PelicanZell Blog

There is a lot of attention on the topic of restoration now, from the new UN Decade on Restoration (officially starting in 2021) to the Bonn Challenge to the 2014 New York Declaration on Forests, the “Trillion” & “Billion” tree planting initiatives, AFR100 in Africa, 20X20 in Central/South America and more.  On the positive side, these are commitments to restoring millions of acres or hectares^[2] of forests and natural ecosystems around the globe, from the Atlantic forest of Brazil, mangroves in Indonesia, Madagascar and Philippines to the long leaf pine forest ecosystem in the southern USA.  Millions and millions of trees are to be (or are being) planted and forests or ecosystems being restored.  It is laudable that governments, non-profits and companies want to do this.  

However, as always, achieving success depends on many factors and “the devil is in the details”.  In some cases, organizations are committing to restoration for good reasons.  They want to make a contribution that has positive climate or other environmental, social and economic impacts (often they will pay local people or non-profits to restore).  In other cases, some companies are forced to do it because of past sins (i.e. deforestation they have caused) or because they want to be seen positively as a brand – “greening” is a value that some consumers respond positively to, witness the various “forest positive” initiatives or proclamations.  But we need to be careful – commitments need to translate into action, or you have “greenwashing”.  And tree planting efforts may result in re-establishing tree cover, but will they actually restore “forests” in the short- or long-term? 

I started examining current restoration dynamics in a more focused way about 3-4 years ago.  Personal experience goes back many years.  In the mid-1970s, as a Peace Corps volunteer in Paraguay I worked with rural communities to protect forested watersheds as a source for clean, potable water.  In the 1980s, I was team leader (3-5 technical specialists per team) doing project evaluations of multiple large multi-lateral or bilateral-funded projects that had watershed protection, tree planting and restoration in Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa.  Those projects (funded by foundations, government and NGOs) were typically trying to plant trees or manage forests to address local needs for income generation, wood energy, building materials or protecting watersheds, in places like Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and Panama.  The practice of project evaluation had a fundamental influence on me.  I learned how to gauge progress, using examination of documents, interviews, and field work.  We based our conclusions on written plans that folks were committed to, and, as objectively as possible, going on the ground in the forest and talking to local people plus visiting field sites – particularly the hard-to-get to-sites – before coming together as a team with consensus findings.  Typically, projects weren’t either categoric successes or failures.  The progress was usually in between, and reasons complicated.  As evaluators we learned to throw out preconceived notions about the kind of people were interacting with – rich and poor, indigenous or not, religious or not, right or left, for profit or not, government or not – and to assess progress based on evidence.  Fortunately, in most cases project staff would often open up once they saw we were genuinely interested, trying to understand their challenges and committed to fairness.  In the late 1980’s I was field project leader again, involved in tree planting and managing natural forest succession to conserve and restore forests in the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica, in cooperation with local communities and the national forestry agency.  With communities we planted both native and exotic tree species.  In all these experiences, success depended on figuring out how to match skills and resources to the needs and abilities of the local community.  If the local community was engaged and committed, and truly invested in the effort, we could have success – not just short-term, but long-term.  Then, in 1990, I came back to the USA and engaged in meetings and discussions that would lead to the creation of the Forest Stewardship Council  (FSC) in 1993 – a global system for certifying forest managers an environmental, social and technical performance perspective, in essence bring better accountability to the forestry sector.  I found a thematic home.  I had been frustrated at the millions of dollars spent by donors around the world supporting the development of glossy forest management plans that would never get implemented.  Projects and forest managers weren’t being consistently evaluated for getting things done well in the field.  FSC was going to attempt to change that – certifying based not just on plans, but on actions and results on the ground in the forest – in essence better accountability. 

Now, fast forward to 2014 and beyond, and restoration.  Many initiatives have managed to get governments, companies and NGOs to make enormous commitments to restoration.  Good stuff.  But how do we know they are achieving what they say they will?  At the request of various organizations, I participated in conversations amongst governments, finance organizations and NGOs where they were discussing restoration – how to achieve it, how to finance it, etc.  Almost immediately, as I sat in the meeting rooms, I had a sense of déjà vu from my days back in the 1990’s and the years prior to FSC.  Once again, some flowery language, sometimes honest intentions, sometimes commitments but without substance on what it would take to get it all done.   There was also no consistent, serious or rigorous approach to accountability.  Sometimes, the language or approach was simple, “if we just plant trees, restoration will happen”, even if it meant planting exotic trees species with little to no ecological value initially or long-term.  I was also not seeing enough people at the table who represented the practitioners of restoration, or the communities (indigenous or otherwise) directly affected.  

With all of the above in mind and remembering that no one is so exalted as to have all the answers, the following are perspectives on where restoration might go if we want it to have positive impact.  Because of the changing climate, and the pressing needs of rural and urban people, their dependence on forests for subsistence needs and economic livelihoods, the world needs restoration to be successful.

