Annotated Bibliography

Table of Contents

[Click on a reference title to jump to a description of the resources, its key points, and a link to the full document]

SECTION 1: Forest Management & Certification

Forest Management 101 — US Forest Service North Central Research Station. (forest management; silviculture; thinning)

Glossary | North Central Region Forest Management Guides – USFS. (silviculture; forest management)

Climate-Smart Forestry: The missing link – Verkerk et al. (forest management; policy; climate change; climate-smart forestry)

Building the pipeline for climate-smart forestry in the Pacific Northwest — Ecotrust. (forest management; policy; climate change; forest certification; climate-smart forestry)

What is Climate-Smart Forestry? A definition from a multinational collaborative process focused on mountain regions of Europe – Bowditch et al. (forest management; climate-smart forestry; climate change)

Who owns America’s forests? – Alvarez. (forest management; ownership; TIMOs; REITs)

Family Forest Ownerships of the United States, 2013: Findings from the USDA Forest Service’s National Woodland Owner Survey – Butler et al. (family forest owners; forest management; ownership)

Community Forestry – Cal Fire. (community forestry; ecosystem services; social impacts; forest management; ownership)

Efforts to Reduce Wildfire Risk Fall Short, Buck Science – Oregon Public Broadcasting. (forest treatments; thinning; prescribed burning; forest management)

Strategically growing the urban forest will improve our world – Endreny, T.A. (urban forestry; ecosystem services; social impacts; forest management)

Ecosystem Services – Balloffet et al. (ecosystem services; role of forests in climate; forest management; social impacts)

Environmental effects of postfire logging: An updated literature review and annotated bibliography – Nemens et al. (salvage logging; forest management)

Working Forest Conservation Easements 101 – Pacific Forest Trust. (working forest conservation easements; forest management; ownership)

SECTION 2: FOREST CERTIFICATION

An Introduction to Forest Certification – NC State Extension Publications (forest certification; forest management)

A Comparative Analysis of Five Forest Certification Programs – Gutierrez Garzon et al. (forest certification; forest management)

Do Private Regulations Ratchet Up? How to Distinguish Types of Regulatory Stringency and Patterns of Change – Judge-Lord et al. (forest certification; forest management)

Forest Certification Update 2021: The Pace of Change – Fernholz et al. (forest certification)

SECTION 3: Forest Conservation & Restoration

Natural climate solutions for the United States – Fargione et al. (natural climate solutions; reforestation; carbon sequestration; forest management; prescribed burning; thinning; urban forestry; deforestation; restoration; conservation)

What are Primary Forests and Why Should We Protect Them? – Ruiz. (conservation; ecosystem services)

Common guidance for the identification of High Conservation Values – Brown et al. (high conservation value forests; forest certification; ecosystem services; social impacts; forest management)

Restoration Ecology – Vaughn et al. (restoration; ecosystem services; forest management)

The role of reforestation in carbon sequestration – Nave et al. (reforestation; carbon sequestration; forest management; natural climate solutions; ecosystem services)

Intact Forests in the United States: Proforestation Mitigates Climate Change and Serves the Greatest Good – Moomaw et al. (proforestation; natural climate solutions; carbon sequestration; forest management; ecosystem services)

Exploring the Reality of the Jurisdictional Approach as a Tool to Achieve Sustainability Commitments in Palm Oil and Soy Supply Chains – Buchanan et al. (jurisdictional and landscape approaches; deforestation; supply chains; sustainable sourcing; social impacts; forest management)

SECTION 4: Forest Carbon

Forest Carbon Primer – Hoover et al. (role of forests in climate; carbon sequestration; climate-smart forestry; additionality; forest management; wood products)

U.S. Forest Carbon Data: In Brief – Hoover et al. (carbon sequestration; wood products)

Going Beyond Neutrality in Embodied Carbon Accounting for Forest Products – Diaz, D. (climate-smart forestry; embodied carbon; forest management; carbon sequestration)

Meeting GHG reduction targets requires accounting for all forest sector emissions – Hudiburg et al. (embodied carbon; carbon sequestration; wood products)

Tradeoffs in Timber, Carbon and Cash Flow under Alternative Management Systems for Douglas-Fir in the Pacific Northwest – Diaz et al. (climate-smart forestry; carbon sequestration; forest certification; forest management)

Securing Climate Benefit: A Guide to Using Carbon Offsets – Broekhoff et al. (carbon offset markets and projects; additionality; carbon sequestration; regulatory reform; social impacts)

How Carbon Trading Became a Way of Life for California’s Yurok Tribe – Kormann, C. (indigenous stewardship; carbon offsets; forest management; ownership; social impacts; carbon sequestration; prescribed burning)

Family Forest Owners Could Champion Carbon Drawdown – Margaret Morales & Josh Fain. (family forest owners; carbon sequestration; carbon offset markets; forest management)

SECTION 5: Mass Timber

Cross-Laminated Timber Info Sheets – Tallwood Design Institute. (cross-laminated timber; mass-timber; life cycle assessment; environmental product declaration; embodied carbon; carbon sequestration; wood products; forest management; forest certification; procurement; sustainable wood sourcing; sustainable building)

The hottest new thing in sustainable building is, uh, wood – Roberts, D. (mass timber; cross-laminated timber; life cycle assessment; forest management; sustainable building)

North American Mass Timber: 2020 State of the Industry – Anderson et al. (mass timber, cross-laminated timber, supply chains; wood products)

The wood from the trees: The use of timber in construction – Ramage et al. (mass timber; cross-laminated timber; supply chains; procurement; embodied carbon; forest management)

Life Cycle Assessment of Katerra’s Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) and Catalyst Building – Huang et al. (life cycle assessment; wood products; mass timber, embodied carbon, building materials comparison)

SECTION 6: Embodied Carbon & Life Cycle Assessment

What is embodied carbon in buildings? – Endeavour Centre (embodied carbon, environmental product declaration; life cycle assessment; sustainable building)

Wood Carbon Seminars – Carbon Leadership Forum (wood supply chains; forest economics; embodied carbon; life cycle assessment; embodied carbon; forest management)

Bringing Embodied Carbon Upfront – World Green Building Council (embodied carbon; life cycle assessment; sustainable building; building materials; policy)

The Urgency of Embodied Carbon and What You Can Do About It – Melton, P. (embodied carbon; life cycle assessment; mass timber; cross-laminated timber; sustainable building; sustainable sourcing; procurement; salvage; forest certification; forest management)

LCA Practice Guide – Carbon Leadership Forum. (life cycle assessment; embodied carbon; methodology; sustainable building)

A Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Assessment of Canadian Surfaced Dry Softwood Lumber – Athena Sustainable Materials Institute  (life cycle assessment; wood products)

Environmental Product Declaration: North American Softwood Lumber – American Wood Council, Canadian Wood Council (environmental product declaration; life cycle assessment; wood products)

SECTION 7: Supply Chains, Policy & Procurement

Sustainable Procurement of Forest Products – The World Resources Institute & The World Business Council for Sustainable Development procurement; supply chains; sustainable sourcing; forest management; wood products; community forestry; carbon sequestration; role of forests in climate; restoration; carbon offset markets; forest certification; high conservation value forests; ecosystem services; life cycle assessment; social impacts)

Meyer Memorial Trust Headquarters: Using Wood Procurement to Achieve Community, Equity and Conservation Goals – Sustainable Northwest. (procurement; sustainable sourcing; supply chains; equity; sustainable building; ecosystem services; forest certification; social impacts; forest management)

City of Portland Sustainable Procurement Policy – City of Portland, Oregon (procurement policy; sustainable wood sourcing; restoration; forest certification; wood products; thinning; social impacts; forest management)

The Global Supply Chain: An Introduction to Global Wood Product Markets and Trade for Timberland Investors – Chung-Hong Fu (supply chain; procurement; wood products)

Lumber from Urban and Construction-Site Trees – Cassens, D. (urban forestry; urban wood; procurement)

A Framework for the Baltimore Wood Project – Galvin et al. (urban forestry; wood products; salvage; supply chains; procurement; social impacts)

Reusewood.org (reclaimed wood; procurement)

Science-Based Targets for Nature: Initial Guidance for Business – Science-Based Targets Network (science-based targets; policy; social impacts; equity)

Science-Based Climate Targets: A Guide for Cities – Science-Based Targets Network (science-based targets; policy; social impacts; equity)

Clean Infrastructure | Buy Clean – BlueGreen Alliance (procurement; regulatory reform; policy; embodied carbon; sustainable building)

SECTION 1: Forest Management

Forest Management 101: A handbook to forest management in the North Central Region. (n.d.). US Forest Service North Central Research Station. Retrieved February 23, 2021, from https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/fmg/nfmg/docs/fm101.pdf

This handbook contains basic information about forest management. It has six sections: management objectives, socio-economics, ecology, forest health, silviculture, and best management practices. This resource is a helpful primer on standard silviculture and forest management techniques.

The following pages may be particularly useful:

Page 15 – Stand characteristics (Even-aged; two-aged; uneven-aged stands)

Pages 22-25 – Silvicultural systems/types of harvesting (Clearcutting; seed-tree cutting; shelterwood; selection harvests)

Pages 31-32 – Silvicultural treatments: thinning, regeneration harvests

Pages 42-49 - Managing for ecological objectives; ecological forestry principles; variable-density thinning; stand complexity

Topic(s): forest management; silviculture; thinning

Glossary | North Central Region Forest Management Guides. (2006). USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station. https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/fmg/nfmg/glos.html

This resource is a glossary of standard silviculture and forest management terminology.

