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 published in 2020 & review by Richard Zell Donovan, February 2024

This intriguing 258 page book, loaned to me by another swimmer, is basically a tribute to swimming. The California-based author tells stories from around the world about competitive and non-competitive swimmers, including survivors of unplanned cold water adventures (typically long) and also just normal people for whom swimming is a positive light in their life. The book is relatively short, well-edited, and highly readable. I read it slowly over a number of months. I am not sure why, but maybe just because I unconciously wanted to enjoy it longer. Clearly, for the book author, swimming is a glue binding her with family and friends and the dynamics around water, the color of blue, and peace it can bring are metaphors for various aspects of life. Her unabashed enthusiasm for swimmers of all kinds and swimming, and numerous historical anecdotes, will probably make me reread sections of the book time and time again. Whether you are a swimmer or not, it is a good read.

On a personal note, I can’t remember not swimming. My father competitively swam in high school in Hibbing, in northern Minnesota & I can still see him gracefully swimming laps in the family pool in our modest but comfortable home in Naples, Florida, or taking long strokes in the cooling waters of Pelican Lake after our daily hot sauna in northern Minnesota. Mom enjoyed swims as well, typically a few very leisurely laps swimming the breast stroke in the pool. I have enjoyed many swims (short and long) with my wife and kids, various siblings, nieces and nephews, and other friends (some far more skilled swimmers than I) as part of lake life or the periodic “Pelican Lake triathlons” (run, swim & canoe/kayak). In youth, my own special skill was swimming long distance underwater, in pools or Pelican Lake. Though I swam competitively in junior high school and one year of high school in Hinsdale, Illinois – my skills paled in comparison to others on the team at Hinsdale Central, a Mecca for competitive swimmers (my high school team had 2 Olympians!). Though I don’t do the underwater thing as much now, both summers in the lake or winters in a pool (here in Vermont when cross country skiing conditions aren’t good) usually include long swims (mostly freestyle, but a bit of breast stroke). In my early 60’s, after many years of snorkeling, I took the leap and became a registered scuba diver, finding challenges mastering diving technology, but also peace in deep water and seeing incredible underwater wildlife, shipwrecks, and coral formations.

Honestly can’t wait for the next swim. Read Bonnie’s book and it may motivate you for the same.

Published in 2018, with translation from German by Jane Billinghurst, 165 pages, sponsored by the David Suzuki Institute of Canada and published by Greystone Books. The book was a gift from my wife Karen. Review done by Richard Zell Donovan, January 2024.

This engaging book is beautifully illustrated with photos from various “Shutterstock.com” and other referenced photo sources (list at the end of the book). It is an abridged prose version of the longer prose book of the same name. Wohlleben is a forester from Germany who visits various forests around the globe in tropical, temperate and boreal ecosystems. The book is easy to read, but don’t take that to mean simple. There are complex forest functions and processes explained through the book, many were new to me and interesting. It took me 3 sittings to read it; I didn’t want to rush and I did take some time to absorb the nice photographs. Philosophically Wohlleben sees humans as part of nature, and though there is a bit of “anthropomorphizing” forest dynamics to human behavior, all of it is done in a very thoughtful and instructive way. Fully half the pages are relatively large format pictures, which means that the actual prose is probably half the book page length at most. There are interesting anecdotes on the role of old growth or ancient forests, the differences between trees planted by humans versus natural forest, a few reflections (but not a lot) on humans and forests can better co-exist, and the relative presence of everything from birds to mammals, mites, weevils, fungi, and mushrooms.

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:

1. 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).
2. 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. .
3. 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).
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 1^st, 2^nd or 3^rd 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.

Book by Richard Powers, W.W. published in 2018 by Norton & Company, 502 pages, reviewed December 2023 by Richard Zell Donovan

This Pulitzer Prize-winning 2018 novel is perplexing to review. It received many incredibly positive reviews by luminaries around the world….making my own independent reflections on it a bit daunting. But here goes….

Through the various stories told in the book, trees are put at the center of a conversation about forests, individual trees, the earth and human civilization. Conceptually one of its main messages is that trees interact physically, chemically and ecologically, in ways that we are still learning a lot about and humans have ignored for too long. That trees aren’t just about the wood or wood products humans need, but that other values – ecological, spiritual, etc. – matter too, and that perhaps humans can learn a lot from trees and forest ecosystems. .

For this reader it took at least the first 70 pages for me to get fully engaged. The book seemed to flow better after that, though it was never what I would call an easy read.