1. Make sure tree planting and restoration is not converting or displacing natural forests or natural ecosystems – Let’s be clear…agriculture and human settlements have their place.  We have to reconcile human use and livelihoods and ecosystem values.  However, converting natural forests and other ecosystems (including grasslands or wetlands) to agriculture or human settlements has reached its limits in most countries.  Conversion of natural ecosystems to other land uses generally should not be acceptable.  I am aware of the development equity issues in “countries with a very high percentage of forest” such as Gabon, Guyana, etc. where creating farms for food or other local economic development may still be needed, but in general I would suggest we need to keep the footprint of human settlements to a minimum and we absolutely should reduce the loss of natural ecosystems – forests, wetlands and grasslands. 
2. Support diverse restoration strategies but also make sure they have strong support from and engagement with local communities – Sometimes we forget that the destiny of forestry and forest products of all kinds are intertwined with rural livelihoods, food needs, social values, customary rights and uses, and even spiritual and cultural heritage values of local communities (e.g. sacred trees, sacred sites, graveyards, etc.).  Restoration strategies need to create value for local people, and embrace techniques that foster support such as choosing species of value to them, ensuring their support through free, prior and informed consent, etc.  Creating value for local communities argues for diverse, “non-purist” restoration options, including agroforestry, forest systems that create value by producing food, wood for local energy or construction needs or non-timber forest products like fruits, mushrooms, protection of water sources, or other community and livelihood values.  We should not be dogmatic.  For example, even exotic tree species have been used to re-establish tree cover to create habitat for understory seed dispersers who contribute to re-establishing natural forest – a long-term desired future condition.  
3. In many regions, focus first on conservation or protection of “at risk” forests and values, protecting or conserving old growth & native forest ecosystems first, and restoration second.  In many cases, just keeping land in “tree cover” may be a positive step – e.g. high deforestation risk regions where maintaining tree-oriented land use is the short term objective and the best triage, with the potential for such areas to return to more natural forest ecosystems (leading to better “forest cover”) in the future.  But conserving existent natural ecosystems is critical, from the Brazilian cerrado and African grasslands to the rainforests of the Congo Basin, southeast Asia and the Amazon and in both boreal and temperate forests.  Restoring late successional or old growth or “late succession” forest ecosystems can happen, but probably won’t happen unless we first achieve near-term protection of unique “at risk” ecosystems.  If protection can be achieved, it will conserve unique values and also be a source for restoring natural forest through natural regeneration and succession.  Yes, restoring old growth ecosystems can difficult, and it usually takes a long time, but it is not impossible.  Restoration can be achieved using a mix of tree planting, natural succession, through what are sometimes now referred to as “rewilding” or “proforestation” techniques and approaches.  Some researchers are now working on techniques for “fast forwarding” late successional or old growth restoration.  One does not just recreate “old” forest in the short-term, but some characteristics of old growth can be restored, such as diverse habitat for old growth-associated wildlife (e.g. diverse structure and composition, coarse woody debris, restoration of riparian zones, ephemeral streams or vernal pools). 
4. Use market forces to support restoration – Markets can be a positive force in restoration.  Supply chain commitments on restoration are a key part of initiatives like the New York Declaration on Forests, Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 (TFA 2020) and various corporate “forest positive” initiatives.  “Forest positive” efforts by retail or consumer brands can provide both financial and communications support.  Restoration work in New Mexico, California, the Pacific Northwest and the southeastern USA is using the biomass energy^[3] market to help pay for practices to re-establish native or natural forest or tree cover.  Combined tree planting and wood energy is happening in India, Kenya and elsewhere as a tool for environmental and economic restoration.  But such efforts need to more than a public relation move.  Restoration efforts must not be used to “greenwash” forestry operations that are implementing poor practices elsewhere as part of their corporate footprint or sourcing areas.  The organizations involved must be good forest practitioners across the board throughout their company, areas of influence and supply chains.  Restoration should be a consistent, integral part of forest management portfolios, and include an emphasis on conserving or restoring forests that are at risk. Market forces often have short-term mindsets – that won’t work in successful long-term restoration.  If we use market forces to our advantage, we can access short- and long-term financial support to make restoration successful and communicate well about successful efforts.   
5. Use credible sustainable certification systems to bring accountability to the restoration sector – Having been in the middle of global forest certification for 30 years, my observation is that the “certification wars” between competing systems, ideas or approaches has had largely positive impacts.  But a focus on restoration is only now just happening for most of those programs, if at all.  The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification system is now exploring how to engage on restoration and use its experience to bring better accountability to the forestry sector.  The Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) is doing the same, requiring and incentivizing restoration where palm companies have previously cleared forest.  The value of certification systems is that they focus on field level accountability.  None are perfect; they will always be a work in progress.  But if they incorporate restoration requirements and use their accountability tools and systems to do third-party auditing of progress, we may be able to achieve more accountable and impactful restoration.    
6. Build more rigorous and transparent reporting mechanisms on restoration results, challenges and impacts – Those who make commitments to restoration should have systems in place to demonstrate how they are fulfilling their commitments in the forest and at the community level, using monitoring mechanisms that are rigorous and transparent.  We need to enhance accountability at all scales in the restoration sector.  These systems should be able to show that financial or other support is actually being used effectively for restoration.  Second, they can be used to examine field results to determine which of the many techniques are the most cost-effective and impactful in a given location (e.g. tree planting, enrichment planting, natural regeneration, agroforestry, rewilding, “proforestation” or other alternatives).  The systems need to provide consistent, rigorous and transparent accountability over different time scales – near-term, medium-term or long-term.  What people say matters – actually doing it and achieving lasting success matters more.   

---

^[1] The author is an independent forest advisor, lives in Jericho, Vermont, has 40+ years of field experience in 50+  countries in boreal, temperate and tropical forests, has lived in Mexico, Paraguay and Costa Rica, has a bachelor’s degree in history and romance languages and a Master of Science in natural resources management.  I am also currently working on a global framework/field standard for auditing or reporting on forest ecosystem restoration.  Field experience and many references have informed the perspectives herein.  

^[2] To put these numbers in perspective, at a quite typical planting rate of 1,000 seedlings per hectare, a trillion trees would reforest a billion hectares, a billion trees about a million hectares, and a million trees about 1,000 hectares.  There are 2.47 acres in a hectare.  Often planting densities are lower, particularly for agroforestry or enrichment planting in natural forest, potentially covering many more hectares.  These numbers are, of course, illustrative.  Using natural regeneration instead may actually involve little to no tree planting at all, just protecting the seedlings that are being produced by nature – natural regeneration can happen often and aggressively in many places, depending on climate, the availability of nearby forest as a seed source and the degree of prior negative impact such as chemical usage, soil compaction, etc.  Tropical, temperate and boreal forests can all be quite resilient, if they, and the wildlife in them, are given a chance.  