Topic(s): silviculture; forest management

Verkerk, P. J. et al. (2020). Climate-Smart Forestry: The missing link. Forest Policy and Economics, 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102164

The authors find that climate-smart forestry is a necessary but missing component in national strategies for implementing actions under the Paris Agreement. They state that climate-smart forestry is needed to increase forest area and avoid deforestation, increase forest resilience, and realize the climate benefits of wood use. And they assert that climate-smart forestry builds on the concepts of sustainable forest management, with an emphasis on three mutually reinforcing components: (a) increasing carbon storage in forests and wood products, in conjunction with the provisioning of other ecosystem services; (b) enhancing the health and resilience through adaptive forest management; and (c) using wood resources sustainably to substitute non-renewable, carbon-intensive materials. Finally, they call for improved forest policies related to land use, forest management, and wood use.

Topic(s): forest management; policy; climate change; climate-smart forestry

Building the pipeline for climate-smart forestry in the Pacific Northwest. (n.d.). Ecotrust. Retrieved January 13, 2021, from https://ecotrust.org/project/climate-smart-forestry/

The authors state that climate-smart forestry requires a long-term view of forest management and an appreciation for the array of economic, social, and ecological benefits forests offer to communities; that climate-smart forestry practices may differ on the ground depending on the forest type, but that in general active management should mimic natural disturbances and maintain the function and integrity forest ecosystems. They put Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification forward as a proxy for climate-smart forestry. They also identify a number of characteristics of climate-smart forestry, including encouraging longer harvest rotations, protecting water quality and aquatic habitats, safeguarding High Conservation Value forests, and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples.

Topic(s): forest management; policy; climate change; forest certification; climate-smart forestry

Bowditch, E. et al. (2020). What is Climate-Smart Forestry? A definition from a multinational collaborative process focused on mountain regions of Europe. Ecosystem Services, 43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101113

This paper offers a broad definition of climate-smart forestry (CSF) derived through an iterative process involving a multi-disciplinary and national group of experts. Building off of indicators developed in past decades to define and support sustainable forest management (SFM), the authors identify a number of indicators central to CSF. The definition includes five sections: a brief, overarching definition; sections on adaptation, mitigation and social dimensions; and a concise summary statement about CSF. According to this source the definition is as follows, though slightly altered for length/relevance:

Climate-smart forestry is sustainable adaptive forest management and governance to protect and enhance the potential of forests to adapt to, and mitigate climate change. The aim is to sustain ecosystem integrity and functions and to ensure the continuous delivery of ecosystem goods and services, while minimizing the impact of climate-induced changes on forests on well-being and nature’s contribution to people.

Adaptation measures of forests that maintain or improve their ability to grow under current and projected climatic conditions and increase their resistance and resilience. The adaptive capacity to changes in climate and to the timing and size of climate-induced disturbances (e.g., fire, extreme storm events, pests and diseases) can be enhanced by promoting genetic, compositional, structural, and functional diversity at both stand and landscape scales.

Mitigation of climate change by forests is a combination of carbon sequestration by trees, carbon storage by forest ecosystems, especially soils, and forest-derived products, such as structural timber, and by carbon substitution.

The social dimension of forestry holds many aspects, from the involvement of stakeholders from local communities, and their conflicts over land use for the access to skills and technology, to global forest governance challenges. Climate change may jeopardize forest ecosystem functioning and brings social and economic consequences for people, which may modify the priorities of ecosystem services at various scales. Assessment for ecosystem services could be a tool-making this process more efficient with respect to indicators relevant for governance regime and actors involved.

In summary, Climate-Smart Forestry should enable both forests and society to transform, adapt to and mitigate climate-induced changes.

         Topic(s): forest management; climate-smart forestry; climate change

Mila Alvarez. (n.d.). Who owns America’s forests? U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities. Retrieved February 18, 2021, from https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=d80a4ffed7e044219bbd973a77bea8e6

This ArcGIS Story Map resource describes the ownership of forestlands and timber in the United States. The US has 766 million acres of forestlands. 58% of forestlands are privately owned, while 42% are publicly owned. In the West, 70% of forests are public. Only 19% of forests in the East are public. 77% of US private forestlands can be found in the eastern part of the country, with almost half of all private forestland in the South. 75% of US public forestland is in the West, with one-third of all public forestland in Alaska and another third in Rocky Mountain region. In the US there are 514 million acres of timberlands, which are forestlands with the capacity to produce at least 20 cubic feet of commercial wood per acre per year.

The federal government (U.S. Forests Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and Department of Defense) owns the largest share of public forestlands, comprising 31% of forestland and 21% of timberland. The Forest Service manages most of these lands—19% of forestland and 19% of timberland.

Private non-corporate owners include individuals, families, trusts, estates, Native American tribes, and conservation organizations. Private non-corporate owners (more than 10 million of them) make up the largest ownership category of forests, comprising 38% of forestlands and 47% of timberlands.

Private corporate owners are legally incorporated entities like forestry companies, forest related industries, Timber Investment Management Organizations (TIMOs) and Real Estate Investment Trust (REITs). Private corporate companies own 20% of US forestland and 23% of US timberland. REITs are publicly traded trusts that own, manage, and invest in timberland. Weyerhaeuser is the largest REIT. TIMOs manage timberland and timber investment portfolios for investors. TIMOs tend to have relatively short fund durations of 10-15 years, leading to land in this ownership being traded at higher frequencies than other ownerships. This can contribute to forestland conversion and fragmentation, though some TIMOs enter into working forest conservation easements that limit the potential for development of timberlands while ensuring a return on timber investments.

Topic(s): forest management; ownership; TIMOs; REITs

Butler, B. J. et al. (2016). Family Forest Ownerships of the United States, 2013: Findings from the USDA Forest Service’s National Woodland Owner Survey. Journal of Forestry, 114(6), 638–647. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.15-099

The U.S. Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis program conducts a National Woodland Owner Survey as a complement to its plot-based inventory of forestlands. This report summarizes the survey conducted 2011-2013. The survey sampled 8,576 of the 10.7 million family forest ownerships in the U.S.

Family forest ownerships (comprised of one or more individuals) control 36% of U.S. forestland--the most of any ownership group. The number of acres owned varies widely, from tens to many thousands of acres. Those named as primary decision-makers of family forest ownerships are predominantly male (79%), white (95%), and non-Hispanic (99%). 48% have a college degree, and the annual average income of family forest ownerships is similar to that of the average US household. 83% of second owners are female, and these individuals are likely to make decisions as to the future of the land, as women tend to live longer than men.

Beauty, wildlife habitat, and nature protection are the most commonly named reasons for owning forestland, as well as family legacy. Survey respondents rated financial objectives much lower overall than these amenity-focused objectives. 83% of family forest ownerships receive no annual income from their forests and most don’t participate in traditional management programs or activities. The amount of land owned can limit what an owner can do with a land, for example, it’s more challenging to do regular commercial timber harvests as the holding size decreases.

Topic(s): family forest owners; forest management; ownership

Community Forestry. (2021). Cal Fire. https://www.fire.ca.gov/programs/resource-management/resource-protection-improvement/landowner-assistance/forest-stewardship/community-forestry/

Community forestry is an approach that centers local community needs and values and works to integrate ecological, social, and economic considerations into forest management. Community forest projects often have the aim of strengthening local economies while protecting and enhancing the forest ecosystem. Because the needs and issues in each community are unique, so too are the goals and outcomes of each community forest project. Characteristics of community forestry often include: protecting and restoring the forest; community access to the land and resources; community participation or leadership in management decisions; engagement with those living closest to the land; using forestry as a tool to benefit and strengthen the community; consideration of cultural values, historic use, resource health, and economic development in management decisions; inclusive and transparent decision-making.

Topic(s): community forestry; ecosystem services; social impacts; forest management; ownership

Efforts To Reduce Wildfire Risk Fall Short, Buck Science. (2018). Oregon Public Broadcasting. https://www.opb.org/news/article/west-wildfire-risks-fuels-treatment-thinning-burning/

Extensive fire suppression over the last century has led to a buildup of too many trees, brush, leaves, twigs and needles in forests that historically and ecologically relied on periodic fires. This news article from Oregon Public Broadcasting looks at the efforts in Oregon and across the West to reduce fuel loads and the risk of large, uncontrollable wildfires through the techniques of thinning and prescribed burning in forests. The article and its sources assert that combining the two strategies is necessary to be effective in changing fire behavior. Thinning is often required before prescribed burning, but thinning without subsequent prescribed burning is insufficient, ineffective and even potentially counterproductive. Thinning removes trees in an overstocked forest, but doesn’t address the finer ground fuels that help wildfires spread. Thinning alone can even allow those fuels on the forest floor to dry out faster allowing fire to move quicker. Not enough acres are being treated each year with prescribed fire, due to the need for specific burning conditions for safety and air quality reasons, and the need for funding. Burning, unlike some instances of thinning, doesn’t result in any merchantable timber that can help cover the cost of treatment.

Topic(s): forest treatments; thinning; prescribed burning; forest management

Endreny, T. A. (2018). Strategically growing the urban forest will improve our world. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1160. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03622-0

The “urban forest” includes all the trees in an urban area, including street trees, park trees, peri-urban forests, gardens, and any other green spaces like riparian areas, rooftops, and nurseries. Ecosystem services associated with trees include air and water filtration, cooling of buildings and spaces through shading and transpiration, noise dampening, pollination, soil formation, climate and flood control, food, fiber, and spiritual, recreational and cultural benefits. As an example of the monetary value of urban forests, the article cites a study that found that London’s urban forest of 8.4 million trees produced annual benefits of at least £132.7 million, a replacement cost of £6.12 billion, and an amenity value of £43.3 billion.

Topic(s): urban forestry; ecosystem services; social impacts; forest management

Nicole Balloffet et al. (2012, February 4). Ecosystem Services. USDA Forest Service Climate Change Resource Center. https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/ecosystem-services

Ecosystem services are the benefits people receive from nature. These can include provisioning services (food, clean water, fuel, timber, and other goods), regulating services (climate, water, and disease regulation, pollination), supporting services (soil formation, nutrient cycling) and cultural services (educational, aesthetic, and cultural heritage values, recreation, tourism). Ecosystem services provided by forests include food, fuel, fiber, air and water filtration, climate regulation (such as carbon sequestration/release), flood and erosion control, biodiversity, recreation, education, and cultural fulfillment. 

