Blog – Page 8 – Nature's Packaging

ISPM-15 Protects Forest from Harmful Pests

April 6, 2021/in Blog/by Glenn Meeks

Wood packaging such as crates and pallets are critical to international trade, and to the global economy. Consider that almost two billion wood pallets are used daily within the United States to store and transport goods, and that approximately $400 billion worth of American trade is exported each year using wood pallets and containers.

Wooden packaging is often made from recently milled timber, however. As a result, there is the potential for live insects to be transported unknowingly from one part of the world to another, where they can wreak havoc in stands of timber that have evolved without the benefit of natural defenses to hold invading species at bay. According to the U.S. Forest Service, many of the non-native bark- and wood-infesting insects now in the United States are thought to have arrived in untreated wood packaging.

The motivation for the establishment of ISPM-15 followed some high-profile infestations in North America as well as in other parts of the world. Infestations have been caused by Asian Longhorned Beetle, first identified in the United States in 1996, and the Emerald Ash Borer, initially discovered in Canada and the U.S. during the 1990s.

The Asian Longhorned Beetle was first discovered in 1996, where it was found to be attacking ornamental trees in Chicago and New York City. It subsequently was detected across most northeastern states and California. This insect is native to Asia, where it destroys many deciduous tree species, including maples, elms, and poplars. It is believed to have arrived in untreated wooden crates shipped from China.

The Emerald Ash Borer is another destructive insect that has inflicted considerable damage. It is speculated to have arrived in North America in the 1990s in solid wood packaging and was first detected around Detroit, Michigan, and Windsor, Ontario in 2002. It has killed millions of ash trees already and still threatens most of the 8.7 billion ash trees located across North America.

With the knowledge that wooden packaging can be a pathway for the international movement of forest pests from one country to another, new international standards under ISPM-15 were established in 2002 and fully implemented in 2006.

ISPM-15 requires that all wood packaging material (WPM) used for international shipments be heat-treated (HT) using conventional kilns or heat treatment chambers, fumigated with methyl bromide (MB) prior to export or treated with dielectric (microwave) heating (DH). All WPM treated to meet ISPM-15 requirements must be marked with a designated ISPM-15 stamp. In Canada, only dielectric heating and heat treatment are allowed. All producers of ISPM-15 stamped products must be approved.

In order to become approved, facilities are inspected and certified. After certification, the supplier is assigned a number and issued a stamp that is applied to wood packaging material to show it is compliant with the ISPM-15 standard. The stamp marking acts as a passport for wood packaging to officially enter ports of entry in foreign countries, and is recognized as sufficient proof that the wood products meet the ISPM-15 standard. There are more than 100 participating countries, worldwide. Lists are available of approved HT agencies and approved MB agencies in the U.S.

The U.S. Forest Service stresses that when properly implemented, ISPM-15 treatments “have been scientifically proven to be highly effective in killing quarantine pests.” In one study, the Nature Conservancy found that the infestation rates of pests in wood packaging decreased by up to 52% between 2003 and 2009, following the implementation of ISPM-15 in 2006.

As NWPCA notes, “Since the wide-scale adoption of ISPM-15 in the United States, there has been a significant reduction in [BG1] new large-scale establishments of invasive wood-boring insects.” The full collaboration of the wood packaging industry and plant health organizations in countries around the world has proven to be highly successful in controlling invasive species and thereby ensuring that wood pallets and packaging can continue to safely play their critical role in international commerce.

Innovation in Wood – Cross Laminated Timber

March 29, 2021/in Blog/by Glenn Meeks

The W.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation at the University of Montana is just one of an increasing number of institutions looking to cross-laminated timber (CLT) for new construction. UM recently requested money from the state legislature to help fund the building of its new $45 million CLT building, to be built from wood grown, harvested, and manufactured in that state.

“It just makes perfect sense for a forestry building and tells the story, and it is a much more sustainable and reasonable way to go,” Alan Townsend, the Franke College dean, told The Missoulian. “And it can look really cool. It’d be a pretty iconic building on campus.”

Based on its earlier adoption in Europe as a building material, interest in CLT structures continues to grow in North America and around the world. Buildings manufactured with CLT panels are faster to construct, more energy-efficient and made from renewable material. Let’s take a closer look.

What is Cross Laminated Timber (CLT)?

Cross-laminated timber (CLT), a sub-category of engineered wood, is created by gluing together several layers of kiln-dried lumber. Laid flat, they are glued together on their wide faces, with grain in alternating directions at 90 degrees.

Panels most frequently consist of three, five, seven or nine alternating layers. Layer thickness typically ranges from ⅝” to 2” and board width from 2.4” to 9.5”. It is similar to plywood, however with significantly thicker laminations or layers. The layered stacks are glued and then pressed vertically as well as horizontally to create panels, which can then be accurately sized and finished for installation.

Typical panel widths are 2, 4, 8 or 10 feet, while panel length may extend to 60 feet. CLT is different than glued laminated timber (glulam) in which all laminations are oriented in the same direction.

What is the History of CLT?

Cross-laminated timber was first introduced in the early 1990s in Germany and Austria. Since that time, it has continued to gain popularity for residential and non-residential building construction in Europe.