^[3] The author has also produced a separate personal perspective on biomass energy, focused primarily on issues around forestry and biomass energy primarily from wood, a sometimes-controversial topic, particularly at industrial scale.  

Book Review: “Here Comes the Sun: A Last Chance for the Climate and a Fresh Chance for Civilization” by Bill McKibben, published August 19, 2026, 224 pages in book form, review written by RZD March 9, 2026.

I listened to the audio version of this book whilst cross-country skiing at Sleepy Hollow in Huntington, Vermont. I did it over multiple ski trips, as the total audio listening time is 7 hours and 36 minutes. It was narrated by Patrick Lawlor – generally done well.

This is a refreshing take on how to tackle climate issues focused primarily on the case of solar power and solar electric (for charging batteries in electric cars, homes and e-bikes), but at times discussing wind and other renewable or related non-renewable energy technologies. There are a ton of factoids in the book, and many examples of how economics and politics have affected what I will call the “solar journey”. Just one example – the first photovoltaic panel was invented in 1954. Many messages in this book, but here are a couple of my “take homes”.

1. As the sun is a worldwide resource for all countries, it has the potential to be one of the most democratized, even potentially “fair”, sources of energy. Around 80% of the countries in the world have little to no major fossil fuel supplies, this reality and the power of capitalism have supported the concentration of wealth by numerous countries, companies and individuals. Yes, a similar concentration of wealth can occur in solar – witness Elon Musk’s position as the richest person on earth, in part due to electric cars (Tesla) and various solar ventures (Solar City). But the big difference is that no one can “monopolize” the sun. That said, the country seeking, and succeeding so far, to dominate the solar industry is China. In a trend documented by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson (reviewed elsewhere on my blog), this is another case where “the USA invents, other countries dominate dissemination” of an innovation. Today China’s dominance lies in the production of solar panels and electric vehicles. Personally this narrative took me back to the early 1980’s when the company I worked for in Burlington, Vermont (Associates in Rural Development, Inc. or ARD) won contracts through USAID to support the development and implementation of photovoltaics and wind energy technology in countries like Lesotho and Botswana in Southern Africa.
2. Innovation around solar is happening globally by small, medium and large actors. McKibben describes innovations around “agrosolar” development combining subsistence crops and ruminants – cattle (in Vermont, Kenya, etc.), and, the relatively new trend of “plug in” rooftop solar which is proliferating in Germany on apartment balconies and elsewhere. He documents the dramatic reductions in the price of solar panels. He also documents how the fossil fuel industry, and various governments, have done everything they can to stall renewable energy in general, and the contrasting dynamics of NIMBY (not in my backyard) and YIMBY (yes in my backyard, roadside signs of which you seen in Vermont).
3. The unpredictable – will solar allow us to get the negative impacts of global climate change under control or not. He pointedly discusses the role that government at all levels, companies and communities can all play to either support or delay/block renewable energy.

In one of the final sections he kind of only begins a conversation on the role of fire in forested ecosystems, Smokey the Bear campaigns in the USA, and the historic role that indigenous people have played in “managing fire” for their benefit, e.g., clearing underbrush to make hunting easier. This part of his discussion seems a bit misplaced in this book, though it does contribute to a dialectic he provides on how predominantly “white” government and business has expropriated land. Of importance is that tribes in the USA, First Nations and Metis in Canada, or indigenous people elsewhere are rightfully skeptical when solar or wind developers come to them to do a project or make a deal – for time immemorial they have been taken advantage of and even renewable energy can reinforce negative practices and histories. I just think the discussion around fire, indigenous peoples and prescribed fire is a huge topic deserving deeper coverage, some of which can be found in other books I have reviewed. Nice for him to mention fire and indigenous dynamics, but probably the weakest part of the book.

Towards the end of the book he poses ideas for action. Given his own history as both a writer and activist, there are useful reflections here on what will or might work.

Overall, particularly for those interested in learning more about the potential and ongoing dynamics related to climate and renewable energy, this is an important book worth reading or listening to.

This 219 page book is subtitled “the bittersweet work of tending a changing world”. It is a very personal forest and life journey for Ethan Tapper, who has been a county forester in Chittenden County (my home county) for many years, and is now a consulting forester and landowner. Ethan documents his own forest-related journey, including uncomfortable times wielding tools that many demonize – chainsaws, skidder, herbicides, etc. – to bring his own forest back to native species dominated composition and repair years when that forest was the subject of land stewardship and timber harvesting that reduced its composition and diversity, structure, and was subjected to increased threats of non-native invasive species.

From the writing it is clear that Ethan is a devotee of “ecological forestry”, restoration, and forest management with a long-term repair philosophy. He observes the contradictory reality that his forest, left alone, may ultimately grow trees but not with the composition and structure that will provide both the greatest biodiversity and socioeconomic benefits it could. Some might say he is a reluctant user of the chainsaw, skidder and herbicides, but I think it would be better said that he is focused on the long-term “desired future condition” that he envisions, and that human intervention is needed to get. This is in the face of climate change, past human efforts that have degraded the forest, and the now constant threat of invasive species.

His writing is passionate. He sees the complications, nuances and challenges of ecologically-based forestry, and does not consider himself separate (as a human) from nature. Indeed, he describes many aspects of natural history – plants, animals, dynamics – that I know little about and benefited from.

