 I'd like to move on to our next presentation. It will be given by Anne Bartuska. Anne is a senior advisor at Resources for the Future. And the title of her talk is A Managing Forest for Climate Mitigation. On to you, Anne. Well, good morning, everyone. And thank you very much for inviting me to be part of this workshop. Sitting here in Washington DC in the middle of a lot of policy work, that's going to be the focus of my talk as I go through this. I do want to thank the US Forest Service Office of Sustainability and Climate for a lot of the graphics I'm using, as well as the Forest Climate Working Group for many of the ideas that I'll be walking through. There's a lot of activity in Washington right now associated with the whole notion of natural climate solutions. It's really been triggered, I think, in part by the IPCC 1.5 study. But it has really gained momentum from a lot of the community. And I just wanted to put this out there in terms of the policy context for this Congress, because there is so much discussion taking place right now, starting with, or maybe not starting with, but acknowledging that there is the Trillium Trees Initiative that the White House has promoted and is now moving forward under the American Forests as well as the World Economic Forum. But beyond that, in terms of practical application, instructing agencies and organizations to actually make things happen, we have several bills that have been put forward that are really focusing on the notion of reforestation but reforestation within the context of climate mitigation. And so in some ways, it's a hopeful sign that there is a lot of energy and enthusiasm about doing this kind of work. The challenge, of course, is doing it right and having legislation that really captures the needs of being able to not only plant trees in terms of reforestation, but also achieve the goals that we've set for ourselves. And in the middle of that, you'll notice the Senate Bill, Growing Climate Solutions Act really is addressing some of the soils issues that Francesca just talked about, which is giving landowners the opportunity to improve their land use in order to directly address the carbon issue. Now, these bills really do just talk about the different aspects of reforestation. They don't include the reforestation backlog on federal lands, which are another set of legislation and guidance, as well as wildfire reduction. So my point is a lot of energy going into the topic and a lot of opportunities to guide success. But what does that look like? Part of the reason for moving this way, and you're going to see this figure over and over again, you already have, but in terms of being able to use natural approaches or native natural-based approaches to climate, reforestation and forest management are really at the top of the list. And so there is a lot of opportunity for success and progress, even though we recognize, just as Chris Field said yesterday, that there has to be a balance of many different things going on. This is not the solution, but it does add to the body of opportunity. But if you really start thinking about reforestation, I think one of the challenges that a lot of the legislation has is it's not just about tree planting. And so what we've been trying to do here and in DC is bring a focus on this entire lifecycle because there are multiple components that have to be addressed, starting with what seed are you going to be using. And you may want to use improved seed mixes so that you actually get some of the diversity that you want to achieve within that landscape. There's also aspects of nursery production, having the people to be able to do that production and then having sufficient capability to go out and plant. It's not all plantation forestry. There is a lot of reforestation going on in natural landscapes. That does require a lot of backbreaking work. And then it's more than just putting the tree in the ground. You also have to manage to ensure success, which could be three to six or eight years out from that initial tree planting. So being able to manage all of that and understand what is happening along that entire lifecycle is really critical to success. Whether or not you go into the figure that is an accruing stand, a forest that is building carbon, or into a landscape that has both utilization through harvesting and products to natural growing sites and being able to balance and understand the carbon flow within all of those different pieces. So as we talk about this whole notion of reforestation within the context of climate mitigation, this is the picture that we have to have in mind. It's from the seed to the long-term success if we really want to achieve our goals over time. It's also about increasing our understanding of what is the spatial and temporal scale. There is a very simple look at it. You have aspects of forest management that produce carbon and CO2 on the left. And this is deforestation, forest management activities of fire that do release carbon. And then you have processes of growth that take up that carbon and that net balance. But within those particular, that very ostensibly a simple system, there's actually a lot of complexities. And many of you know this, that you have growing stocks, you have forests that are continuing to upgrade and increase and as demonstrated here in the lower left of the graphic. But then you have these pulses of CO2 that come from fire. And what is the balance across the landscape of those two conditions? You also have opportunities for harvesting where you're going to be releasing. CO2 is part of decomposition, but you also have opportunities to take up more carbon as some of that forest grows. So part of the challenge and as we talk about what research is needed is being able to quantify all of those different pathways at the right scale that actually gives us the information we need to be able to make decisions over and especially over what part of the landscape we're actually operating in. And then as an ecosystem person myself, I like to think of the bigger ecosystem. It's not just the forest, but there is a connectivity between forests and agricultural lands because of land use trade-offs that are being made. In fact, there probably should be another box here that shows development pressure because often when these lands go out of being forested and that they don't go to ag, they may go into development which has a lot of economic value associated with it. So being able to look across those and I actually appreciate the soil connectivity across those different land uses. But we also want to take into account if you are extracting wood for various purposes, part maybe stimulating the actual through thinnings, the health of that forest or because you are deliberately having trees to be producing a product, then we also need to think about where is that material going? It could go into biomass energy, which is a CO2 producer, but is that offsetting at what level and what scale the use of fossil fuels? Similarly, if you're taking wood out of the forest and putting it into a product that has longer term use like furniture or houses that could be 50 to 100 to 150 years, then you're also offsetting the use for other materials. So the substitution effect is also part of the net calculus that we want to take at scale over and whether that can be temporal scale or landscape scale or spatial scale. And then I think we also want to keep in mind and this