After slow initial growth, its popularity began to increase in the early 2000’s thanks to the green building movement, as well as through newfound efficiencies, product approvals, and improved marketing and distribution.

CLT usage in buildings has increased significantly in the last decade. Hundreds of impressive buildings and other structures built around the world using CLT bring to life the substantial benefits made possible by CLT. The European projects demonstrate that CLT construction can be competitive, particularly in mid-rise and high-rise buildings.

What are the Advantages of CLT?

According to www.woodworks.org, the major benefits of CLT are listed as follows:

Design flexibility: CLT panel thickness can be easily increased to allow for longer spans, and custom cut as required with CNC equipment to exacting tolerances.

Thermal performance: CLT’s thermal performance is related to panel thickness. Thicker panels require less insulation, and because panels are solid, there is little potential for airflow through the panel system. As a result, interior temperatures can be maintained with as little as one-third the amount of energy otherwise required for cooling or heating.

Cost-effectiveness: Even without considering the added benefits of faster construction time (up to 25% less time and up to 50% less labor) and lower foundation costs, CLT compares favorably to certain concrete, masonry, and steel building alternatives. According to a 2010 study by FPInnovations, CLT was 15% lower for mid-rise residential, 15 to 50% cheaper for mid-rise non-residential and 25% cheaper for low-rise commercial structures.

Less waste: Because CLT panels are custom manufactured for particular building projects, they generate little or no job site waste generated. Additionally, fabrication scraps, if created, can be used for other architectural elements such as stairs, or as biofuel.

Environmental advantages: Aside from superior thermal performance that saves building operators money on their heating bill, CLT is also valued because its production has a lower environmental footprint than the manufacturing of other construction alternatives, including the production of less air and water pollution and the generation of less CO2. The environmental case for CLT is enhanced as it acts to sequester carbon.

Fire protection: The thick cross-section of CLT panels provides superior fire resistance because panels char slowly. Once charred, the panels are protected from further degradation.

Seismic performance: Thanks to its dimensional stability and rigidity, CLT performs well under seismic stresses. Extensive testing has determined that CLT panels hold up exceptionally well with no deformation, particularly in multi-story applications.

What is the Outlook for CLT?

While mass timber is considered a more sustainable building material than steel or concrete, its uptake until recently has been limited due to negative perceptions regarding its strength and cost as well as building code restrictions that have limited its use in mass-market building types.

However, as one recent report notes, as the price of mass timber products continues to fall and local jurisdictions improve their code approval processes, the wood material is anticipated to become a more viable everyday choice for building commercial office buildings.

According to The Economist, mass timber is expected to account for US$1.4bn of the US$14trn global construction industry by 2025 and 0.5% of new urban buildings by 2050. With concerted investment in global manufacturing capacity and building projects for mass timber, however, The Economist believes that the share of the construction market could rise exponentially by 2050, capturing trillions in value.

Resources:

Canada CLT Handbook, 2019 Edition

Solid Advantages

U.S. CLT Handbook

TIL – The Women In Wood Group

March 22, 2021/in Blog/by Glenn Meeks

In the field or in the office, women are a positive force in forestry

Women are an integral part of the forest and forest products eco-system. Their impact in every area, from science to recreation, to corporate and government, has propelled the forest and wood industries to new places and perspectives.

In this post we celebrate Women’s History Month in March, Nature’s Packaging has reached out to the Women In Wood Network to learn more about their history, why they came together and what the future holds for women in wood.

Please explain what Women In Wood is and how the group came about.

Women in Wood (WIW) is a network for women who work in, with and for the woods. It brings together passionate women from around the world to share their love for forests. Through a private Facebook group, Twitter, Instagram, our website, blog, newsletter, and LinkedIn group, it helps women find mentors, seek career advice, and meet other passionate women in the forest sector.

We met because, at the time – more than 10 years ago – we were often among the only young women at forestry events and conferences. We joke that we were united by never having to wait in line for the bathroom.

For years, we talked about starting a “rebuttal to the old boys club” and decided to make it official in 2016 by creating a private Facebook group for women we knew in the forest sector.

Although we both have had excellent and encouraging male colleagues, we recognized that there was definitely room for more women around the table. At that time, we added the 20 or so women we knew, and it just started growing.

The group now has 2,200 women from all over the world. It turned out that there was a gap to be filled, and women really appreciated having a safe space to go to for support and comradery.

*Please note-the Facebook group is reserved for women only, but the rest of their social media is open to all.

Can you elaborate on the 3 objectives listed on the Women In Wood website and how they guide the group and members in networking and collaborating with each other?

Our objectives are:

1. Build a community of women who work with, in and for the woods. This happens mostly in the private Facebook group. Not a day goes by without several posts from women sharing job opportunities, asking for advice or encouraging one another. We have also had many events – both in person, and more recently, virtual – for men and women to network and share stories.

2. Encourage women to pursue careers in the forest, wood and related sectors. Our blog and social media have featured many inspiring Women in Wood over the years – from the first female forester in Ontario to students about to the enter the field. Many students in the group report that seeing the success of and getting insight from women already in the sector has encouraged them. We even had an event sound technician’s young daughter who listened in at a panel event follow up with one of the panelists about how to pursue a career in forestry!