Climate change is expected to negatively impact most ecosystem services. Some of the effects of climate change include changing timing and severity of droughts, floods, and snowpack availability, increased invasive species, insects and disease outbreaks, loss of habitat and biodiversity, and changes to species ranges. These will have impacts on humans as well, particularly in rural or agrarian communities where damage to ecosystem services can be felt quickly and intensely. 

The resource describes an “ecosystem services approach” to management, which considers all the benefits people receive from nature in a holistic way, rather than compartmentalizing management goals for a landscape. Some examples are provided. Emerging markets exist that involve paying landowners for voluntary restoration that enhances ecosystem services. Buyers may be entities seeking to mitigate their impacts (as with carbon offset markets. Others may include local governments, organizations, or others who choose to invest in ecosystem services protection rather than infrastructure to achieve the same goal (e.g. protection of a watershed instead of increasing water treatment).

Topic(s): ecosystem services; role of forests in climate; forest management; social impacts

Nemens, D. G. et al. (2019). Environmental effects of postfire logging: An updated literature review and annotated bibliography. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/59238

Post-fire salvage logging is the removal of fire-killed trees or trees from burned forests, most often to recover economic value. The practice is controversial, both publicly and within scientific literature. There is debate about the validity of claims that salvage logging also promotes forest development and reduces fire hazard. The authors reviewed 43 studies on post-fire salvage logging since 2000, and provide an annotated bibliography to accompany the synthesis. It is intended to supplement a literature review completed in 2000, and is not intended to be a complete synthesis of all knowledge on post-fire salvage logging.

While dozens of studies have been carried out, both opponents and proponents of salvage logging can point to studies that support their arguments. It can be difficult to separate the impacts of post-fire logging on the ecosystem from those of the severe fire itself. The controversial issues at play are not settled by the literature.

The effects of postfire salvage logging on wildlife are dependent on the species and what type of habitat it relies on. Negative consequences exist for many species, including cavity nesting birds, but those that use more open habitats may have positive or neutral responses to logging. Little conclusive or specific information is available on impacts to mammals, the avian community as a whole, or invertebrates, and all would benefit from further research. The studies reviewed had mixed results on impacts to tree regeneration from salvage harvests. Salvage harvests are often followed by tree planting, so impacts to naturally regenerating seedlings may be less consequential. Understory vegetation appears to be resilient to postfire logging over intermediate time periods, but longer-term study is needed, as well as more information on impacts to plants that have different strategies of fire adaptation. In the short-term, salvage logging appears to have increased fine fuel loading, compared with unmanaged stands, but within a decade there is little difference between the two. Logged stands contain fewer coarse surface fuels, like standing snags, than unharvested stands, as would be expected. Consistent conclusions haven’t been reached on the impact of logging on reburn severity. Most studies trying to test the “reburn” effect have had to rely on fire modeling and simulations and haven’t been able to be field verified. Most of the studies reviewed that looked at soil impacts found short-lived, increased erosion in watersheds that had been logged. Some studies saw a reduction in soil carbon after salvage logging, another found that soil bacterial and fungal communities seemed resilient to postfire logging. As with impacts to most other ecosystem components, the results on impacts to soil and abiotic characteristics are not conclusive and warrant further study.

Many shortcomings in study numbers and design make it difficult to draw reliable conclusions about the environmental effects of postfire salvage logging. These include:

• Lack of unburned controls to compare data to in two thirds of the studies reviewed

• Lack of geographic diversity. Over a third of the studies reviewed were done in Oregon, and almost a quarter focused on just two wildfires in Oregon.

• Lack of replication of studies

• Due to the nature of the subject matter, most of the studies were observational rather than experimental

Topic(s): salvage logging; forest management

Working Forest Conservation Easements 101. (2019, November 1). Pacific Forest Trust. https://www.pacificforest.org/working-forest-conservation-easements/

A Working Forest Conservation Easement (WFCE) is a voluntary, legal agreement that is placed on a forest property to restrict development, protect environmental resources, and support sustainable wood production. WFCE can help private forest landowners permanently conserve the land, achieving multiple goals of providing valuable public benefits while retaining productive forestland. Landowners can be compensated for the value of foregoing revenue from development or additional timber harvest, and a land trust monitors easement compliance. Conservation easements can also make it easier to pass land onto next generations: because easements remove development as an option, the market value of the land decreases, lowering the estate tax.

Topic(s): working forest conservation easements; forest management; ownership

SECTION 2: FOREST CERTIFICATION

An Introduction to Forest Certification. (2020, June 30). NC State Extension Publications. https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/an-introduction-to-forest-certification

Forest certification programs are voluntary programs that establish various standards of forest management practices, and can help consumers evaluate the sourcing and sustainability of the forest products they are purchasing. In the U.S. there are three main forest certification programs. American Tree Farm System (ATFS) certification is a program of the national nonprofit American Forest Foundation, and is open to individuals or entities owning between 10 and 10,000 contiguous forested acres, excluding state government agencies and publicly traded companies. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification was founded in 1993 and aims to ensure forest biodiversity, productivity, and ecology are maintained, and advocates for a balance of economic, ecological, and community/social benefits. Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) certification was adopted in 1994 by the American Forest and Paper Association with the aim of improving the health and sustainability of industrial forestland in the United States. The majority of certified forest industry land in the U.S. and Canada is SFI-certified. SFI also accepts ATFS-certified land. FSC itself is an international certification standard, while SFI and ATFS are endorsed under the international Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). Each has distinct requirements for what management practices are allowed/required, and how to achieve verification and certification. This resource provides an overview of forest certification, emerging concepts in certification, and contains an appendix table that compares the certification systems available to landowners in the United States.

Topic(s): forest certification; forest management

Gutierrez Garzon, A. R. et al. (2020). A Comparative Analysis of Five Forest Certification Programs. Forests, 11(8), 863. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11080863

The authors compare the documented requirements and principles of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and American Tree Farm System (ATFS) forest management certifications to those of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). They also compared Bulgaria & Turkey’s national certification standards to FSC. They found that the main differences between the programs is the level of detail and prescriptiveness of each. FSC was found to be much more detailed and prescriptive in almost all areas than the other certification programs, particularly regarding the topics included in FSC Principle 6 (Environmental Impact), and the comprehensiveness of monitoring and assessment principles. FSC’s policy scope is broader and more extensive than that of the other programs. The review did not go beyond examining the documentation of the different programs, and simply compared the equivalence and prescriptiveness of the four programs’ standards (SFI, ATFS, Turkish, Bulgarian) to the FSC program in the United States.

Topic(s): forest certification; forest management

Judge-Lord, D. et al. (2020). Do Private Regulations Ratchet Up? How to Distinguish Types of Regulatory Stringency and Patterns of Change. Organization & Environment, 33(1), 96–125. https://judgelord.github.io/FSC-SFI/summary.html

The authors compare Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification (which they describe as “activist-backed”) and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) certification (described as “industry-backed”) for regulatory scope, prescriptiveness, and performance levels in the United States. As of the 2016 standards for each program, the two address a similar array of issues, but FSC is more prescriptive on most topics. FSC has more stringent standards than SFI for ecological goals and social issues in both scope and prescriptiveness. On business-oriented goals like efficiency, industry capacity (training/research), and industry reputation (public education/aesthetics), however, SFI is somewhat broader in scope, more prescriptive, and requires higher performance levels than FSC. Over time, both certification programs have increased the level of prescriptiveness of their standards, but FSC’s increase was greater. FSC added requirements more likely to impose costs on companies than those added by SFI, some of which might even benefit companies.

Topic(s): forest certification; forest management  

Fernholz, K. et al. (2021). Forest Certification Update 2021: The Pace of Change. Dovetail Partners. https://dovetailinc.org/upload/tmp/1611160123.pdf

The authors argue that current forest certification programs need to evolve to support improved impact and measurable outcomes; that competition between programs can be beneficial but should occur in ways that produce concrete environmental, social and economic improvements, and that instead, marketplace behaviors have produced inefficiencies such as double-certification; that supply chain influencers should adopt a program-neutral or at least a ranked-choice approach to allow for alternatives rather than exclusion.

Topic(s): forest certification

Section 3: Forest Conservation & Restoration

Fargione, J. E. et al. (2018). Natural climate solutions for the United States. Science Advances, 4(11). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat1869

Natural Climate Solutions (NCS) are conservation, restoration, and improved land management strategies on natural and agricultural lands to increase carbon sequestration and reduce emissions. Keeping climate warming below 2°C requires both significantly reducing emissions and removing atmospheric greenhouse gases. NCS are land-use strategies that can deliver carbon and climate mitigation while also providing co-benefits like air and water filtration, flood control, soil health, habitat, and climate resilience. NCS can achieve approx. 37% of mitigation needed through 2030, yet only receive 0.8% of climate financing globally. The authors found a maximum mitigation potential from NCS in the United States equivalent to 21% of the country’s current net annual emissions.

Reforestation has the single largest maximum mitigation potential, mostly occurring in the northeast and south central regions of the U.S. Natural forest management on private lands (mainly extending harvest cycles, but also to some degree reducing logging impacts and improving silvicultural practices that release suppressed forest growth) has the second largest maximum mitigation potential. This potential was calculated based on a scenario in which natural forests are shifted to longer harvest rotations starting in 2025, resulting in less than 10% reduction in timber supply with additional timber coming from thinning treatments for fuel reduction until new timber from reforestation becomes available in 2030. Improved management practices like these can be implemented at low or no cost and don’t require changes in land use or ownership.

Another promising forest-related NCS includes fire management to avoid decreased ecosystem production from tree-killing fires, by restoring low-intensity understory fires in fire-prone ecosystems to reduce the potential of high-severity fires. The mitigation benefits of this strategy comes with high levels of uncertainty and it warrants further study to quantify benefits across forest and treatment types. Avoided conversion, particularly in the Southern and Pacific Northwest regions protects carbon stored in forests and grasslands. Urban reforestation and improved management of plantations are additional forest-related NCS.