I have had the opportunity to attend public sessions where he talks about his book and life experience, and also talk with him personally about the challenges society is facing in terms of forests. Now in his mid-thirties, he made the transition from public forester to the private sector in order to somehow contribute to positive change for forests, forestry and local communities. This is very much a book about Vermont, its forests and dynamics around us here in this state, but that doesn’t detract from what I see as a larger message that humans and forests depend on each other – we are both part of the ecosystem, with humans having the exceptional capacity to observe challenges and do something about them.

Ethan has moved from being a public forester to a now very active private sector actor – speaking at many events all over the USA, authoring a children’s book and a new other book soon to be made public. His public sessions are part presentation/reflection, and part dialogue with the audience. He touches on challenging topics like when, where and how to harvest timber, how to restore late successional old growth (called LSOG in some circles), and overall how to restore natural native-species dominated forest. His vision accepts that some aspects of old growth or what I will call the “historic range of natural variation” (“historic RONV) are touchstones for values we should value, but also reflects on the ever-changing nature of forests particularly with climate change fundamentally affecting what we can or maybe can’t go back to. To reiterate – this is a passionate book that I hope both forest/forestry specialists and non-specialists, or the general public, will read.

This review was finalized by RZD on Monday, February 9, 2026.

This rich and informative books, published in 2018, focuses on the old-growth forests of the Lake States, particularly dynamics and old forests in Wisconsin. It includes 154 pages of analysis and discussion around old growth, followed by a 125 page guide to old growth areas on public, private and tribal land in Wisconsin, and in addition to references and other notes, also includes a two and half page Manual for Private Landowners related to old growth. The book is well-written by John Bates, a naturalist and forest practitioner based in Manitowish, Wisconsin.

The book will be of great value for anyone seeking to understand the backstory to the forests of Wisconsin, in addition to perspectives on forest dynamics applicable through the northern lake states forests (Michigan, Minnesota, etc.). In the guide section of the book there is a very nice and concise background description on the legendary Menominee Tribal Enterprise forest of central Wisconsin.

Bates argues for site-specific examination of forest conditions and is not afraid to say that, sometimes, “preservation” of X block of forest is a good idea, and sometimes it’s not. He acknowledges the dynamic impacts that climate change, historic indigenous living on the forest, and the challenges of addressing invasive species, human demands of all kinds, and wildlife habitat management all present on the landscape. Given present day debates on “active versus passive management”, preservation versus human interventions of other kinds, and the relative paucity of old growth broadly speaking in the region, it suggests that restoring old growth is an immense challenge. My interpretation is that his is suggesting thoughtful examination and understanding of present forest conditions, consideration for how those conditions created the forest we see today, and subsequently thoughtful actions to conserve and restore old growth. My take is that Bates does not fall prey to suggesting simple solutions that some might suggest. Good stuff overall and particularly helpful for understanding the forests of the Lake States “North Woods”, including useful thoughts on the way forward for what I will refer to as late successional old growth, or LSOG. Review written by RZD February 6, 2026.

As articulated in this 226 page book (plus references), the theme here is “To have the future we want, we need to build and invent more of what we need”. The authors unabashedly direct the book at liberals (and in the USA typically Democrats) on how to establish a course of politics and action that is different from what we are seeing with the Trump administration. The focus is largely on how the USA can better innovate – not just invent but actually build out from inventions so that the inventions become mainstream.

There is enough questioning of dogma in the book to please this reviewer. In particular the authors point to how things like land use planning and zoning were really a 20th century invention for the USA and that newly established plans and zoning have served, in a contradictory fashion, to limit the positive impacts of Democratic policy positions like more housing for the homeless and others, or more uptake of new environmental and energy technologies like solar, wind or other renewables. It also points to generally positive for the environment laws and policies – e.g., creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, water and air pollution rules and regulations, among others – that at the same time have procedurally hamstrung building out future-oriented, and more sustainable, energy, health housing or transport interventions.

The writing points to the ironic reality that Republican-led jurisdictions (some states like Texas and the city of Houston) have far outstripped Democratic-led jurisdictions in creating homes for the homeless. But it’s not just a Republican versus Democrat treatise. The authors also point to the policy orphan COVID-related “Operation Warp Speed” has become with both Democrats and Republicans seemingly ignoring or not learning from, but instead falling into unproductive partisan bickering.

Also, whether it was a COVID vaccine, the development of solar panel technology or other USA-driven inventions, there seems to be a consistent pattern of good inventions being poorly disseminated in the USA. From a USA perspective, the dissemination of such inventions is being better done by countries such as China or Germany, leaving the USA to play catch up. The writing points to the success of American science, but at the same time states “At the highest levels, American science has become biased against the very thing that drives its progress: the art of taking bold risks” and “creaky institutions getting in the way of inventing”.

Their point overall seems not to be that the direction of all the science or policies is flawed, but that the implementation (or technology transfer) of those policies and related inventions has been flawed. We have overburdened innovation roll out because of a legalistic, onerous regulatory system that undermines the good things we would like to see built or adopted. Contradictorily, we have also fallen prey to a generalization that only the private sector can drive innovation and ignored the positive role that government can and has played on major initiatives ranging from Roosevelt’s New Deal to Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act – both of which made game changing investments for the betterment of social and environmental outcomes in the USA.

This definitely seems like a “policy wonk” kind of book. However, it is well-written and interesting. It also drives home the message that “focus matters” and IF we can continue to do good science, create fundamentally sound policies and then take actions that build on them (i.e., effectively disseminate what we invent), success does happen.

p.s. Thanks to brother Lonny for giving me the book to read!

