January 2024 by Richard Zell Donovan
Note: In 2021 I produced a perspective on forests and biomass energy. For better or worse, the following is a mild rewrite of that, with some updating after my last 4-5 years of experience in the sector. My fundamental message is that biomass energy, based on wood or forests, CAN be a sustainable energy and forest option, but only IF done the right way. Doing it the right way means taking forest, community, and mill related actions that directly address climate, forest sustainability and community issues – reducing GHG emissions, conserving and restoring late successional old growth, doing nature-driven forestry, and working with communities to design and operate mills that don’t pollute, that reduce negative impacts on the community to a minimum, and that create sustainable working and lifestyle options for local people.
In January 2019 I joined the Standards Committee for the global Sustainable Biomass Program (SBP). As of December 31, I left the committee, per normal member rotation. SBP is headquartered in Europe and runs a certification program focused on moving biomass producers (BPs) towards more sustainable biomass production globally. SBP’s main focus is currently on woody biomass, in particular wood pellets produced in places like Canada, USA, Scandinavia, the Baltics (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), Russia and recently Ivory Coast, Vietnam and Malaysia among others. These pellets are used in global and regional markets, particularly in Europe, North America and increasingly Asia. They are fast becoming a major traded commodity for industrial wood energy and electricity generation. SBP also covers wood chips going to industrial energy markets (for heat or electricity) at various scales around the world. In the future SBP may even consider other forms of biomass that could be used for biomass energy (e.g., residues from agricultural processing of crops like peanuts, sunflowers, bagasse from sugar cane, oil palm kernels, etc.).
When I engaged with SBP, some people and organizations asked why. Does this mean I am an unabashed advocate for biomass energy and industrial logging, in particular for large-scale industrial wood energy (heat or electric) or wood pellets? Where do I stand on what some regard as its “carbon neutrality” and impact on climate? Have I gone to the “dark side”?
Some history… personally, my family is committed to renewable energy. We have solar panels on our roof. We also depend on large-scale hydroelectric energy facilities in eastern Canada (that has had its own social and environmental complexities, including indigenous people’s issues) through our utility company for part of our electricity. Cutting and burning well-dried firewood has been our family’s primary heat source for 40+ years. Solar started meeting most of our home’s electricity needs about 7 years ago, after also completing a home energy audit and investing to improve home insulation, a new boiler and window upgrades in our 34-year-old house. An “excess” portion of our solar production also provides electricity for our daughter’s home in nearby Williston, through a Green Mountain Power solar power generation credit-sharing program. We now own a Tesla, recharging it at home most of the time. Taking the challenges personally and one step further, I can say that when thinking about these issues I always ask myself is – “would I want my children or grandchildren, to work in delivering X energy option – either at the raw material source level or installing/managing X technology?” If so, under what conditions? Both the “what” and the “how” matter.
Professionally, my experience with industrial wood energy and forest management goes back to 1981 as a graduate school researcher doing a National Science Foundation-funded survey of sawmill residues use for industrial wood energy in the tri-county region of Cheshire County, New Hampshire, Franklin County, Massachusetts and Windham County, Vermont. Subsequently in 1985-86, colleague and forester Yurij Bihun and I examined the silvicultural impact of four wood-fired power plants in the northeastern USA (in Vermont, Maine, Maryland and New York states) through a project I conceived and gained financial support for from the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG). This was at a point in time – the mid-1980’s – when many folks were already arguing about woody biomass energy and its sustainability. To make a long story short, we didn’t endear ourselves to either side. Our final report noted that biomass harvesting can have positive forest impacts but that in reality the majority of the wood chip supply at that time was coming from land use clearings or wood waste from construction sites around New England and the Northeast U.S., not silvicultural efforts to improve the forest. Though the potential for positive impact may have been happening on some forest sites, we noted that the industry itself wasn’t doing a very good job of independently ensuring this was this case or examining empirically its impacts…broad claims on sustainability and forest benefits were built on shaky ground and the industry needed to “up its game”. That was way before today’s mainstream discussions on climate change.
