In Canada, forestry is a nation-building opportunity: We can learn from Sweden

We have not been managing our forests as a strategic national asset. That needs to change. 

This is a moment for federal leadership. It’s also a moment for provinces to step up. The models exist, the tools are available. What we lack is coordination, and the cost of inaction is rising fast.

Canada and the provinces need to align and treat forests like the nation-building infrastructure they are. Forests are economic engines, climate stabilizers, and a cornerstone of national resilience. Let’s start managing them that way so we can build Canada strong. 

We have one of the largest forest estates in the world, and most of it is publicly (Crown) owned. Yet every year, we watch more of it go up in smoke. In 2023 alone, wildfires burned more than 18 million hectares across the country. That’s an area nearly the size of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island combined. 

Yes, this is a climate crisis. Yes, it’s a public safety issue. But it’s also a matter of sovereignty. Of long-term economic survival. And of planning failure.

Forests are national infrastructure. They absorb carbon, filter water, support wildlife, power rural economies, and supply critical materials for housing. But when we don’t manage them well, those benefits disappear. Fire risk increases. Emissions spike. Jobs vanish. Supply chains stall.

Forestry is a critical lever in the fight against climate change. When forests absorb more carbon than they release they act as carbon sinks, cooling the planet and helping offset industrial emissions. But when they release more carbon than they absorb—through wildfires, decay, or logging—it becomes a carbon source, accelerating the problem. 

Globally, forests absorb about 30% of the carbon we emit from fossil fuels. But in 2023 and 2024, extreme wildfires meant forests captured only a quarter of what they typically do. The loss of that carbon sink is potentially catastrophic.

Canada holds nearly 370 million hectares of forest, about 40% of Canada’s total land area and 18% of the world’s forests. Our forests store the equivalent of 100 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, or 1,250 times Canada’s total annual emissions (2021 NRCan Study). That’s a massive climate asset, but one that’s increasingly at risk. 

Globally, lightning strikes kill over 320 million trees a year, not including the wildfires they start. In Canada, lightning causes about half of all wildfires but accounts for about 85% of the annual area burned. As the climate warms, lightning strikes will become more frequent. This is a growing threat that demands proactive planning. 

Since 2001, Canada’s forests have emitted more CO₂ than they have absorbed. Wildfires, insects, decay, and logging are releasing carbon faster than the forest can grow back. Between 2001-2023, roughly 3,700 megatonnes of CO₂ were lost to the atmosphere. 

Now compare that to Sweden. Between 2014 and 2024, there were just 113 wildfires and under 40,000 hectares burned—an average of 7.5 fires and 2,650 ha per year. Over the same period, Canada had nearly 62,700 wildfires and burned close to 46 million hectares. That’s an average of 5,700 fires and 4.2 million hectares burned per year. 

Of course, Canada and Sweden differ in size, so let's compare acorns-to-acorns. Over the past decade, Canada has averaged 169 wildfires per million hectares. Sweden? Just 4. And when it comes to area burned, Canada lost about 12% of its total forest area in that time. Sweden? Just 0.14%. It’s not about scale. 

We have the wood, what we lack is direction. We can learn from Sweden. 

Canada holds nearly 370 million hectares of forest, which is more than 13 times Sweden’s 28 million. But Sweden is the world’s second-largest exporter of sawn softwood by value, and one of the globe’s top exporters of forest products like pulp and paper. Their forest exports generate around SEK 185 billion (about CAD $26 billion) annually, with over 80% headed to international markets.

Sweden harvests about 88–90 million cubic metres of wood each year—roughly 1% of their 23.5 million hectares of productive forest. In Canada, just 0.2% of forest area was harvested in 2022—about 669,000 hectares. Despite our vast forest estate, the annual harvest has remained under 0.4% for the past decade.

Here’s a key difference. Sweden’s forests are still a carbon sink. Ours are a carbon source. In 2023, Sweden’s forests absorbed 31 million tonnes of CO₂, even as they cut 80 million cubic metres of wood. Canada, by contrast, continues to lose more carbon than we capture. This is driven largely by wildfires, decay, and regeneration shortfalls. It’s not just how much we harvest, it’s how well we manage the system. 

Sweden’s forests are mostly boreal, like ours. About half of their forest land is privately owned. Yet despite this fragmentation, they maintain coordinated management and consistent regeneration. On average, between 1990 and 2023, Sweden’s forests absorbed 52 million tonnes of CO₂ per year. 

But even in Sweden, the carbon sink is weakening. In 2023, Sweden’s forest land absorbed just under 32 million tonnes. The biggest drop came from living trees, which captured only 4 million tonnes. That’s 24 million below their long-term average. 

Their carbon sink is weakening, but it still exists. Meanwhile, Canada’s forests haven’t been a carbon sink since 2001. The lesson? Even smart forestry can lose ground if it stops evolving. 