Harnessing the potential of NCS strategies like these will require large-scale approaches to land use planning and policies. All approaches must be designed to reduce and buffer risks of “leakage”, when changes in land-use of one area shift these impacts to other areas instead.

Topic(s): natural climate solutions; reforestation; carbon sequestration; forest management; prescribed burning; thinning; urban forestry; deforestation; restoration; conservation

Sarah Ruiz. (2020, May 18). What are Primary Forests and Why Should We Protect Them? Global Forest Watch. https://blog.globalforestwatch.org/data-and-research/primary-forests-definition-and-protection

This resource defines primary forests, intact forest landscapes, and ecological succession, among other concepts. Some traits of primary forests include: late successional stage/age; little to no human interference apart from the presence of and stewardship by indigenous communities; mostly continuous tree cover; and unpolluted soil and water. Primary forests and other forests in late successional stages sequester large amounts of carbon, tend to have higher levels of biodiversity, naturally flourishing ecological niches, endemic species, higher ecosystem complexity correlating to greater resilience and stability, and protect cultural diversity in their connections to and support of indigenous ways of life. 

Topic(s): conservation; ecosystem services

Ellen Brown et al. (Eds.). (2013). Common guidance for the identification of High Conservation Values. HCV Resource Network. https://hcvnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/HCVCommonGuide_English.pdf

A High Conservation Value is defined as “a biological, ecological, social or cultural value of outstanding significance or critical importance.” The goal of this work is to identify, address threats to, and monitor these areas within production landscapes to protect their significant values. High Conservation Value (HCV) criteria first originated in the Forest Stewardship Council certification program and is now overseen by the High Conservation Value Resource Network (HCVRN). HCVs are usually applied to forestry and agricultural systems, but the concepts can be applied to other land-use sectors like aquaculture and marine systems. This resource aims to establish a common interpretation of the HCV definitions to improve consistency across geographies and sectors.

The 6 categories of HCVs are as follows:

(1) Species diversity - “Concentrations of biological diversity including endemic species, and rare, threatened or endangered (RTE) species that are significant at global, regional or national levels.”

(2)  Landscape-level ecosystems, ecosystem mosaics and Intact Forest Landscapes - “Large landscape-level ecosystems, ecosystem mosaics and Intact Forest Landscapes (IFL), that are significant at global, regional or national levels, and that contain viable populations of the great majority of the naturally occurring species in natural patterns of distribution and abundance.”

(3) Ecosystems and habitats - “Rare, threatened, or endangered ecosystems, habitats or refugia.”

(4) Ecosystem services - “Basic ecosystem services in critical situations including protection of water catchments and control of erosion of vulnerable soils and slopes.”

(5) Community needs - “Sites and resources fundamental for satisfying the basic necessities of local communities or indigenous peoples (for example for livelihoods, health, nutrition, water), identified through engagement with these communities or indigenous peoples.”

(6) Cultural values - “Sites, resources, habitats and landscapes of global or national cultural, archaeological or historical significance, and/or of critical cultural, ecological economic or religious/sacred importance for the traditional cultures of local communities or indigenous peoples, identified through engagement with these local communities or indigenous peoples.”

HCVs 1, 2, and 3 need to be significant on at least a national or regional scale, while HCVs 4, 5, and 6, must be absolutely irreplaceable to the communities that rely on them.

Assessors should take a Precautionary Approach when identifying HCVs, meaning that they should assume an HCV is present if there are reasonable indications that it is present, even if the information is incomplete, inconclusive, or uncertain. Part 2, Section 3 (starting on page 25) provides detail on key terms, concepts, indicators, examples of values, and case studies for each HCV category. Carbon storage is not currently considered an HCV, because it “does not have the same close linkage to local communities implied in the examples given in this guide, nor does it fit with the interpretation of ‘critical situations’, since any type of vegetation cover will contain carbon.” There is discussion but no consensus on how to incorporate carbon into HCV criteria.

Topic(s): high conservation value forests; forest certification; ecosystem services; social impacts; forest management

K.J. Vaughn et al. (2010). Restoration Ecology. Nature Education Knowledge, 3(10). https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/restoration-ecology-13339059/

Restoration attempts to recreate, initiate or accelerate an ecosystem’s recovery after a disturbance that alters its structure or function. Disturbances can include logging, damming of rivers, intensive grazing, or natural events like fire, flood, or hurricanes. Restoration might try to replicate the ecosystem condition before the disturbance, or create a new ecosystem somewhere it hadn’t existed before. Each restoration project has different goals and methods, which can focus on restoring, improving or initiating particular ecosystem functions, establishing native species, and more. 

Some types of restoration include:

• Revegetation on sites where vegetation has been lost, especially when erosion control is needed;

• Habitat enhancement to increase suitability of habitat for desired species;

• Remediation that improves or creates an ecosystem to replace one that is degraded or destroyed;

• Mitigation under a legal mandate to make up for the loss of a protected ecosystem or species.

Restoration can be passive, allowing natural succession processes to occur on their own, or active, to accelerate or change the trajectory of ecological succession.

Topic(s): restoration; ecosystem services; forest management

Nave, L. E. et al. (2019). The role of reforestation in carbon sequestration. New Forests 50, 115-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-018-9655-3

This study aims to quantify the impacts reforestation may have on forest carbon sequestration at broad levels and across ecoregions of the continental U.S. The authors assert that reforestation in the U.S. lags behind its potential, and should be increased nationally to ensure the longevity of the forest carbon sink and the continuation of ecosystem services and functions that are at risk. Any investment in reforestation is an improvement over the current level of underperformance.

Soils are the dominant carbon pool across all ecosystems and land cover types. Establishing woody vegetation contributes both immediate and long-term aboveground carbon sequestration benefits to forests that have been harvested or experienced stand-eliminating disturbances, compared to natural regeneration. Recovery times are long for soil carbon that has been lost, so a sustained commitment to reforestation is necessary to meaningfully increase soil carbon stocks. For example, while reforestation of recently harvested or disturbed forestland has immediate and clear carbon benefits, reforestation on agricultural soils may have impacts on carbon stores in the 50-100 year timeframe, because it takes time for soil quality to improve. Where reforestation is occurring, topsoils are sequestering significant amounts of carbon, and the majority of reforested lands have yet to reach the sequestration potential suggested by natural forest soils.

Potential to increase carbon sequestration through reforestation differ between ecoregions due to current practices, forest growth rates and past land use. The authors recommend an immediate, spatially targeted, and phased approach to reforestation. They suggest prioritizing and identifying areas for reforestation efforts by using an ecoregional framework that takes into account climate, geology, and other factors that influence forest growth rates.

Even slight increases in reforestation rates in high-productivity ecoregions like the Northwest marine region and Southeast subtropical region can produce large carbon gains. Dry tropical/subtropical regions of the interior Southwest should not be prioritized. Reforestation of the warm and hot continental areas of the Northeast has the potential to have a large impact on forest carbon due to large land area, historic agricultural cultivation, high productivity rates, and currently low reforestation rates. Intentional and targeted tree planting in the prairie and temperate steppe of the central U.S. is likely to increase carbon sequestration over the long-term compared to the results of currently passive encroachment of woody vegetation on abandoned agricultural lands in this region.

Topic(s): reforestation; carbon sequestration; forest management; natural climate solutions; ecosystem services

Moomaw, W. R. et al. (2019). Intact Forests in the United States: Proforestation Mitigates Climate Change and Serves the Greatest Good. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2019.00027 

Authors advocate for proforestation as a natural climate solution. Proforestation means growing existing forests intact to their ecological potential. The authors contend that this is a more effective, immediate, and low-cost approach than afforestation or reforestation and is broadly applicable. Existing forests across the globe are reaching only half of their carbon sequestration potential due to past and present management practices. Proforestation of appropriate landscapes will immediately remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and provide co-benefits like biodiversity, water/air quality, flood/erosion control, public health, recreation, and scenic beauty. The authors also suggest using improved forest management practices for working forests that balance resource extraction with increased biological carbon sequestration, as a parallel approach to promote along with dedicating significant areas to the proforestation of intact forest ecosystems.

Topic(s): proforestation; natural climate solutions; carbon sequestration; forest management; ecosystem services

John Buchanan et al. (2019). Exploring the Reality of the Jurisdictional Approach as a Tool to Achieve Sustainability Commitments in Palm Oil and Soy Supply Chains. Conservation International. https://www.conservation.org/docs/default-source/publication-pdfs/jurisdictional_approach_full_report_march2019_published.pdf?Status=Master&sfvrsn=23c977ae_3 

This report gives an overview of jurisdictional approaches, then focuses on specific efforts in the palm oil sector of Indonesia and Malaysia and the soy sector of Brazil to combat agriculture-driven deforestation. It ends with detailed conclusions and recommendations. Annex B lists other references on the benefits and challenges of jurisdictional approaches.

The report defines a jurisdictional approach as “an integrated landscape approach which aims to reconcile competing social, economic and environmental objectives through participation by a full range of stakeholders across sectors, implemented within government administrative boundaries, and with a form of government involvement.”

A landscape approach is defined as “a conceptual framework whereby stakeholders in a landscape aim to reconcile competing social, economic and environmental objectives. It seeks to move away from the often unsustainable sectoral approach to land management.” A jurisdictional approach is therefore a type of landscape approach that has added administrative boundaries and government engagement.

Potential opportunities of jurisdictional approaches:

• Response to shortcomings of supply chain and certification approaches;

• Creation of long-lasting, comprehensive solutions across sectors and driving change at a jurisdictional scale;

• Inclusion of multiple stakeholders and participation from groups often excluded by other approaches;

• Connection of multiple land-use objectives;

• Reduction of leakage effects within a jurisdiction;

• Coordination across sectors can lead to better resource allocation and greater impact.