I still feel the woody biomass sector needs to up its game. Though some might argue that the percentage of wood devoted to the energy sector (versus other uses) is small and the sector can only marginally affect forest dynamics, that is not always the case. I don’t agree that its influence on practices is, or should be, minimal. The percentage of wood harvested per acre or hectare harvested for energy (or other low grade fiber markets like pulp and paper) depends on the region. But even if only a small percentage of harvest are driven by energy objectives, leadership by the energy sector to improve forest practices still matters.
From 1990-1993 I contributed to the emergence of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) global forest certification system, which was followed by the start of other “responsible” or sustainability-oriented certification programs in many sectors (including initially soy, sugar, palm oil and marine fisheries, and later on steel, oil and gas, carbon, biofuels, aquaculture and biomaterials)[3]. In terms of forests and forest management, thanks to researchers and practitioners, and yes even critics, around the globe, we have learned a lot more about what “well-managed” or potentially “sustainable” forests should look like, on the ground, from ecological, silviculture, economic and social perspectives, and importantly how to audit practices whether done through certification systems or other approaches to ensure scrutiny at the field level. We add more understanding of climate impacts and forests almost every week, and now there is a growing dialectic on the topic of “climate-smart forestry” globally.
So in 2019 I joined SBP not as an advocate for the biomass energy industry or industrial logging, but as an advocate for positive change in forest, land and water stewardship, and climate dynamics associated with the production of biomass energy. I am also not an advocate of claims of carbon neutrality for wood biomass or biomass energy in general. I find such arguments specious. But then I also question such claims for virtually any other energy source. In my mind carbon neutrality depends on scope and many variables. Seen in full, the challenge is that each and every energy option must be evaluated for all its climate, conservation, livelihoods, raw material (even waste disposal) dynamics and even transportation implications. I see all energy technologies as having pros and cons, both in their operation and sourcing, but also the dynamics associated with sourcing the raw materials used to make each technology, including what happens with those raw materials after use. I am not aware of a single mainstream energy technology today that doesn’t have significant non-renewable raw materials as part of their lifecycle, typically metals, fiberglass or non-renewable plastics. I see no “perfect solution”.
Based on the above, the following are personal reflections and, at the end, a few reflections on doing biomass “the right way”. Understanding the pros and cons of using biomass for energy, particularly wood, is highly specific to where the wood comes from – geography, type of wood input (mill versus forest residues), the state of forests in each location,, the role the energy market plays compared to other forest management objectives, forest management techniques and equipment options, the importance (or not) of biomass market to the stewardship landowners wish to do and the climate dynamics associated with production and use. Together, all these factors point to what I see as quite vexing or challenging set of questions or issues, i.e., the “conundrum”, of biomass energy. The real-life situations defy generalization, whether from a forest, energy, climate or livelihoods perspective. This perspective has gone through many iterations, based on field experience in 50+ countries and contributions by scientists, activists (even “scientist/activists”) and practitioners.
Many of the GHG or climate analyses I have seen don’t cover the full range of values I care about, including analysis of the implications of X energy technology in terms of livelihoods, communities or family forests. For example, how do biomass efforts contribute to keeping forests as forests, since the sale of wood can help pay taxes for individual landowners, and in places where land use can be very competitive and all too often forests lose out to housing development or other non-forest uses? Or, what about the role that biomass can play provide to livelihoods, in industrial and non-industrial situations? In addition to climate and greenhouse gas (GHG) analyses, I believe it is necessary to include and critically evaluate these other impacts when looking at biomass energy and forest implications. I love forests, but if what we are doing undermines support for communities that are directly affected, we need to work hard to find solutions that balance community and forest conservation.