This 320 page book is subtitled “A true story of money laundering, murder, and surviving Vladimir Putin’s wrath”. It was published in April 2022. Book review completed by Richard Zell Donovan, November 2024.

Given to me by my nephew Daniel (Booie) Donovan, this is a surprisingly easy to read book, with 41 well-written chapters that read like a suspense novel. It chronicles the history behind the creation of the Magnitsky Act, named in honor of Serge Magnitsky, who was killed in a Russian prison for raising corruption and money laundering issues involving the Putin regime. The Magnitsky act passed in the USA in 2012, and the adoption of acts similar to the USA law have now been approved in the UK, the EU and elsewhere.

The target of this expose is money laundering fostered by the Putin regime, in consort with his allies and henchmen, and the many people affected by money laundering dynamics. The 299 page book ends with an Epilogue wrapping up this horrifying picture of how Putin threatens and then has killed numerous people who are exposing corruption, and the associated greed and murder inside and outside Russia. It also provides cautionary notes on in terms of the past dynamics (and potential future implications?) of newly-re-elected Donald Trump, due to his relationship with Putin over the years. Note: continuing concerns about new actions by Putin and his collaborators remain. For example, names have been changed in the book in some cases to protect people who either have pursued, or are pursuing these issues now – the implication being that Putin will continue to target and seek to eliminate threats to him, his cronies, and their business interests, wherever they reside (inside or outside Russia). Even now. Frightening…

Book written by Klaus J. Puettman, K. David Coates, and Christian Messier, published in 2009 by Island Press and book review by Richard Zell Donovan, November 2024.

This short book – 188 pages including references and index – explores how over time forest complexity has been driven out of conventional silviculture in the interests of a focus on wood production as a pre-eminent forest value. The first two chapters were the most readable and also thought-provoking for this reader as they give: a) a historical context on the evolution of modern silviculture, and b) a discussion posing challenges to silviculture traditions. Among other things, these chapters explore how the extension of agricultural cropping models to forests and silviculture has happened, with concomitant features such as emphases on wood volume, species diversity reductions (even monocultures) to simplify and make management easier, or, even in some situations, increased use of chemicals.

The other 3 chapters discuss approaches (and tools – silvicultural techniques, software, etc.) for integrating complexity into natural forest management and silviculture. The latter 3 chapters are dense, and were not as easy to read – they take real concentration and are technically complex. But they were instructive on concepts of how foresters, ecologists and forest managers/owners in general can better foster and manage complexity, focused primarily on natural forest.

The book discusses better ways for managing complexity, based on the proposal that complex forests are more resilient in the face of climate change, fire, invasive and “pests”, and can still be “productive” for wood or other things. The emphasis is largely on creating new ways of managing natural forest that capitalize on (i.e., by design don’t reduce) complexity. Such systems are to incorporate silvicultural management approaches and systems (new and old) that examine all species and forest structures, not just commercially valuable trees, from soils to fungi to herbaceous plants to wildlife, and foster building on natural diversity as we design and implement forest management systems.

Overall this is a provocative and useful book, made even more valuable due to its status as a predicate for research that is happening. The new, expanded research is addressing natural forest management across boreal and temperate Canada, with potential implications for forests elsewhere (see below on “global context”). This is also part of an evolving global conversation that has taken on more force since around the year 2000, with more forest and forestry specialists seeking to better understand and practice ecological forestry worldwide.

Global Context and Policy Implications

It strikes me that managing natural forest with complexity in mind for climate and biodiversity resilience among other values (i.e., not just wood) is a necessary proposal. This book suggests what I believe is a necessary reset on commercial silviculture and the authors’ ideas provide pathways for change. It should be noted that,, based on recent correspondence I have had with one of the authors (November 2024), more intensive, ongoing research on functional and complex silviculture predicated on the concepts in this book is happening now, particularly in Canada. This is good.

However, as I read this book I could also not help but think about where society is today in terms of the materials we use, sourcing dynamics and the relationship to forests and policies. We are at a moment in history where, due to population and income growth, there is more demand for products from the forest than anytime in history. What is the role that complex natural forests techniques could play going forward? As research and practice on complex silviculture increases, at the tree, stand or landscape levels, what lessons might also be learned to positively affect all kinds of commercial forest management, not just in natural forests? How might this work have impact on more intensive forestry, plantations, agroforestry, or the matrix of forest uses that combines intensive management with protected areas, core areas or intact forest landscapes (IFLs), or approaches (a la the “triad” approach proposed by Malcolm Hunter and Robert Seymour). How might we simultaneously implement complexity-oriented forestry more generally (where and how) whilst at the same time meeting increasing demands for wood fiber, and the needs of local communities for raw materials and local economies? Hmmm…

Richard Z. Donovan, September 2024

In November of 2023 I offered some perspectives on the continuing evolution of the FSC system to FSC colleagues around the world – particularly founding and current members of FSC and other forest experts or aficionados. Following is an update on those previous thoughts, plus a couple additional items, as the FSC enters a year of planning and discussion in preparation for the upcoming FSC USA and Canada meetings in Nashville, Tennessee in October 2024, and looking towards the October 2025 FSC General Assembly in Panama.

Contrary to my original email, which went only to FSC members or advisors, I have decided to make these comments public for two major reasons. First, we are getting new leadership for FSC at the international level and for FSC Canada, we already have new leadership in the USA, and I am sure there are other leadership changes elsewhere in the FSC system. Second, I think the public wants FSC to respond, particularly due to the impact of climate, the role of forests, the role of forest-based products, and all the values in play.

