Scientific knowledge regarding forest fires in this period of climate change dictates that we be more cautious in determining cutting levels. The time has come for the Chief Forester to act.
While the extent and timing of fires are difficult to predict, the fact that forests are burning and will burn is scientific evidence. All forest specialists know that fires are an integral part of the boreal ecosystem and that their effects are inevitable. Also, climate change experts have been sounding the alarm for some time now that the boreal forest will burn more often. This year’s episode is most likely the prelude to a phenomenon that will only get worse.
Consider fires when calculating allowable cutting levels
Because fire destroys mature forests or young growing forests, it inevitably has an effect on the expected yield of the forest and therefore on the quantity of wood available today and tomorrow. The forest industry has no choice but to share the forest with fire. To avoid drastic drops in supplies, rules of caution should apply.
Cutting levels should be reduced to build up reserves commensurate with the anticipated risks.
Already in 2015, a scientific report on the northern limit of attributable forests raised the alert on this subject by identifying the areas of the manageable boreal forest where specific measures should apply. Many studies have subsequently confirmed these apprehensions and suggested rules of caution. The same year, the Ministry of Forests’ Sustainable Forest Management Strategy committed it to take into account the effect of natural disturbances when determining cutting levels.
In Quebec, it is the Chief Forester who calculates the quantity of wood that can be harvested. It is therefore up to him to implement this commitment. Although calculation tools have been developed by his team, the actual consideration of fires in the recent determination of cutting levels remains extremely low. The Chief Forester has established a reserve of only 20% on two atypical management units covering a very small territory. This reserve accounts for approximately 65,000 cubic meters of wood per year. This is equivalent to depriving yourself of cutting down about 500 hectares of forest. To date, this year’s fires already total around one million hectares. What family would dare limit themselves to such low fire insurance coverage for their home? According to certain studies, it would be necessary to establish reserves of the order of 5 to 20% to ensure the sustainability of cutting levels in regions at risk. Why limit precaution to two small territories?
Adverse consequences for forest communities are to be expected.
In the absence of sufficient precaution, the economic fabric of northern regions is exposed to greater vulnerability.
The industry is constantly calling for greater predictability to better plan its operations and properly calibrate its investments. This seems self-evident to us, except that too little consideration of fires can only lead to gradual reductions in the cutting level. Consequently, the industry will have to reorganize according to the vagaries of nature. These reorganizations are likely to occur suddenly. Not only does this lead to misuse of available investment capital (a scarce commodity), but it will be deplorable to see forest communities bear the brunt of future disasters.
Will the department be tempted to compensate for the effect of the fires by cutting back on the caribou plan or on its response to the expectations of Aboriginal communities? If that were the plan, maintaining the cut rate would only be a temporary solution. Sooner or later, we would be back where we started with the same risk to the industrial structure, but then with biodiversity weakened and the rights of First Nations ignored.
The probable worsening of the fire problem will ensure that the supply of softwood can only decrease. The choice for forest communities seems clear to us; it is urgent to modify the industrial structure of these regions in order to be able to do more from less if we want to do it for longer. In our view, this is one of the major axes that a forestry strategy for adaptation to climate change should include.
Of course, the decision is not easy to make since it involves lowering the cutting levels now. This decline can be done in an organized way or it will occur in a brutal and unpredictable way, depending on future fires. One thing is certain, the Chief Forester cannot claim to have determined sustainable cutting levels. Will it now commit to taking full account of scientific knowledge in its fire risk management? The population is entitled to expect a response from him.
To read in the News section: “Forest fires: caribou spared, forest regeneration threatened”