Potential challenges:

• Complex and costly implementation;

• Negotiation, compromise and tradeoffs in pursuit of multiple, sometime competing, goals

• Lack of control of factors outside of jurisdiction;

• Complication of government engagement (political turnover, capacity, transparency, etc.);

• Administrative boundaries may not align with ideal ecosystem landscape boundaries;

• Need for significant funding and support;

• No guarantee of success.

Topic(s): jurisdictional and landscape approaches; deforestation; supply chains; sustainable sourcing; social impacts; forest management

Section 4: Forest Carbon

Hoover, K., & Riddle, A. A. (2020a). Forest Carbon Primer. Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R46312.pdf

The authors compile and summarize basic information on forest carbon for congressional policymakers. The report describes the forest carbon cycle, forest carbon pools, types of disturbances, and their effect on carbon pools. The authors also describe three main approaches for increasing carbon sequestration and storage:

1. Maintaining or increasing the area of forestland through afforestation and reducing deforestation;

2. Maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks through strategies like extending time between timber harvests, implementing harvest methods that increase protection of remaining trees and the soil, and restoring degraded forests and;

3. Increasing the use of wood products as substitutes for more carbon-intensive materials or fossil fuels, although full lifecycle accounting of both materials is necessary to determine whether there is a net carbon benefit of this approach.

All of these strategies face the challenges of permanence (whether the activity is long-lived or reversible); leakage (land management changes in one area resulting in contrary changes in another); additionality (the extent to which the associated carbon benefit of an intervention is additive, relative to the baseline scenario).

The report also contains a glossary of common forest carbon terms.

Topic(s): role of forests in climate; carbon sequestration; climate-smart forestry; additionality; forest management; wood products

Hoover, K., & Riddle, A. A. (2020b). U.S. Forest Carbon Data: In Brief. Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R46313.pdf

The authors summarize at a high level, the current state of forest carbon in the United States for congressional policymakers. This report describes the forest carbon cycle, defines basic forest carbon terms, and provides data on carbon stocks and fluxes in U.S. forests as reported by the EPA’s annual Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In 2019, U.S. forests stored 58.7 billion metric tons (BMT) of carbon, with 95% stored in the forest ecosystem and the remainder in harvested wood products. More than half of U.S forest carbon stocks are stored in forest soils. Overall forest carbon stocks have increased annually since 1990, and U.S. forests have been a net carbon sink, offsetting approximately 12% of U.S. gross greenhouse gas emissions in 2018. The Pacific Northwest and Great Lakes regions contain the highest forest carbon density in the coterminous 48 states. Forests in Alaska are estimated to hold significant carbon stocks.

Topic(s): carbon sequestration; wood products

David Diaz. (2020, June 4). Going Beyond Neutrality in Embodied Carbon Accounting for Forest Products. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtcbsY9BXT0&list=PLRxUko9E7I-3mTTCIvMgtGaibmb9MRvvB&index=11&ab_channel=CarbonLeadershipForum

The presenter highlights a differentiation between “carbon-friendly forestry” and “climate-smart forestry,” and advocates for purchasing and sourcing of wood products from climate-smart forests, rather than those deemed simply “carbon-friendly.” In the presenter’s words, carbon-friendly forestry is focused primarily on climate-change mitigation through natural climate solutions, while climate-smart forestry balances adaptation to climate change, mitigation of the climate crisis, and resilience of forests and communities. Using carbon as the sole indicator of where to source wood misses the bigger picture-- climate-smart forestry is a more holistic approach. Some examples of climate-smart forestry that are beneficial to the ecosystem and community, but may reduce carbon on the landscape at first glance are: removing juniper trees to improve habitat for endangered species or ecosystem water availability; prescribed burning to prevent catastrophic fires; active management of watersheds to decrease sedimentation from possible wildfires. The presenter recommends that consumers, builders, etc. purchase wood from sources that do these holistic, climate-smart forestry practices, rather than relying on carbon as the only factor in decision-making. (Climate-smart/carbon-friendly forestry discussion begins at 18:35 in the video)

The presenter also discussed how to estimate the “upstream” embodied carbon of wood products—that from the forest itself. Relying on the simplified assumption of “carbon neutrality” of wood is a missed opportunity, at least in Washington State, where a lot of forests are actually storing more carbon over time than they’re releasing.

Topic(s): climate-smart forestry; embodied carbon; forest management; carbon sequestration

Hudiburg, T. W. et al. (2019). Meeting GHG reduction targets requires accounting for all forest sector emissions. Environmental Research Letters, 14(9), 095005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab28bb

States that intend to use forests for climate mitigation strategies need to account for all sources and sinks of forests and their products for accurate carbon emission tracking and budgeting. Often, state greenhouse gas emissions reports exclude some wood product-related emissions, resulting in underestimation of state CO2 emissions. The authors developed a modified cradle-to-grave regional model for forests in Washington, Oregon and California to track carbon capture of forests and forest products, along with emissions associated with wood harvest, manufacturing, transportation, and use of products.

The authors found that “Western US forests are net sinks because there is a positive net balance of forest carbon uptake exceeding losses due to harvesting, wood product use, and combustion by wildfire. However, over 100 years of wood product usage is reducing the potential annual sink by an average of 21%, suggesting forest carbon storage can become more effective in climate mitigation through reduction in harvest, longer rotations, or more efficient wood product usage. Of the ∼10,700 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents removed from west coast forests since 1900, 81% has been returned to the atmosphere or deposited in landfills.” Increasing the carbon sink in wood products requires changing product allocation from short-term to long-term pools, like reclaimed/reused wood products from building demolition, and reducing losses in product manufacturing.

More specifics on the methods and the findings for the various carbon pools of forested and forest products and the differences between the three states are provided in the study.

Topic(s): embodied carbon; carbon sequestration; wood products

Diaz, D., et al. (2018). Tradeoffs in Timber, Carbon, and Cash Flow under Alternative Management Systems for Douglas-Fir in the Pacific Northwest. Forests, 9(8), 447. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9080447 

The authors found that forest practices like expanding riparian protections, increasing green tree retention, and extending harvest rotation ages can result in higher carbon storage than business-as-usual practices in Washington (WA) and Oregon (OR) Douglas-fir forests. These practices, however, especially when combined, correspond to reduced financial viability that may require consideration and balancing by landowners, managers, and policy makers. The authors discuss the potential and practicality of market strategies to close this financial gap, such as premiums on wood products and carbon incentive programs.

The authors ran simulations to model and compare four alternative forest management scenarios for Douglas Fir forest parcels in Oregon and Washington. The four management scenarios were:

(1) Short-FPA, which maximized Net Present Value (NPV) under the states’ Forest Practices Act (FPA) rules (business-as-usual for most productive timberlands in OR and WA) 

(2) Long-FPA, which maximized the sustained yield of timber by extending harvest cycles compared to net present value-focused rotation lengths, under the states’ FPA rules;

(3) Short-FSC, which maximized Net Present Value under Forest Stewardship Certification (FSC) standards;

(4) Long-FSC, which maximized sustained yield of timber by extending harvest cycles, under Forest Stewardship Certification standards.

The FSC scenarios resulted in consistently higher carbon storage, largely due to increased green tree retention and expanded protection of riparian areas required under FSC, but with lower timber yields and lower net present values than their FPA counterparts. The Long-FPA scenario also stored more carbon than the Short-FPA (business-as-usual) scenario, with lower yields and NPV, but not as low as, and with less variability than, the FSC scenarios. The authors also assert that FSC management may provide a less cost-intensive, simpler, and more accessible alternative to carbon markets for identifying and rewarding landowners for additional carbon-sequestration and co-benefits compared to business-as-usual practices.

Topic(s): climate-smart forestry; carbon sequestration; forest certification; forest management practices

Broekhoff, D. et al. (2019). Securing Climate Benefit: A Guide to Using Carbon Offsets. Stockholm Environment Institute & Greenhouse Gas Management Institute. www.offsetguide.org/pdf-download/

This guide explains the basics of carbon offsets, in six sections, including: how they can and should be used in carbon management, common criticisms of offsets, essential elements of offset quality and questions to ask about quality, strategies to avoid low quality offsets, and links to further resources.

A “carbon offset” is a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or increase in carbon storage that compensates for emissions occurring elsewhere. Offsets are intended to make it easier and cheaper for entities to take an emission-reducing action that compensates for emissions, rather than ceasing a GHG-emitting activity. Many entities find it difficult to reduce their emissions to zero, so offsets are seen as a method to achieve carbon neutrality without fully ceasing emissions. The guide suggests it would be a mistake, however, to rely on carbon offsets to meet GHG emissions targets. The cessation of all CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels well before the end of the century is ultimately needed to address climate change.  Offsets are one piece of a larger climate strategy, and do not replace the need for significant and ambitious government policy. Organizations should only use offsets in addition to significant and direct efforts to reduce GHG emissions to near-zero by 2050. Using offsets to avoid direct emissions reductions and increased regulations is detrimental to climate action.

Examples of offset project types include avoided deforestation; GHG capture and destruction; and renewable energy development. “Compliance” offset programs are run by governments, and “voluntary” offset programs are run by non-governmental entities. These programs develop and approve standards and criteria for offset credits, review projects against these standards, and have registry systems that issue and manage offset credits.

Essential elements of high quality offsets are: they are associated with GHG reductions or removals that are: additional; not overestimated; permanent; not claimed by another entity; and not associated with significant social or environmental harms. Determining whether or not an offset meets these requirements can be challenging and complicated. The guide provides in-depth discussions and suggested questions to evaluate these elements.

Additional GHG reductions are those that would not have occurred without a market for offset credits. In other words, GHG reductions are not additional if they would have occurred without the prospect of selling carbon credits.