3. Help Women in Wood succeed in their career goals by collaborating for success, sharing information, improving skills, and navigating the workplace. This also happens through lots of sharing within the group, and we have had some skill-building webinars recently, delivered to WIW by other WIW. It’s really something to see a WIW pose a question, for example, about how or if to negotiate a salary, and see more than 50 other women respond with their experience and advice. That’s the power of a network!

What are some of the recent events that Women In Wood have created or participated in that bring women in the industry together?

During COVID, we’ve had several virtual get-togethers, and a few learning webinars – preparing for interviews, for example. We’ve also been having WIW Chats on our Insta channel, giving insight into the roles and pathways of various WIW. We are grateful to have had many opportunities to speak to groups and at events about the evolution of WIW. The conversations that follow are always rewarding.

What are the different ways that women are creating leadership roles for themselves in forest industries today?

We’re seeing more and more women in leadership in the forest sector, but there’s definitely still progress to be made. One of the most powerful ways to inspire women is to have other women who are in leadership share their stories and advice on how to work up to leadership positions. When you see women leading, it inspires you.

What is the role of a mentor in the Women In Wood network?

We don’t have a formal mentorship program, but mentor/mentee relationships have developed organically through the relationships built in the group. There’s a good mix of women new to the sector, middle-career, late career and retirees. It can mean so much to just have someone to chat with who may have had a similar experience as you, but is on the other end and can offer you what they learned.

What is the most common path today for women to enter the forest industry workforce? How has that changed over the last several years?

Lately, many forestry and related programs (degree and technical) are reporting impressive numbers, with great representation from women. This is quite a shift from even 15 years ago.

The key will be ensuring these women successfully navigate getting their first jobs and finding employers who will continue to support them early in their careers. A challenge many WIW report is “falling behind” their male counterparts when they take time off to have a family or not being given the same training or growth opportunities.

We are seeing many more women as foresters, technicians and other woodland roles, but still limited representation in mills, trucking and logging. There also seems to be a lot of variance geographically, and some companies have made major strides to encourage and successfully recruit women in the mill environment.

Where did the idea of the Women In Wood logo origination from?

We wanted a logo that was fun but powerful. We really left it to our graphic designer to come up with what would represent WIW, but hoped to have an image that would empower women and rally women together.

We think we have achieved that, as our logo is not only high in demand (our t-shirt sales speak for themselves!) but also well recognized. We can’t tell you how many times we have gone to events (pre-covid) and see women wearing the shirt with pride. It does exactly what we had hoped for – bring women together.

*Answers written by Lacey Rose and Jessica Kaknevicius

Windows to Wearables: Innovation in Wood Products

March 15, 2021/in Blog/by Glenn Meeks

https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2020/10/01/transparent-wood-could-be-window-future

While wood products have been used by humanity for millennia, researchers are recently finding new and exciting ways that the material can be used to promote sustainability. The forest products sector welcomes these exciting new opportunities for wood products, particularly for its woody residuals such as sawdust, bark, and chips. Woody residuals are generated from tree harvest tops and branches, woodlot thinnings, low-grade logs, sawmill activities, and the chipping of recycled wood, including end-of-life pallet material.

Woody residuals are used for various purposes, including mulch, soil amendments, playground surface material, boiler fuel, pellets, as well as fiber for pulp and structural panels such as OSB. Demand in many market segments is healthy. In some cases, in fact, it is booming! COVID-19 helped provide a “turbo boost” for wood residual products associated with consumers such aslandscaping mulch and home heating pellets as people have been spending more time at home and investing in home improvement projects.

Other market segments can be more fickle. One of the key challenges faced by wood product producers is that wood fiber is not economically feasible to ship great distances due to its low value. A common rule of thumb is that wood chips and sawdust are not profitable to ship more than 100 miles.

For this reason, wood fiber markets tend to be highly localized, depending upon the local demand for fiber products. If wood producers in an area are dependent upon a large local consumer of residuals such as a pulp and paper plant, and the local source is lost, it can leave businesses scrambling to find an outlet.

One particular challenge has been the closure of pulp and paper plants. In the case of the newsprint market, we are witnessing a decline in demand as people increasingly embrace digital media. In 2019, the global demand fornewsprint plunged 13% from the previous year. In 2020, thedemand for newsprint in Europe dropped by a whopping 20.5%.

Given the significance of that decline, it will be important for the forest sector to identify new markets for its woody residuals. One area of active research and investment is in bioproducts, a fast-growing category of products that include biochemicals, biomaterials, and bioenergy.

Wood Insulation for Buildings

Wood fiber home insulation is a $700 million market in Europe, supported by 15 production plants and offering insulation products with a much lower carbon footprint than alternatives. While the product line has a proven track record in Europe dating back over 15 years, it has not been produced in the U.S. That situation is about to change, with a new wood fiber insulation plant scheduled to begin production in 2022.

