Proceedings of the Subcommittee on the
Boreal Forest
Issue 5 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, September 28, 1998
The Subcommittee on Boreal Forest of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 5:30 p.m. to continue its study on the present state and future of forestry in Canada as it relates to the boreal forest.
Senator Mira Spivak (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: We are anxious to listen to you so you may begin.
Mr. Roger Street, Director, Environmental Adaptation Research Group, Atmospheric Environment Service, Environment Canada: The responsibilities of my group include looking at atmospheric change, climate change and its impacts on Canada and what types of decisions can we as Canadians make to deal with those impacts and the changes on natural ecosystems, social systems and our economic systems.
To start that process, we made a decision almost 2.5 years ago that we would undertake the Canada Country Study, which I will report on today, with particular emphasis on the boreal forest. I will be using some overhead slides in both languages.
The Canada Country Study was the first national assessment of both the consequences of climate change and how we could cope. The Americans have started something called the U. S. National Assessment. It is a similar type of approach and their national report is due January in the year 2000. The U.K. has undertaken a similar approach as well.
In doing the report, we discovered with respect to forestry something that you will hear me emphasize. The assessment shows that climate change will have an impact on all sectors in all regions of Canada, with the consequences and the capacity to cope varying by region and by sector.
I take you back to the regions of the country where you come from. Their sensitivity to climate, as it exists today, is quite different from other parts of the country and their ability to deal with change is quite different. For example, if we get a snowfall here in Ottawa of about 15 to 20 centimetres, it is quite different than what we saw in 1996 in Victoria and Vancouver when they had a similar snowfall. Their ability to deal with climate varies quite drastically.
Some communities in Canada are dependent on a single resource, such as forestry. Their ability to deal with a change in their resource or a change in the climate that would affect that resource is quite different from another community, such as Ottawa, which is very diverse and therefore has more options as to how it could address those issues.
The other thing that we found in this study, which I will emphasize again and again, is that adapting or coping with such change will cost Canada socially, economically and environmentally. Today we spend billions of dollars every year adapting to our current climate and the changes that occur in that climate. The winter we just went through is an obvious example. The impact of the climate that we experienced cost us economically in terms of the losses that occurred. It had implications for the maple sugar bushes, dairy herds and people. That climate change cost us socially and obviously environmentally. It is still costing us, and the changes you will hear about will also cost us.
Let me give you a bit of background on the report. Environment Canada pulled together regional experts from all parts of Canada, such as the forestry experts from the University of Toronto. Subsequently they pulled together experts from Forestry Canada, other universities and industry. They then wrote their report, compiled the information, and we coordinated that to try to ensure that things were consistent for the people who looked at the information on a regional basis and on a national basis. We put the publications together. The report is the effort of a broad spectrum of experts from all across Canada. It was written by people from universities, the private sector, NGOs, a broad spectrum of Canadians were involved.
The report, to which I will refer in a moment, describes the current vulnerability of Canada's economic sectors. We are a vulnerable country, as are most countries, but we are even more so because of our high dependence upon natural resources and our closeness to the environment.
The results of the first assessment are published in eight scientific and technical volumes. I have given one set to the clerk. It consists of the six regional volumes -- Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies, Pacific and Yukon and the Arctic. Two national volumes are about to be released. They are the full technical volumes that look at the sectors, such as agriculture, forestry, tourism and recreation, transportation. We reviewed approximately 12 sectors.
Another national volume that we reviewed concerned cross-sectoral issues, such as national commerce, extraterritorial relationships, and the relationship between climate change and sustainable development -- the much broader issues. Those volumes are about to the released. The six regional volumes are in language of origin. If they were written in English or French, that is the language in which they were released. The two national summaries will be in English and French.
We then put together a series of targeted summaries. I hope you will all have a copy of the national summary for policy makers which I asked to be handed out. It is written in both French and English.
We wrote another one that was targeted more to individual Canadians and which is in plainer language even than the national summary for policy makers. Each of the six regional summaries is summarized in a plain language version in both French and English.