Quick Introduction and Personal Background

As some of you know, I have been associated with the FSC since before its inception, starting with the November 1990 Woodworker’s Alliance for Rainforest Protection (WARP)-organized meeting in Northampton, Massachusetts, which set in motion a series of meetings and actions that would lead to the founding of the FSC in Toronto in October 1993. I have participated in all FSC General Assemblies and some regionally organized meetings in the Americas and Europe and have had the privilege of working with many FSC national representatives or initiatives over the years on all continents. I have been a part of numerous Working and Advisory Groups, led several FSC national or regional standards tests, and for many years was the Director of FSC-accredited certification program at the Rainforest Alliance (where I worked for 27 years – 1992-2019). Indeed, it was through FSC’s early design meetings that I met Ivan Ussach and Dan Katz of Rainforest Alliance and thanks to FSC’s early origin process, it was why I ended up at the Alliance. As of July 1, 2019, I “semi-retired”, now spending 50% paid time on numerous small contracts. I am a very independent forest advisor – something I truly enjoy, and hope provides value to forests and the communities that depend on them. I have the luxury of writing these observations without reporting to anyone. They are meant to be constructive thoughts for the betterment of FSC and fulfillment of its mission. 

The FSC is quite different in many ways (and now bigger!) from what I managed at Rainforest Alliance (with help from a lot of folks). But there are similarities. When I was at RA we took on the challenge of an international global scope program and decided to put in place a centrally located leadership and technical, quality control team, complemented by 12 different regional managers. We came to this structure after years of experimentation, first working with committed national and regional NGOs. On a day-to-day management level, approximately 80-90% of decisions were made in the regions, though we also held those regional offices accountable by providing policy and budget guidance on an ongoing basis, formally and regularly auditing technical, management and financial performance, and constantly trying to be as responsive and supportive as possible to the regions. Regional offices DID report to the global leadership, and senior staffing and budget decisions were made and monitored by the global HQ. NO system is perfect, and we faced many challenges. Central office staff traveled a lot (yours truly approximately 40% throughout), but this travel was to provide leadership and support, and troubleshoot challenging certification situations. I felt the system was effective. 

Opportunities for Positive Change in FSC’s Management

During the creation of the FSC (1990-1993), I was lucky to work with Francis Sullivan, Jamison Ervin, Tim Synnott, Charlie Walkinshaw, Robert Simeone, Yati Bun, Virgilio Viana, Marcus Colchester, Martha Nuñez and many others to explore the idea of FSC through multi stakeholder dialogues around the globe and funded by the McArthur Foundation and others. FSC creators were many – a core group of 30-50 people who were generally close to forests, close to communities – indigenous or otherwise – or close to the forestry and forest products business, including NGOs, forestry experts, companies, even sometimes behind the scenes government staff. The FSC that we see today, in my mind, is still a youthful organization, but now mature enough to listen and channel constructive criticism, and use it to improve. 

On structure and management, my observation is that FSC – with its many tentacles around the world – is too centralized in its management, doesn’t build enough on its regional and national capacities, and far too much of its decision-making is determined by centralized structures that obstruct the FSC’s success. This is manifest in a large number of FSC staff based in Germany, and a global Policy and Standards Committee (PSC) that often makes decisions (or recommendations) the PSC is ill-suited and informed about, and without strong regional staff who are inconsistently supported. The regional actors in the FSC Network are people who I see as highly competent. They are also desiring of more ability to make FSC better tuned to regional dynamics, and the dynamics of the nations, communities, and forests in them. 

Unfortunately, there is also a “Balkanization” within FSC, wherein we see countries, regions, even international offices fighting over resources in a way that undermines FSC’s success. This situation is NOT simply a decentralization versus centralization issue. It is how to create a more responsive, dynamic, and accountable management structure and system that fosters innovation, consistent global rigor, and is realistic and impactful regionally.

Proposed Solutions

On the management side, FSC should reduce staff presence in Europe, particularly Bonn, and redirect investment toward creating stronger regional hubs – with highly competent regional leaders and staff. 

For initial thinking I would suggest consideration of the following as just a start on the idea of regional hubs, the beginnings of which already exist. Exact regions will probably take further thinking, but I would suggest: 1) Africa, 2) Central and South America, the Caribbean and Mexico, 3) Canada and USA, 4) Europe (including Russia) and the Middle East, 5) Asia (including China, India, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam, etc.), and 6) Oceania (including Australia, Indonesia, New Zealand, Philippines, etc.). 

FSC must have strong central leadership, business management and accountability that conducts constant monitoring of the performance of each Regional Hub, including periodic (at least every 2 years) technical and financial audits of each regional center (producing management reports that identify where management needs improvement). At the global level, several functions should remain global – accreditation, global communications, global marketing, and global innovation and research. FSC should have a Global Ombudsperson who leads in terms of creating a responsive system for managing stakeholder engagement in all respects, and that person should have a counterpart in each region (i.e., a Regional Ombudsperson). In addition to a Regional Director, each Regional Hub should have a Regional Accreditation System Officer to assist in managing the credibility of the FSC Accreditation/Certification Program (in cooperation with others in FSC IC and, separately Assurance Services International (ASI), a Regional Marketing Officer, a Regional Communications Officer, and a Regional Certified Operations Liaison Officer (per what I think has been the ongoing positive experience of FSC USA). The latter’s job is to connect with certified FM operations, listen to their concerns, and be their advocate at the regional level in terms of external marketing and communications connections (and perhaps other things I am not aware of) and all things FSC.  

Regional Directors and the FSC International Director should form a relatively streamlined Global Management Council, that reports to the FSC IC Board of Directors, and indirectly to Regional Advisory Councils made up on FSC members and certified operations, plus of course all FSC members. All FSC members and certified operations should have voice through Regional Advisory Councils. 

