Mr. McGuinty`s Ontario government this week pledged to protect almost a quarter of a million square kilometers of Ontario`s northern boreal forest – an area which is equivalent in size to the U.K., or six Belgium’s.

In a move that has evoked praise from environmental groups, the Ontario government has now made good on promises made during their last campaign. They will implement a protection plan which involves some 225,000 square kilometers of Ontario’s beautiful northern boreal forest.

Source: ForestEthics.org

The plan aims not only to protect the forest itself, but the species that inhabit the area. Polar bears, caribou, wolverine, among many others, are all under threat from climate change and industrial development. The commitment by the government ostensibly bans any industrial development in the area, and will also seek to amend the outdated Mining Act.

As of January 2008, over five thousand mining claims had been made in the boreal forest area. Major conflict has arisen between the free entry mining system and the Aboriginal communities who lay claim to their traditional territory. It will be a requirement now for companies to consult with Aboriginal communities early before even beginning any projects in the area, as well as share revenues from any projects on their lands anywhere in Ontario.

A “wilderness treasure” according to some, the boreal forest is home to some 28 Aboriginal communities and is one of the world’s largest carbon storehouses. The region now under discussion absorbs over 12 million tonnes of carbon dioxide yearly .

Source: ForestEthics.org

Resistance to this move is scarce and predictable. Opposition parties argue that it will discourage investment in the forestry and mining industries. This concern is also echoed by the companies themselves, who will now have to navigate through a dense forest of red tape before beginning new projects in the area.

As for the precedent this will set for other issues of industrial development and land protection elsewhere in Canada has yet to be seen. It is anticipated that this development will further facilitate the push for wildlife protection, as well as alleviate the pressure on communities (particularly Aboriginal) who are fighting to keep their land free from industrial development.

A welcomed precedent? Or political insincerity?