I will highlight only a few of the significant findings because of the shortness of time. One thing that has become apparent from our work is that we are committed to some level of climate change. Climate change is occurring in our North in particular. Whether it is induced by human activity or something else entirely, the change is occurring. We are experiencing it and seeing some of its impacts, which I will discuss shortly. In any event, we continue to see this commitment to climate change, and despite any action that we can take, such as dealing with the mitigation and reducing our levels, there will still be some climate change occurring. We have to be better adapted to that change.
We are also finding through this work that we are maladapted even to our current climate. We do not understand it. We have a short memory in terms of our climate. When you think of last winter, you will remember that it was a mild winter. We start to get used to that type of climate.
We also found that all Canadians must be part of finding the solution. This is not something that we can dictate from above. All Canadians must be involved.
What you will hear me talk about are not predictions but projections. They are our best understanding based on what we see today in terms of our sensibilities and vulnerabilities. Looking at what is projected to occur with our climate over the next 50 to 100 years, we ask ourselves what that means to those sensibilities and vulnerabilities? So you will hear me talk about what changes are expected over the next century. However, we are seeing part of those changes now, particularly in the Mackenzie River and Yukon areas of the Northwest Territories.
I will go through a couple of things that are very important. Impacts are expected to vary significantly across the country and be more pronounced at the regional and community levels. If you look at Canada as a nation, you will hear people say that the impacts on forestry are not too bad, if viewed on an average. For instance, we see increased growth. There are concerns about pricing; but, on average, it will not be too bad. However, if you break it down to a smaller level and smaller regions, you see that certain parts of the country will see an advantage while other parts will see a disadvantage. When you get down to the regional level, these differences become very significant. That is something about which you must be aware. People often refer to it as "winners and losers." I do not like to use that term; but you will hear people talk about it that way. We are an interconnected country with interconnected sectors. If someone else loses, we all lose. We must be aware that pluses and minuses will occur in different parts of the country. That reflects the differences in regional and sectoral vulnerability.
One thing that becomes apparent when you look at the impact is that what happens in other parts of the world will have a significant impact on Canada. How other people respond to impacts that occur in other countries will have meaning for Canada because of the globalization of the market. Implications for what happens, for example, in the United States or in the tropics with respect to forestry will impact on the global market and will, therefore, impact on what will happen with Canadian markets. For example, if a country's forests are negatively impacted by climate change and it decides to salvage harvest and dump its products on to a market in which we compete, that will significantly impact our markets and the pricing of our products.
There are other countries whose citizens are vulnerable to extreme weather events. With an increase in those events, there will be pressure on Canada, as part of the global community, to help deal with those populations that are affected by climate change.
There is a considerable concern about unrest in the world in terms of water availability, which is a major issue. When unrest is heightened because of inequalities that occur, Canada is often called upon to act in a peace-keeping role; however, Canada is also called upon to help other countries in times of need, as we have seen in the past week with Hurricane Georges.
One of the things that must be kept in mind is that climate change is not all bad. The fact is that we are projecting that the greatest amount of warming will occur in the winter; since we are in a northern climate, that cannot be all that bad. Many of us would love to see certain parts of last year's winter repeated annually. We have to consider the trade-offs. Think of the implications for those communities that rely on a winter climate for their well-being, such as those which involve ice fishing and snowmobiling. This will have impacts on them.
I wish now to focus briefly on the boreal forest and the conclusions that the authors of this report have reached. The primary authors of the report are three gentlemen from the Faculty of Forestry at the University of Toronto who drew on a number of authors. The document was reviewed by Forestry Canada. This is one of the documents that will be out in the sectoral volume which will be released, we hope, in the next two to three weeks. We are just finishing the French translation.
