British firm reviews carbon offset plan
The U.K. company that stirred controversy by planting millions of trees on thousands of hectares of British Columbia farmland in its plans to go green is reviewing that strategy following widespread publicity of the backlash.
Farmers and local governments protested that the company was starting to outbid farmers on land purchases and was locking up productive forage and pasture land to grow trees for as long as 100 years.
Now, home-and-hygiene-products maker Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC has told regional districts and B.C. Agriculture Minister Norm Letnick that it has put a moratorium on land purchases and promised to review how it operates its Trees for Change program in B.C.
Starting in 2006, Reckitt Benckiser bought up just over 10,500 hectares of cleared, ostensibly marginal B.C. agricultural land and planted seven million trees as part of its program to offset carbon emissions from its global manufacturing operations by 2017.
Coverage of the controversy over Reckitt Benckiser gobbling up farmland reached as far as the Financial Times of London, which Bill Miller, chairman of the Regional District of Bulkley Nechako, credits for pushing the company to take the action it did.
“The coverage we got from the media definitely had an impact on the conversation,” said Miller, who found himself quoted in that Financial Times story under the headline “Reckitt causes carbon offset upset.”
Miller and representatives from the Peace River, Fraser Fort George and Cariboo regional districts in B.C.’s northern interior met June 16 with Reckitt Benckiser executives, including David Challiss, the company’s vice-president for sustainability, to plead their case that RB give more consideration to their concerns.
The company agreed and spokeswoman Lynn Kenney, in an email, said it will review its operations, including its criteria for buying land, in the future, in consultation with provincial and local governments, community groups, suppliers and others with an interest in the land.
“We believe it is important to pause and reflect on our approach to ensure the program continues to meet our objectives,” Kenney said. In the meantime, RB won’t buy land or prepare any existing unforested land for replanting.
Miller said regional district representatives want to talk with RB about pursuing alternatives to buying agricultural-land-reserve designated land for replanting, such as reforesting private land that was charred in the recent Little Bobtail forest fire.
Letnick, in a statement from his office Friday, said it was “encouraging” to hear RB was looking to build community support with it’s review.
However, the review is only voluntary, said NDP agriculture critic Lana Popham, who is leading a campaign to create legislation that would require Agricultural Land Commission approval before any program similar to Reckitt Benckiser’s could be conducted in the future.
“The pause is excellent, but as far as I’m concerned, a corporation shouldn’t be in charge of land-use policy in British Columbia,” Popham said. “We should have legislation that addresses that.”
“A corporation shouldn’t be incharge of land-use policy in B.C. We should have legislation that addresses that. LANA POPHAM NDP AGRICULTURE CRITIC