Common criticisms and concerns regarding offsets focus on how credits are used, and the quality of credits. Some stakeholders criticize that that offsets rely on market-based solutions to climate change, and create “perverse incentives” that allow polluters to continue polluting rather than substantially reducing emissions, and/or incentivize polluters to resist regulatory changes that could increase the baseline standards of practice, which might result in a reduction no longer being considered “additional.” Concerns about quality of credits are supported by independent studies, which have identified serious problems with some carbon offset credits. Criques also highlight that offset projects can perpetuate harm to local communities by allowing continued localized emissions, and/or have broader environmental impacts. 

Topic(s): carbon offset markets and projects; additionality; carbon sequestration; regulatory reform; social impacts

Kormann, C. (2018, October 10). How Carbon Trading Became a Way of Life for California’s Yurok Tribe. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/how-carbon-trading-became-a-way-of-life-for-californias-yurok-tribe

This article discusses the Yurok Tribe’s forestry projects in northern California, including using revenue from a carbon offset project to buy back the tribe’s ancestral homelands. As of 2018, the tribe had purchased 60,000 acres to add to its previously existing 5,000 acres of ownership. The article summarizes California’s cap and trade market, and discusses the fact that offset projects can be controversial even within the tribe, because some see them as allowing polluters to offset, rather than reduce, their emissions, and because joining California’s cap and trade market required the Yurok to agree to a limited waiver of their sovereign immunity. The article also mentions that the Yurok conduct cultural burns, also known as prescribed burns, on forestland to foster biodiversity. 

Topic(s): indigenous stewardship; carbon offsets; forest management; ownership; social impacts; carbon sequestration; prescribed burning

Margaret Morales & Josh Fain. (2020, December 3). Family Forest Owners Could Champion Carbon Drawdown. Sightline Institute. https://www.sightline.org/2020/12/03/family-forest-owners-could-champion-carbon-drawdown/

This research institute article discusses the potential of family forest owners to contribute to carbon sequestration. Family forest owners (private owners, either individuals or families) manage a third of U.S. forests, but current market-based carbon sequestration schemes don’t meet their needs. These owners consistently name recreation, wildlife, aesthetics, and family legacy as primary factors in management decisions on their land. The complexity and expense of carbon project development, low market value of carbon, and long timescales of contracts can make traditional carbon projects unprofitable and out of reach for small forest landowners. The article describes two types of efforts that could increase accessibility to carbon payments for family forest owners: remote-sensing technology that could substantially decrease inventory and verification costs, and carbon rental payments. The concept of carbon rental programs is that landowners would be paid to defer harvest for a short amount of time, increasing the rotation age of the trees and storing more carbon. Publicly-funded incentive programs are another option, which would pay landowners to voluntarily change practices that sequester more carbon and/or protect other ecosystem services.

Topic(s): family forest owners; carbon sequestration; carbon offset markets; forest management

Section 5: Mass Timber

Cross-Laminated Timber Info Sheets. (2019). Tallwood Design Institute. http://tallwoodinstitute.org/sites/twi/files/Info%20Sheets_Final_200616.pdf

This collection of info sheets provides an overview of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) in buildings and the basics of how embodied carbon is presently calculated for engineered wood products. CLT is a prefabricated, engineered wood product made of cross-oriented layers of lumber, bonded together. CLT can be a substitute for steel or concrete in construction, and has drawn attention as a potential low-carbon alternative. CLT, however, is not a “magic bullet”. The environmental and carbon implications of CLT aren’t yet fully understood, and there is a lack of consensus on many of these issues.

When attempting to determine the carbon and environmental impacts of CLT or other mass-timber materials, attention must be paid to the sourcing, manufacture, transport, and packaging of the materials. An evaluation of the estimated environmental impacts of a product over its lifetime is called a life cycle assessment (LCA). These impacts are often communicated by manufacturers in an environmental product declaration (EPD) for the product. Sourcing considerations should include forest management practices. To reduce the carbon emissions and environmental impact of CLT, wood should be sourced from forests with sustainable management practices that increase carbon storage and reduce environmental impacts. This can be done through practices like extending harvest cycles and greater tree retention. Sustainable forest certifications like that of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) can help ensure sustainable product sourcing.

LCAs for building materials are presently evolving and are not perfect. Wood products present many methodological challenges and currently are dealt with differently by different tools, databases, and standards, creating challenges for designers seeking to use this information to inform design decisions or to document decarbonization strategies on their projects. While the manufacturing stages of producing engineered wood products (from mill to point of sale) are well captured, most EPDs for wood products in North America omit most forest management practices from the scope, and as such are unable to show any variability in carbon storage associated with improved forest management or climate-smart forestry. More information and reporting are needed to be able to reliably and accurately compare the impacts of CLT with those of steel and concrete. 

There are many factors to consider on both a project and global scale when evaluating the costs and benefits of CLT. These info sheets daylight many of these issues and in some cases provide recommendations to address them. Sheets 1-4 provide background on CLT. Sheets 5-8 discuss design. Sheets 9-18 cover environmental impacts and current knowledge gaps. References are listed on each info sheet.

 Topic(s): cross-laminated timber; mass-timber; life cycle assessment; environmental product declaration; embodied carbon; carbon sequestration; wood products; forest management; forest certification; procurement; sustainable wood sourcing; sustainable building

Roberts, D. (2020, January 15). The hottest new thing in sustainable building is, uh, wood. Vox. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/1/15/21058051/climate-change-building-materials-mass-timber-cross-laminated-clt

This article lays out the basic argument for ramping up use of mass timber construction as a means of decarbonizing building construction. It describes mass timber construction’s many benefits and also some of the concerns about what scaling-up this new industry might mean for wood supply chains, rural economies, and forest landscapes.

Topic(s): mass timber; cross-laminated timber; life cycle assessment; forest management; sustainable building

Roy Anderson, Dave Atkins, Bryan Beck, Emily Dawson, & Charles B. Gale. (2020). North American Mass Timber: 2020 State of the Industry. Forest Business Network. https://www.masstimberreport.com

This report from the Forest Business Network describes the North American mass timber industry in 2020. The report defines mass timber, describes various engineered wood products including cross-laminated timber (CLT), the uses of mass timber, the mass timber supply chain, US & Canadian forest resources, and mass timber’s raw materials, manufacturing, designers, specifiers, builders, building occupants, and building owners. Copies of the report must be individually downloaded but are available for free at www.masstimberreport.com.

Topic(s): mass timber, cross-laminated timber, supply chains; wood products

Ramage, M. H. et al. (2017). The wood from the trees: The use of timber in construction. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 68, 333–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.107

This article discusses wood at many scales and in great detail, from the biology of trees, to harvesting, wood product processing, supply chains, abs building with timber.

This annotation highlights only a few points that are related to engineered wood products supply chains, though much more of the resource may be useful. On page 12, the article defines different types and applications of common engineered wood products (cross-laminated timber, glulam, I-Joists and more), and includes a diagram of the engineered wood products processing chain. Much of the energy expended in manufacturing engineered wood products is due to drying and adhesive production. The article defines cross-laminated timber (CLT) as “Timber panels that are made of a minimum of three layers of sawn softwood stacked on top of one another at right angles and glued to form a thickness in the range 50–500 mm suitable for floor, wall and roof elements of up to 13.5 m in length.”

Topic(s): mass-timber; cross-laminated timber; supply chains; procurement; embodied carbon; forest management

Huang, M. et al. (2019). Life Cycle Assessment of Katerra’s Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) and Catalyst Building: Final Report. Carbon Leadership Forum & Center for International Trade in Forest Products at the University of Washington. https://carbonleadershipforum.org/katerra/

This report provides a “cradle-to-gate” life cycle assessment (LCA) for cross laminated timber products manufactured by Katerra, and also for the Catalyst Building in Spokane, Washington. The Catalyst is a 15,690 m2 (168,800 ft2), five-story office building that makes extensive use of CLT as a structural and design element. Jointly developed by Avista and McKinstry, Katerra largely designed and constructed the building, and used CLT produced by Katerra’s new factory. Performing a life cycle assessment (LCA) on Katerra’s CLT allowed Katerra to explore opportunities for environmental impact reduction along their supply chain and improve their CLT production efficiency. Performing an LCA on the Catalyst Building enabled Katerra to better understand life cycle environmental impacts of mass timber buildings and identify opportunities to optimize the environmental performance of mid-rise CLT structures. CINTRAFOR performed the LCA on Katerra’s CLT, and the Carbon Leadership Forum performed the LCA on the Catalyst Building.

Topic(s): life cycle assessment; wood products; mass timber, embodied carbon, building materials comparison

Section 6: Embodied Carbon & Life Cycle Assessments

Endeavour Centre. (2019, November 26). What is embodied carbon in buildings? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1piVin01vQ&ab_channel=endeavourcentre 

This 6-minute video defines and briefly explains embodied carbon, life cycle assessments, environmental product declarations, Global Warming Potential, and low-carbon building options and materials.

Topic(s): embodied carbon, environmental product declaration; life cycle assessment; sustainable building

Wood Carbon Seminars. (2020). Carbon Leadership Forum. https://carbonleadershipforum.org/wood-carbon-seminars/

The Wood Carbon Seminars were an 8-part webinar series hosted by the Carbon Leadership Forum in the Spring of 2020, alongside many of the participants of this Leadership Summit. It brought together wood experts to answer common and critical questions about the carbon impacts of wood from the building industry.

The webinars were organized around four main categories: 1) Background and Basics, 2) LCA and Wood, 3) Tracking Carbon in North America, and 4) Wood and the Building Industry.  For each category, three speakers were asked to present on a specific topic in the first week and return for a discussion session the following week. All presentations have been edited to roughly 20-minute videos, making this a great way to get up to speed before the Summit on topics for which you may not be an expert. The schedule, recordings, and slides for these presentations and discussion sessions can be found at the link above. We recommend in particular the videos on Current LCA accounting of Wood by James Salzar, the Carbon Neutrality Assumptions for Wood Carbon by Reid Miner, David Diaz’s presentation on Climate-Smart Forestry, and Edie Sonne Hall’s summary of the event.