The report concludes that the increase in mean temperatures is expected to shift the tree limit upwards in altitude in the mountainous areas 500 metres to 1,000 metres and in latitude by 200 kilometres to 500 kilometres. That is quite a significant shift. We are looking at an expected change in the distribution of forest over the next 200 to 500 years equal in magnitude to the changes that have taken place over the last 10,000 years. One thing that must be kept in mind is that the climate will shift a lot faster than will the trees. Trees cannot move that fast, unless they are aided by human intervention. The climate upon which those trees are now dependent will shift and the trees will lag behind something in the neighbourhood of a decade to centuries -- many centuries. That will give us an ecosystem that is not in balance with the climate that supports it. At such times the trees are under great stress, diseases begin to occur in them, and we begin to see new types of species trying to invade.
One of our most important concerns right now is the rate of future climate change.
We are expecting greater climate change in the next 100 to 200 years than we have seen in the past 10,000 years.
One study determined that the conversion of the southern tundra to a forest ecosystem more typical of what we see in southern terrain would take approximately 150 years. The rate of the climate change affects when the current vegetation will respond. However, it does not affect the time required for their overall change, because trees can only react so fast. A number of studies have examined the movement of trees 100,000 ago. They have learned that, when the climate changed previously, they took a certain length of time to move because they cannot move across barriers, and the spreading of trees is much slower through wind distribution or cloning.
A great concern with regard to climate change is that the change in the disturbance regime may be substantial enough to alter or destroy current forest ecosystems. I am talking about changes in fire, pests and diseases. These are looked upon as being significant enough to either completely destroy the existing functioning of ecosystems, or to introduce new species that will alter the functioning of those ecosystems.
There is much concern about the changes in pests and diseases. When we look at the current climate and the movement of forest pests, we find that during warmer and dryer years they are moving further north and that they are much more prevalent and covering larger areas. This is not so much due to the climate as it is to the fact that the trees are now more susceptible. During dry periods, they are less resistant. During warmer periods, they allow the insect to overwinter so that the population does not die off as fast. This is what we are seeing now and the projection is that this will occur in the future.
The fire season is expected to increase in severity. Many studies have been done of fire in the boreal forest and it has been found that, when it is dryer and warmer, as it was this year, the fire season starts earlier and is much more severe. The boreal west still seems to be the most susceptible area. There has been a change in the dynamics of the forest fire season. Instead of the normal situation where there is a fire in the early part of the year and another fire in the latter part of the year, we have seen a double cresting of the fire season. There is considerable concern that we will have more severe and more widespread fire. Again, that increases the disturbance regime which allows weedier species or new species to be introduced and changes the whole structure of the forest ecosystem.
There is concern that the increase in forest fire activity, along with timber harvesting, can lead to a transition to a landscape of younger and regenerating forests and we would no longer have a lot of the older species. This has an implication not only for the timber but also for habitat. The habitat that this type of forest structure would encourage is not what we are used to now.
A map of the boreal forest shows the upper tree line at its northern edge and grasslands and deciduous forest at the southern edge. The grasslands and deciduous forests will move northward. The boreal forest will try to move northward, but it will run out of soil or it will run into water. It also runs into an area where there is not enough sunlight for it to carry out its processes. Therefore, we will see a shrinking of the boreal forest as a result of projected changes in climate. This is mainly due to the fact that it cannot continue moving northward or, in some cases, it runs out of mountain. There is simply no longer any mountain with soil on it along which it can continue to go upwards, so that will shrink.
I would like to bring to your attention, from the Canada Country Study, the idea of adaptation. Again, we should not be limited to only one scenario or adaptation strategy. We must reflect the diversity of the different sensitivities and the different adaptive capacity that exists within the natural system and also in the interface between the human and natural systems.
One of the things that came out of the study was the continued shift in the management approach away from the concept of stability. The forest is not stable and it will not be stable. We must recognize that it is a dynamic system.
We must continue to move away from end management for equilibrium levels, maximum allowable cuts and constant harvest yields in order to be much more reflective of what is happening in the forest system.