I would also suggest that the FSC General Assembly dynamic continue, but moving to a once every 4 years meeting. Between the GA’s, each Region should have a regional meeting at the 2 year mark, to better manage the system and consider new ideas. The GA itself is a unique event , including the motions process that provides core value for FSC members to weigh in on what is important to them. Also, though virtual participation should always be an option, physical presence of FSC board, staff, and members, plus observers, is a unique, unifying space in the FSC world – the type of meeting that I have never seen in forestry or any other sector. The FSC should do everything in its power to encourage face-to-face participation.

Technical Improvements After Taking Stock of 30 years of FSC

Three potential arenas for improvement stand out right now to me – improving management of High Conservation Values (HCVs), sustainable silviculture for natural forests, and restoration.

As for HCVs, experience in all three biomes (tropical, temperate and boreal) leads me to three positive options for change. Neither the International Generic Indicators (IGIs) or FSC national standards, with the sole exception of Canada, require that HCV assessments themselves, who they were developed by, or how local expert review was done, are made public. In my experience all too often we see HCV assessments in the same jurisdiction or ecosystem coming to different and disparate results. This reduces FSC’s potential for positive impact. Building on the HCV frameworks ideas per Version 5 of the P&C, imagine if we went a step forther and developed “FSC-endorsed” HCV assessments for key jurisdictions and ecosystems such that FM managers at all scales (including smallholders) had consistent publicly available expert guidance on what the HCVs are and how FM managers could better deliver on HCV protection, enhancement or restoration. At the same time perhaps we consider incentivizing the conservation and restoration of HCVs and HCV areas (HCVAs). What if we reduced the annual administration fee (AAF) for FMs that create bigger and better HCVAs? What other incentive options are out there?

As to sustainable silviculture, FSC has deep experience on many levels that should allow us to be far more rigorous and specific about how, in particular, natural forests could be better managed for all values. With climate change, and the diminishing presence of late successional, old growth (even primary) forest, it is urgent FSC re-examine what it has learned about silviculture and make improvements in its requirements. Through reduced impact logging (RIL), climate-smart practices, and capitalizing on thousands of years of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), ecological silviculture has arrived. FSC had already contributed to that in some countries by emphasizing these things but the opportunities for improvements are numerous. I am urging FSC to include a global review of sustainable silviculture as it embarks on a review and potential revision of the P&C and IGIs, which I think is scheduled to start in 2025.

Lastly, though the FSC has created an ecosystem services approach that in theory could have high value, this has not yet resulted in fostering enough restoration action. Though there are some FSC-certified operations implementing restoration, FSC’s impact in the restoration sector is still not what it could be. FSC does not yet trumpet “FSC-certified restoration”. Not every restoration initiative needs FSC certification. but why not ratchet up the FSC option for restoration, fostering better performance and accountability?

Conclusion – Despite my “lucky late-in-life state of independence”, I do not take any of the observations I make lightly. I know there are many nuances to the FSC world and complex dynamics. 

Thankfully, more than ever, the world is paying attention to forests and climate, whether it is the conservation of “old growth”, restoration of forest ecosystems, managing fires, maintaining or enhancing HCVs, or better managing forest values with indigenous or traditional communities. Global, national, and local marketplaces are also yearning for more sustainable, renewable, circular, and climate-positive products.

If you have a disruptive idea on how to better conserve forest ecosystems and values, or meet ever-growing human and market demands, have at it. Now is as good a time as any to put such ideas forward. The FSC system is ripe for positive, even disruptive, change. As many people have said – it needs to be more “fit for purpose” realizing it is not just a certification system, but a global leader on forests and forestry, forest values and forest peoples. “Here and now” is a time for positive change. We should be impatient.  We need action.

A brief perspective by Richard Zell Donovan, May 2024

Sometimes it takes a long time to learn something. I have been part of the process of creating the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) system since November 1990. Subsequently, during 27 years at Rainforest Alliance, I was involved in managing parts of the system. I was at the Founding Assembly in Toronto in 1993 and have been at all FSC General Assemblies since then. These have occurred about every 3 years, and I plan to be at the next GA, planned to occur somewhere in the “Global South” in late 2025.

My involvement in the system has been a roller coaster, with many ups and downs. I have witnessed or heard about the many “warts” the system has had over the years. At no point do I want to minimize FSC failures to live up to expectations, be they driven by certificate holders of all kinds, businesses, NGOs (social and environmental), or indigenous or traditional peoples. In fact I have always felt that critiques represented moments for improvement. I may have disagreed with X critique, and said so, but I NEVER have stopped asking people to weigh in, to criticize, to comment otherwise, etc. Though I am not sure, I think that this philosophy – sometimes very hard to take when one faces very aggressive attacks or criticism – was a message I always communicated to the staff that I worked with at Rainforest Alliance, FSC, certified forest managers, or others.

So why write this particular perspective on FSC now? What makes this “moment” special?

First, I think right now there is more global attention on forests than I have seen in my lifetime. In part it is due to the deep attention being placed on climate change, and the role of forests in the climate reality. This is also a moment when, for the first time in human history, more people live in an urban environment, not rural. It is also a moment where more than any previous moment in time, many people are asking “wait a minute, where does that stuff come from?” How did producing that “stuff” affect people, communities, the environment and forests?

Second, over the past 35+ years, commercial forestry has been subject to broad and deep criticism. This has happened everywhere in the world, in tropical, temperate and boreal biomes. Parallel to that there have been deeply thoughtful scientific and practice-oriented examinations of why and how we manage forests of all kinds. We have seen observers from all around the world send messages on concepts they suggest that forest managers should listen to, learn from and implement. Ecological forestry is no longer just a concept or an idea – but an ongoing practice, needing science and improvement through practice. Some changes are complex, some are simple. Examples? People are part of the ecosystem and that we absolutely should depend on and build on the perspectives and values of indigenous and traditional peoples and local communities as we implement forestry (which for me is best defined as the “art and science of tending forests”). More than ever before, we now know that forests fulfill many functions and have many values, from “coarse woody debris” for biodiversity and forest nutrients, to non-timber forest products used for time immemorial by indigenous, traditional and local communities, to wood fiber for mass timber construction or fuelwood and biomass energy. It is no longer just about lumber, and the primacy of wood as a value is gone.

