Global forest emissions problem are a mirror of Canada’s and B.C.’s situation

Forest emissions soaring

A new global analysis of forests and their absorption/emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) highlights a disturbing trend. This report, by Global Forest Watch, part of the World Resources Institute, found that forests normally absorb about 30% of GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels, locking the carbon into trees, roots and soil.

There has been a steady decline in carbon absorption by forests over the last 25 years primarily due to wildfires and logging, whether the logging is for timber, crops, pastureland, infrastructure or mining. About 80% of the decline comes from clear-cutting and 20% from fires, although the contribution from fires is steadily increasing. The absorption of GHGs by the world’s forests has gone from 9.5 giga-tonnes of CO2 equivalents to 1.2 in 2024.

Clear cut logging and fires have two basic effects: they release the majority of carbon stored in trees and soil into the atmosphere while at the same time reducing the amount of forest which is available to absorb and store carbon. Primary forests (never disturbed) store much more carbon than secondary forests, while secondary forests, after about the age of 20 (older in much of Canada) absorb more carbon on an annual basis. Both types are important but primary forests need to be protected for other reasons as well including fire resistance and bio-diversity.

Some forests in the North American context are still acting to absorb an increasing amount of carbon. In the US Appalachian region, much of the forests were cut down before 1950 for timber and farming. Many of the farms were abandoned and the forests allowed to regrow. In Canada, however, forests are not doing so well. Canadian forest fires were responsible for 79% of global wildfire-related emissions in 2023 and 53% in 2024.

The recommendations that come from this report to improve the state of our forests will seem familiar to those concerned about BC forests.

1. Protect all primary forests remaining

2. Reduce fire risk through prescribed burns, forest thinning and forest restoration that is more fire-resistant. This certainly can mean more forest workers.

3. Changes to forestry practices: longer harvest rotations and reduced impact logging. Inevitably this means cutting fewer trees and a lot less clear cutting.

4. Accelerate restoration, both natural and assisted. Natural restoration is preferable, again meaning less clear cuts, and less salvage logging (which slows forest recovery).

5. Support indigenous peoples and local communities in managing and protecting their forests

6. More data on forest condition and more action in response to that data

7. Align commodity supply with forest protection. The production of cattle, oil palms, and soy beans by clear-cutting in tropical forests needs to be curtailed.

8. Reduce the burning of fossil fuels. This, as well as the forestry measures listed above will reduce the warming of the planet by reducing global emissions of GHGs, which will reduce future forest fires.

What does this mean in the B.C. context? In B.C. (and in Canada), forest emissions are not counted in the GHG emissions reports. Yet in a bad forest fire year, forest emissions are up to three times the reported B.C. emissions from other sectors.

B.C. is not living up to its Clean BC plan and has never met a GHG reduction target. Yet the reported emissions, even if reduced, mean little if we do not improve the conditions of our forests, and reduce their emissions. Clearcut areas, and the tree plantations which come after, are high risk areas for fire ignition because they are dry and wide open. Clear cuts and logging roads increase the likelihood of land slides, floods and droughts.

The B.C. government has said that it will increase the amount of timber which can be removed (the Annual Allowable Cut). It is also increasing access for salvage logging after fires. Both of these moves are in direct opposition to what we need in order to decrease fire risk. And while reducing the amount of logging in B.C., and especially the amount of clear cutting, will reduce corporate profits, they need not reduce forestry jobs. Those jobs have decreased by over 50% since 2000 mostly due to mechanization as well as mill closures.

But if we are serious in BC about reducing fire risk, then thinning operations and prescribed burns will increase the size of forestry employment. Making the forests more available for small entrepreneurs will also improve employment. But the BC government needs to stop listening to the forest industry which continues to say that the only problem in forestry is that companies do not have access to enough trees.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.