Witness Tree

What happened to the forest here?

Witness Tree shows forest loss in four Canadian provinces, from satellite images and public records.

British ColumbiaAlbertaOntarioQuébec

Four provinces

Forest detected as lost, 1984–2022

Lost at least once

44,975,298.15 ha

22.69% of the 198,250,714.71 ha of forest mapped in 1984. A place counts once, however many times it was cleared.

Yearly losses added together

70,030,574.55 ha

A place cleared in two different years counts twice, so this is larger. It has no percentage, because it can count the same forest more than once.

Both are minimums. The satellite source covers only Canada’s forest regions, so 46,424,717.91 ha of these provinces have no data. Loss there counts as unknown, not zero.

Every figure on this site is marked with the kind of evidence behind it.

Official record
A public agency recorded it, such as a harvest, a fire or who held a licence.
Satellite observation
Satellite images show trees lost or growing back. Images alone can’t tell us why.
Derived estimate
A number calculated from documented records, using a published method.
Unknown
We don’t yet have an official public record that answers this.

The published record

How much forest satellites detected as lost in each province, 1984–2022.

How much forest was detected as lost

  1. Satellite observation

    Québec, 1984–2022

    18,028,529 ha

    25.97% of the forest mapped in 1984 was lost at least once. In 1984, 47% of the province was forest. The satellite source didn’t cover 15.05% of the province: mostly in the far north, beyond where dense forest ends; the rest is in the settled south. Any loss there counts as unknown, not zero.

    15.05% of the province has no satellite data: mostly in the far north, beyond where dense forest ends; the rest is in the settled south

    18,028,529.19 ha detectedSource and limits

  2. Satellite observation

    British Columbia, 1984–2022

    10,823,353 ha

    19.57% of the forest mapped in 1984 was lost at least once. In 1984, 60% of the province was forest. The satellite source didn’t cover <0.01% of the province: mostly along the shoreline, where different versions of the provincial boundary disagree. Any loss there counts as unknown, not zero.

    <0.01% of the province has no satellite data: mostly along the shoreline, where different versions of the provincial boundary disagree

    10,823,352.93 ha detectedSource and limits

  3. Satellite observation

    Ontario, 1984–2022

    9,280,647 ha

    19.07% of the forest mapped in 1984 was lost at least once. In 1984, 50% of the province was forest. The satellite source didn’t cover 9.03% of the province: in the settled south, below 52° north, outside the forest areas the source maps. Any loss there counts as unknown, not zero.

    9.03% of the province has no satellite data: in the settled south, below 52° north, outside the forest areas the source maps

    9,280,647.27 ha detectedSource and limits

  4. Satellite observation

    Alberta, 1984–2022

    6,842,769 ha

    27.52% of the forest mapped in 1984 was lost at least once. In 1984, 39% of the province was forest. The satellite source didn’t cover 24.02% of the province: mostly in the prairies and the settled south, outside the forest areas the source maps; the rest lies between 52° and 56° north. Any loss there counts as unknown, not zero.

    24.02% of the province has no satellite data: mostly in the prairies and the settled south, outside the forest areas the source maps; the rest lies between 52° and 56° north

    6,842,768.76 ha detectedSource and limits

Why these areas were not mapped, and what we know about them

Explore the record

The record covers these four provinces only.

What was logged, and what burned

A satellite can see that trees are gone, but not why. These pages bring in other sources: official harvest statistics, British Columbia’s timber volumes, and Natural Resources Canada’s yearly maps of harvest and fire.

Harvest and fire

Harvest and fire by province, 1985–2022

Natural Resources Canada’s maps of forest cleared by harvest and by fire, each year. Choose provinces and years, then download the chart or its numbers.

Build a chart

Timber volume

BC harvest volume and allowable annual cut

How much timber British Columbia billed each year, next to the amount the province allowed to be cut.

See BC harvest volume

Ridings with the largest share of forest lost, 1984–2022

The share of each riding’s mapped forest detected as lost at least once from 1984 to 2022. Only ridings mapped in full, with at least 50,000 ha of forest, are ranked; the rest are left out, never counted as zero.

Federal ridings

  1. Lac-Saint-JeanQC · 45.71% · 1,418,561 ha lost
  2. Nanaimo—LadysmithBC · 40.36% · 50,512 ha lost
  3. KelownaBC · 40.1% · 84,353 ha lost
  4. Cariboo—Prince GeorgeBC · 35.67% · 2,323,221 ha lost
  5. JonquièreQC · 34.54% · 1,451,752 ha lost
  6. Rimouski—La MatapédiaQC · 33.67% · 297,726 ha lost
  7. Okanagan Lake West—South KelownaBC · 33.4% · 46,156 ha lost
  8. Similkameen—South Okanagan—West KootenayBC · 33.23% · 416,098 ha lost
  9. Fort McMurray—Cold LakeAB · 32.41% · 2,240,501 ha lost
  10. Kamloops—Thompson—NicolaBC · 29.61% · 953,481 ha lost

Provincial ridings

  1. RobervalQC · 45.71% · 1,389,297 ha lost
  2. Cowichan ValleyBC · 42.36% · 56,818 ha lost
  3. Courtenay-ComoxBC · 42.3% · 35,331 ha lost
  4. Lac-Saint-JeanQC · 40.9% · 594,769 ha lost
  5. Ladysmith-OceansideBC · 40.35% · 43,610 ha lost
  6. Kelowna-Lake Country-ColdstreamBC · 39.19% · 62,480 ha lost
  7. West Kelowna-PeachlandBC · 37.23% · 37,294 ha lost
  8. Fort McMurray-Lac La BicheAB · 37.06% · 552,557 ha lost
  9. Prince George-North CaribooBC · 36.86% · 1,184,373 ha lost
  10. Boundary-SimilkameenBC · 35.29% · 409,973 ha lost

A share can be high because of harvest, fire or both; a satellite can’t tell why trees are gone. Detected loss is a minimum.

Cities with the largest share of forest lost, 1984–2022

The share of each city’s mapped forest detected as lost at least once from 1984 to 2022. A city here is a place Statistics Canada lists as a city (City, Ville or Cité). Only cities mapped in full, with at least 5,000 ha of forest, are ranked; the rest are left out, never counted as zero.

A city’s boundary often takes in far more land than its built-up area, so most of this forest can lie well outside town. A satellite can’t tell whether the trees went to harvest, fire or building. Detected loss is a minimum.

Read the record

How to read it

What the marks mean

Each figure is marked with its kind of evidence, how sure we are and how much was mapped.

See the marks and labels

Methods

Definitions before numbers

What counts as forest, how the figures are worked out, and how sure we are.

Read the methods

What this record does not claim

  • That a loss was caused by logging or deforestation.
  • Any legal or compliance finding.
  • How much sellable timber there is.
  • Who is responsible, based on who is nearby.
  • How a wildfire will spread.
  • A complete total. Detected loss is a minimum.

Witness Tree reports only what its sources record and what satellite images detect.

A satellite can see that trees are gone, but not why. How the methods work.

These figures for 1984 to 2022 are an early preview, not the final release. The loss patches on the Explore map are for looking at, not adding up, and no expert has reviewed them. Data, sources and licences.

Context source: Statistics Canada 2021 cartographic boundaries; province aggregate derived from Natural Resources Canada VLCE2. Source catalogue.