A recent Reuters’ “special report” on Canadian forestry opens with the assertion that timber firms “are harvesting large swaths of Canada’s older forests, which are critical to containing global warming.” But is the first part true?
Since no definition of “older forests” is offered, we assume Reuters means either Canada’s oldest trees (defined by the National Forest Inventory database as those 201 plus years old) or trees over 140 years old (the “old growth” classification used for the British Columbia interior). The former represents just 4% of Canada’s total tree population, while the latter, a much broader grouping, would boost a combined “older” category to over 10% of Canada’s trees.[i]
This is what exists, according to the National Forest Inventory, not what is available for harvest, because tree stands may be remote or inaccessible; legally protected from human activities like harvesting, mining or hydro-electric development; or set aside as part of “high value conservation areas” by provincial foresters.
How much of this reduced availability of “older forests” is actually harvested is a good question. Reuters doesn’t offer any national numbers. But the government of British Columbia said in a recent update that an average of 45,634 hectares of old growth was logged in that province between 2017 and 2021. This means the average old growth harvest represented a mere 0.4% of the 11.1 million hectares of the province’s total old growth. “Most of the old growth forest in BC (around 9 million hectares) is protected or not economic to harvest,” the government said.[ii]
Harvests are a tiny fraction of what’s there
Apologies for all the numbers, but the bottom line is that whether you use a national category of “older forests” or the definition of BC “old growth” that delivers the 0.4% above, that you are certainly not talking, as Reuters does, of “large swaths” of older forests being harvested. “Large swaths” seems to be a gross exaggeration, at the very least.[iii] And the 0.4% is totally counter to the public impression that old growth in BC is on its last legs because of a rapacious logging industry. In terms of global warming impact, maybe Reuters should instead be looking at the 99.6% of BC’s old growth that is not being harvested. Now that’s a large swath.
Reuters makes misleading comments about Canada’s boreal forest as well. Trees in the boreal don’t tend to live as long as those on the BC coast or parts of the interior, so they are harvested at a younger age. It’s not surprising, then, to see 100-year-old trees being harvested. They are on their way out. And no, corporations are not “ravaging large swaths of boreal forest” either (Jennifer Skene, Natural Resources Defense Council). According to a Canadian Forest Service analysis of harvesting between 2000 and 2015, the boreal harvest amounted to 0.15% of it, or just 2% over that 15-year period.
Which leads us into other policy areas. Provincial government foresters, ecologists and wildlife biologists already set aside places of concern, sometimes called high-value conservation areas. What is Reuters suggesting? That we harvest young and middle-aged trees only? Foresters will tell you that it makes far better sense to harvest older trees before they decay so their declining carbon stock can be locked into wood products and not lost when they die. There’s a balance to be struck here.
Nature “destroys” too
The Reuters article also refers to the “destruction” of older woodlands, an emotionally loaded term that downplays what Nature does all by herself through volcanoes, floods, droughts, wind storms, fires, plus insects, beetles, plants and animals. In fact, Canadian forests have regrown themselves maybe 100 times since the last Ice Age, and parts of the boreal forest experience stand-replacing fires every 80 to 100 years. Nature “destroys” and creates too.[iv]
As for human impact, it may come as a surprise to the Reuters folks that several prominent environmental groups (including the forerunner of one they consulted for their report) have publicly supported the adoption of a clear-cutting technique that mimics the natural disturbance rhythms of the forest (fire, wind, and pests).
ForestEthics, now Stand.earth, said in a press release at the time that it was “pleased to see steps being taken towards timber harvesting that more closely mimic nature.” Others to support this new clear-cutting technique were the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Ivey Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, TNC Canada, the International Boreal Conservation Campaign, and the Schad Foundation.[v] So much for the “destruction” smear then.And that doesn’t count the extensive tree planting that goes on as a key part of provincial sustainability regulations: almost 1,000 new seedlings planted every minute somewhere in Canada.[vi]
Primary forests
Conserving and protecting Canada’s primary forest is important, as the feature points out. And the fact that Canada (unlike most other countries) has managed to retain almost 60% of its estimated primary forest, is pretty impressive.[vii] But we have to be realistic. The world needs wood and paper products. And it’s the height of hypocrisy for the very same countries that have removed most of their own primary forests to now threaten trade barriers on wood and pulp sourced from the primary forests that Canada has worked to retain.