The book starts with a story around dynamics in the Eastern and Central USA for the American chestnut tree. In the 1800’s and early 1900’s the American chestnut represented as much as one quarter of the commercial timber harvest volume in the east. Why? Because it was a stable, not-too-hard, workable hardwood prized by furniture makers and other woodworkers. But significantly, it is also a tree that produces not just wood, but chestnuts as food for animals of all kinds, impressive shade, and a graceful shape in both urban and rural settings. After a long period as an influential tree in American society, particularly in the eastern USA, a blight arrives and decimates chestnut populations, making the existence of particular chestnut trees in the story that much more significant or symbolic. A specific tree becomes a parable for one family in particular.

The American chestnut story was just the beginning, as the author provides more stories (kind of vignettes) that focus on other trees – temperate, tropical and boreal. This includes interesting observations on tree and forest dynamics (in the forest, between trees themselves) that I was unfamiliar with before.

Another long running part of the book is the story of people – younger men and women who become forest activists in the western USA. The dialogue reflects on their lives and thinking as experience the activist life, include weeks living in the canopy of iconic old growth, blocking commercial timber harvests, and ultimately engaging in acts of ecoterrorism. Those involved ulltimately question their actions, reflect on a life lost in the name of protecting trees and forests, and the impacts of their actions on themselves as people.

Negative dynamics around the large scale industrial clearcutting are also used to demonstrate the monomaniacal focus on wood volume that the commercial forestry community has been guilty of focusing on for many years. Though one might think this might be changing, in the forestry community and society writ large, skepticism about positive change seems appropriate. The book also reflects at times on our society’s current emphasis on technology, and the kind of human interaction that technology seems to limit us to all too often (texts, emails, non-verbal interaction). The cautionary tale presented that both technology and our relationship to natural ecosystems are out of whack. That something in our civilization has run amok and that it will be very difficult to put the brakes on what we are doing to ourselves and the earth.

There is also a parallel story on a woman professor who researches and documents how trees interact in ways that humans have rarely understood. The novel reflects on her challenging journey as an academic and a storyteller who is trying to communicate her theories to the world, at the same time that she undergoing personal, internal questioning or inquiry throughout.

Ultimately this is an intriguing and fact-filled book, but for this reader also long and frustratingly hard-to-stay-with. I learned from it. As said accurately in Michael Pollan’s review comment on the back cover, the book “decenters the human as the source of all meaning and value”. In a way suggesting that we should take a step back, and look at society or civilization from the point of view of trees or forests, how they interact, and consideration of broader values that aren’t just important to humans, but to nature. It is a novel with multiple long-running stories or dialogues revolving around trees. For those with a passion for trees and forests, or perhaps searching for answers around the role of trees and forests at this interesting moment in history, it can be instructive. For those looking to see in the book some clear instruction on how we can tend forests in a way that will enhance or restore them in a practical fashion, the book probably will be frustrating. Glad I read it, though probably sure I missed some things and maybe a re-read at some point is necessary…

For the first time in USA history, the heads of the US Department of Interior and the US Bureau of Land Management are indigenous. We now have a new marine sanctuary off the coast of California – the Chumash National Heritage Marine Sanctuary – being championed by the Chumash AND the National Park Service. Parallel to both of the above, the US Forest Service has completed 11 co-management agreement with indigenous tribes and another 40+ are pending (see https://www.fs.usda.gov/news/releases/new-agreements-advance-tribal-co-stewardship). These are all new initiatives and we shall see how they play out, but from where I sit this represents fundamental change. This work being done by tireless activists, government staff and businesses represents only a part of what is happening around the globe, wherein indigenous and traditional communities are gaining more definitive access and control to forest and other natural resources that need protection, need better stewardship, and respond to longstanding grievances. No one should expect “perfect” stewardship as a result, or disappearance of conflict – humans are involved and we are a quite imperfect species, to say the least. But I would suggest these trends are a reason for optimism at a time when polarization seems rampant. Such optimism shouldn’t be blind – we need better forest stewardship, more implementation climate-sensitive forest practices that can contribute to addressing both climate change and sustainability challenges – from conservation and restoration of “old growth” to engagement with communities of all kinds towards forest visions and strategies that integrate humans and our biophysical landscape positively and constructively. But let’s at least take a minute to applaud the above dynamics and support their contribution to a better world. Thanks to all who are helping to make this happen.

