No images? Click here ESFPA E-NewsVolume 3 - Issue 31September 2, 2022 ESFPA Regional Meeting #1 Schedule - Saranac Lake
Upcoming regional meetings:
The Potential of Gene Editing in Saving the Chestnut TreeSaving the American chestnut could restore a piece of history, resurrect a lost ecosystem and combat climate change. But critics say it would come at a cost. The American chestnut was once extremely prevalent, with billions of trees extending across the country. However, around the beginning of the 20th century, a fungus nearly drove the tree to extinction. Today, they still sprout in the wild but rarely reach maturity. Outside of growers’ orchards, scientists say, the tree is “functionally extinct.” Researchers at SUNY ESF are growing American chestnut trees in the fields of Syracuse that can withstand that infection. They have turned to biotechnology to resurrect the species, with the discovery of a gene called Darling 58 that could protect the chestnut. The project is seeking approval not only from three federal agencies, but also from the public concerned about altering the genome of the tree. Although the results have been promising in both bringing back the species and in potentially combatting climate change, critics argue that releasing the new tree would be dangerous since not enough is known yet about the potential risks it poses. Should we bring back forests with genetically modified chestnut trees? Read more about the issue here. Forest Management and Wood Products Yields the Greatest Climate BenefitsThe Empire State Forest Products Association (ESFPA) has responded to a Request for Information where the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority is seeking feedback for the bioeconomy and nature-based solutions to climate change. In the response, John Bartow, Executive Director of ESFPA, outlines a four-point strategy to provide opportunities to decarbonize across multiple sectors of the economy and provide the environmental, social, and resilience benefits that New York forests provide to all New Yorkers and the challenge of global climate change. According to Bartow, “the four-point strategy includes: (1) avoiding forest conversion; (2) increasing carbon sequestration in forests; (3) improving forest management; and (4) retaining and expanding New York’s bioeconomy.” For over 100 years, New York’s forests have been expanding across the landscape. In the early 1900’s, forest cover in New York was down to less than 20% of the landscape and today it encompasses 64% of the terrestrial lands of the state. The benefits have been greater forest cover providing valuable timber resources and ecosystem benefits of clean air, clean water, and biodiversity. In the past 20 years, however, we have slid backwards and are now experiencing slight losses of forest cover. These losses are the result of conversion of forests to other land uses including agriculture, renewable energy, and sprawl. To address forest conversion, we need to improve the monitoring of conversion and create market incentives for private forest landowners to keep their forests as forests. “If we want forests that stay, we need forests that pay”, said Bartow. We also need to identify previously forested lands (reforestation) and lands that have not but could sustain forests (afforestation) and plant more trees. Over that past couple of decades, scientists have also calculated that our forests have declined in their ability to store and sequester carbon on an annual basis, (i.e., carbon flux). The factors driving this loss in storage and sequestration, in addition to forest conversion, are a decline in forest health due to insects and diseases and an aging forest. We need to create market and financial incentives to help private forest landowners improve the ability of their forests to sequester and store carbon. Tax incentives, payment for carbon services, and research on measuring and monitoring both carbon stocks and annual sequestration are solutions outlined in the recommendations. Active and sustainable forest management on private forest lands is essential to achieving the carbon benefits of our forests. Some have suggested that leaving our forests alone and allowing them to grow and mature is the best solution for forests and a nature-based solution. However, watching our trees grow does not provide the additionality (i.e., annual sequestration) necessary to achieve the goals of net-zero carbon emissions. The science supports active sustainably managed forests which yield the greatest carbon storage and sequestration benefits over the long-term. While there is value in carbon stored in mature, older forests (such as New York’s constitutionally protected Forest Preserve), forest management through silviculture (the science of growing and cultivating forest crops) is necessary to ensure carbon yield management of forest resources. Finally, to maximize the climate solutions of our forests, we must retain and expand New York’s bioeconomy. The bioeconomy is that portion of the economy that produces renewable bio-based feedstocks, rather than fossil fuel-based feedstocks, to produce wood products of today such as paper, lumber, packaging and biomass energy and products in the future, such as sustainable aviation fuel, renewable diesel, bio-chemicals, bioplastics, and biopharmaceuticals. New York’s forests and wood products economy is responsible for nearly 100,000 direct and indirect jobs and a $23 billion economy. Strengthening our existing bioeconomy for the future and ensuring a supply chain of feedstock, workers, and innovation to unleash new biobased products, is beneficial not only for the substitution benefits of wood products, but for the above-mentioned forest health, carbon sequestration, and the needs of society as a whole. According to Bartow, the scientist of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had it right in the fifth Climate Assessment: “In the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre, or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit.” Some