Welcome to the Enhancing Collective Action Working Group

Wood Summit
41

Pat has covered several of the important points about NF’s but some clarification.

  1. It is not about the Forest SErvice not being allowed to pursue forest certification, even though many of us advocated for that. Rather, we could never reconcile the obligations of Forest Planning and the NEPA process with forest certification. More work could be done around this question.
    and 2) many NF’s would like to do more forest management - and i don’t mean timber management - but there would be project cost AND difficulties in getting access to any thinnings. Insufficient budget and insufficient infrastructure. some time ago it was suggested that mobile mills should be developed to get into some of these more remote sites to bring the mill to the forest rather then the wood to the mill.
42

GreaT points Ann, thanks for the addition
Pat

PATRICIA LAYTON CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

Director
Wood Utilization + Design Institute
321 Harris Smith Building
864.505.5904
Clemson.edu/wud
facebook.com/wudclemson/
Twitter/@wudclemson

43

Note that FSC US is in the process of revising its forest management standard and the new standard will include supplementary indicators for the certification of National Forests – in other words, NFs will be eligible for FSC certification once the standard is finalized.

44

Dave Tenny: "Hi, Cliff - for the benefit of the group, could you share which individuals support your draft principles? Thanks."

We didn’t canvas “support” although I would say the whole group was generally supportive of the Context and Vision but they did not want to hold things up getting full approval from their organizations given that this was just a draft.

I have asked individuals if they would like to respond but haven’t heard back from all yet. Obviously Jason Grant started the discussion for this group and all the other groups but hasn’t weighed in on this version.

Valerie Langer
Brad Kahn
Cliff Wallis

were on the drafting group and are on the record supporting the context and vision.

To be clear about the “using progressively fewer wood products discussion”, that was not something that there was consensus on. In the interests of transparency and a fuller discussion, it was included above but is not part of the Context and Vision.

It is my distinct impression that there is good support, even if not yet explicitly stated, around the current wording/concepts in the Context and Vision but I will let those working on this weigh in directly or I will add as I hear back from them.

We thought it was important to post this now even if it wasn’t fully formed as we all saw it as a reasonable draft set of ideas that could continue to be discussed and worked on through and beyond the Summit.

45

Several of us at WWF have now had the opportunity to review this version of the Context and Vision and are generally supportive.

46

I thought this article on NA cross-border timber trade might be of interest to the group. It somewhat underscores Peter M’s point that in Canada it seems the supply side is not a function of demand, but rather the allowable limits based on licenses and permits (for better or worse!) Canada has new ways to pressure Washington over softwood lumber duties: ambassador

47

I’ve appreciated reading the Knowledge Hub materials. Good to read the scope of research and perspectives. I support the 2030 vision Cliff distributed for several reasons.

We have a short window, not much more than a decade, to significantly reduce GHG. But The studies and rationales for increasing wood usage, even with longer term carbon storage in wood products, don’t seem to address time scale adequately.

The general assumption that, since forests in N. America regrow after harvest, one can assume carbon neutrality or even a carbon sink, seems simplistic, unlikely and irrelevant, if the the time frame for neutrality is many decades.

And many decades of regrowth to achieve mature forests is the only way to move toward balance.
Forests and site conditions are so diverse that the phrase “ individual results many vary” comes to mind.

I have heard a reluctance amid these discussions to try to make any regional or landscape evaluations in terms of forest carbon storage potential. But to be honest I don’t see any way to avoid more specificity than is usually offered.

As has been mentioned, in addition to carbon storage, we face the crisis of biodiversity loss. Protecting, growing and connecting mature and primary forests is essential to biodiversity resilience.

Wood product consumption continues to grow globally. There is much about global demand and resource extraction methods that seems way beyond control. Quality International certification programs being one exception.

But we first have a responsibility to do right where we are, in the forests of US and Canada. Demand is growing here too of course. I don’t see how we can get to the goals outlined in the 2030 Vision statement that Cliff distributed without reducing consumption.

BTW, I also appreciate the concerns about helping small Forest holders keep their land in woods. Supporting ways for their lands to bring in income is important. Logging with a management plan is fine. Expanding a program like Crop Reserve for woodlands could help. ( that’s an issue in MIssouri where I live) Tax incentives, conservation and scenic easements are more. State Conservation level cooperation with NRCS can help promote incentives for creation of needed habitat specialities is another.

I look forward to learning more tomorrow andThursday.

Caroline Pufalt
Sierra Club volunteer

1 Like