A Global History of Forest Management by Brett Bennett, 2015, The MIT Press – Reviewed 2023

This 2009 book goes through the historical (including political) antecedents, happenings and postmortem of “The Big Burn Fire” of 1910. I read the book as I was cycling through part of the tristate area of Idaho, Oregon and Montana that was deeply affected by this fire, which affected over 3 million acres of forest and rangeland. Ironically my ride also happened after major fires once again happened in the period from 2020-2021. During the ride, serendipitously, we rode through Missoula, Montana when an annual Norman McLean writing conference occurred in which this book’s author – Timothy Egan – spoke. The subtitle for the book is “Teddy Roosevelt & The Fire that Saved America”. The history discusses the roles played by Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot (first head of the U.S. Forest Service) before, during and after the fire is fascinating.

Putting the book in a modern context is also important, as per the book both Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot argued for a national forest management approach that considered multiple use (logging, recreation, wilderness) that should happen respecting natural conditions, particularly fire. Though there are ironies associated with Roosevelt’s and Pinchot’s roles, they both argued for understanding the natural role of fire in the ecosystem. Even in the early 1900’s, they lamented the control of new national forest management system being put in the hands of large forest products companies, the widespread use of clearcutting as the dominant forest management approach – particularly in the West – and the acceptance of fire suppression as both a response to “The Great Fire” and a technique to foster more wood supply for the American economy and the companies involved. This would have important implications for the climate and forest (and forest fire) challenges that we face in the 21st century, with “mega fires” (those affecting over 100,000 acres) occurring with greater frequency due to our historic “Smokey the Bear” fire control effort, climate change, and failure to manage the complicated forest dynamics that have had so much impact on communities, particularly in the Western USA.

The prose of the book is 283 pages, plus 37 pages of references & footnotes. Later chapters in the book are graphic in describing what we know about the impacts of the fires on communities and people in the region and how it affected U.S. Forest Service staff (positively and negatively). The book ends up with reflections on the roles that Roosevelt and Pinchot, and the inventor of the “Pulaski” fire fighting tool, Ed Pulaski, plus other colorful characters, played in The Great Fire drama and its aftermath. The book took awhile to build up momentum for me as a reader, but the last 150 pages went by in a flash. Kudos to Timothy Egan for telling this story – instructive for understanding the historical underpinnings for why we find ourselves reliving the realities of massive fires, with additional elements of national politics, human-induced climate change, and opportunities for forest ecosystem restoration during this UN-declared “Decade of Restoration”.

We all live in different communities – our families, our towns, our “online” world, and our professions. In my tree- and forest-dominated world, tectonic change SEEMS to be happening. Often change brings up more and more questions, some comfortable, some not, but probably most necessary to think about.

What’s happening? What am I talking about?

Today more than any time I can remember in my 70 years of life we have the opportunity to decide what kind of forests we want. I know that my communities have one thing in common – they all seem to care about if not love forests and trees. Not surprising. But my community includes a broader group of folks than it did back in the 1970s. It includes investment managers/bankers, biologists/ecologists, foresters, economists, NGO activists, and forest products specialists. The constant thread these days seems to be (maybe I am imagining?) how do we reconcile 8 billion people (and growing) with forests and ecosystems, and the global challenge of human-induced climate change.

If you don’t believe the latter is happening – human induced climate change – I honestly don’t have much to say to you. It’s all around us, everywhere I go (farms and forests in Vermont, Minnesota, Indonesia, etc.). The term “global weirding” still works because it implies that unpredictable, sometimes counterintuitive change. For example, if the earth’s global temperature is rising, why is it still so damn cold where I am? Or why does it seem like there is more rain or more storms or record-breaking snowfalls. I will leave it to climate scientists to keep trying to explain the dynamics, but this writer is convinced something is happening and the question is what we do in response. WE are the problem, you and me. I also think we must be part of the solution.

For forests and trees, there seems to be more attention on them than I can remember in my lifetime. So we have a huge opportunity. We are seeing, after years of building towards it, markets and stakeholder-driven capitalism where people, government and companies will PAY to better conserve or manage forests. Even PAY indigenous groups to do this. Though still lots to be done, I am hearing that in some locations those payments are either close to or MORE than what landowners or communities can make through logging. I know…it’s a new trend and let’s not assume success. But this IS mind-blowing to me. Yeah, its global “capitalism” – not so popular with many – but its also local capitalism which to me is not a value, it is a method for trading goods. It can and does have all sorts of pernicious implications, but somehow I think we need more thoughtful and critical thinking on it, and the relationship between it and forests, trees, communities, and climate change.