Equipment for the new Maine production plant has arrived from Germany. The facility, which will support up to 130 employees when at full production, is utilizing a shuttered pulp and paper plant. It will use woody residuals as feedstock, providing a valuable market for that material.

The plant will produce three products, including insulated board, batt, and loose-fill wood fiber. According to the manufacturer, the carbon footprint of the wood insulated board is four times better than that of foam plastic boards and seven times better than mineral wool board, its main competitors. For batt, the carbon footprint is five times better than fiberglass and seven times better than mineral wool. Other beneficial features of note are that the products don’t trap moisture, and they can be recycled without specialized equipment. They are also non-toxic and biodegradable.

Wood Fiber Clothing

A company based in Finland has been developing more sustainable alternatives to fiber materials such as cotton and rayon that rely on the use of chemicals in processing, which in turn can lead to water pollution and employee health issues.

The company’s production process turns wood material, including biomass, into a material called micro fibrillated cellulose, which in turn can be manufactured into eco-friendly clothing. The only production byproduct is evaporated water, and its process consumes a much smaller amount than would be required for cotton production. The company recently entered a 50-50 joint venture to build a $61 million plant to produce clothing fabric from wood pulp, scheduled to open in 2022.

Transparent Wood

Glass is commonly used for windows, but experts note that it comes at a significant economic and environmental cost. Regulating building temperatures accounts for 14% of primary energy consumption in the U.S., and one-quarter of this energy is lost through inefficient glass windows in cold weather.

Transparent wood windows, on the other hand, boast a thermal conductivity more than five times lower than glass, and toughness three times greater than glass. Earlier attempts to make transparent wood involved removing lignin through the use of toxic chemicals and high temperature, but it was an expensive product and the resulting product was brittle.

Researchers have developed a new cheap and effective method to produce transparent wood, however. A thin veneer of rotary cut wood can be treated with a solution of hydrogen peroxide, and after an hour in the sun or under a UV lamp, the peroxide bleaches out the color but leaving the lignin intact and the wood turned transparent. While this technology has yet to commercialized, the researchers feel it holds great potential as a new building material.

Research continues in the development of cellulose-based innovations that provide a lower carbon footprint than existing products, without compromising performance. Some of these products offer the potential to better utilize woody residuals while underscoring the importance of our forest resource.

Find Out More About the Forest Products Industry

March 8, 2021/in Blog/by Glenn Meeks

From the structures we call home, to the colored mulch in our flower bed, to the wooden pallets that deliver the goods we rely on, products from grown forests play a crucial role in our lives.

So exactly what are forest products? Simply stated, forest products are materials derived from trees that are used for commercial use or consumer consumption. When most of us think about forest products, we typically focus on wood products such as lumber, structural panels, and paper.

Forest products include a range of non-timber items such as fruit, nuts, seeds, sap, and oil. In this installment of the Nature’s Packaging blog, however, we turn our attention to forest products that are derived from wood, and the wood-based forest products industry.

The Forest Products Industry

The forest products industry is an important contributor to both the Canadian and U.S. economies. It accounts for around 1.5% of the U.S. economy and contributes about 5% of the nation’s total manufacturing output. Regionally, it can be very significant. Forest products ranks as one of the top three contributors in some southern states. Canada’s forest sector contributed $23.9 billion to Canada’s GDP in 2019 or about 1.4%.

The forest industry comprises three main subsectors:

solid wood products manufacturing
pulp and paper
forestry and logging

Solid wood products manufacturing includes primary activities such as lumber and structural panels, as well as secondary products such as millwork, engineered wood products and wood packaging.

The pulp and paper product manufacturing subsector produces a wealth of products, covering everything from newsprint and household tissues to dissolving pulp for rayon production.

The forestry and logging subsector spans field operations and timber harvesting, including logging and transportation to mills.

Tree Harvest for Various Products

The harvest of trees generates three types of material, including sawtimber (including chip-n-saw), pulpwood, and finally harvest slash. Sawtimber, used to make products such as lumber and veneer, is typically most desirable. This is followed by pulpwood. Slash refers to the treetops, limbs, and other woody material left behind after logging takes place. The amount of slash generated is influenced by variables such as the size and quality of the harvested trees.

In the US South, for example, pine trees usually mature between 25 and 40 years, with thinning operations undertaken at 12-15 years and then again at 18-22 years, allowing trees the space they need to grow to maturity. As trees become larger, they become more valuable on a per-ton basis. Forest owners, therefore, are motivated to maximize their yield of mature timber.

Logs of a larger diameter are usually categorized as sawlogs, while those of a smaller diameter are considered pulpwood. Smaller diameter trees may be classified as unmerchantable. According to Forest2Market, plantation pine logs can be designated as follows:

5”-7” diameter at breast height (DBH) – pulpwood
8”-11” DBH – chip-n-saw
12”+ DBH – sawtimber

Wood-based Forest Products

Natural Resources Canada suggests that forest products can be categorized into four segments: solid wood products (including lumber and structural panels), wood pulp, paper products (including newsprint, printing, and writing paper), and bioproducts (e.g. biofuels, biochemical, bioplastics) derived from biomass.

