From: Sustainable forest biomass: a review of current residue harvesting guidelines
Topic | Suggested actions | Examples |
---|---|---|
Rationale (Why?) | Articulate the need for unique guidelines | a. Produce environmentally and socially sustainable forest biomass feedstock for the bioeconomy |
Identify benefits of management for forest biomass to forest landowners, forestry and society | a. Reduced risks from damaging agents | |
b. Reduced costs of site preparation | ||
c. Incentive to maintain land in forestry | ||
d. Increase ecologically based management of forests | ||
e. Additional income stream | ||
f. Recover energy and decrease fossil C emissions | ||
Identify benefits of comprehensive guidelines on public and market perception | a. Build public confidence in biomass harvesting | |
b. Proactive and provides opportunity for voluntary action | ||
c. Demonstrate commitment to sustainability | ||
Anticipate changing global policy issues | a. Access to international markets (importation standards, regulations) | |
b. Third-party, market-driven certification | ||
c. How impacts are evaluated (e.g. life-cycle analysis) | ||
Scope (Who, what, where?) | Define breadth of guidelines | a. Land ownership |
b. User groups | ||
c. Type of biomass (e.g. tree tops and branches only, stumps, purpose-grown SRIC plantations) | ||
d. Ecosystem and cultural components to protect | ||
Define guideline relationship to existing policy | General SFM guidelines, BMPs, and regulations | |
Decide if voluntary or mandatory | Â | |
Ensure guideline jurisdiction is appropriate for implementing, monitoring, enforcement, updating | Â | |
Development (How?) | Begin consulting with broad range of stakeholders early in guideline development | Forest managers, operators, landowners, eNGOs, Indigenous peoples, public |
 | Consolidate information from existing SFM manuals for jurisdiction |  |
 | Base guidelines on appropriate scientific research |  |
 | Acknowledge uncertainties and gaps in knowledge and formulate recommendations accordingly |  |
 | Interpret knowledge within context of local ecosystems and experience |  |
 | Refer to guidelines from other jurisdictions, but not uncritically |  |
 | Use peer-review process during guideline development |  |
 | Make guidelines clear, practical and flexible, allowing for professional judgement when required |  |
Components | Consider how to organize information | For manuals, use sidebars, indices, references for ancillary information and links to regulations |
 | Consider different emphases, depending on user | Emphasize "how" for operator vs. "where" and "why" for forest managers, planners, etc., vs. "why" for public |
 | Define all important terms | a. Biomass-related terms, e.g. CWD |
 | b. Sensitive ecosystems | |
 | c. Soil characteristics, e.g. "erodible" | |
 | Articulate the benefits of retaining some dead wood | a. Habitat |
 | b. Soil quality, minimizing erosion and runoff | |
 | c. C sequestration | |
 | d. Fuel management | |
 | Clarify how to identify soils and/or sites sensitive to intensified biomass removal | Define key characteristics, use of integrated field-based site tools, use of soil series and mapping, modelling, etc. |
 | Set appropriate retention levels for biomass and sites; be clear how values were determined | a. Amounts |
 | b. Types | |
 | c. Distribution | |
 | Provide operational guidance in retaining biomass |  |
Format | Paper manual vs. digital manual | Â |
Extension, Continuing education | Use in-person meetings and digital media for extension | a. Field tours, workshops |
b. Webinars, YouTube videos, etc., especially for specific operational issues | ||
Updating | Monitor and update through adaptive management approaches | a. Systematic surveys for implementation and for effectiveness (e.g. as for BMP evaluations) |
b. Small-scale operational research ("twin-plot" approach, etc.) | ||
c. Update review of scientific literature |