Third, and it may seem like I have been a bit stupid over the years, I have come to the conclusion (yes, you can call it a “kumbaya” moment for me) that perhaps more than any other thing, FSC is a movement, NOT just a certification system. This has deep process, political and technical – social, environmental and economic – implications. It is perfectly appropriate for the FSC community to have wide-ranging conversations/dialogues – sometimes heated – on forest and forestry topics, whether that happens at the GAs or in other forums. From the very start, FSC has been about changing the status quo in forests and forestry. Its members have been driven by passion, a desire to see all kinds of forestry ecologically-driven – including the reality that humans are part of, not separate from, the ecosystem.

Personally, the above means at least two things to me. First, the FSC community should never hesitate to take on conversations about the tough or thorny issues in forests and forestry – in natural forests, plantations, or agroforestry systems. Some may wish FSC did not do that – that it “stick to its knitting” and just focus on certification. I will forcefully disagree and suggest that thoughtful, respective dialogue on tough forest issues is what we are about. Second, FSC should not waiver in supporting ecological forestry, however steep or difficult the climb to attain it might be. That is not just a certification system issue. It is our movement’s central responsibility. So yes, we should improve a critical and central part of the FSC movement – the certification system, how it works, and its benefits. But in parallel, FSC must remain a forceful and consistent advocate for positive change, where necessary refuting the status quo, and above all, true to the FSC mission – to promote environmentally sound, socially beneficial, and economically prosperous management of the world’s forest. FSC pioneered real forestry accountability through forest management unit and chain of custody auditing and certification, concepts such as free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), identification, management and protection of high conservation values (HCVs), and increased third party transparency and due diligence on well-managed forests and their role in supply chains and society. FSC is not the “silver bullet” for forests. It is imperfect. It will not cure all our forest and society ills. But it can and should be a complement to initiatives around forest protection, particularly HCVs, increased indigenous/community forest tenure, forest restoration, and innovative management of forests for timber and non-timber values at all scales.

Review done by Richard Zell Donovan, May 2024.

The subtitle is “The Klu Klux Klan’s Plot to Take Over America, and the Woman Who Stopped Them”. The hard copy paper version is 432 pages long. I listened to this unabridged book on an Audible podcast whilst biking.

Egan also wrote the 2009 book called “Big Burn” about fire, forest and community dynamics in the Pacific Northwest (subtitled “Teddy Roosevelt and the Fire that Saved America”, which I did a separate earlier book review on and is available on this blog.

This is a VERY different book. It is both an unsettling and cautionary (non-fiction like Big Burn) about the Klu Klux Klan in the 1920’s in the state of Indiana. Unsettling because it provides history on atrocities committed by Klan members in Indiana – lynchings, rapes, harassment and outright racism of all kinds against Black, Irish, Catholics and Jews in the USA,, and attempts and achievements in affecting political dynamics not just in Indiana but across the USA. In a sad way it is also an inspiring story about a woman raped by a Klu Klux Klan “Grand Dragon” (leader) who succeeds in helping to help to bring down a racist organization and movement. I won’t go much further, but I found the story disturbing because of the atrocities committed. Having lived in the South, I was aware of the Klan, but this book provides details I was not aware of. It also seemed cautionary to me as a story of how an organization, and certain men (one in particular) manipulated politicians and journalists to affect mass discriminatory actions – something I have fear about in our current politics.

I recommend the book. It was easy to listen to and well done.

Written April 9, 2024 by Richard Zell Donovan

The Musk biography is very well written, highly readable and moves fast. It is a long at 688 pages, and presents the complex, often times perplexing and confounding dynamics of Elon Musk the person. It covers his life up until late 2022-early 2023, and includes coverage from of business ventures from Paypal to Neurosciene (his latest business), including Space X, Tesla (cars and energy), Starlink, and X (formerly Twitter). If you go online you can also find an interesting podcast where Isaacson is interviewed on the process of writing the book – 4 forty-five minute sessions that was definitely worth listening.

As a 1-year owner of a Tesla Model Y, whose use has exceeded our expectations as car owners (yes, our first electric vehicle, a Model Y that our granddaughter Kaedyn named “Edna”), has provoked many conversations with others about Musk. As a person, as mentioned above, he confounds, provokes, and makes it hard to be nonjudgmental about him. He loves drama, is constantly “urgent” in his various businesses and innovation, and all too often doesn’t put a filter on his public perspectives or management of peers and employees. I found Isaacson’s writing to be history driven and non-judgmental, which personally was appreciated. Not because I wanted a rosy or favorable picture – I didn’t want that and I didn’t get it from Isaacson.

At times I just wish Musk would “hush up” and focus on his work, but that isn’t who he is. His personal life, with multiple partners and many children, is not something I can relate to at all and certainly don’t recommend or wish to emulate. Being his employee has got to be a supreme challenge, but contradictory because he is clearly a “driven” man and innovator whose is committed to sustainability and creating a better world, but whose personality and way of behaving detract. Previously I read Isaacson’s bio of Steve Jobs – also excellent, and I would say the Musk book reads even better. Now reading his biography of Leonardo DaVinci. I recommend the Musk biography by Isaacson book to get a detailed picture of an important figure of our time.