Lumber refers to harvested timber that is milled into products such as dimension lumber, and boards. Softwood dimension lumber is used mostly for framing purposes in residential construction. Lower-grade material is typically used for wood packaging products such as pallets. Logs may also be peeled from the outside in to create veneer. Veneer can be glued into layers or plies to make plywood. Other structural board products include oriented strandboard (OSB) and fiberboard. Cross laminated timber, constructed from glued layers of solid wood, is becoming increasingly popular.

Wood pulp is the term for wood fiber that has been reduced chemically or mechanically to pulp for use in the manufacture of paper and other products. Pulp can be derived from virgin forest harvest material such as pulpwood as well as from wood processing residuals. Pulp is used as an intermediate product to produce paper, packaging, hygiene, and textile products.

Biomass is generated from a variety of sources, including the branches and tops of trees after harvest, forest thinning and salvage, wood products manufacturing residuals and wood products recycling. Biomass has been a substantial energy source for the pulp and paper industry. Biomass is also used for a variety of other uses, including pulp feedstock, pellets, structural board, animal bedding, soil amendments, landscaping mulches and more.

There are also exciting new opportunities for bioproducts such as biochemicals and biomaterials. According to Natural Resources Canada, the growth potential and projected market size for emerging bioproducts are much greater than for traditional forest products combined, including pulp, lumber and newsprint.

Forest products sourced from sustainable North American forests are critical to our daily lives. In the future, there is also the exciting potential for new and emerging forest products to take center stage, further accentuating the importance of timber in our everyday lives.

Reforestation Opportunities in North America

March 1, 2021/in Blog/by Glenn Meeks

While North American forests today are growing due to more sustainable harvesting practices and new planting, it hasn’t always been that way. In the first centuries of European settlement, deforestation was significant. Before colonization, 46% of U.S. land area was carpeted in forest cover – over 1 billion acres in 1630.

For three centuries following the arrival of Europeans, however, the land was cleared, predominantly for agriculture, to feed a growing population. One to two hectares of land was cultivated for every additional resident.

As a result, deforestation followed in the path of settlement, reaching its lowest point in 1872. Almost two-thirds of the net conversion to other uses occurred in the second half of the 19th Century. By 1910, the area of forest land had declined to an estimated 754 million acres or 34% of the total land area.

Turning the Tide on Deforestation

The good news, however, is that deforestation has been curbed in North America. In the last Century, forest cover has become stabilized and has begun to expand. In the 20th Century, it has remained relatively constant, and has started to expand. Forest cover grew between 2010 and 2020, increasing at a rate of 0.03% annually, according to FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).

In addition, there are opportunities to reforest even more of the contiguous U.S., focusing on the most cost-effective and feasible options. A new online tool, the interactive “Reforestation Hub” is a collaboration of The Nature Conservancy and American Forests.

The most comprehensive analysis available, according to the group, it identifies up to 133 million acres of formerly forested lands in the United States that could be reforested to boost carbon storage. That would translate into absorbing an additional 333 million metric tons of carbon per year — equivalent to the carbon emissions from all of the passenger vehicles in California, Texas, and New York combined, or 72 million vehicles.

The Reforestation Hub allows stakeholders such as foresters, land managers, and private landowners to explore the study’s findings. It identifies the number of acres — down to the county level — potentially available for different types of reforestation.

“People are excited about reforestation for good reason,” said lead scientist Susan Cook-Patton, Senior Forest Restoration Scientist at The Nature Conservancy. “New trees represent a powerful natural solution to global warming. But until our analysis, there was no quick and easy way to figure out where exactly we might put all those new trees. This work provides a menu of possibilities to get it done.”

Cook-Patton hopes this granular analysis will help land managers and policymakers find the options that best meet local, state, and national goals around growing trees for public and private benefit.

The Reforestation Hub uses several filters for isolating the most promising places for new forests: where forests grew in the past; current land ownership; land type; benefits to wildlife and watersheds; and cost. In sum, the study highlights the potential for 60 billion new trees to be grown across the country with 1.3 billion already planted annually.

Among ten different reforestation options, the Reforestation Hub suggests that three of them provide the most potential: formerly forested lands now used for pasture (49% of potential); floodplains (17%); and urban open space (14%). But the top results change by county, so the Reforestation Hub allows users to find the places with the most potential in their area.

Land ownership is also an important consideration. “Over one-third of the total potential for reforestation within existing forestland is on federal lands,” said Jad Daley, President, and CEO of American Forests. “That means we have a massive lever for climate action right in our hands, because we have the power to reforest these lands if the federal government simply allocates sufficient staff and funding.”

According to The Nature Conservancy, several existing reforestation programs could be scaled up to put the new Reforestation Hub’s information to work. On public lands, this includes the Reforestation Trust Fund, which can be enhanced via the soon-to-be-introduced REPLANT Act to fully fund the reforestation of America’s national forests.

On private lands, they include the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), as well as state conservation agency cost-share programs.