Some of the investment strategies happening right now piss off folks. Some NGOs hate “carbon offset” programs because they believe such programs divert resources from energy efficiency, fuel switching or other things to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (carbon, methane, etc.) or climate impacts. Or they hate them because MANY of the original projects, going back to the 1990’s, proposed offsets that were antithetical to biodiversity, proposed using exotic trees species, or didn’t clearly respect the rights and tenure of indigenous peoples. These are all legitimate CONCERNS, but I would suggest they actually represent PRECAUTIONS (and there are others) that we should keep in mind as we design these investments, whether they are “offsets”, “insets” or just conservation or socially-minded investments. I am seeing some of such investments now being designed WITH positive imbedded values that address the key issues we seem to be concerned about. We see offset projects that focus on protecting old growth primary forest (however you define them), require FPIC (free prior and informed consent) with indigenous or traditional communities, focus on native tree species and natural ecosystem restoration, and pay forest owners/residers significant income. Some of the , investments are being made by organizations and individuals who aren’t Darth Vader – these same organizations are involved in or also taking steps to reduce their GHG contributions through other climate- or sustainability-investments (reduced consumption, high energy efficiency, switching to wind or solar, etc.), implementing what some call a credible “mitigation hierarchy”…reduce GHG emissions first, then move on to other measures that restore forests, compensate for existing emissions, etc. Yes, they can do both.

So my question is, IF the driving forces and values behind these new investments are those that reinforce the forest, climate and human values that we want them to, why can’t we support them? We have learned so much about sustainable forests and forestry over the past 50 years, that we know big parts of what we need to do to better manage, conserve and restore forests, including old growth and primary forests. We have more to learn, for sure. But we also need to make sure, from an accountability perspective, that where we invest in sustainable forests “we get what we pay for”. There have been huge changes in new accountability systems (certification, verification, transparency, use of third parties, “environmental and social governance” or ESG tools for investors) and some highly professional organizations and individuals focused on accountability. If the right values and good accountability systems are built in, shouldn’t we be “all in”? Why not? (If you disagree, feel free to post why not.)

A final comment – I for one don’t believe there is ANY single perfect solution or “silver bullet” that will get us out of the mess we are in with human-induced climate change or figuring out how humans can support truly co-survive with sustainable ecosystems, particularly forests. There is no “one size fits all” solution. Sorry. But as Cervantes implied, let’s “tilt at windmills” (real ones, not imaginary like Don Quixote) and embrace promising but imperfect solutions, be transparent about what is being done and the challenges faced, and using continuous improvement, learn and improve, be accountable, but above all DO SOMETHING. Now.

November 25, 2022

Over the past 30 years in particular there has been an almost constant ratcheting up of our expectations around transparency – amongst non-governmental organizations (NGOs), researchers, companies (brands, retailers, producers) and international organizations (certification programs, other due diligence initiatives, etc.). This is GOOD and necessary.

However, personally I continue to confront situations where all of the above types of organizations, and individuals, don’t perform at a level that meets expectations.

We NEED stakeholder and interest group critiques on all issues around sustainability, climate, environment, community, social issues, and even profit/capitalism. There are a variety of tools for doing this. Websites where reports are posted should allow open comment and reaction. The targets of critical reports have as much a right as anyone to respond, as do supporters or even the writers of such reports in response. Social media can also be an avenue, though increasingly some of those media are being used to pervert honest and accurate transparency, purvey patent falsehoods, etc..

There is a careful line that fair and honest players need to walk – be forthcoming, provide good and verifiable evidence, and do so in a way that protects those who may be at risk – physical violence against journalists, environmental or social advocates, or even government staff happens and is it horrific and unacceptable. There are ways of managing transparency and this author pushes all organizations and individuals to work towards a higher standard for transparency that can benefit us all and the world in general.

The specifics matter, and my guess is that I haven’t covered enough of them. But I have recently – just today – gotten reports from NGOs on critical forest and sourcing issues – reports I want to see and read, but I also want to be able to provide a different perspective, or reinforce a good one, when I see it, and potentially in response to what I see as inaccurate or ask questions to get more information. The same NGOs who often criticize corporates or government for a lack of transparency, are unfortunately guilty of transparency practices I find unacceptable and need to change. No one has a monopoly on facts or truth.

Don’t hesitate to reach out to me for more specifics at pelicanzell@gmail.com. I am still “getting a handle” on this blog thing.