the 1995 the level was only slightly lower at 43.59 percent (CFS 1998: 37).

A recent inventory of old-growth forests in British Columbia found that there is still a large amount of old-growth forest in the province.33 Old-growth forest covers 26.8 percent of the province, younger forest covers 36.1 percent, and 37.1 percent is unforested. Over seven percent of British Columbia is covered with forests older than 250 years. Many of these forests are over 400 years old, especially in the wetter areas along the coast and interior wet-belt. Old-growth forests represent 50 percent of spruce strands, 62 percent of hemlock stands, 87 percent of coastal stands of red cedar and 63 percent of interior stands of red cedar. Of these old growth forests, 13 percent, or 3.2 million hectares, is estimated to be in protected areas 34 (MacKinnon & Vold 1998: 310-14).

Although these data provide a glimpse of old-growth forests, more complete data are needed to examine the state of old-growth forests in Canada. Discussions on the total amount of old-growth forest are often meaningless since some of the ecological values attributed to old-growth forests are dependent upon not only the amount of old-growth forest but also the size and shape of the remaining patches (MacKinnon & Vold 1998: 310). Data on the location of old-growth forests are necessary as well. The report for British Columbia predicts that, even if the total amount of old-growth forest remains constant, there will be a redistribution of these forests; there will be more old-growth forests at higher elevations because of fire suppression and fewer in lower elevations due to harvesting. For a national overview, data on old-growth forests in other jurisdictions is also necessary.35

Clear-cutting

Clear-cutting is the silvicultural practice of completely clearing an area of all trees other than seedlings and occasional saplings. It is the most popular method of harvesting since it has many benefits. First, it is often more economically viable. Not only is clear-cutting less expensive than more selective harvesting practices but it also reduces reforestation costs since it facilitates site preparation and weed control. Second, in converting an unmanaged forest to a managed forest, clear-cutting is safer for forest workers than other harvesting methods since there is a lower risk of injury or death. Finally, clear-cutting is sometimes a better environmental practice since it is more compatible with cable systems that reduce the number of roads used to gain access to the area (Kimmins 1997: 80-82).

Despite these benefits, clear-cutting remains a contentious issue because of its misapplication in sensitive ecosystems. Clear-cutting, by definition, involves the removal of the forest in a particular area. This means that as new vegetation replaces the harvested trees there is a change in the plant species growing in the area. This, in turn, could negatively affect the level of nutrients and micro-organisms in the soil and the wildlife that lives in the areas. When clear-cutting is not performed properly, it can also damage watersheds and the ecosystems of rivers since the exposed land has a higher risk of soil erosion. Many people also oppose clear-cuts since they are not aesthetically pleasing.

In Canada, almost 90 percent of trees logged over the past two decades have been harvested by clear-cutting. The size of these clear-cut areas, however, has decreased over the past decade. A study conducted by the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association (CPPA) in 1990 found that the average clear-cut sizes in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia were 110 ha, 69 ha, and 49 ha, respectively, with 8 percent of Quebec's clear-cuts larger than 200 ha. In contrast, recent provincial legislation in Quebec reduced the limit for clear-cut sizes from 250 ha throughout the province to 150 ha within boreal forest, 100 ha in mixed-wood forests and 50 ha in southern deciduous forest. Similarly, in British Columbia clear-cuts have been limited to 60 ha in the northern part of the province and 40 ha in the southern part. Provided that these smaller sizes do not increase fragmentation of the forests, the smaller size should assist in minimizing some of the negative effects of clear-cutting (Environment Canada 1996c: record 5734).

Energy

Canada has large reserves of important energy resources such as petroleum, natural gas, coal, and hydroelectric potential. By drawing on these resources, Canada's energy sector plays an important role in the global energy market. Canada is the world's third largest producer of natural gas and the eleventh largest producer of crude oil (CAPP 1999). Canada's energy sector also contributes substantially to our domestic economy. In 1998, approximately 7 percent of the gross domestic product and 8 percent of total merchandise exports were attributed to the energy industry, which employed about 280,000 Canadians (NEB 1999a: 2).

Canadians not only produce a great deal of energy; they are also amongst the world's most intensive users of energy. Canada ranks as the world's sixth largest user of primary energy (Environment Canada 1997b: 1).36 Environment Canada lists several reasons for this high use of energy: the cold climate, an energy-intensive industrial base, a large land area, and a widely dispersed population. Canada's energy consumption is also high because of the high standard of living (Environment Canada 1996c: records 6039-40).