Clearly, a major focus must be on driving changes that reduce GHG emissions and enhance climate resiliency for all energy options, including biomass, particularly over the next 30 years. We face an unprecedented, historic, and urgent climate challenge. At the same time, I believe that the best long-term solutions must be renewable and have positive impacts on affected ecosystems and livelihoods, in directly affected local communities where the biomass comes from, at the mills that use those raw materials, and the places where other raw materials come from to make the technologies. Climate implications should not be examined in isolation from these other factors.
From natural gas to coal to oil, I have seen first-hand the negative impacts of fossil fuels extraction or mining in the field in many countries (e.g., Argentina, Bolivia, Canada, Chile, Indonesia, Jamaica, Mexico, and USA)[1]. These impacts – social, economic and environmental, including war – are all too often ignored because they may happen in places distant from population centers, thus impacts not be readily visible. For example, though some have advocated natural gas as a transition fuel to more sustainable/renewable energy, due to lower GHG emissions per energy produced unit (as compared in some analyses to some biomass energy facilities), I think we need to ask hard questions about the “big picture” logic of favoring natural gas or any fossil fuel (much less coal) over biomass energy. Climate dynamics matter, but so do sustainability, livelihood and renewability dynamics. Non-renewable resources (metals, rare earth minerals or oil-based plastics) used in technology manufacture – metals, rare earth minerals, oil-based plastics – originate typically from surface or open pit mines, mountaintop removal, underground mines or wells that have major impacts on ecosystems, communities, water, soils and wildlife. There are also issues related to the negative impacts from the siting of energy facilities in “minority” or low-income communities. The latter is not unique to biomass energy. Issues like air pollution, noise, traffic or smoke must be addressed. Perhaps there is some kind of climate logic for fossil fuels or even nuclear energy, as short-term solutions – so-called “transition” options – but in practical terms I want durable, renewable and sustainable energy, with positive impacts on communities, workers and the environment. To get us there, all options deserve consideration but also scrutiny. No exceptions.
In the USA alone there are well over 100 woody biomass facilities and more on the horizon, in addition to facilities using other forms of biomass[2]. One of the oldest wood-fired electricity generating powerplants is right here in my “backyard” – Burlington, Vermont. Though as a percentage this sector is still in the single digits as a percentage of forest harvests in most places, this sector is having increasingly global impact with robust production continuing in the southeastern USA, Canada, the Baltics, European Russia and now Ivory Coast, Malaysia and Vietnam – and will likely affect more forests soon.
There are fairly high levels of wood use at the household level for heat (individual family pellet stoves) in North America and northern Europe (apparently including recent strong growth in Italy). My own state (Vermont) has incentives in place to foster the use of more efficient, less polluting commercial and residential wood and wood pellet stoves. But the big global change over the past 10 years or so, and continuing now, has been the growing percentage of wood volume that is consumed for the large scale industrial electrical energy market in places like Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, United Kingdom and increasingly India, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
Building primarily (but not solely) on the experience from certification systems over the past 30+ years, we have practical tools for examining forest practices and improving socioeconomic performance, enough to take on the challenge of ensuring at least well-managed, if not fully sustainable, forest management at both industrial and non-industrial scales. Though forest certification remains imperfect, it has contributed concepts and practices that make forestry and supply chains better from social, environmental, traceability, and technical perspectives. There are many examples. Rainforest Alliance’s old SmartWood Program put both forest management and “chain of custody” certification on the map from 1988 to 1992 (prior to my joining Rainforest Alliance). The chain of custody approach as part of forest auditing, created by Dan Katz, Ivan Ussach and others at the Alliance, was something many in industry widely criticized early on and said was impossible. Yet now, after widespread innovation and the use of new technology, is widely used as a tool for tracking raw materials back to their sources for commercial supply chains.
In 1997, the FSC invented and started using the concept of High Conservation Values (HCVs) to protect not just rare, threatened and endangered species, but also at-risk ecological communities, cultural heritage sites and critical community resources like watersheds. HCV management is now a core part of many certification and non-certification accountability systems. Working with other initiatives and organizations, FSC also mainstreamed the concept of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) as a tool for protecting community and indigenous land and forest use rights. FSC also consistently espoused forest management that better blends with biodiversity conservation and good forestry/silviculture[4].
