Having dinner with Marc Castellnou

Beyond explaining what the wildfire risk scenarios for this coming summer are or could be, while detailing the different factors that define this risk—the drought we are suffering, recklessly underestimated due to the rains of the past few weeks; forecasts predicting a very hot summer; the unhealthy state of many of our forests; the high percentage of dead or very old trees; and so on—he pointed out that the causes of the described scenario have much to do, beyond those derived from climate change, with the scarce or non-existent management of forest areas, the limited investment in equipment, and the low spending allocated to the maintenance of farmland, access roads, firebreaks, etc. A long list of factors that in no way encourage optimism and lead us to disbelief about why we find ourselves in our current situation, in a field, it must be said, where our regional government has broad powers.

In any case, I found that some of the ideas presented by the guest, which explain this bleak scenario—ideas that, after many years of being communicated to various governments not only by the fire department but also by much of the rest of the communities who live in and know the rural world, such as forest managers, representatives of agriculture, livestock farmers, etc.—were very inspiring, even eye-opening, as they invite us to reconsider or rethink many of the terms that define our decision-making system as a country and as a society.

This is not a new topic—I don’t want to appear naïve—but in any case, the problem described, like others in various fields, points to the need to make changes that reconsider the influence of certain communities, professional profiles, or academic backgrounds in making certain decisions, especially when we are talking about long-term policies. In the same way, we should reconsider the representativeness that certain territories or communities should have when it comes to deciding what needs to be done in specific matters and areas.

Some facts to spark reflection, dialogue, and debate:

1. The total surface area of Catalonia is 3.2 million hectares, 41.5% of which are forests and 23.1% are considered forest lands. The area dedicated to cultivation is 34%. Urban areas and land used for infrastructure make up around 12%.
   

2. Of these forest areas and lands, 75.7% are privately owned, while the rest belong to public entities.
   

3. Only 10% of Catalonia’s population lives in rural areas.
   

4. This 10% of the population has roughly 11% to 16% parliamentary representation.
   

5. In the past 35 years, we have gone from 35% forest cover to nearly 70%. This increase in forest area closely mirrors the loss of land dedicated to cultivation.
   

6. I have not been able to confirm the current figure for our food self-sufficiency, but what we can establish is that since the area devoted to livestock and farming has decreased and the population has increased, self-sufficiency has dropped significantly and will continue to do so.
   

7. Proactive management versus reactive management: the cost of extinguishing one hectare in 2023 was €19,000.
   

8. The budget allocated by the Government through various programs and specific funds to ensure an effective response to wildfire emergencies was €50 million.
   

9. That’s 0.12% of the Government’s budget to cover 45% of the total area (if we only count forests).
   

10. The rural world is becoming increasingly poor in terms of per capita disposable income. The gap compared to urban areas is now 42%—€20,400 versus €11,900 per person per year.

Some reflections...

We know some of the reactive costs—those of intervening after the fact—but what are the proactive investments that make sense? Do we have the cost/benefit equation in this field clearly defined?

What is the cost of not doing things where they need to be done, when they need to be done, and by those who need to do them? The cost of inaction.

What is the optimal forest mass and the cost of maintaining it? What would be the cost of losing it? How many dimensions can we imagine for this cost? Health (air and water quality), protection or loss of biodiversity, climate change mitigation, local economy, material loss, drought...

Have we considered that agricultural activity today, more than belonging to the primary sector, has also partly moved into the tertiary sector? Perhaps partially, but the work done in fields, meadows, and forests is also largely a service—one that must and needs to be compensated by society as a whole, which benefits from it. If the Bages wildfires of the past decade had not encountered the crops of the Vallès area, those fires would very likely have reached the Barcelonès region.

Have we assessed or anticipated what will happen to the headwaters of the Llobregat and Ter rivers when the Pyrenees burn, when thousands of tons of ash fall into the reservoirs of these basins that supply water to major metropolitan areas?

Are we aware that a significant percentage of drought is due to the large forest mass, with approximately 30% to 60% of the water evaporated in reservoirs potentially caused by the forest cover?

Do the people making decisions in these areas have the optimal preparation? Are these decisions we can leave to majorities, even if they may not have the necessary knowledge or training?

Why is the idea so deeply ingrained that exploiting, managing, or generating economic returns from the forest or from nature is something bad, while others believe it is a necessary path to make it sustainable?

Forests, even though they are largely privately owned, generate positive impacts for the whole community. How do we measure and reward the contribution and positive social impact they create?

How do we balance efforts and responsibilities?

How do we measure and compensate the country’s bioclimatic balances? The contributions rural areas make to urban ones, and the export of pollution and toxicity that clearly represent an injustice. Costs transferred from the city to the countryside—these transfers must be identified and quantified.

How do we resolve conflicts and differences in approach between environmental protection, agricultural management, and economic management? Are the current models and balances between these areas correct? Can we improve this necessary coexistence?

We need to give the decision-making process full traceability over time, with the right indicators... Actions and inactions have environmental, economic, and social consequences—should they also have criminal consequences?

Some voices claim that Collserola Park is unsustainable. Can an 8,000-hectare space in the middle of a metropolitan area, enjoyed daily by thousands of citizens, really be unsustainable? Have we evaluated and accepted what its loss would represent? Can we reformulate its funding, the resources we allocate to maintain it? Could we consider sponsorships for forests or parks like Collserola? Could we introduce usage fees, recruit volunteers, or penalize misuse of the park’s space? Almost any proposal would be better than deeming it unsustainable and consequently losing it.

Many of the challenges ahead—or not so far ahead—may require a longer-term view than our current system allows.

One person, one vote.

One square kilometer of forest, one vote?

One square kilometer of forest saved, two votes?

One square kilometer of farmland, one vote?

One ton of legumes, vegetables, or fruit, one vote?

One ton of CO₂ saved, one vote?