Good news for World's Forests

November 14, 2006 2:42 PM

Good news for the world's forests. "...the researchers, using new analytical techniques, calculated that in the last 15 years forests had actually expanded in 22 of the 50 countries with the most forest, and that many others were poised to make the transition from deforestation to reforestation in the coming decades." Unfortunately, countries like Brazil and Indonesia aren't doing so well.....
posted by storybored (31 comments total)

In Collapse, Jared Diamond talks about socities that have and have not learned how to manage resources. Easter Island did not retain its forest; Tokugawa Japan -- and Modern Japan in its wake -- did. The US began regrowing forests decades ago. Germany and the other Alpine countries learned to do it centuries ago.

This says that modern societies, in a variety of economic conditions, can start to reverse the decline, at least in this one specific resource. So, good. I'm less ready to take it as "good news for the world's forests" in general, because the net losses are still going to be great.
posted by dhartung at 3:15 PM on November 14, 2006

Here in Oregon we have more trees than ever! Granted, most of them are less than five feet tall...

The general public doesn't understand that there are basically two classes of forest: product forest, sometimes now planted with GMO trees for maximum yield, and 'real' forests with actual bio-diversity.

When Potlach comes in and rips down an old growth forest (each old growth tree can be worth $300,000+) and replaces it with a 'managed' forest with perhaps two or three species of trees where there were ten or twelve, they are not 'managing' the forest. They are destroying it and replacing it with a plantation.
posted by Sukiari at 3:23 PM on November 14, 2006

Wile the article points out that we still have a net loss in forests world wide, it's nice to know that some nations are taking steps to reverse the process, or at least get back to a more stable state.
posted by lekvar at 3:33 PM on November 14, 2006

True, Sukiari: Tree's do not equal Forests.

Even in Oregon, a forest state, it's hard to get the average person to see that. Imagine how people in long-since urbanized areas think.
posted by tkchrist at 3:47 PM on November 14, 2006

Imagine how people in long-since urbanized areas think.

Not that I'm saying you were doing it on purpose, but please don't claim that we city rats are necessarily environmentally disconnected/uninformed.
posted by Alex404 at 4:02 PM on November 14, 2006

'City rat' here, but a worried one:

The management of western Canada's forests for harvesting and fire control has left them unnaturally homogeneous in age and species of tree. They are thus particularly susceptible to the current mountain pine beetle infestation, which is likely to kill 80% of BC's mature pine forests by 2013.

Worst case scenario: "In 10 years, every pine tree in Alberta over 50 years old will be dead" (excellent introductory article, if you're concerned about the issue). Images of the devastation here and here.
posted by Urban Hermit at 4:05 PM on November 14, 2006

They are thus particularly susceptible to the current mountain pine beetle infestation, which is likely to kill 80% of BC's mature pine forests by 2013.

I drove about 3000 km in BC last month during my trip home for two weeks, and saw this firsthand. Up in the north (and in Central BC as well), it blew my freaking mind. This was the first time I'd been back in four years, and the level of devastation was frightening to me. Kilometres of pines trees, hundreds of kilometres, all a deep red dried-blood color, standing dead timber, only lightly interspersed with evergreen.

It'll be the death of many small towns in the north, my hometown included, and well before 2013.

This, of course, on top of the massive deforestation due to logging in the past couple of decades. Check out these comparison satellite shots of the area near my hometown, 1973 vs 1999. Add the beetles that have killed 70%-80% (and in many areas I saw, this is an accurate estimate) of the remaining trees, and it's goodbye logging industry, for a good long while.

Which, perhaps, in the long view, isn't such a bad thing. A 40 or 50 year break, and maybe next time we start cutting them down, we'll be able to do it smarter.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:12 PM on November 14, 2006 [1 favorite]

dhartung, while japan may have lots of forest cover,

a) that's because they are massive consumers of imported forestry products, including from badly/non-managed places like the Solomons the Philippines and Burma
b) it's mostly an unnatural monoculture.

Of course, even a monoculture is likely to be far better (less worse) for biodiversity than cleared land.

BTW, are there any cites for use of GM trees? While I've heard speculation on this, I've not heard of it happening.