There has been criticism of woody biomass energy-related timber harvests or forest management in Estonia and other parts of the Baltics, the southeastern USA, and more recently British Columbia. Such criticism is valuable in pointing out problems in commercial forest management. We must learn from this criticism. Sometimes the critiques have asserted that biomass energy is causing deforestation or degradation. My conversations with scientists, local NGOs or others on the ground indicate the situations being described on the quality of forest management are more complex, not as simple as painted, particularly on the issues of deforestation or forest degradation. The public spats sometimes don’t reflect the realities I gain from talking to others, on both sides, locally. In part this may be because some criticisms are longstanding and change has been slow to come. In some cases, biomass operations have been trying to make changes to respond – in forests and at their mills, but it can take time. Or it may be that the actual situation is more nuanced, or even different, from the pictures being painted.
Philosophically I am also concerned that critiques broadly do not consistently give recognition to the value of forestry or forests for rural communities – contributing to an unhealthy rural-urban divide or disconnect on forest issues. All too often there are generalizations that may not reflect the intricacies of what is actually happening in the biomass energy supply chain in each jurisdiction or ecosystem. Perhaps as important is that the cultural or socioeconomic histories, customs, or dependencies on forests in local communities are ignored. When the development of wood energy for Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, or the expanded use of heat from the Burlington, Vermont wood-fired power plant for the University of Vermont, were being considered, I saw less than fair consideration of rural economies, employment, or even the potential for wood harvests to foster good forest management. Articles by Searchinger, McKibben, Catanoso, Booth, FERN and Dogwood Alliance, Stand.Earth, etc. (references available upon request) often provide perspectives on aspects of biomass energy that I sometimes agree with, sometimes not. But it seems clear that if biomass energy is to continue to grow, if the sector is to retain “social license” as a viable or acceptable option, the sector will need to constantly and deeply examine its own work, respond to criticisms and improve. But it also may require a willingness to examine data and perspectives that cause discomfort on both sides. Simple yes-no answers just don’t work or apply, in this case.
Fast forward to today. We are constantly gaining more tools for reducing GHG emissions and increasing GHG conservation in forests whilst maintaining other forest values. Ultimately, to make decisions or improvements, we need up to date or accurate real-time information on forest/ecosystem,, climate and community impacts and dynamics on-the-ground. COVID has made on-the-ground assessment, something I have always relied upon, quite difficult since early 2020. Hopefully, looking forward, that will be less of an issue.
Here are my ideas on how forest-related biomass energy can be done the right way. Is there such a thing as “good biomass” or is all biomass bad? Depending on your perspective, you may see these ideas as either absolutely necessary, too expensive, wishful thinking, laden with poor thinking, or patently unrealistic. But I believe these climate- AND sustainability-challenged times require us to “tilt at windmills” (thanks Cervantes) – we must have the courage to think and do things differently for the short, medium and long-term future of the planet.
This will mean hard decisions. Rural forest stewardship is my main expertise and strength. As you consider the reflections below, please question dogma – don’t take the claims of anyone (including me) as definitive. Evidence should be qualitatively and quantitatively based on up-to-date information and potentially even backed up by third party science or research, or monitoring of field activities through on the ground auditing.
Finally, these 8 actions focus largely on forests and forest products. Globally, the starting point for all climate interventions should always start with reducing GHG emissions, using what some have called the “mitigation hierarchy” approach. This approach starts with stopping harm first, then followed by measures to repair or mitigate. From a forest perspective this means keeping forests as forests, conserving LSOG, reducing GHGs, and then implementing forestry and other interventions in a way that is climate- and nature-sensitive through repair or mitigation.
These reflections are not listed in order of priority – importance will vary by region and related stewardship, community and climate dynamics. They are numbered for reference’s sake.
Action 1 – Positively affect “in the forest” GHGs with climate-smart and resilient forest practices – Reducing GHG emissions requires re-examination of many forest practices to reduce negative climate impacts now.
