The Power of Forestry in Wildfire Prevention: A Must-Read Guide

Dec. 12

This year was Nova Scotia’s worst year for wildfires on record. This week, one group called to protect more areas from active forest management to reduce wildfire risk. Unfortunately, this isn’t a science or fact-based argument.

This group’s proposal will make wildfires more likely, worsen climate change and put Nova Scotia's forests at risk of destruction. We need to get serious about science-based policy regarding wildfire risk management. We cannot afford to follow old and dated ideologies blindly.

Wildfire Risk is Real

This year in Canada:

Wildfires burned a record 18.5 million hectares across Canada this year.
Preliminary estimates from Natural Resources Canada show emissions from those fires amounted to roughly 2,400 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent – more than triple the 670 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent reported as Canada’s total emissions for 2021 in the most recent National Inventory Report.

Follow the Science

Here are four recent studies on forestry, wildfires, and climate change.

1 | Parks Canada: Protected areas don’t store carbon like they used to

According to Parks Canada:

“The effects of climate change—including the increased frequency and intensity of insect infestations and wildfires—are whittling away at the capacity of protected areas to store and sequester carbon.”

Calls to protect more land using the approach suggested by the group above will increase carbon emissions. We cannot allow that to happen.

We have proposed an approach for protecting land in Nova Scotia. It’s called Climate-Smart Conservation. This will let us achieve our protected areas target without worsening climate change or increasing wildfire risk.

2 | PNAS: Thin to prevent wildfires

A November 2023 study from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) reached a very different conclusion from the above group. PNAS, a peer-reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), is an authoritative source of high-impact, original research that broadly spans the biological, physical, and social sciences. The journal is global in scope, and submission is open to all researchers worldwide.

The journal article concludes, “Management actions, such as prescribed fires and mechanical thinning, can curb severe fire behaviour and reduce the potential negative impacts of uncharacteristic fires on wildlife.”

3 | Journal of Forest Ecology and Management: Wildfires damage biodiversity

This peer-reviewed journal article concludes that wildfires "impact the forest understorey and its seed bank, which are vital reservoirs of biodiversity and forest resilience in the face of global change."

If we fail to allow for active forest management, the forest's biodiversity is at risk. The understorey suffers, and the forest’s seed bank is severely affected. This puts the future of our forests at risk.

4 | International Boreal Forest Researchers Association: Active forest management helps reduce wildfire risk

A January 2022 publication by the International Boreal Forest Researchers Association shows that active forest management in Nordic countries is helping sequester more carbon and making forests more resilient to wildfires. In those areas, fire and natural disturbance levels are 50 to 60 times lower than in Canada. This is even with harvesting rates higher than here in Canada.

Science, Not Ideology, Fights WildFires

Wildfires take lives, destroy homes, and forever harm biodiversity. We cannot afford to follow ideology blindly.

Science tells us:

Protected areas aren’t able to store carbon effectively.
Carbon emissions worsen climate change, making wildfires more likely and severe.
Thinning and prescribed burns are the best ways to reduce wildfire risk for most areas across our country. Due to our Acadian Forests in Nova Scotia, prescribed burns are less natural and more difficult to manage. That leaves active forest management and thinning as one of the best ways to manage our fire risk.
Nordic countries harvest more than we do but see fire and natural disturbance levels 50 to 60 times less than in Canada.

If we don’t listen to science, wildfire risk will be higher. We cannot afford that. There is too much on the line.