In this section, trends for both energy consumption and production are examined. Consumption trends are interesting since they illustrate changes in energy use and efficiency over time. Production trends address concerns about Canada running out of energy reserves.

Trends in energy consumption

Figure 5.9 illustrates total domestic energy consumption by end use.37 During this period, energy consumption increased by 89.3 percent; generation of electricity at 180.7 percent showed the most significant increase. Residential use increased by 33.9 percent, commercial use, by 49.0 percent, and industrial use, by 58.9 percent. Energy consumption per capita has also increased by 37.7 percent over the past two decades (figure 5.10).

Figure 5.9 Energy Consumption by End-Use Sector, 1971-1997

Source: NEB 1999a.

Figure 5.10 Energy Consumption per Capita

Source for population data: Statistics Canada1999e: various years; source for total consumption: NEB 1999a.
Note: Total energy consumption is defined here as the sum of total residential, commercial, industrial, transportation and non-energy uses, as well as the energy needed to produce electricity and producer consumption and loses.

In 1997, the largest uses of primary energy in Canada were for the production of electricity (25.6 percent) and industrial purposes (22.4 percent). Over 16 percent went to transportation, 12.3 percent was used residentially, and 7.6 percent was used by the commercial sector. The remaining 15.6 percent was used for non-energy purposes38 or was lost or consumed by energy producers during extraction or refinement. This distribution has changed from 1971 where industry was the largest user at 26.7 percent and electricity production accounted for only 17.3 percent.

Although both total and per-capita energy consumption have increased in the past two decades, Canadians have become more efficient users of energy. Between 1971 and 1997 energy consumption per dollar of real gross domestic product (GDP) fell steadily (figure 5.11); GDP increased by 119.2 percent whereas energy consumption increased by only 89.3 percent. This decline in energy consumption per capita is likely due to a combination of factors including improvements in energy efficiency and structural changes in the economy away from activities that require the use of more energy. One report studied the decline in energy demand between 1971 and 1988 and attributed 65 percent of the decline to energy efficiency and the remaining 35 percent to structural changes in the economy (Environment Canada 1996c: record 6052).

Figure 5.11 Energy Consumption per dollar of Real GDP

Sources: total consumption: NEB 1999a; GDP: Statistics Canada 1999d; 2000.
Note: Total energy consumption is defined here as the sum of total residential, commercial, industrial, transportation and non-energy uses, as well as the energy needed to produce electricity and producer consumption and loses.

Energy Efficiency Trends in Canada 1990-1996, a report by Canada's Office of Energy Efficiency, similarly illustrates that Canadians are becoming more energy efficient (Natural Resources Canada 1998). This report reviews trends in energy efficiency and energy use for the five key end-use sectors: residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, and agriculture. To evaluate improvements in energy efficiency during this period, it calculates changes in energy intensity, adjusting for weather and the structure of the economy. Changes in energy intensity is a good measure of energy efficiency improvements as it is a calculation of the change in the amount of energy needed to produce a fixed amount of output. An increase in energy intensity is a decrease in efficiency. The findings of the report are displayed in table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Change in Energy Use and Intensity by Sector, 1990-1996

	Percent of secondary use	Change in Energy Use (percent)	Change in Energy Intensity
Residential	19.0	12.3	-6.3
Commercial	13.1	12.0	-3.7
Industrial	38.3	11.8	1.4
Transportation	26.6	10.2
Passenger	17.3	9.8	-6.6
Freight	9.3	11.0	-15.4
Agriculture	2.9	9.3	NA

Source: Natural Resources Canada 1998.

The greatest improvements in energy intensity were in transportation with freight, which improved 15.4 percent, and passenger transportation, which improved 6.6 percent. This change is due to the introduction of more efficient vehicles and the retirement of older inefficient vehicles. Residential energy intensity decreased 6.3 percent as a result of the introduction of more efficient space heaters and appliances. Commercial energy intensity fell by 3.7 percent, largely due to the improvement in buildings and equipment as well as energy management practices. Industrial energy intensity increased 1.4 percent over this period but there were improvements in some industries. While energy intensity increased in industries like pulp and paper (8.6 percent), mining (20.2 percent), chemicals (13.9 percent), and cement (5.4 percent), it decreased in petroleum refining (8.6 percent), smelting and refining (8.3 percent), iron and steel manufacturing (1.2 percent) and other manufacturing industries (13.4 percent).