Following are 10 needs:
- Implement nature-based forestry. Eliminate traditional “clearcutting”[5] – such clearcuts are typically very large forest openings with little to no meaningful retention (from wildlife and silviculture perspectives), insufficient riparian zone protection zones, the absence of spatial design that better conforms to natural conditions or wildlife habitat needs, and are implemented typically through impatient silviculture that is overly focused on wood production and to the disadvantage of other values. In addition, the piling and burning of slash – a common practice in some locations – should stop. Make more use of uneven aged management techniques were scientifically appropriate and practically feasible. Perhaps even extend commercial tree rotation lengths or cutting cycles (intermediate harvests or other treatments within full tree-life rotations).
- Reduce, if not eliminate, industrial timber harvesting in primary forest (old-growth forests where large-scale industrial harvesting has not previously occurred). The only caveat to this is when there are technically credible, scientifically-based and socioeconomically sound approaches that foster positive community impacts, protect human and animal health, prevent catastrophe, and/or support ecology-driven goals that will ultimate benefit old growth creation or protection. .
- Use Reduced Impact Logging (RIL) techniques for better harvest planning to minimize skid trails, forest roads or log landings, as well as negative impacts on the residual stand, wildlife habitat or water resources. Where harvesting occurs, operators should be proactively identifying and protecting High Conservation Values (HCVs) as well as High Carbon Stocks (HCS).
- Restore forests in degraded forest ecosystems, riparian zones and watersheds. Increase attention to the restoration of “old-growth” or late successional old growth (LSOG) forests and trees.
- Use the most energy efficient and least polluting equipment for forestry, harvesting, transport and mill processing and handling equipment. Embrace BECCS, particularly for large scale wood- fired power plants.
- Embrace “highest and best use” wood utilization – Also known as “cascading use”, this approach matches the raw material to the use that maximizes value. In my region and many others, it is common best practice for loggers to do “log sorting”, optimizing the allocation of harvested wood to the best-paying and usually longer-lived uses – construction, furniture, architectural plywood or the now expanding “mass timber” construction sector. Loggers typically do this because it means more revenue for them, but also for the landowners they work with[6]. The higher the number of sorts, the better, for different uses and markets. We owe it to the forest.
- Embrace community – For all of the above actions, engage and consistently work with local communities (indigenous or other) and enterprises of all sizes to design and implement solutions. Global experience is clear – forestry or forest conservation/restoration always works better when done in tandem with consideration with the knowledge and support of local communities, including respect for traditional and indigenous rights and resources and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). Success is more likely if there is mutual respect, and shared methods and destinies.
- Finally, be accountable and transparent in terms of actions taking place in the forest and beyond. Though auditing, monitoring practices and reporting innovations are necessary, we know enough now to do things differently and better. Embrace positive change.
Work is continually being done that may identify new and better GHG-conserving or climate resilient practices, globally and within specific ecosystems, and for the unique scale challenges ranging from industrial management to smallholder or family forests, and everywhere in between. Once practices are proven sound through trials and research, they should be implemented and also hopefully incentivized by government and industry. They require both commitment and investment. At the same time we need to ensure that, as we learn more about how certain forest practices negatively affect climate change, such practices are reduced or eliminated.
Action 2 – Make sure conversion to other land uses or the degradation of forests, grasslands & other “at risk” ecosystems is not associated with biomass energy – Converting natural forests and other at-risk natural ecosystems (wetlands, grasslands) to more agriculture or human settlements has reached its limits in many countries. Further conversion or degradation of natural ecosystems should not be acceptable. I am aware of the socioeconomic and equity issues around forest conversion and livelihoods in “countries with a very high percentage of forest” such as Gabon, Guyana, etc., but that’s not where most commercial biomass comes from today. That said, we generally need to work to stop conversion of natural ecosystems, particular those with unique or high conservation values (including social) and seek to limit the footprint of human settlements in at-risk ecosystems. Finally, the “simplification” of natural forests (i.e., reducing the number of native tree species in a particular ecosystem to increase timber volume) all too often leads to degradation. This is a particularly challenging dynamic in boreal and temperate forests and should be stopped.
