Sustainable Forest Biomass Conference Call - November 21, 2008
The call focused on policy approaches for including forest sustainability measures in woody bioenergy legislation. The federal renewable fuel standard (rfs) was used as a point of reference for the conversation, as one of the only established pieces of federal biomass legislation with embedded sustainability language. The RFS approach uses a narrow definition of renewable biomass that excludes a number of feedstock sources for which sustainability could be a concern, including public lands, commercial timber from public lands, old growth forest, etc. Unfortunately, this approach also rules any sustainable feedstock sources that fall within any of these categories. Participants on the call agreed that the RFS approach is flawed and worry that it could set precedent for future legislation, such as a federal renewable electricity standard (RES). In contrast to this approach, the call discussed a 'cafeteria' approach, which would utilize a broad, flexible definition of renewable biomass (such as the one in the farm bill) and allow individual producers some choice in how they will ensure sustainability on their forests. Third party certification (FSC, SFI, Tree Farm), state private forestry programs, state cutting practices acts (where applicable), federal private lands programs (FLEP, Forest Legacy), or management plans written by SAF-accredited foresters of some of the tools and programs that could be used in the 'cafeteria approach'. The same could be accomplished on public lands through the existing management plan process required by law. These tools are based on on-the-ground assessments, local objectives, and science-based management plans to ensure good forest stewardship. In addition, the 'cafeteria approach' could require that states create regionally-relevent best management practices and sustainability guidelines for harvesting woody biomass, such as Minnesota and a number of other states have already done. These guidelines would be available for individual landowners to utilize in drafting management plans and conducting harvests. Although participants generally supported the 'cafeteria' approach over the RFS-style exclusionary approach, there is a need for most discussion in order to form a concensus on the details.
Click here for more detailed notes of this call (.PDF)
Printer-friendly version