In terms of a viable forest system, maintaining the ecological complexity and ecosystem resilience are the most important factors in decreasing the impacts of climate change, again keeping our options open and retaining that flexibility.
There will be a need for different strategies for different sectors of the boreal forest. We need to look at what we do at the southern boundaries where we have new species moving in. It will be quite different from what we do in the central part of the boreal forest or at the northern limit where some expansion is occurring. We must recognize different strategies for different sections.
We must concentrate our investments in those areas least susceptible to climate change in order to attain maximum benefit. We must incorporate new species or varieties and plan for industrial and technical operational changes, including the consideration of moving some mills and production sites to areas where there is less risk to our investment.
I know that you were interested in hearing about carbon sequestering in the boreal forest. You have heard from Mike Apps of Forestry Canada, whom I consider to be one of the leading world experts on this. With regard to adaptation, reforestation has a multitude of benefits, including sequestering of carbon. We should consider such things as the reforestation of abandoned agricultural land to promote carbon sequestering. It is a laudable practice but, at the same time, it must be recognized that it is only short term. It is not a long-term process. There is only so much land. The amount of land that there is to reforest would not provide the entire answer.
However, it provides other benefits of which we must be aware. It creates additional recreation areas. It provides some additional biomass and additional parks. We must keep that in mind as part of the response.
In conclusion, the Canada Country Study showed that there are significant impacts on all regions and sectors, both negative and positive, as well as some opportunities. As to opportunities, within the boreal forest, as long as there are no nutrient deficiencies, there is the potential for increased growth. The market shows that, for Canada, there will be increased growth and increased production for the full use of the forest industry. The major concern is that other parts of the world will see a similar increase, and the net impact will be that forest producers will see a reduction in the price they will get for forest products. There are negative and positive impacts, and some opportunities.
Social, economic and environmental costs are associated with the consequences of coping. Those communities that will have the greatest resilience will have the least costs and the greatest number of options. We must look at trade-offs and spillover effects. As with winners and losers, people must consider trade-offs in terms of their response. Spillover effects are such things as parts of the southwestern United States looking to Canada for water diversions from the Great Lakes and the James Bay area. That is their way of adapting.
Senator Chalifoux: This is already happening in Peace River.
Mr. Street: A major problem in Canada is water availablility on the Prairies. They will be looking for water to respond to the water shortages that will occur in the prairies and that will reduce our options in the Great Lakes states and other peoples' options in other parts of the country. We must be aware that these trade-offs and spillovers will have social, economic and environmental costs.
A key point raised in the Canada Country Study which I continue to make is that we must engage all Canadians in addressing this issue of climate change. We must define what is important to the forestry sector. I cannot do that. Forestry Canada should not be doing that by itself. It must involve everyone because of these spillover and trade-off effects. We must look to the leadership of the federal government, Environment Canada and Forestry Canada, but they cannot do it alone. It must involve all Canadians.
Mr. Robert Cross, Advisor, Atmospheric Science Promotion, Atmospheric Environment Service, Environment Canada: Honourable senators, I have nothing specific to add at this time. My involvement in this issue with Environment Canada is as a science policy advisor and I have more general expertise in the field of climate change science but not specific to the forest sector impacts. I could answer general questions but I have no remarks at this time.
Senator Chalifoux: I would like some advice. I remember we fought against the WAC Bennett Dam because it would affect the delta in the northern provinces and the territories. Would such a dam have an effect on climate change? I am speaking about 25 years ago when that dam was first built and the devastating effect it had on the flora and fauna. It is affecting the environment to this day, and the situation it is getting worse in certain areas of Northern Alberta. I should like your comments on that.
Mr. Street: Something of that size would probably not affect the global climate. It can have an effect on the local climate, which is reflected in the vegetation.
In looking at the impact of climate change, we wanted to get away from that issue and consider the factors that are changing the ecosystem or changing the social systems in the area. Climate is a small factor, but it can be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Decisions with respect to the diversion of rivers or the damming of rivers can have a significant impact on the resources in that area.