Action 3 – Use energy markets to foster forest conservation in general, and support improved forest management[7] (IFM) and the conservation and restoration of native ecosystems, including late succession, old-growth forest ecosystems (LSOG) – Currently there is a major global push on restoration[8]. In 2021 the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration began. Restoration initiatives are sometimes finding that wood supply for energy (locally or internationally) can help them pay for restoration of native ecosystems or LSOG. This is happening in the southeast USA, New Mexico, California, Vermont, India and elsewhere around the world. Restoration efforts must not be used to “greenwash” forestry operations of organizations that are implementing poor practices elsewhere as part of their energy portfolio, corporate footprint or sourcing. Expectations of biomass producers involved should be high. Woody biomass energy markets can provide critical support for well-designed restoration efforts by providing financial support for forest practices that re-establish or improve the quality of existing natural forest. Research is now taking place on how to better conduct forest management or harvesting in ways that can “fast forward” the development of LSOG attributes. This is happening in degraded ecosystems by, for example, proactively creating more “coarse woody debris”, thinning to foster the growth of long-lived tree species, extending rotation lengths or other techniques that foster improved wildlife habitat values. Key is that wood energy, done to high sourcing standards, function as a market for “low grade fiber” in support of better silviculture, ecosystem values, and improved livelihoods for local communities.
Action 4 – Incentivize use of mill residues – The picture on the use of mill or processing residues (sawdust, bark, shavings, etc.) versus forest residues (slash, branches, etc.) is complicated. In some locations, mill residues (e.g., chips, shavings or sawdust from sawmills, or other secondary or tertiary processors, etc.) make up 80-90% or more of the raw material used for making pellets or as a direct energy source. In other locations the opposite may be true – the raw material may be chipped logs directly from the forest. Reliable third-party audited data on the percentage of residues coming directly from the forest versus mill residues from secondary or tertiary processing mills (like sawmills, furniture factories, etc.) is not consistently available and it should be. If we are able to consistently ensure or incentivize practices so that the highest percentage of mill residues (sawdust, shavings, bark and chips) available is used, research indicates this could favorably impact GHG values and have other positive benefits for local livelihoods. To be clear, I don’t think only mill residues should or must be used for biomass energy – there are many situations where the use of wood directly from trees makes sense. But first priority should be put on using mill residues.
Action 5 – Incentivize local energy use and industrial co-generation – There are some regions, like the northeastern and western USA and parts of the Baltics and Scandinavia, where local and regional markets are already a large driver for biomass energy. This may include direct energy supply or the use of “excess” heat for supporting associated industries as part of a local industrial hub (e.g., wood processing facilities or other businesses than can use the energy or heat being produced). In concept, this can contribute to a reduced carbon footprint of the pellet or chip production and also provide sustainable, value-added jobs. Perhaps a design goal should be that every biomass facility serves as a cogeneration energy resource or as a business hub, supporting value added industries and livelihoods for the community.