Oh, anyone want to discuss Australian (and in particular Victorian) forestry, I consider myself fairly well informed...
posted by wilful at 4:18 PM on November 14, 2006

who authored this crock of shit? i heard this on NPR this morning and immediately assumed it was funded by timber industry front groups like the "save our species alliance"
posted by specialk420 at 5:59 PM on November 14, 2006

Specialk420, thanks for your insightful analysis. Why not RTFA: "'From the new data it seems possible that we could reverse a global trend that many people thought was irreversible,' said Pekka Kauppi of the University of Helsinki in Finland, a lead author of the study, which appears today in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."
posted by twsf at 6:42 PM on November 14, 2006

The pine beetle is also beginning to cross over to other tree species.

My suspicion is that North America and Russia will both lose their coniferous forests within the next two decades, unless we end up with one helluva long cold snap.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:45 PM on November 14, 2006

It is always worthwhile to look at the original source, which is not the NY Times article.

The original paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, available for free download (PDF) here, notes (skeptically, I think) that "Canada reported identical forest area and no change in growing stock from 1990 to 2005".

This claim of no change in coverage in Canada is just not credible. For example, the province of British Columbia asserts it has suffered massive deforestation by mountain pine beetles during that period (1999-2005).

If the quality of the Canadian data is typical of the quality of the data from all countries, this paper is seriously misleading.
posted by dmayhood at 6:55 PM on November 14, 2006

unless we end up with one helluva long cold snap

Well, this winter has started out cold, but it would take sustained temps of -30C in spring/fall or -40C in the dead of winter. We don't see much of that anymore, even in this part of the world.
posted by Urban Hermit at 7:00 PM on November 14, 2006

Pre-Columbian New World Indians were burning forests and managing the land. Indiana and Illinois used to be open plains with herds of buffalo, a giant grocery store on the hoof. Once smallpox moved through in the 16th century killing off %95 of the native population the forests grew back until the 19th century when we started calling it "Old Growth" wilderness - in reality an empty Chernobyl landscape after a massive die-off.
posted by stbalbach at 8:08 PM on November 14, 2006

For anyone interested in learning more about well-managed forestry and wood products, a good organization is the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). If you're not seeing their stamp on lumber and paper, do ask questions. And don't confuse the FSC organization and their responsible guidelines with the timber industry represented Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI).

"Green building" and being environmentally conscious is hip and cool in certain circles in the US. In towns like Portland, building developers and architects and contractors are now often promoting FSC-certified materials and the USGBC's LEED rating system. I encourage everyone to read about this resources and promote them in your community.
posted by asfuller at 8:31 PM on November 14, 2006

As I understand it, way up north here the trees are taking over land from the tundra. This is a problem and is viewed as further evidence of global warming.
posted by mistermoore at 9:07 PM on November 14, 2006

As most of the comments already appear to understand, it's both forest quantity and forest quality that matter. This report focuses on the former and fails to report on the continued decline of the latter. A press release from Oregon Department of Forestry just today tried to compare clearcuts to natural disturbances like fire, which is utterly ridiculous, because clearcutting removes virtually all the forest biomass while fire removes only the smallest fuels and leaves behind rich structural and biological legacies which bridge past and future forests. Oh, and fire doesn't build roads.
posted by Dougoh at 9:22 PM on November 14, 2006

Oh, and fire doesn't build roads.

Well, actually, forestry roads are a crucial asset in fighting fires. And hastily built access roads and containment lines are a bugger to rehabilitate post-fire.
posted by wilful at 9:31 PM on November 14, 2006

Pre-Columbian New World Indians were burning forests and managing the land.

Thought I'd give you a little reference for that statement.

This report focuses on the former and fails to report on the continued decline of the latter.

Here's a report from 12 years ago that has a little more data (pdf).
posted by Pollomacho at 9:49 PM on November 14, 2006

fire removes only the smallest fuels and leaves behind rich structural and biological legacies which bridge past and future forests

I live where this happened.

There was less green life left than in any clearcut I've ever encountered in my off-road explorations around here.

I am certain you are wrong.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:38 PM on November 14, 2006

"This says that modern societies, in a variety of economic conditions, can start to reverse the decline, at least in this one specific resource. So, good. I'm less ready to take it as "good news for the world's forests" in general, because the net losses are still going to be great."