Stakeholders are encouraged to visit the Reforestation Hub to inform their tree planting programs. Questions about the Reforestation Hub and its underlying study can be directed to ReforestationHub@tnc.org

*This post was based on the following press release:

https://www.nature.org/en-us/newsroom/study-shows-reforestation-potential-us/

Urban Forests and Tree Cities

February 8, 2021/in Blog/by Glenn Meeks

City planners around the world increasingly recognize the importance of trees and are working to increase canopy cover. Urban tree research tells us that green canopy can play an important role in the liveability of cities. Increased tree coverage contributes to lower city temperatures by blocking shortwave radiation and increasing water evaporation. Trees also help reduce air pollution, while absorptive root systems can help reduce the threat of flood during severe rains and storms.

No surprise, the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Agenda Council on the Future of Cities have listed green canopy cover in its ranking of top ten urban initiatives.To support cities in their efforts to implement green canopy, MIT’s Treepedia, in collaboration with WEF, has developed a metric —the Green View Index—by which to evaluate and compare canopy cover. It relies on calculations based on input from Google Street View. By using street view panoramas rather than satellite imagery, the GVI represents human perception.

The GVI Index is presented on a scale of 0-100, showing the percentage of canopy coverage of a particular location. The group cautions that its calculation is imprecise. It includes only street trees in its calculation due to the limitations of Google Street View. While forested parks are important, for example, they are not considered, aside from street visibility.

Treepedia developers stress that its rankings should not be construed as a competition. “Treepedia is not about rating cities to compete in a green Olympics,” it notes. “Treepedia aims to raise a proactive awareness of urban vegetation.”

Another important constraint that the study is not comprehensive. It includes only 30 cities, globally. It noteworthy that four of the top ten cities with the most tree cover are in North America, including Tampa (#1), Vancouver BC (#4), Montreal (#6) and Sacramento (#9).

A ranking of select North American cities, followed by the estimated proportion of urban canopy, are as follows:

Tampa, Florida — 36.1%

Vancouver, Canada — 25.9%

Montreal, Canada — 25.5%

Sacramento, California — 23.6%

Seattle, Washington — 20%

Toronto, Canada — 19.5%

Miami, Florida — 19.4%

Boston, Massachusetts — 18.2%

Los Angeles, California — 15.2%

Treepedia underscores that only selected cities have been included in its Green View Index. The group encourages other cities to calculate their GVI. More information can be found at this link: (https://github.com/mittrees/Treepedia_Public)

Tree Cities of the World

Leading North American tree cities are also recognized in the Tree Cities of the World program, sponsored by the FAO (The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) and the Arbor Day Foundation. Their intention is to promote more resilient and sustainable cities.

Rather than a ranking of overall canopy or green cover, these cities are recognized for “demonstrating leadership in the management of their urban trees and are serving as part of the solution to many of the global issues we face today.” Of the 68 “Tree Cities of the World” recognized, nine of them are Canadian, and 27 from the United States.

Another useful source of information is the U.S. Forest Service. Its urban forest data are being collected from across the United States based on top-down aerial approaches and bottom-up field data collection. This site links to various data sets and reports for urban forest data at the state level, county level, county subdivision level and local community or place level. Users are encouraged to explore states or communities of interest to see what data are available.

Resources mentioned in this article:

Treepedia: https://senseable.mit.edu/treepedia

Tree Cities of the World: https://treecitiesoftheworld.org/directory.cfm

U.S. Forest Service Urban Forest Data: https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/data/urban/

Urban Forest Wood-An Innovative Look at Recycling

February 1, 2021/in Blog/by Glenn Meeks

What happens when urban trees reach their end of life?

Urban trees are one of those remarkable stories that largely flies under the radar. We appreciate how a large canopy can shield us from the intense summer sun or help keep us dry during an unexpected downpour, but most of the time, we take them for granted. We shouldn’t.

According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, urban trees offer a wealth of benefits. Did you know that a mature tree can absorb up to 150 kg of CO2 per year? Aside from sequestering carbon and creating biodiversity, trees help filter pollutants and fine particulates. They also reduce energy requirements for air conditioning and heating when strategically placed.

Research has found that trees aid city dwellers’ physical and mental health and their presence even boosts real estate value. But for urban trees, the story hasn’t always had a happy ending. At the end of life, too often, they have ended up in the waste stream, chipped or burnt, a low repayment for many decades of civic service. The rise of the urban wood movement, however, offers a more promising path.

The sustainability case for upcycling harvested urban wood is compelling. Approximately 3.8 billion board feet of urban wood harvested annually from U.S. cities could be processed into lumber – not counting fire salvage or orchard rescue trees. Utilizing just 10% of that urban wood harvest currently chipped or left to rot would have an equivalent impact on removing 732,000 cars from the street.

The urban wood movement has been growing in recent decades as people have increasingly recognized the value of harvested city trees that had long been underutilized. One of those many stories is told by Jennifer Alger, Director of the Urban Wood Network Western Region, a not-for-profit organization.

She grew up, she said, riding in her dad’s truck as he scoured neighborhoods looking for trees that needed to be taken down. He had been a contract logger by summer and a burl buyer for a firearms manufacturer in winter.

But when the logging business bottomed in the early 1980s, “I spent my childhood in a vehicle with Dad buying these random dead or dying trees from people’s houses,” she recalled. And so he was doing urban lumber before the term ‘urban lumber’ was even coined. At that time, they were cutting for firewood and cellophane wrapping bundles of it for retailers.