recent popular press articles and scientific publications have suggested that prioritization on forest preservation and a shift to wild and wilderness forest is our best solution benefiting climate change. “While older mature wild forests do store a substantial amount of carbon, they do not sequester as much carbon, they do not offer the management options for improved forests or the substitution benefits of harvested wood products. The best solution is balance between sustainably managed forests that yield tremendous carbon and economic benefits and wilderness carbon storage benefits”, Bartow noted. A comparison of these two scenarios, our wild versus managed forests, is important to consider. Commercial timber harvest is conducted in response to market demand. If a scenario including harvest is compared to a scenario without (or with lower) harvest, it must be recognized that the demand for wood products does not simply vanish. A number of outcomes will occur. First, wood products will be harvested and acquired from some other locations (state, region, or country) and likely leave a greater environmental and carbon footprint than would occur in New York. This is a concept known as leakage, where we are sending our environmental liabilities somewhere else. Second, if wood products are not acquired from somewhere else, then some other product will be used in place of wood products, such as cement, concrete, or plastics, all of which are mineral and fossil fuel consuming products. We lose climate substitution benefits of wood products. We are increasing emissions and embodied carbon in in our products, buildings, and infrastructure. Third, if we are sourcing our wood from somewhere else or other products besides wood manufactured elsewhere, we are risking ourselves to volatile global supply chains which are rapidly impacting our daily lives. One only needs to look to Europe or the collapsing economy of China to see our vulnerabilities. “Forests and wood products offer the most significant and cost-effective opportunity to mitigate climate change within our natural and working landscapes across New York. Yet we must have a balance between carbon stocks in older mature forests and in sequestration and substitution benefits of sustainable forest management. Expanding the area and quality of our forests through increased investments in real, additional, measurable, verifiable, and permanent climate smart forestry that includes mature forests and sustainably managed forests is necessary if we are to achieve the CLCPA greenhouse gas reduction goals of 40% by 2030, 85% by 2050, and Net Carbon Zero by 2050”, says Bartow. Forest Products Sector Opposes Universal Definition of “Old Growth"On July 15, 2022, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and the Interior jointly published a Federal Register notice of a “universal definition framework” for old-growth and mature forests on federal land, setting the stage for a federal inventory for old growth and possible new restrictions on sustainable harvesting practices. This exercise followed up on President Biden’s order released on April 22, when he issued E.O. 14072, “Strengthening the Nation’s Forests, Communities and Local Economies”. The E.O. requires the U.S. Forest Service to, among other things, define old-growth and mature forests on federal lands. On August 30, the Hardwood Federation submitted comments on the proposal. ESFPA is signatory to the comments. The response outlines key arguments opposing the agencies’ moving forward with a uniform definition, ultimately delivering a framework that would be unworkable. After establishing that a “one size fits all” approach to a definition was incompatible with resources as biologically and geographically diverse as forests, the Federation raised concerns that the agencies’ action could undermine the Administration’s major environmental and resources policy goals. This includes promotion of captured carbon and reduction of wildfires. Furthermore, a uniform definition would also create uncertainty for federal agencies and the regulated community. This could include litigation, creating a tool that some stakeholders might use to advance policies that ultimately setback sustainable forest management by imposing a blanket ban on the harvest of all old growth and mature timber. Most forest products groups, including the American Forest & Paper Association, the American Wood Council, and National Alliance of Forest Owners, among others, raised similar concerns about the mismatch between forest diversity and attempts to establish a “uniform definition” that would apply nationwide. At this time, the forest product groups are not certain where the agencies will ultimately land on this issue. That said, it has been made clear that the agencies’ moving forward with a “universal framework” would contradict the Administration’s well-established policy objectives to reduce wildfire risk while promoting carbon capture, which could dissuade them from moving forward with the process. If the regulatory process delivers results contrary to industry comments, there could be legislative and legal remedies to push back on the effort. We will keep you posted on next steps related to the fight to oppose imposition of a one-size-fits-all framework for old growth forests. Hardwood Federation- Farm Bill on the HorizonAs we have noted frequently in our communications this year, the current Farm Bill is up for reauthorization in 2023 and, as with any major legislative effort, preparations must begin far in advance. Over the last couple of Farm Bill cycles in 2013 and 2018, the Hardwood Federation team has been an active participant in the Forests in the Farm Bill (FIFB) coalition. This group is comprised of representatives from every facet of the forestry and forest products value chain, including forest landowners, saw mills and the pulp and paper industry. A number of conservation groups are also part of this coalition, which has a proven track record of