Yup. It's just outsourcing of the damage. Typical of "modern" societies.
posted by muppetboy at 10:43 PM on November 14, 2006

fff, I don't think a few exceptional fires invalidate years of solid forestry science. Drought conditions contributed to the magnitude of the Kelowna fire, but another major factor was that years of fire suppression left an overabundance of ready fuel. Under natural conditions, this material would be cleared away by periodic smaller fires. These fires do indeed remove old growth, deadfall, etc., in order to allow new growth and provide the basis for future organic material. Prescribed burns are now being used in many areas (e.g. the mountain parks) to restore the natural forest cycle and reduce the risk of catastrophic fires later.
posted by Urban Hermit at 11:40 PM on November 14, 2006

To add to UH, the heat from fires like Kelowna are far more intense due to the ready fuel. This intense heat burns deep into older trees, surpassing their natural resistance fires. Rather than a fire being beneficial it becomes seriously destructive.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:05 AM on November 15, 2006

Ah, sorry. I didn't realize you were talking unmanaged forests or small fires.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:06 AM on November 15, 2006

Given that the forests in Brazil and Indonesia are two of the world's largest carbon dioxide sinks, and the pine beetle is (as others have astutely pointed out) ravaging the North American forests, I think it would be fatally mistaken for anyone to take this report as "oh, hey, we can relax".

It's pretty clear to me, and I'm far from a Chicken Little, that we as a species are already way behind the 8-ball on repairing the environment, and that some sort of global Apollo Space Program-level effort is needed yesterday to keep ourselves around for more than another couple of centuries.
posted by scrump at 1:31 PM on November 15, 2006

Urban Hermit, in Mountain Ash (E. regnans) forests, the trees essentially require a massive scorched earth fire every 50 - 150 years.
posted by wilful at 2:19 PM on November 15, 2006

Interesting. Are there a lot of inhabited areas encroaching on these forests in Victoria, or are the larger fires allowed to run their course?

Also, I came across this related article today. Even in forestry, there's a partisan spin...
posted by Urban Hermit at 3:18 PM on November 15, 2006

No, we tend to put the fires out - not for ecological reasons but for commercial and human safety reasons. The wood is far more valuable cut down, and the (limited) human settlement in these areas is far more economically valuable than any ecological processes.

Also, intensive forestry management has only been going for 40 - 50 years, much less than one life cycle, so we really don't know what we're doing yet!

Mountain and Alpine Ash aren't sexually mature till 25, so if there are fires in these areas (or harvesting/fires) before then, the Ash forest is removed, replaced with Acacias etc. This happens in nature for a mosaic effect, but is not appreciated by most humans.
posted by wilful at 4:27 PM on November 15, 2006

Also, intensive forestry management has only been going for 40 - 50 years, much less than one life cycle, so we really don't know what we're doing yet!

Um, no. The US Forest Service just had their 100th anniversary. That was when intensive forest management was federalized. It had been going on in the US since the nation began and prior to that by the native people, see above.

Urban Hermit, in Mountain Ash (E. regnans) forests, the trees essentially require a massive scorched earth fire every 50 - 150 years.

They do like a good burn every few years, but no the kind that manages to penetrate their natural defenses.

Also, I came across this related article today. Even in forestry, there's a partisan spin...

I'm going to go out on a limb here (ha ha, pun intended) and say that the author has a very limited knowledge of the HFI. Bush is a complete douche, but at least he had the balls to sign this piece of policy that had been sitting around since Nixon because no wanted to take on the Environmental lobby. I recommend that people actually read what IS contained in the HFI rather than just complaining about it and blaming it's 30 year old contents on Bush.
posted by Pollomacho at 5:27 PM on November 15, 2006

Intensive is a bit different from licensing some blokes with a crosscut saw, or burning your local patch of land when the tribal custom tells you to. We've had a Forests Service since 1908 with relevant legislation since the 1890s, but silviculture was ad hoc until relatively recently. Basically, bulldozers and chainsaws.

Mountain Ash requires devastation, scorched earth, to allow seedlings to regenerate. It's not 'natural defences', its a life cycle.
posted by wilful at 6:30 PM on November 15, 2006

Sorry, wrong continent (should have looked at the latin name). The American Mountain Ash (Sorbus americana) will die back to a stump and then regrow from there during a mild fire. A scorched earth fire will kill the root ball.
posted by Pollomacho at 10:22 PM on November 15, 2006