Action 6 – Use existing forest and agriculture accountability systems (1st, 2nd or 3rd party) to regularly review forest practices, with a sharpened focus on climate-resilient or climate-smart forest and farm practices – Having been in the middle of the so-called “certification wars” in forestry for over 30 years, my observation is that the competition of ideas and innovation around certification or other accountability systems has had a positive impact on forests, communities and supply chains. Certification alone is not the answer. Because using residues from the forest or farms for energy will continue to be a part of forestry or agriculture in many places, all accountability systems should reach further and ensure that they are enhancing forest and farm climate resiliency, regionally or at the landscape level, and within individual farm/forest management units. Third party, independently audited certification systems need to improve – to protect primary forests (forests that have not been industrially harvested before), more cost-effective auditing processes, and better engagement with communities, indigenous peoples and smallholders) – and specifically on climate. FSC has been leading on global forest certification for over 30 years and currently has efforts to work with the Gold Standard and Voluntary Carbon Standards (VCS, through the Verra organization) to identify and include climate resiliency requirements or options. The Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) system has accepted that climate change is an issue and the PEFC-endorsed American Tree Farm System (ATFS, run by the American Forest Foundation) is innovating in this respect, in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy (TNC). All certification systems should require more climate resilient practices at the field level. Certification systems are already positioned to make a better contribution on the climate front – let’s use them to do more of it.[9]
Action 7 – Use the latest technology to reduce GHG emissions, smoke and particulates associated with materials handling or combustion, and do better planning for the most efficient transport, noise reduction, etc. – The “burning” end, reducing GHGs requires more modern, efficient, clean or otherwise enhanced direct combustion equipment for wood fired power plants, gasification, and the use of bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) which is currently being tested but is not yet mainstream. All are necessary for reducing particulate and GHG emissions. There should also be continued development of more efficient modes of transport for getting the raw material to the combustion or use point. It is interesting that shipping by can actually be more efficient than trucking or rail – a bit of a counterintuitive reality, creating a challenging discussion on better transport options, and impacts on GHGs.
Action 8 – Support forests and forestry as part of both rural and urban lifestyles – Rural areas are where most agriculture and forestry take place around the world. That said, there is also increasing acknowledgement of the value of forests and trees in urban areas. Sometimes examination of carbon/climate issues forgets how important forestry and forest products are to communities and livelihoods in both rural and urban settings, in addition to cultural heritage, recreation and spiritual values. Given the critical discussions around climate change – again, the greatest challenge of our time – let’s not forget the human or community side. There are people in these communities who highly value their “patch of woods” and they have the ability to conserve and restore forests, manage them sustainably and contribute positively to address climate change and achieve more sustainable livelihoods, if we give them a chance. If we don’t, history indicates they will negatively affect forests (converting forests to other land uses). Communities need forests and sustainable job opportunities, and good forest management should be an effort to achieve both, using forests in the best ways as a renewable resource locally and globally. Having experienced the benefits of global trade in many countries, in both urban and rural communities, I would suggest that global trade should not be seen only in a negative light – it can be a viable sustainable, socioeconomic option for many communities and a path out of poverty.
Conclusion – My recent work on biomass energy and climate-smart forestry has only served to reinforce a long-held perspective that this sector can make positive contributions for the climate and society. Critical is that the sector responds explicitly to climate-resilient and sensitive challenges. The sector should listen to critiques, examine them, extract whatever value it can from them, and improve. This sector must not allow it to be an agent for the destruction of natural ecosystems, or in particular the disappearance of old growth or LSOG. Yes, there remain challenges in our understanding of forests, but we know so much more than we did 30-40 years ago, and the sector can do a better job of managing forests and the diverse, sometimes challenging needs of local communities. Carbon neutrality is a worthy goal, but no energy option is completely free of carbon or other GHG negative impacts. The opportunity exists to use existing technologies, combined with new ones, to create positive change now. Climate change demands solutions now. Onward….
Finally, if so motivated, forward comments, concerns, etc. on this blog or to email pelicanzell@gmail.com.
Footnotes
[1] As of 2019 approximately 2/3rds of the natural gas and 50% of the oil produced in the USA was derived through “fracking”. Fracking has been banned in a few countries and some U.S. states, with a number of negative implications, ranging from methane gas flaring, venting or leaks to massive water use and both water, soil and air pollution.
2] As of September 2020, according to Biomass Magazine, there were 103 “biomass power” facilities in the USA and 66 “waste to energy” facilities that use wood or other biomass as part of their raw material supply. And as of October 2021, 165 “renewable natural gas” facilities are in place or being constructed in Canada and the USA.