notching considerable policy victories over the last two cycles. This year we are once again actively involved in the FIFB, which has just begun to meet and break into subgroups in an effort to refine the policy platform that the coalition will ultimately be taking to the Hill in the coming months. The HF team is participating in the Markets and Research Workgroup, which will be discussing and fashioning proposals—existing and new—to be considered by the overall group. An ideal outcome for this workgroup would be to identify additional policies in the context of the next Farm Bill that promote demand for U.S. produced hardwood and softwood products. Data have shown for generations now that strong demand for the forest resource is critical for maintaining thriving, healthy forestlands. We intend to push this message as part of our FIFB participation and to support our overall Farm Bill advocacy efforts. Working in parallel to this process, the Hardwood Federation’s Policy Committee is meeting in September to discuss proposals that our sector can support for inclusion in this next reauthorization process. We hope to forge consensus on at least a few items that we can work either as part of the FIFB platform or on our own. As you know, the Farm Bill reaches well beyond traditional row crop agriculture support systems and federal nutrition programs. This comprehensive measure includes a robust forestry title as well as an energy title that seeks to promote biomass energy we use in our mills. We anticipate a strong push next year to build on provisions in the recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act to promote wood building materials due to their known carbon sequestering capability, forestry as a natural climate solution and biomass energy as an alternative to fossil fuels. Trade is also an important plank in our Farm Bill advocacy and we will once again be lobbying for full funding for the Market Access (MAP) and Foreign Market Development (FMD) Programs. These two initiatives have long been supported by the Hardwood Federation due to their excellent track record of opening up markets overseas for domestically produced hardwood forest products. In 2018, MAP and FMD were brought together under a new Agriculture Trade Promotion and Facilitation Program with an accompanying new Priority Trade Fund (PTF)—seeded with a $255 million mandatory permanent budgetary baseline annually for all the programs throughout the life of the current Farm Bill. This consolidation was designed to protect these programs from threats that would arise annually as part of the each year’s appropriations process. The Federation will be working closely with our industry allies that also benefit from these promotion programs to ensure that we secure at least the same level of mandatory funding that they currently enjoy, with the goal of increasing monetary support for these two critical programs. We will keep you regularly apprised of our progress on hardwood priorities as the 2023 Farm Bill process kicks into full gear. In the meantime, if you have any thoughts on policies that we should be pursuing in the context of this process, please reach out to us. We—your Hardwood Federation team—likes to believe that we know the legislative process and pressure points to touch to get things done in Congress, but you are the experts on your operations and the market challenges you are facing. If there is an idea on your mind that would be helpful to our overall Farm Bill goal of growing demand for domestic hardwood forest products, we would love to hear from you. Organizations Urge Governor Hochul To Veto Workers’ Compensation BillsThe following letter has been sent to Governor Hochul urging her to veto multiple workers' compensation bills that would result in increased costs for New York's small businesses. Dear Governor Hochul, On behalf of our organizations which represent tens of thousands of businesses throughout New York State, we respectfully urge you to veto A.1118/S.768, A.2020-A/S.6373-B, and A.7178-A/S.8271-A. These workers’ compensation bills, if enacted, would increase workers’ compensation benefits by millions of dollars, resulting in higher costs and premiums for all New York State businesses, especially small businesses, at a time when they are contending with unrelenting economic challenges and the state’s economy is showing signs of a recession. These proposed sweeping changes to workers’ compensation law would come just a few years after Albany rightfully focused on cost containment. Lawmakers, business organizations, and labor worked together to agree upon and put in place sensible and balanced reforms in 2017. These efforts to reduce costs on employers, while providing necessary coverage to employees, represented the essential first step toward lowering the cost of doing business in New York. These bills not only undermine any progress made by both labor and the business community but are guaranteed to obliterate the modest cost savings and premium reductions that were achieved in the workers’ compensation system. While all three pieces of legislation together are disastrous and will undoubtedly drive-up workers’ compensation premiums, they are deeply problematic individually: • A.1118 (Bronson)/S.768 (Gounardes) redefines temporary total disability, marking a fundamental shift in the definition of disability and how wage replacement amounts are determined in New York State. This bill upends case law by allowing for unlimited awards at the temporary total rate for employees with mild or moderate partial disabilities. Under existing law, when a doctor finds that an employee has partially recovered from an injury, that employee must either seek out work that is commensurate with their degree of disability or risk losing their indemnity benefits. As passed, this bill would automatically qualify injured employees to receive benefits at the higher disability rate if it was determined they could not return to their pre-injury employment or a modified position. This