There is also an underlying assumption that primary forest necessarily provides greater benefits than other forests. Many forest scientists contest this assertion, arguing that eco-system-based management practices can emulate natural disturbance regimes and provide a mosaic of habitats with a natural range of variability.[viii] And in terms of carbon sequestration, research suggests that conservation is not always the best strategy, particularly where climate change is increasing wildfire risk.[ix]
Certified forest
Two other points are worth making to Canadian and other readers who are not aware of some of the finer forestry details. Certified forests are not harvested forests. Canada currently harvests around 0.7 million hectares per year. The area certified by third parties as being sustainably managed is 221 times larger than that (155 million hectares).[x]
As for the forest certifiers themselves, I am sure they will be responding to some of the false and misleading claims made about their operations. It is important to point out, though, that the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) has recognised three third-party certifiers. This is what it says about them: “All three set high standards that forest companies must clear, in addition to Canada’s tough regulatory requirements. Moreover, they are tailored to consider global forestry issues as well as circumstances specific to the Canadian landscape, such as the livelihood of local communities and the interests of Indigenous people.
“The CCFM recognises the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) as being consistent with national and international agreements related to sustainable forest management (SFM) and meeting criteria for balancing interests, being objective and science-based, implementable, and practical.”[xi]
Maybe next time Reuters will cast a wider net of the people it talks to, and not just consult the disaffected. Unfortunately, that’s how most of this piece reads.
[i] National Forest Inventory (Canada) database, Table 14.1 Area (1000 ha) of forest land by species group, age class and territorial ecozone in Canada. https://nfi.nfis.org/resources/general/summaries/t0/en/NFI/html/nfi_t14_lsage20_area_en.html The age classification 201 plus covers 16.3 million hectares, representing 4.4% of the Canada’s total forest land. If the age category 141-160 years is used to determine the beginning of “older forests” then this boosts the “anything older” category to 39.2 million hectares or 10.6 percent nationally.
[ii] Government of British Columbia, Old Growth Definitions and Values, May 21,2024. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/old-growth-forests/old-growth-values
[iii] Of course, if you are of the view that no old growth should be harvested at all, that’s 46,000 hectares too many.
[iv] John Mullinder, “There is no such thing as a pristine, undisturbed forest.” February 14, 2024. https://johnmullinder.ca/no-such-thing-as-a-pristine-undisturbed-forest
[v] Todd Paglia, executive director of ForestEthics, quoted in “FPAC Commits to New Forest Management Approach to Mimic Elements of Nature,” (press release by the Forest Products Association of Canada) Fastmarket’s RISI Technology Channels (online), January 14, 2016, https://johnmullinder.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/01_14_2016-FOREST_MANAGEMENT-E-.pdf
[vi] Natural Resources Canada, The State of Canada’s Forests, Annual Report 2023, derived from 451.7 million seedlings planted. natural-resources.canada.ca/sites/nrcan/files/forest/sof2023/NRCAN_SofForest_Annual_2023_EN_accessible-vf(1).pdf
[vii] John Mullinder, “How much primary forest does Canada have?” June 10, 2024. https://johnmullinder.ca/canadas-primary-forest/
[viii] Sharma T, Kurz WA, Stinson G, Pellatt MG, Li Q. 2013. A 100-year conservation experiment: impacts on forest carbon stocks and fluxes. Forest Ecology and Management 310-242-255 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.06.048 and Smyth CE, Stinson G, Neilson ET, Lempriere TC, Hafer M, Rampley, G. Kurz WA, 2014. Quantifying the biophysical mitigation potential of Canada’s forest sector. Biogeosciences 11: 3515-3529. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-3515-2014
[ix] Wotton BM, Flannigan MD, Marshall GA 2017. Potential climate change impacts on fire intensity and key wildfire thresholds in Canada. Environmental Research Letters 12, 095003.
[x] Natural Resources Canada, ibid.
[xi] Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, https://www.ccfm.org
Trackbacks/Pingbacks