All:
I put a comment in the Google Doc for resources, but wanted to share it here too since I was unclear about process to finalize our suggested resources.
I think the resources we suggest should have some relevance to collective action. While the three at the top of the list are good, arguably only the Forest Sector Markets has anything to do with collective action. The other two are somewhat repetitive and overlapping (albeit good), dealing with with science of forest carbon and products. I’d suggest losing one of them.
As a replacement, I suggest the following paper new from the Forest Climate Working Group, which is as good a collective action group as exists right now. I have quibbles with some points identified, but overall think it is a good framework and strong showing of collective action. Ideally, it’s something we can rally around, and several group members are already signed on. Find it here: https://forestclimateworkinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/FCWG-Policy-Platform-V11.pdf
I’d also like to comment on a statement being shared in “Prompts for the Summit,” which I’ve been biting my tongue on when I’ve heard it to date. Not my strong suit, admittedly.
It may be true that “Private working forests’ carbon stocks are stable or increasing, and forest management and forest products markets have a lot to do with that.”
In my opinion, this is a red herring and counter to the central objective of the Summit, which is focused on Climate-Smart Forestry and Products. Another point, “Lack of understanding by the demand side about where to put their collective action efforts” is related, in my mind. In fact, I believe the supply side is just as guilty of misunderstanding demand-side interests, as the other way around. The point about private working forests adding carbon is Exhibit A.
The point, for me at least, is not whether the entire forest area is adding carbon, but how to help people and organizations trying to source climate-smart wood be successful. This means identifying, incentivizing, regulating and/or rewarding those specific forest managers who are meeting the moment (climate crisis) by significantly improving the way they are managing forests and the products derived therein. On the ground this means some combination of managing for resilience and additional carbon storage, above and beyond a baseline.
While I have heard Ara’s reasonable point about the “original sin” of this effort - namely that a small group set the direction before the tent was enlarged - I don’t think we should lose the original purpose.
Specifically, climate change is a crisis. We need to do more than simply continue on apace in an industry that is both a cause of and solution to the problem. For forest management and forest products, this means working with demand-side actors to help them understand forest realities. And, to help them source products that represent leading efforts to address the climate crisis with a level of ambition in line with the problem. We can debate the specific practices - whether it’s old growth protection, pre-commercial thinning in over-stocked dry-side stands, longer rotations, avoidance of harvest on steep slopes to maintain soils, protection of habitat for declining species populations and more.
But the genesis of this event was the strong and growing demand from the leading architects, owners and contractors/developers for climate smart wood. That will never mean all wood, but rather in the best case it will represent a consensus-based direction for the timber industry writ large. It means change in common practice to meet the moment. I believe that over the coming years, the social license to operate is on the line for the forest products industry. This is existential in the truest sense of the word.
For me, this is the key point that determines how we take collective action going forward.