Her father recognized the value of timber from the wood world, and it pained him to be cutting perfectly good lengths of material into firewood. “Why are we cutting these logs into firewood?”, he asked Jennifer, “These logs are gorgeous”.

They began setting aside the best logs and stockpiled them. Finally, they bought their first portable band sawmill in the 1990s, allowing them to mill lumber. Similar stories are told around the country by other companies and participants who recognize the value of harvesting urban wood.

Like others in the urban wood recovery business, Jennifer found a knowledge void regarding its potential value. With that thought in mind, she began networking informally in the early 2000s with the help of CalFire and the United States Forest Service to reach out to arborists and other stakeholders about more sustainable outcomes for urban trees. “We were importing all these hardwoods from either the East Coast or from overseas and here in California, we were spending hours on chipping them, burning, or landfilling – all of these scenarios,” she recalled.

One of the myths that needed to be overcome was that urban trees would be too expensive to mill because of embedded steel objects.” Everybody told me that it costs too much to mill these urban trees because they have nails in them, and so it’s just going to be too costly.” She responded that they were already milling urban trees at her company, and with the value of a blade only $17 or $20, “not that big of a deal.”

In 2016, Urban, Salvaged, & Reclaimed Woods Inc., a West Coast non-profit network was incorporated. In networking with other groups around the country, however, group members discovered that different regions had slightly different perspectives about urban wood. For example, some regional networks included reclaimed lumber from deconstruction, while others included only urban trees.

“The urban wood movement is big and it’s catching on worldwide,” Jennifer said. “But we recognized that we were fragmented.” That fragmentation was standing in the way of building a stronger industry. Collectively, the urban wood communities recognized the need to rebrand, as well as to create standards and certification programs that would help build consumer trust and shield customers from poor quality suppliers.

After much discussion with each of the networks around the country, it was determined that we would unite under the Urban Wood Network with the previous West Coast group becoming the Urban Wood Network Western Region. As a result of that collaboration, urban wood can be described as:

“Any wood that was not harvested for its timber value and was diverted from or removed from the waste-stream and developed or redeveloped into a product. Urban wood can come from three sources: Deconstruction, fresh-cut urban trees, & salvaged wood.”

The group is working towards several initiatives to increase the professionalism of the industry, including the establishment of lumber grades specific to urban timber and chain of custody certification program.

Jennifer is currently working with an expert team of developers and customer experience specialists on the build-out of AncesTREE™ an Inventory Management System and enterprise application that will allow users to easily adhere to the industry standards, track the chain-of-custody, manage their inventory, and generally better manage and grow their urban lumber businesses.

An integrated approach is increasingly being sought, involving cities, municipalities, and large corporate or educational campuses. Attention to pruning and tree care with eventual salvage in mind can boost the marketable value of timber.

The establishment of urban forest management plans and policies can make an important difference for the industry going forward. The establishment of policies will make the urban wood industry less vulnerable to the loss of key urban wood supporters in key decision-making roles.

There are several forces at play that are helping drive the urban wood movement. On one hand, there are increasing restrictions regarding the landfilling of wood waste. On the other hand, people recognize the substantial benefits of using urban wood. With its beautifully unique appearance, it creates one-of-a-kind home products, while supporting local businesses. Using local urban wood also is a celebration of local history, while playing a part in diverting waste and sequestering carbon.

These days, many individuals and organizations are helping to script a more sustainable end of life scenario for urban trees through solid wood recovery. “By networking together, we can build awareness that brings these trees back into the social and economic lives of the communities they came from in the form of lumber, slabs, flooring, siding, furniture, art, architecture and other value-added wood products,” the Urban Wood Network states at its website.

For her part, Jennifer believes that the groundwork the Urban Wood Network is creating today will set the stage for the growth of the urban wood movement and a more sustainable outcome for city trees. Through its focus on education, standards, and promotional assistance, she sees a bright future. “We expect in the next two to five years an absolute explosion of the urban network and its membership,” she concluded.

Choosing the Best Amount of Packaging for Your Product

January 25, 2021/in Blog/by Glenn Meeks

Products need enough packaging to prevent damage, but no one wants to spend more on packaging than needed. Packaging and pallet decision-makers alike will benefit from having a better understanding of downstream supply chain costs.

Over the last several years, consumer products supply chains have trended towards more frequent deliveries and smaller order sizes. Such an approach has enabled retailers to minimize their pipeline inventory while promoting better product availability – having the products that customers are looking for, on the shelf. However, such a strategy poses different challenges.

Smaller orders may require product suppliers to build multiple SKU pallets for inbound delivery to retail distribution centers. Such an approach translates into extra handling during the assembly of the order, as well as at the distribution center when those same orders are sorted and received. Furthermore, smaller, more frequent retail store orders may result in more case touches for distribution center personnel as they are challenged to stack stable pallets for retail store delivery.

According to experts, around 90% of product damage in the CPG supply chain occurs at the DC or retail location. Further downstream in the supply chain there are more interactions between people and products, which increases the likelihood of damage.