Topic(s): wood supply chains; forest economics; embodied carbon; life cycle assessment; forest management

World Green Building Council. (2019). Bringing Embodied Carbon Upfront: Coordinated action for the building and construction sector to tackle embodied carbon.
https://www.buildup.eu/sites/default/files/content/worldgbc_bringing_embodied_carbon_upfront.pdf

This report by the World Green Building Council lays out the case for immediate cross-sector coordination to revolutionize the building and construction sector towards a net-zero future, and tackle embodied carbon emissions. The report begins by laying out clear definitions, and also makes the case for radical action on embodied carbon. The document is a helpful guide to LCA concepts and decarbonization strategies for a wide range of stakeholders, including architects, engineers, owners, developers, manufacturers, industry, and policymakers.

In the report, the authors lay out a global vision that by 2030, all new buildings, infrastructure, and renovations will have at least 40% less embodied carbon with significant upfront carbon reduction, and all new buildings are net-zero operational carbon. By 2050, new buildings, infrastructure, and renovations will have net-zero embodied carbon, and all buildings, including existing buildings, must have net-zero operational carbon.

Topic(s): embodied carbon; life cycle assessment; sustainable building; building materials; policy

Melton, P. (2018b, August 20). The Urgency of Embodied Carbon and What You Can Do About It. BuildingGreen. https://www.buildinggreen.com/feature/urgency-embodied-carbon-and-what-you-can-do-about-it

The “embodied carbon” of a building is a calculation of the carbon impacts associated with the building materials. This includes the emissions associated with extracting, manufacturing, and transporting those materials. Some definitions of embodied carbon also examine the full life cycle of the materials, such as the replacement materials, and the material’s end-of-life (landfilling/recycling/etc.). 11% of global greenhouse gas emissions come from the manufacture of building materials. Up to 80% of embodied carbon comes from a building’s structural system. Wood, steel, and concrete materials can all be optimized to reduce their carbon impacts. A whole building life cycle assessment (WBLCA) is often used to assess embodied carbon, and looks at multiple types of impacts over the entire lifespan of a building’s materials. 

Various strategies exist for reducing embodied carbon. Avoiding new construction or avoiding using new materials reduces new carbon emissions. Considering the end-of-life and planning for future uses of a building and its materials from the start of design can also reduce future emissions. Other strategies include only using as much of a material as you really need, and procuring materials from areas or manufacturers with less-impactful manufacturing processes. 

In a sidebar, the author outlines structural wood-specific recommendations: 

For structural wood, like mass timber, many questions remain about its carbon or environmental impacts. The author recommends various strategies for reducing the embodied carbon and other impacts of wood building materials. Use only what you need--reducing materials means reducing impact. Wood only sequesters carbon until it is no longer in use and decays. Plan for long-term use and potential multiple uses of the material to extend the storage of carbon. Use salvaged or FSC-certified wood to ensure responsible sourcing, both in terms of carbon and other environmental impacts. The adhesives and transportation required by mass-timber materials can also have significant impacts and emissions. Mass-timber buildings still have significant amounts of concrete and steel, which also need to be optimized to reduce carbon impacts. Working forests are more likely to remain as forests than be converted to other uses, although harvesting practices have their own emissions and environmental impacts to consider.

Topic(s): embodied carbon; life cycle assessment; mass timber; cross-laminated timber; sustainable building; sustainable sourcing; procurement; salvage; forest certification; forest management

LCA Practice Guide. (2020). Carbon Leadership Forum. https://carbonleadershipforum.org/lca-practice-guide/

This accessible guide for life cycle assessments lays out the basics of life cycle assessment (LCA) concepts for building professionals and explains how to determine the environmental impacts of a building, assembly or material step-by-step. The resource is aimed at a novice, but curious audience, with clear language, illustrations and examples to introduce the basics of LCA practice. 

Topic(s): life cycle assessment; embodied carbon; methodology; sustainable building

A Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Assessment of Canadian Surfaced Dry Softwood Lumber. (2018). Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. http://www.athenasmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CtoG-LCA-of-Canadian-Surfaced-Dry-Softwood-Lumber.pdf

This report provides a “cradle-to-gate” life cycle assessment (LCA) for Canadian surfaced dry softwood lumber, with the intention of blending its metrics with U.S. information to support a North American LCA for surface dried softwood lumber.

The report describes the purpose and process of LCAs, and includes a glossary of key terms relevant to LCAs. The cradle-to-gate scope covers forestry practices and all production steps from the forest (cradle) to the final product ready to leave the mill (gate). It does not cover downstream steps after the mill, such as secondary manufacturing, transportation, service life/use, or end-of-life. The document includes diagrams and descriptions of softwood lumber processing, and information on the methodology and data sourced for the analysis.

Topic(s): life cycle assessment; wood products

Environmental Product Declaration: North American Softwood Lumber. (2020). American Wood Council; Canadian Wood Council. https://www.awc.org/pdf/greenbuilding/epd/AWC_EPD_NorthAmericanSoftwoodLumber_20200605.pdf

This is an environmental product declaration (EPD) for softwood lumber in North America from the American and Canadian wood councils. The EPD includes life cycle assessment results for all processes for softwood lumber from cradle to gate (when lumber is packaged and ready for shipment). It averages industry data across regions from 2012-2018. The EPD does not address all forest management activities that may impact carbon, water quality, wildlife habitat, and other ecosystem functions, but suggests these impacts may be addressed through regulatory frameworks and/or forest certification systems that, when combined with the EPD, can give a more complete picture of environmental and social impacts of wood products.

Topic(s): environmental product declaration; life cycle assessment; wood products

Section 7: Supply Chains, Policy & Procurement

The World Resources Institute & The World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (n.d.). Sustainable Procurement of Forest Products. Retrieved January 21, 2021, from https://sustainableforestproducts.org 

This is an extensive guide on sustainable forest products to help procurement managers and sustainability officers develop and implement wood product-based procurement policies. 10 chapters discuss the following procurement considerations in detail:

1. Traceability of products

2. Information accuracy of products

3. Product legality

4. Sustainable forest management

5. Protection of unique forest values

6. Climate issues

7. Pollution

8. Fresh & recycled fiber

9. Other resources

10. Social impacts

Each of these chapters contains pertinent information for stakeholders interested in sustainable procurement of forest products. There is also an hour-long webinar available on the guide and how to use it, as well as links to many resources that inform and supplement the guide.

To briefly highlight some points on traceability (the ability to track wood in finished products back through the supply chain to as close to its origins as is practical):

• Box 1 in Chapter 1 contains a diagram of a generic wood products supply chain, with water, electricity, fossil fuels, and wood fuels inputs and environmental/social impacts listed throughout the different steps of the system.

• Wood and paper product supply chains can be complicated, with contributions from potentially many wood producers and distributors across multiple countries, and multiple supply chains associated with a company’s portfolio of products. Solid wood products are more easily traceable than paper-based products, but supply chains vary widely by product and location. While tracing wood products through the supply chain can be complicated, there are assorted tools for accomplishing it to a level that can satisfy sustainable procurement goals.

• Documentation for tracing products can include chain-of-custody certificates (which verify the path of the material from its forest origin to its end use), sales contracts, certificates of origin, legality, and/or sustainable forest management, harvest/management plans, and more. The guide also identifies technologies and other tools that can help increase supply chain transparency and tracing.

• Forest certification programs usually include chain-of-custody standards, and are often able to track certified, recycled, and uncertified content. It is easier to trace products through vertically integrated companies, but companies in the U.S. are becoming less integrated.

Topic(s): procurement; supply chains; sustainable sourcing; forest management; wood products; community forestry; carbon sequestration; role of forests in climate; restoration; carbon offset markets; forest certification; high conservation value forests; ecosystem services; life cycle assessment; social impacts

Meyer Memorial Trust Headquarters: Using Wood Procurement to Achieve Community, Equity and Conservation Goals. (2021). Sustainable Northwest. See the Bibliography Resources folder for the full report.

In the construction of the wood-frame/mass-plywood Meyer Memorial Trust (MMT) headquarters in Portland, Oregon, the project team set goals to align product sourcing with MMT’s mission to “work with and invest in organizations, communities, ideas and efforts that contribute to a flourishing and equitable Oregon.” The project developed sustainable wood sourcing criteria to source wood from forests managed intentionally for human health, water, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration and worker rights, but intentionally avoided defining what is not sustainably sourced wood. The case study describes how the team evaluated how different products performed on different values, and prioritized where to invest money to get the greatest return on mission-aligned values.

The project details sourcing criteria for 3 different scenarios:

1. When the source forest is known

2. When the source forest is unknown

3. When sourcing criteria in Scenario 1 and 2 are not met

Full sourcing criteria is available in Appendix B.

All of the wood products were sourced from the Pacific Northwest, with 10 of 12 wood products  sourced from Oregon businesses. Minority-owned businesses were engaged in the purchase and installation of six of 12 wood products, and small businesses were engaged in seven of 12. Nine of the 12 products were sourced from forests that are managed for enhanced ecological values. Three of 12 products were able to be traced back to their forests of origin. 49% of the wood was FSC-certified, and 85% of the wood met the project’s criteria for sustainable wood. The case study describes the businesses worked with and traceability for each wood product used. 

Lessons Learned:

1. Start early -- The earlier you start thinking about product goals, the more you can achieve.

2. Build support and experience into the project team -- Money spent on expertise will save the project money in the long-run.

3. Plan for Flexibility

Topic(s): procurement; sustainable sourcing; supply chains; equity; sustainable building; ecosystem services; forest certification; social impacts; forest management

City of Portland Sustainable Procurement Policy. (2020). City of Portland, Oregon. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/brfs/article/695574 

The City of Portland’s Sustainable Procurement Policy recognizes that the products and services the City of Portland purchases have social, human health, environmental and economic impacts throughout their life cycles and supply chains, that the city can take responsibility for these impacts, and can leverage its purchasing power to reduce risk and adverse impacts and make positive change. The policy is highlighted in this annotated bibliography due to its guidance on sourcing sustainable wood products.