[3] FSC was preceded by, and learned from, both “biodynamic agriculture certification” pioneered by Demeter International headquartered in Germany and the American Tree Farm System (ATFS) forest certification program in the USA. Apparently, the roots of biodynamic or organic certification go back to 1928. Tree Farm formally started in 1941 and is managed by the American Forest Foundation. Sustainability- or “responsible”-oriented certification programs across many sectors have gained momentum since 1990, across many sectors, raw materials and supply chains.
[4] “Silviculture” has been defined in some textbooks as “the art and science of tending forests”. Note that it isn’t just about science; it also builds on good practice. Some good practice takes years to be “scientifically proven”. Often best management practices (BMPs) originate through experience or non-scientific values that make sense to implement for precautionary environmental, technical, economic or social reasons, such as use of personal protection equipment (PPE), protecting streams or riparian zones or reducing non-point source or pollution runoff.
[5] “Clearcutting” is a term used in forestry texts and other guidance (even legislation) for a type of harvesting that creates patch openings, which may be small or large. It is my opinion (as a forestry generalist, not a classically trained forester) that patch cuts and “even-aged management” are viable tools for regenerating forests, depending on the biome (tropical, temperate or boreal) or production system (plantation or natural forest). Unfortunately, the forestry community has lost the public relations game on the term “clearcutting”. The public by and large sees clearcutting as a negative. Personally, I no longer use the term, but rather refer to patch cuts and at the same time explicitly refer to their size and logic, technical precautions/options needed for to use them effectively, e.g., variable retention (perhaps small patches of trees for the purpose of reseeding a new forest or for wildlife habitat), tuning the size of the opening to what’s necessary for regenerating a target tree (or grouping of) species, shaping to better fit to landforms and natural conditions (e.g., location of streams, riparian zones), etc.
[6] Few commercial forestry managers (landowners, foresters or loggers) have biomass energy production as their number one management objective. Typically, they allocate smaller diameter trees to lower-paying (per volume harvested) markets. such as energy, pulp and paper, pallets, etc. However, it is not uncommon that the commercial use of such low-grade fiber may be what “pays the bills” (taxes, education of family members, crisis bills, etc.) for some landowners. It is not atypical for such fiber to represent between 20-80% of total harvested volume for a particular harvest, depending on the quality of the forest. Many landowners (private or public) need low-grade fiber markets to pay for thinning or other forest management interventions, including LSOG restoration, management or recovery. The absence of such markets can be a constraint or limit their ability to do such work, including restoring old growth.
[7] “Management” or “active management” are sometimes thought of as a synonyms or “code words” for logging. I disagree. From where I sit, management is any intentional action by humans – strict conservation or protection, reforestation, harvesting of timber or non-timber forest products or ecotourism/recreation. All management options or tools can be used well or misused, with logging or harvesting being perhaps the most obvious and contentious one.
[8] The author has produced a separate perspective on forest ecosystem restoration. Since 2018 I initiated and have been engaged in an effort to bring higher quality 1st, 2nd or 3rd party accountability to the restoration sector. This includes development of a field-oriented, performance-based standard covering techniques such as tree planting, agroforestry, natural regeneration, enrichment planting, rewilding, “proforestation” or alternatives. This standard, managed by the non-profit Preferred by Nature, has now been applied in a number of tropical and temperate countries around the globe. Contact me for more information.
[9] I have also been involved with the Trust to Conserve Northeast Forestlands and Professional Logging Contractors (PLC) of Maine in the USA, and forest contractor/logging organizations in 6-8 other countries, to establish a new global network focused on a more responsible and sustainable performance in the logging sector. Those involved support the development of third-party, performance-based (not just credentialed) forest contractor/logger certification systems globally. Those involved embrace values that might surprise some observers (e.g., HCV protection, FPIC, honoring customary or indigenous rights and tenure, high-quality silviculture and climate-resilient practices). They want explicit, performance based (not just training) recognition for leadership loggers and forest contractors. Their hope is to also get better wages and benefits for folks in what is a necessary, dangerous, and often underpaid, profession. Contact me for more information.
Leave a Reply