will lead to significant and extremely damaging cost increases for the workers’ compensation system. Many businesses, especially small businesses, do not have the financial or practical ability to accommodate light-duty work, and long-standing workers’ compensation law recognized that important dynamic. This bill abandons the long-held tenets of workers’ compensation law. • A.2020-A (Reyes)/S.6373-B (Savino) expands the statutory carve-out that applies to police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians who filed a claim for mental injury premised upon extraordinary work-related stress to include all employees. This bill will permit all employees who allege extraordinary work-related stress to file a mental stress claim irrespective of a work-related emergency. Law Judges will determine what qualifies as “extraordinary,” a standard that is not defined by statute, which will result in extensive litigation. Additionally, the bill would transfer the cost of treatment and disability for psychological conditions that are not currently considered work-related to the workers’ compensation system. The cost to the system would be substantial. • A.7178-A (Joyner)/S.8271-A (Sanders) would increase the minimum amount of compensation from $150 to not less than 1/5 of Statewide Average Weekly Wage (SAWW) or employee’s full wages if equal to or less than 1/5 of SAWW. The current minimum weekly indemnity rate for employees who earn more than $150 per week is $150. If enacted, this bill would grant employees who sustain accidents after June 30, 2022, to almost double the current minimum indemnity rate of $150 per week (weekly indemnity benefits would increase to no less than $337.64, which is 1/5 of the current SAWW of $1,688.19). Employees with wages less than or, equal to $337.64 per week would receive full salaries. The impact of this legislation would be most felt by businesses with part-time, seasonal, or lower-wage employees, and may deter employees from returning to work, exacerbating the labor shortage and keeping New York’s unemployment rate higher than the national average. For the above-mentioned reasons, any further action on these bills warrants a pause. Additionally, the New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board (NYCIRB) has not calculated the fiscal impact of these bills, individually or collectively. While the total cost to employers remains unknown, it is undeniable that these bills would lead to catastrophic rate hikes, a risk New York cannot afford to take while the economy teeters on edge. New York’s businesses are wrestling with widespread inflation, unrelenting supply chain issues, extensive labor shortages, stubbornly high gas prices, and unnecessarily excessive Unemployment Insurance costs. According to the National Federation of Independent Business’ (NFIB) Small Business Economic Trends report, 37% of small businesses report inflation as their single most important problem, the highest level since 1979. Forty nine percent of small businesses report job openings that could not be filled, ensuring that businesses have every incentive to bring employees back to work as quickly as possible. Small businesses continue to raise wages and increase selling prices at historic levels, adding financial pressures on both business owners and consumers. 1 The state must and should avoid saddling businesses with any new or increased costs. Driving workers’ compensation premiums higher than they already are is a dangerous gamble for New York to take in such a precarious economic environment. On behalf of our organizations, businesses, industries, and communities we represent, we urge you to veto these bills. Thank you for your time and consideration. Northern Forest Center WebinarCommunities and industries across the region are facing the challenges of a shrinking and aging workforce. Please join us for the next webinar in our Building the New Forest Future series, Building a Strong Workforce, where our expert panelists will discuss the varied ways their programs prepare young people for careers in the Northern Forest. We invite you to join us for this event! Registration is free, but required to participate. ESFPA Starts Future Leaders ProgramThe Empire State Forest Products Association (ESFPA) Board of Directors has for years been discussing the need to provide opportunities to attract and train future leaders in the forest management and wood products manufacturing sector. To that end, they believe that it is incumbent upon existing industry leaders to take on the responsibility to make the next generation of leaders. This fall we are kicking off our first Future Leaders program, a year-long partnership with a mentor and specific experiences, lessons, training, and opportunities to build leadership skills. We are also partnering with Farm Credit East in providing this opportunity. The objective of the Future Leaders program is to expose professionals in our sector to ESFPA's vision and function and a wide range of career development fundamentals. Selected candidates will have the opportunity to learn skills that will help them participate and communicate with peers and superiors, ESFPA members, and New York policy makers including state representatives and New York State agency staff. Participation in the program will also foster future career growth and development, increasing the likelihood that they will remain in New York and continue contributing to the advancement of the industry as well as remaining active supporters of the ESFPA. We believe that everyone has the potential to be a leader. Whether you have a formal leadership title, are leading projects and initiatives, or are a rising emerging leader. These workshops are directly applicable to inspire the way you lead your work and interact with peers, colleagues, and clients. We are looking for 4-6 candidates for this initial round of Future Leaders and encourage you to apply. If you are interested, click the link below to view the full curriculum and application. |