Reacción a "Forest fires and pest outbreaks could double in Europe before the end of this century"

The press release correctly reflects the content of the article. The study is of good quality and its conclusions are solid. However, although it mentions the interaction of the affected elements—different types of disturbances, their interaction, the effects and trends of forest management, climate change in each location, the emergence of pests not yet known today, the continued abandonment of agriculture, etc.—it recommends being cautious when drawing conclusions over such a long time frame.

For example, although it indicates that fires will increase, there are countries in Europe that have reduced both the number and the extent of fires (Spain), especially in terms of forested area rather than non-treed forest land. It should be remembered that in a year perceived as catastrophic (2025), 100,000 ha burned, which is significantly less than the area that forests grow naturally and through reforestation each year; the latter contributes only about 15% of the annual increase in forest area. Another matter is that in other non-Mediterranean regions fires may increase compared with the past, especially at the boundary between Mediterranean and temperate climates and between temperate and boreal zones. It should also be considered that fire statistics include fires whose effect is similar to that of prescribed burns, which do not necessarily cause serious environmental damage.

It should also be recalled that the sudden increase in windthrow from hurricane-force winds since 1990 has also been due to the expansion of forest area and growing timber stocks in previous decades, as well as the lack of thinning in young stands due to the absence of demand for wood of that size—an aspect that has changed in recent decades.

The resilience of forests to wind, fires, and pests is strengthened through appropriate forest management. This, in turn, depends on demand for wood and biomass on the one hand, and on the structure of forest ownership and the obstacles or support provided by relevant policies on the other—factors that are complex to model because they fall within the realm of the social sciences.

All forest inventories in Europe do not confirm the expected reduction in timber stocks nor the rejuvenation of forests; rather, the opposite is occurring. However, the increase in stocks is slowing due to climate change and because the average age of forests is increasing, which also reduces the growth rate of stocks.

A difficult point to verify is the assertion that the period 2001–2020 has been the most intense in terms of disturbances over the last 170 years, since there is no information at the European scale to substantiate it. Moreover, it should be remembered that 170 years ago there was only a fraction of the forests that exist today—50% or less—so the comparison would also be biased.

The implications for rural areas are considerable. If the response focuses solely on climate change, an opportunity is missed to strengthen forest resilience by making use of timber and biomass extraction, with its dual environmental benefit: reduced disturbance risk and lower carbon emissions through substitution effects and carbon sequestration in long-lasting uses. Thinning in young stands is particularly key, as are the use of prescribed burning and livestock grazing to reduce the risk of large fires. Another measure that would also strengthen resilience—especially along the boundary between Mediterranean and temperate climates—would be to continue the conversion of coppice and medium forests into high forests through techniques (selective retention and promotion of shoots), which are very extensive in France and Italy—an aspect that the models completely ignore.