The policy directs all city employees to use the sustainable procurement guiding principles and best practices “when planning and designing projects, developing project and operations budgets, developing asset management plans, writing product and service specifications or standards, selecting materials, making purchasing or supplier decisions, and developing and managing City contracts and price agreements as applicable to their roles and responsibilities and/or to a specific project.”

The policy outlines 10 Guiding Principles: (1) Everything is Connected (2) Conserve (3) Think in 3D—consider environmental, social and economic dimensions (4) Take a Life Cycle Perspective (5) Provide Fair Opportunities (6) Ensure Health and Safety (7) Uphold Accountability (8) Support Innovation (9) Full Integration (10) Lead the Way.

The city aims to have sustainable procurement practices that: reduce greenhouse gases, prevent/reduce exposures to Substances of (Very) High Concern, foster and integrate supplier diversity, and/or support safe and fair labor practices and ethical behavior throughout the supply chain.

The policy identifies baseline best practices to be integrated into business-as-usual purchasing activities, and emerging best practices for the city to pilot test or implement over a longer timeframe. These practices fall into the categories of greenhouse gases emissions reductions, harmful chemicals reduction, supplier diversity and fair and safe supply chains, or sustainable procurement tools/multi-purpose practices. The policy also defines key terms, outlines responsibilities for different types of city employees, and describes compliance, monitoring, reporting, and policy updating directives. 

One of the emerging best practices under greenhouse gas emissions reduction is to “Specify and utilize sustainably sourced wood for City-owned building and landscape projects, beginning with a pilot project approach.” The policy defines sustainably sourced wood as:

Wood that is Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified, recycled, salvage, or from an ecological restoration forestry project. Ecological restoration forestry refers to management activities that contribute to the recovery of ecosystems that have been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. Some examples of ecological restoration in forests are:

• Harvesting small patches of trees to create compositional and spatial heterogeneity in uniform, single species plantations that developed after harvest of old-growth forests.

• Thinning forests that have become overgrown because of fire suppression

Topic(s): procurement policy; sustainable wood sourcing; restoration; forest certification; wood products; thinning; social impacts; forest management

Chung-Hong Fu. (2014). The Global Supply Chain: An Introduction to Global Wood Product Markets and Trade for Timberland Investors. Timberland Investment Resources LLC. https://1nzy1a2az6m43b6rbr2f9hib-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Global-Supply-Chain-Timber-2014-08-14.pdf

This is primarily intended as a resource for timberland investors, and provides an overview of timber supply chains, products, and global trade dynamics and market trends of the forest products sector. Page 2 contains a diagram of how sawtimber and pulpwood become common wood products. The document also explains the differences between softwoods and hardwoods and the typical products produced from each.

Topic(s): supply chain; procurement; wood products

Daniel Cassens. (2015). Lumber from Urban and Construction-Site Trees. Purdue University Extension. https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/FNR/FNR-93-W.pdf

This resource outlines opportunities and challenges of using soon-to-be-removed urban trees for lumber. Small volumes of trees, embedded objects that can cause damage to milling machinery, possible damage to buildings, landscaping, utility lines/pipes from equipment, and lack of expertise in evaluating and finding markets for the wood, are all challenges to utilizing urban trees for lumber. Because of these barriers, it is generally cheaper to source lumber from forests. Some lumber yards in large cities, however, specialize in gathering urban wood. Opportunities do exist, as portable sawmills can process even just a single tree on-site. Urban trees can be costly for cities to dispose of when large die-offs occur due to pest infestation or storms. Woodworkers and artisans could utilize urban wood, including ornamental species that are hard to come by in a lumberyard. Trees from wooded lots are more likely to be lumber-quality than trees planted for shade or other purposes, as they are essentially woods-grown and likely have less damage from landscaping or other human activity. The resource contains suggestions for how to go-about finding a sawyer and processing the wood of urban trees.

Topic(s): urban forestry; urban wood; procurement

Galvin, M. et al. (2020). A Framework for the Baltimore Wood Project. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. https://www.vibrantcitieslab.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Urban-Wood-Workbook.pdf 

Over 30 million tons of urban wood waste is generated nationwide each year. The US Forest Service, the City of Baltimore, a workforce development organization, and many other partners have worked on the Baltimore Wood Project since 2012, with the aim of salvaging and diverting often-wasted urban wood from deconstructed abandoned rowhouses and “fresh cut” wood from urban trees, and capturing its value. The project has emphasized development of an urban wood economy that creates jobs, business and markets. The effort is particularly focused on people that face barriers to unemployment, such as individuals with low levels of education or who have been previously incarcerated. Societal benefits of urban wood reuse include: saving money; supplying local production and consumption; jobs that stay local; crime and recidivism reduction; ecosystem improvement; green material production; supporting the city’s vision for a sustainable future; supporting and diversifying the wood industry.

Urban wood is valued for characteristics that are harder to find in rural forests, like species diversity, large diameter, and character/flaws. The story and aesthetic of wood harvested in Baltimore gives it its primary value. As an example of end-use of this wood, the project’s partnership with sustainable furniture company Room & Board has led to the creation of the Urban Wood Project furniture line, which reused 16,000+ board feet from Baltimore rowhouses as of summer 2018.

This workbook shares lessons learned in Baltimore in an effort to help develop sustainable supply and demand for urban wood across the country, and is designed to be useful to public agencies, NGOs/non-profits, and companies. To minimize waste and maximize value, the document emphasizes the need to be intentional, plan early, fully understand the urban wood supply chain, and plan for end-use from the start. It details an Urban Food Flows Model with the following steps:

1. Count - inventory and anticipate amounts and supply of wood, and types/locations of available processing and production sites

2. Generate - Producing and sourcing the actual wood

3. Salvage - Process by which the wood is salvaged, which will ideally support its highest and best use rather than limiting potential future uses

4. Sort - Classifying and aggregating material by type

5. Processing - preparing the wood for use or for further processing

6. Produce - manufacturing or secondarily processing the wood into finished products for sale or consumption

7. Consume - sale of the products at ideally a self-sustaining scale

Topic(s): urban forestry; wood products; salvage; supply chains; procurement; social impacts

Reusewood.org. (n.d.). Retrieved January 15, 2021, from https://reusewood.org/

This resource is an online directory on wood reuse and recycling from the American Wood Council, Canadian Wood Council, and Building Materials Reuse Association. It includes guides and information on different types of wood products, and allows you to search for organizations or companies in your area that accept and/or provide the products in question.

Topic(s): reclaimed wood; procurement

Science Based Targets Network. (2020a). Science-Based Targets for Nature: Initial Guidance for Business. https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/science-based-targets-for-companies/guidance/

This guide makes the case for the business world to set Science-Based Targets for Nature and help reduce the existential threats to nature posed by the climate crisis. Trade, consumption, and production have driven the substantial loss of nature worldwide, and business-as-usual practices must change to reverse the trend. Science-based targets (SBTs) are “measurable, actionable, and time-bound objectives, based on the best available science, that allow actors to align with Earth’s limits and societal sustainability goals.” SBTs are designed to help businesses determine how to change, and by how much. 

The guide asserts that setting these targets will help companies: proactively respond to policy and regulation changes; improve their reputation; increase confidence of investors, stakeholders, and parent companies; innovate; increase collaborative opportunities; and improve profitability over the medium-to-long-term. Science-Based Targets for Nature are those that align with a subset of goals established in the UN conventions on biodiversity, climate change, land degradation, and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The guide details a 5-step framework for action for companies to set science-based targets and take immediate next steps to help stop and reverse nature loss: (1) Assess (2) Interpret & Prioritize (3) Measure, Set & Disclose (4) Act (5) Track. For similar guidance for cities, see the resource “Science-Based Climate Targets: A Guide for Cities.” 

Topic(s): science-based targets; policy; social impacts; equity;

Science Based Targets Network. (2020b). Science-Based Climate Targets: A Guide for Cities. https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/science-based-targets-for-cities/climate-tools-for-cities/

This resource is a guide to help cities set science-based climate targets. Science-based targets (SBTs) are environmental targets that are aligned with Earth’s limits and societal sustainability goals, and that are measurable, actionable, and time-bound. In this context, “science-based” goals are those that align with the Paris Agreement and Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. 70% of global emissions come from cities, which make cities important actors in global emission reduction. Climate targets should be informed by the latest climate science, should equitably account for different historical contributions to atmospheric CO2 levels, and take socio-economic development into account. Targets should be complete and comprehensive, accounting for a range of greenhouse gas types and emissions sources. The guide outlines methodologies and resources cities can use to establish their targets. For similar guidance for companies, see the resource “Science-Based Targets for Nature: Initial Guidance for Business.”

Topic(s): science-based targets; policy; social impacts; equity

Clean Infrastructure | Buy Clean. (n.d.). BlueGreen Alliance Retrieved January 13, 2021, from https://www.bluegreenalliance.org/work-issue/buy-clean/ 

Infrastructure projects usually require large amounts of materials like steel, glass, insulation, which create high levels of climate and air pollution when they’re manufactured. A “carbon loophole” exists, where countries generally focus on only their domestic carbon emissions, and don’t account for emissions associated with importing manufactured materials. An estimated 25% of global emissions pass through this loophole. This issue must be addressed to truly combat climate change.

“Buy Clean” is a policy effort that promotes spending taxpayer money on infrastructure materials that are manufactured in a less intensive, more climate-friendly way. This can incentivize suppliers to 

improve their operations and have cleaner practices. In 2017, the Buy Clean California law was passed, which requires that, when state agencies are purchasing steel, glass or insulation for infrastructure projects, they must take suppliers’ emission performance into account. This rewards companies that reduce their carbon footprint, and spends public dollars on more climate-friendly materials. Buy Clean efforts are expanding to other states, like Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota.

Topic(s): procurement; regulatory reform; policy; embodied carbon; sustainable building