We undertook the Mackenzie Basin Impact Study and, up until that particular study was completed, people in the Mackenzie Basin area believed that the dam had played the dominant role in the fish population and the survival of some of the ecosystem items in the area. Though a relative comparison has not been done, our study showed that, although the dam was a factor, the changing climate has had at least as significant an impact on the area. People must be aware of this and they are beginning to become aware of it.
In the Mackenzie River Basin, a significant environmental factor is the ice jams which allow flooding to occur. That allows water to overflow the river banks which maintains the ecosystems and the wildlife habitat. With the construction of this dam, that aspect of the climate was removed. B.C. Hydro recreated the ice jams by allowing a release of water at a particular time that would allow the ice to build up. They recreated that ice jam concept. This is important to the environment in that area.
The Deputy Chairman: A study we have seen by Dr. Schindler indicates:
Building reservoirs in boreal regions floods wet lands and terrestrial soils, causing massive fluxes of DOC and methyl mercury to water. The accelerated decomposition of peat increases carbon dioxide and methane fluxes to the atmosphere... Moreover, large areas of reservoirs in boreal regions would further amplify climatic warming by increasing greenhouse gas fluxes to the atmosphere. Already, the total area if boreal reservoirs in North America is similar to that of Lake Ontario.
This study was sponsored by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council. It seems to me that reservoirs can do a great deal of harm.
Mr. Street: I apologize for not adding that particular point. A number of the changes that we are making respecting the amount of moisture that sits in the boreal forest and sits in the tundra, the bogs, et cetera, does affect the flux of carbon dioxide that occurs from those soils. It is a contributing factor to the enhanced levels of atmospheric CO2.
A significant concern with respect to climate change is: What will the Canadian boreal forest be, a source or a sink?
From about 1920 to 1979 the boreal forest was a sink. Therefore, it had been absorbing and maintaining the level of CO2. The changes in the disturbance regime, such as fire and some of the insect infestations that have occurred in the past since the 1970s, have now resulted in it being a source. This positive feedback is something you will hear people talk about. Changing the soil moisture, in particular, will cause the feedback mechanism to start and you will see an accelerated change.
Senator Chalifoux: I am a traditionalist who works with the elders. Through the years we have noticed that the animals and the fish have been changing. The mercury levels in the lakes is increased to unbelievable levels. Everyone tells us that this is irrelevant, but I believe it is very relevant.
The effluent from the pulp mines in Alberta going north from the Mackenzie Valley to the Athabasca River and those rivers flowing north is affecting the climate because it is polluting the rivers and causing gaseous emissions that never happened in those areas before. Am I wrong in that statement?
Mr. Street: You are straying into an area with which I am not familiar. However, from my perspective of what we know at this time, the effluent emissions do not have an impact on climate.
The first part of your statement is valuable. There is an increased recognition of the value of the information that is coming from traditional knowledge sources, and understanding that knowledge is becoming more important to the scientific community.
Canada led a meeting within the intergovernmental panel on climate change, and I was particularly insistent that we deal with the issue of how to bring into the scientific literature the knowledge from traditional sources. You will see a much better reflection of that. We are starting to see more people look at that because a valuable source of information exists there.
On the other part of your question, from my perspective, I have not seen anything about effluents contributing to climatic change. I cannot comment on that.
Senator Chalifoux: I have a big problem with clear-cutting. In the communities where I work in the northern part of Alberta, this summer they planted about 87,000 seedlings. They have been doing such planting for a long time; they are now finding that the timber that comes from seedlings planted in man-made clearings is not the same or as good as the original timber from the boreal forest. Perhaps more to the point, clearing the boreal forest is definitely affecting the climate.
Mr. Street: Forest clearing is one of the factors, along with emissions from burning fossil fuels, that contribute to enhanced levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Several studies have been put forward that show that often when you clear-cut or harvest a large area of forest, you change the microclimate, which is the immediate climate in that area. In some cases, the microclimate that results is no longer able to support the growth of those trees. To cite a particular example from history, in Newfoundland there were large clearings of trees to support the British Navy prior to Confederation. They cleared large tracts of that province. As a result, the microclimate was so modified that it is no longer possible to grow trees in those areas.