So what exactly is the best amount of packaging for your product? Ultimately, it is the amount that delivers the lowest total packaging cost. Take the graph below.

The connection between packaging cost and the amount of packaging is shown in white, while the interaction between the cost of product damage and the amount of packaging is revealed in red. The total packaging cost per package (the sum of packaging cost and damage cost, is outlined in purple.

The lowest cost per package is located at the intersection point of cost and damage. At this point, an extra penny spent on a package would generate a saving of under a penny’s worth of product damage reduction. In the other direction, cutting the amount of packaging by a penny would result in more than a penny’s worth of incremental damage.

While this approach seems obvious, we are left to ponder why product damage is still an ongoing issue. One reason might be a lack of visibility into supply chain damage that happens further downstream.

If the package design does not reflect all product damage costs associated with a package, then the packaging decision will be suboptimal. A suboptimal package design leaves an unrealized opportunity for supply chain improvement.

By better accounting for actual costs, the product damage cost shifts upward, resulting in a new intersection point – one that dictates an additional investment in a package, as shown in Figure 2, below.

Another way to visualize packaging optimization is with the Innventia AB Model (formerly known as the Soras Curve), shown below.

When a product is underpackaged, excessive damage results in a negative environmental impact. When a product is overpackaged, likewise there is a negative environmental impact resulting from excessive resource consumption and residuals.

When it comes to determining whether or not your package provides the perfect amount of product protection, a collaborative supply chain process is essential. With packaging as with pallets, more accurate supply chain feedback can make a positive difference.

Armed with better information designers and decision-makers can better identify costs downstream, enabling them to select the best package – or pallet – for the job.

The Benefits of Biochar-Another Way to Win with Wood

January 18, 2021/in Blog/by Glenn Meeks

Oregon Department of Forestry, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Finding profitable markets for residual wood material is an ongoing challenge for many forest products companies. Forest thinnings, logging slash, as well as wood products milling, and recycling fiber are all regularly generated. Markets such as biomass, bedding, landscaping mulch, pulp mills, OSB plants, and others are well established, but the low value of fiber means that it is not economically viable to ship considerable distances.

Biochar production has often been looked at as a potentially exciting opportunity for such material yet demand for biochar has been slow to materialize. Change may soon be on the horizon, however, as one biochar producer has recently secured the first carbon credits for biochar in the United States.

What is a Carbon Credit?

A carbon credit, also referred to as a carbon offset or a carbon offset credit, is a generic term for any tradable certificate or permit representing the right to emit a metric ton of carbon dioxide or the equivalent amount of different greenhouse gases.

A company purchases carbon credits to offset its own greenhouse gas emissions. In the recently announced case, the biochar producer sells the biochar to farmers, who apply it to their soil.

As such, carbon is sequestered underground rather than returning to the atmosphere, creating a carbon sink that has now been recognized by a carbon credit certification group. Companies purchasing biochar carbon credits help improve the economics of biochar for producers and consumers of the product.

What is Biochar and it’s Benefits?

Biochar can be described as the solid material obtained from the thermochemical conversion of biomass in an oxygen-limited environment in a process called pyrolysis. That low oxygen environment results in the creation of charcoal rather than merely residual ash.

USDA describes the benefits of biochar as “incredible—improved soil health, enhanced soil water holding capacity, increased plant growth and vigor, cleaner air quality, and perhaps most importantly… the ability to sequester carbon forever.”

Biochar improves soil fertility in two ways. The first and primary advantage is that it aids in retaining soil nutrients from fertilizer and other sources. Secondly, biochar can provide nutrients such as potassium, a limited amount of phosphorus, and other micronutrients. Given that most agricultural soils have been depleted of considerable amounts of carbon in recent decades, the addition of biochar can help reverse the loss.

Farmers can realize long-term improvements to soil health and crop yield with biochar inputs. In one multi-year study, funded by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), was administered by Sonoma Ecology Center and included support from researchers from the University of California, Riverside, the results were impressive. Biochar increased pinot noir grape yield by an average of 1.2 tons per acre over two years of harvest, paying back the cost of biochar application in just the first year.

There are other applications for biochar. Uses include filtration systems, stormwater management, remediation, and composites. Although in its early stages, biofiber is a good candidate in the latter application as a substitute for costlier and higher environmental impact carbon forms.

Biochar and Climate Change

Beyond its benefits for farming and other applications, biochar also is widely acknowledged for its carbon sequestration benefits in the fight against global warming. It is listed as one of the top five natural climate solutions for climate change mitigation in a 2019 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

However, the role of biochar in preventing climate change is not guaranteed. As one article notes, biochar production results from combustion, with greenhouse gases given off in the process

Yet, when energy from the pyrolysis process is harnessed and used in a way that displaces the need for fossil fuels in electricity production, for example, the result may be a positive carbon balance. Such has been the case for the California producer, which utilizes biomass waste removed from sustainably managed, high-risk forests to generate electricity. Its success has now been recognized through the issue of carbon credits.

As businesses increasingly look to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to offset the emissions they still create, carbon credits may hold the key to accelerating demand for biochar. The biochar market is predicted to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 16.45% through 2025.