This is where carbon credits come in. When forests absorb more carbon than they emit, they generate carbon credits, which are valuable assets in a low-carbon economy. Those credits can be sold or used to offset emissions in other sectors, turning good management into real economic value. They fight climate change and they pay for themselves. Canada’s lost opportunity is ecological and economic. We’re leaving revenue on the forest floor. 

Sweden: Centuries of Deliberate Forest Management. 

This didn’t happen by chance. Sweden has been managing its forests deliberately for centuries. As far back as the 1500s, forests were treated as strategic national assets. Their first modern forest law came into effect in 1903, and by 1993, regeneration became mandatory under the Forestry Act. Replanting or natural regrowth is not optional, it’s enforced. Monitoring is centralized, and long-term growth is a basic expectation of forest ownership. From the 1920s to 2015, the total standing volume of Swedish forests grew by over 68% to around 3,000 million cubic metres.  

They’ve also built one of the most productive forestry economies in the world. Sweden is a leader in engineered wood and mass timber. Its forestry co-ops support families, innovation, and export markets. Forest revenue helps fund clean tech and social programs. This is what it looks like to treat forests as part of national strategy.

Meanwhile, in Canada, our forest governance is fragmented. Provinces manage most of the operational decisions, but 94% of forests are on public land. The federal government has both a direct stake and a coordinating responsibility, especially as climate and economic risks grow. 

And those risks are mounting. Unmanaged forest carbon loss and biodiversity decline are now financial liabilities. Major insurers, central banks, and ESG funds are warning that wildfire-related losses are becoming unsustainable. The Network for Greening the Financial System projects that physical climate risks could shrink global GDP by as much as 15% by mid-century, even under current emissions policies.

Insurers are already sounding the alarm. The 2023 Jasper fire alone caused more than C$880 million in insured damage. Premiums are rising across wildfire-prone regions, and in some areas, homeowners are struggling to secure coverage. In California, insurers are pulling out of high-risk markets altogether.

Financial institutions are now baking nature loss into sovereign credit. Several studies link ecosystem degradation to increased default risk, especially in countries like Canada where forestry plays a major economic role.

Sweden offers a sharp contrast. Its wildfire response systems are highly effective: most wildfires are extinguished quickly, affecting less than 1 hectare. Very few exceed 100 hectares, and total burned area typically stays under 5,000 hectares per year. In Canada, wildfires burn millions of hectares annually. Fire suppression alone costs over $1 billion per year. Indirect damages, like infrastructure loss and business disruption, add another $500 million or more. Better forest management won’t eliminate fire, but it can bend the cost curve. Sweden shows that containment is possible, and cheaper, when forests are healthy, coordinated, and proactively managed.

Forest degradation is now a fast-burning risk—to insurance markets, investor confidence, and national economic stability.

The raw material is there. The leadership needs to show up. 

Canada needs to grow more forest than we harvest, full stop. That growth needs to be strategic: designed to reduce fire risk, support mixed-species reforestation, protect biodiversity, and store carbon at scale. 

We need a coordinated national plan to recover and grow our forests. That starts with modernizing forestry laws, mandating regeneration, and building real-time national forest inventory. Every province should be tracking net forest growth, regeneration rates, fire losses, and carbon performance. Not in silos, but against shared national targets. Provinces need to align their legislation to support this. Wildfires don’t care about jurisdiction. Our forest laws shouldn’t either. 

We also need serious investment in wildfire prevention and response. Suppression alone is not enough, and it can’t just be about throwing more money at the flames. The best way to bend the cost curve is by managing forests before they burn. Prevention is strategy, everything else is reaction. 

In a world facing rising climate disruption and rising geopolitical risk, forests are more than natural resources. They’re economic infrastructure and strategic insurance. We can’t afford to treat them like after thoughts. It’s time to manage our forests like our future depends on it. Because it does. 

And we need to keep more of the value here at home. We export raw logs and import mass timber. At a time where our sovereignty is under pressure and self-reliance matters, we can’t afford to sell our leverage for cheap. With the right supports, Canada can lead in manufacturing engineered wood products for housing and infrastructure at home, and for global markets. 

First Nations have a key role to play. Many are already leading land stewardship and emergency planning efforts in their territories. With real investment and clear agreements, Indigenous leadership can anchor forest recovery and cultural land care across Canada.

Our forests are nation-building infrastructure. The question now is: will we manage them wisely, or watch them burn?

Dr. Corfield is Chief Executive Officer of Corfield & Associates, providing services to advance First Nations people and communities. She operates Hyistuup Harvesting, a seafood company, and serves as Chair of the Legislative Council of the Ucluelet First Nation. 

Mr. Doman stands among the world’s leaders in forestry and forest innovation. He is Co-founder and Executive Chairman/Director of the Boreal Carbon Corporation, a carbon credit developer through the acquisition and management of forestry projects.