In an area where the climate is doubtful to begin with, because it has changed already, or you are at the southern or northern extreme, if you change the microclimate enough, it will no longer support the growth of trees. It is a real problem.
Senator Chalifoux: The elders and the people living in those areas, then, are not wrong.
Mr. Street: No. Often you will find that they are not wrong. Their perceptions are much better than sometimes we realize.
Senator Chalifoux: We can certainly see it up there. It is unbelievable.
The Deputy Chairman: I should like to return to the question of whether the boreal forest is a source or a sink.
This study says that the north temperate forest, of which the boreal forests are a major part, may equal the oceans as a net annual sink for atmospheric carbon, thus damping the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by fossil fuel burning. It says in particular that lake sediments and peat deposits are long-term repositories. The forested parts of the boreal region alone may remove carbon from the atmosphere at a rate of 0.2 GT a year. They present evidence that the boreal carbon sink weakened in the period 1970 to 1989 as a result of fires and other disturbances.
Therefore, if you remove the boreal sink, that has a significant impact on climate warming.
Mr. Street: Yes.
The Chairman: Your presentation has been helpful, but it does not seem to me that there is a high priority in the federal government for influencing management practices in the province. I understand that situation. The provinces have the responsibility for resources. On the other hand, there is the matter of peace, order, and good government. If there is anything that could affect peace, order and good government, it is certainly climate change.
The Department of Forestry has sort of merged into Natural Resources Canada, and for us, traditionally, natural resources are things we take from the earth or cut down and ship off to the United States; so with the depletion of the forest it is no longer "business as usual." We are into a crisis situation. For example, a study in Alberta showed that there is only about 15 per cent of the boreal forest left. That is the most recent study, because they have been cutting it so quickly. It is certainly use it or lose it.
What will the federal government do about this? Looking at climate change and its relation to forestry, what should the really down-to-earth, hands-on approach be?
I do not mean to lay this at your door step, but you are the adaptation person. What will they do and when?
Mr. Street: I can only answer this from my limited perspective, but I will do what I can.
In terms of looking at this whole issue of sources and sinks and carbon sequestering and the role that our forests play, it has not been that long since this question has come to the forefront. However, we have in Canada a number of people I consider to be world experts on this. They are now mounting a significant research effort to get that information on the table. That is the first thing that must be done.
A great many uncertainties exist in terms of numbers, and we need to get those numbers right. Mike Apps was here earlier, and I consider him to be one of the leading experts in the world on this issue. So that is underway. As part of the post-Kyoto activities, that is one area where there is a need to do something. There is a need to involve the provinces, and that has been recognized. We will be doing that.
Beyond that, also within documents such as the Canada Country Study, we are trying to make more and more people aware of it. We are seeing some action, not only necessarily at the federal and provincial level but also at the private sector. We are starting to see those people who have responsibility taking some actions that are more conducive. They are not the right answers yet, and they still must deal with the bottom line, but we are seeing responses that are along the right lines. They are moving. At least they are recognizing the problem.
The Deputy Chairman: Not in my province of Manitoba. There has been a doubling without any environmental assessment or anything like that. It is the same in Alberta. We were there and saw it. The direction seems to be more and more and more cutting. There is only talk. I would say that private industry is ahead of the provincial governments. They are talking about massive clear-cuts in an attempt to imitate fire, which everyone knows is absolutely not scientifically accurate.
In the real world, the very opposite of what you are talking about is happening. Where are the policies in the federal government? Let us take an example of the emissions from pulp and paper mills. The federal government intervened there, and in effect they caused the forestry companies to spend billions of dollars, but that was because dioxins, furons and toxins were involved, and everyone recognized that. We had the Montreal Protocol. But we now have a different effect. Here we have the forestry industry which has not even been touched in terms of the allowable cuts and the sustainable development in the forestry.
