On Earth Day, U.S. President Joe Biden signed an executive order acknowledging the "role federal forests play in combating climate change and the importance of maintaining their resilience." In the news reports, the media mainly focused on provisions aimed at "protecting primary forests".
What is the role of the executive order and what are the underlying concerns?
First, it's important to note that executive orders don't have the same legal force as bills of Congress. Just like King's 2019 executive order promoting the active management of U.S. forests, they serve as statements of government priorities and as directives for specific actions by federal officials or agencies. When a new president takes office, many executive orders are often shelved or revoked. Therefore, it does not have practical effect.
The executive order does not prohibit timber harvesting, nor does it see logging as a threat to old and mature trees. Instead, it identifies "climate impacts, catastrophic wildfires, pests and diseases" as major threats to all forests, including primary forests. It also targets illegal logging and deforestation in other countries and seeks to restrict trade in illegally procured timber products.
Much of it represents a legitimate effort to protect forests at home and abroad from the effects of climate change. However, it could also undermine this effort by adding more bureaucracy and red tape to federal agencies that are already working to implement forest health programs, including those aimed at protecting old and large trees. More land managers and firefighters will also be hired to do their work.
Specifically, the executive order directs the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to "define, identify, and complete inventories of ancient and mature forests on U.S. soil, taking into account regional and ecological changes, as appropriate." ”
The list must be completed and made available to the public within one year. The end result will be "institutionalizing climate-smart management and conservation strategies to address threats to mature and ancient forests on U.S. soil." ”
Taking stock of these forests is an extremely difficult task, considering that old and mature trees can vary depending on geography, forest type, tree species, and other factors. As the government spends billions of dollars simultaneously as part of its strategy to double the rate of forest health treatment on federal lands, inventories will require significant time and resources.
The process of "institutionalizing" management and protection strategies will also require more time and resources. It could lead to the introduction of new regulations that would make forest management on U.S. soil more challenging.
It is also worth noting that each national forest has a forest plan that must "provide key features related to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem types," including "ancient growth."
The 2012 planning rules adopted during Obama's administration seek to address the "old growth" problem through locally enacted forest planning, because "these issues are best identified and identified at the forest or grassland level, reflecting ecosystems and plant and animal community units." The Biden administration should be careful to avoid a top-down approach to politics that would ignore the Obama administration's own plans.
We know that climate impacts, catastrophic wildfires, pests and diseases are directly threatening our forests – young and old. We have science, policy tools and modern forest management practices to improve the health of our forests while producing more household wood products that store carbon and require less energy to produce than other building materials.
While President Biden's executive order is well-intentioned, addressing the real barriers to active forest management, namely the cost and time it takes for agencies to develop and implement forest projects, and the real and perceived threat of anti-forestry lawsuits that prevent agencies from protecting land, will better serve forests and communities.