Again, where is that coming from? What is the lead agency? What is the lead department? Perhaps you could enlighten us.
Mr. Street: I would suggest that you talk to the people in Forestry Canada. They are supposed to be working on that issue. I deal with the issue by trying to sensitize people to the vulnerability. That is the only direction that we in Environment Canada go on.
The Deputy Chairman: That is extremely important.
Mr. Street: It is, and we try to work with them.
Senator Chalifoux: I have a question about the Great Lakes and acid rain and all that poison going into them. The United States will not do anything about it. They have told us off and said that Canada is just a bit player. They are the ones who are polluting. Is your department negotiating at all with the United States on these issues?
Mr. Street: There are relationships between the two departments, and we try to deal with them on this issue, but that is out of my area. I deal with them from the perspective of trying to work together to define the effects on North America and how we will deal with them from a North American perspective. I am just starting those discussions.
The whole area of impact and adaptation was a minor portion of the discussions for a number of years. It is only now that we are starting to discuss them in earnest. The interest is mounting. I am actually talking to representatives in the White House about putting something together for North America. It is important with respect to the impacts of climate change and adaptation. It is also important for other areas, and I will not try to make them trivial, but it is the only issue that I am able to deal with.
Senator Chalifoux: I had the opportunity this past summer to look at the Divik Mine in the Northwest Territories. I was impressed by what they were doing environmentally and how they were dealing with the ecosystem in that very vulnerable area. It is the first mine I have ever toured where they are really working with Environment Canada to guard the ecosystem. But there again, the changes in the Arctic are unbelievable. We will be in deep trouble unless something is done about it very shortly.
Mr. Street: The changes we have seen in the Arctic over the last half century are as significant, if not more so, than anywhere else in the world. There is only one other area on the globe that has experienced as much of a change in climate. I talk to people from that part of the world, and they are very much aware of the change because they see it every day. They are now starting to ask some questions. This is where you deal with that whole issue of equity. They are not responsible for the changes that are occurring, or they have made only a minimal contribution to the changes that are occurring, but they will probably suffer most of the consequences.
Here is a map of the Northern Hemisphere that shows annual surface temperature trends from 1961 to 1990. The warmest parts are the yellow parts. You can see where the changes are quite significant across the northern prairies and up into the Yukon and Alaska. The only other place where they have changes that are anywhere as marked as that is north of Mongolia. This cooling that you see here in the east is consistent with what we see for projections of climate change. This will eventually start to warm up. It will be in the latter part of the next century. It is delayed mainly because of the changes in ocean circulation that are occurring.
This is quite significant, this cooling in the east and the much stronger warming in the west. We say that the number of forest fires in the boreal forest will primarily be affected in the west because that is where the greatest warming is seen. We will still see this relative cooling, or near-normal temperatures, in the east.
These are the projections from 1910 all the way to 2040 AD, approximately 45 years into the future. We are again seeing this cooling, or relatively little change in Canada and Africa and into Siberia or Russia and China. You can see that the greatest warming is in the central part of the country up into this area. The greatest warming is occurring in the Arctic. This portion is over Hudson's Bay. In the type of pattern we are seeing, the greatest warming is occurring in the north and over land. That is because the greatest changes are expected in winter temperatures. That is mainly because there will be less snow and therefore less solar radiation will be reflected, so the greatest absorption will occur over land in the north.
The Deputy Chairman: You mentioned the global currents. I read recently that if that changed, it would be catastrophic for Europe. Before you get to that, I should like to ask you about whether you have studied the effects on the lakes and the water in the boreal forests. It has been suggested that climate change, in drying up the streams, is making the water clearer and that the UV rays are affecting the fish. Do you have information on that? Have you done any detailed studies on that in terms of the impact on water? That is quite important.
Mr. Street: One of the slides I skipped over shows that our greatest concern in Canada, and also in the rest of North America, is the impact of climate change on water and water availability.
The Deputy Chairman: I saw that. It is in here, but does anything in those documents relate specifically to the boreal forests, which is our particular interest? Could you point us to that?
Mr. Street: These studies have looked at the existing literature and brought that material together. A couple of studies looked at the impacts of climate change on water resources in the boreal forest.
The Deputy Chairman: We would find that in the index?
Mr. Street: I cannot point to it now but I can make some suggestions as to where you might find that: under water availability or boreal forest. The changes in permafrost that we are expecting would lower the water table because the ice would disappear and allow the water to drop lower. This will change the distribution of both surface and ground water, which would have implications for those lakes. There are concerns about greater evaporation because although we are expecting precipitation in the boreal forest to increase, the rise in temperature will be much greater. Therefore, there will be greater evaporation. Less water will be left at the surface. This is that concern. I will point to some studies.
The Deputy Chairman: That is all very well, provided we still have the boreal forest, that it is not all gone.
Do you have baseline data on that? We have been trying to get some. There is a study in Alberta and there are other studies elsewhere, but what is the rate of depletion and cutting? They say that the rate is greater than that of the Brazilian rain forests. Have you seen any baseline data in that respect which would show the suddenness of the change? In the last 10 years an unbelievable number of forestry companies have come into the boreal forest because they discovered that they could make the oriental strand board out of it. Do you have that kind of data? Have you looked at that?
Mr. Street: The only data that I am aware of that has anything to do with that came out of the experimental lakes area in northwestern Ontario. That is the one document that you are talking about. That is the only one I have seen with that information.
The Deputy Chairman: You mean to say that in the three prairie provinces, which in the last number of years have seen a massive influx of forestry companies into the northern boreal forest, there is no data available on this?
Mr. Street: No. A study was started about four or five years ago. Its acronym is BOREAS.
The Deputy Chairman: Is it on the Internet?
Mr. Street: Yes. You could find information on the Internet on that. That project also has a component called GEWEX.
Mr. Cross: The Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment.
Mr. Street: It takes place in the boreal forest. They are trying to look at the implications and get baseline data on energy exchanges and water exchanges that are occurring in the boreal forest. Some of those reports from the first phase are now available. That, plus the working experimental lakes data, is the only data of which I am aware.
Senator Chalifoux: Studies were done in Alberta.
Mr. Street: BOREAS was done in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Senator Chalifoux: What concerns me is that those studies were slanted in favour of the companies -- ALPAC and Diashowa. There were some big battles between the environmentalists and industry in Alberta.
I go up north and I see the total devastation. I am not against industry, but there must be some compromise between the two. Those studies do not address that. They say that there is nothing wrong.
Mr. Street: I think you will find that BOREAS did not involve industry. It was a joint project between Canada and the United States.
Mr. Cross: That is correct. It involved NASA in the United States and the Department of Natural Resources in Canada.
The Deputy Chairman: It had to do with geo-positioning, and so on.
Mr. Street: They have sites relating to recently harvested areas and recently burnt areas, as well as baseline data.
The Deputy Chairman: It looks at what is happening at various sites. I am talking about looking at down-to-earth numbers nationally. For example, what is the rate at which they are cutting? How much has been cut? What percentage of the forest does that represent? What is the length of time for regeneration? In some cases it is as little as 60 years. We know that up north it takes 120 years for trees to regenerate. It is simple data like that.
Mr. Street: You would have to talk to Forestry Canada about that. Environment Canada does not keep that information. Our information would be on the types of things we just talked about. That would involve Forestry Canada and other departments within this government, as well as the provinces.
The Deputy Chairman: You have given us some very valuable information this evening, information about microclimates in particular. If there is more substance to that, we should like to hear it because that is quite important in terms of trees regenerating.
Mr. Street: The national reports, which will include the forestry report, should be available in the next two to three weeks. They will be on the Internet, on CD ROM and in limited hard copy.
The committee adjourned.