is part of the messaging as we've talked to policy makers here in DC is again, it's not just taking that slice of the forest and focusing just on that component. It's how do these different pieces interact and how do you want to have a integrated approach to forest management and to the economics of forest products that allow you to and support the growth of healthy forests, even as you are through market mechanisms, keeping that land in forest because you're producing products. So it really is a very, a balancing act, frankly, from an economic standpoint, but it's also a challenge in terms of thinking about the landscape and the scale at which some of these activities are taking place. Perhaps one of the more challenging ones, and I'll come back to this, is where does biomass and bioenergy fit? And there is a long history of the industry using bioenergy to offset other energy uses so that they actually have a closed loop system within their own production. But as we think about it as a substitute for fossil fuels, how do we get the numbers right? And again, I'll come back to that, I think this balancing between the production of a product and what that does in terms of CO2 emissions versus long-term storage is going to be part of our calculus. And a more complicated view than if we look at the, and I'm just going to look on the right side of the screen, the broad view is how do we then capture this cumulative carbon storage aspect? This is a graphic that has been used in several different reports now on how you then stack up the different places where carbon is going within the whole wood products cycle, starting with the soil and the pool that's there, that the litter has been mentioned, but also continuing in as trees are harvested for purposes and grow, there's carbon accumulation and then some systems that continues to go up where some of that is being converted to a product. Let's capture the amount of carbon that is going into those products, the substitution effects, for example, because of paper versus plastic might be an example, but also in terms of building materials as you're trading off using concrete and steel and the growth of the mass timber, the large tall wood buildings right now is really pushing the envelope on what we know about how much can this particular sink grow literally. And then the energy substitution piece. So as you look at all of these components, their overall is a net decrease in CO2 emissions because of the accumulation of all the different products and pathways that we're considering. And I just said I wanted to come back to bioenergy because I think it is one that we need to continue to get our understanding and our arms around. What is the total opportunity here? What is the trade-off in terms of wood use and through whether it be pellets or other biomass uses versus fossil fuels, but also how does that net out and being able to switch to a wood bioenergy for some part of our energy use within the country? And I think that within the US that is. As many people have said, this is not one size fits all. It's not the sole approach to being able to reduce the fossil fuel emissions. It is one component that enables us to achieve a net gain and being able to reduce the amount of CO2 and accumulate more carbon. Part of the reason for thinking about this pool as well as some of the others that I mentioned before is if a landowner has an opportunity to keep forests and forests, they do need to have an economic driver in most cases to be able to do that. It could be a conservationism, but it also could be selling part of that land for product and one of those products could be bioenergy. And so if we can think about that combination and being able to give a landowner the ability to manage for these products so that they do have an economic incentive to stay on the land. And that is I think one of the net issues that we've been talking quite a bit in the forest community is that exact trade-off. And what are the opportunities for investment in forest land so that you do have positive reforestation? There we go. And just to look at net balance of the various investment policies that are out there, incentives to being able to keep land and forest, incentives to expand the capacity, there is 11 million and some of you know this and some of you may not, 11 million private forest landowners in this country, many of whom do not have management plans, don't necessarily think about the value of their land. As they develop a plan thinking not only about a extractable product, but also maintaining that forest land in a healthy condition for carbon accumulation, as well as one of the important features and the added value of having these lands kept in forest, is there a water quality aspects to it in terms of maintaining cleaner downstream flow? There's biodiversity concerns, there's recreation opportunities, but all of these net out and are stackable when we think about keeping forests and their condition even as we think about carbon. So we being able to better understand the economic drivers of the different products is a clear part of what has to be included in any kind of, whether it be legislation or action that needs to take place. And so lastly, and one of our challenges was to think about what is needed as we go forward that could be the focus of research. And so I did put down a few ideas that we might use to think about future or further conversation. I've tried to, the first one is one that I think, I've mentioned a couple of times, but it keeps coming up and that is what's the scale of the analysis we're thinking about? I have sometimes sat in meetings surprised at the push to look at things at a stand level when as forest managers, we've been thinking landscapes and watersheds for a very long time and the management at that scale. And so being able to better understand what the reasons for that and the underlying concerns and then how do you integrate multiple stands so that you are at the entire landscape you're continuing to accumulate carbon and being able to address that, which means we have to be able to follow the carbon. We need to be able to monitor it, measure it and estimate carbon stocks. The good news in the US is that we have the forest inventory analysis program that's been going on almost 85 years at a fairly broad scale, but it has given us the basis to understand what how forests are regrowing or not across the country and by region and through calculus being able to estimate carbon stocks. The good news is the FIA program is looking at small area estimates to be able to get at that smaller scale that a lot of people feel is needed to be more effective. Then also you want to think about who is it who's going to be evaluating this material and or make sure that you're achieving the success you want. And I think we need to think more about forest certification and its role as a third party verifier of carbon management. We do have a very robust forest certification programs and system in the United States that actually globally and it's I think the opportunity to take that and because everybody uses it. I mean, that's one thing that the industry has really supported. How do we then look at it in terms of carbon? What might that change look like? So something along those lines in terms of third party verification becomes I think pretty critical. And then we still have a lot of I haven't mentioned offsets yet and I know it's come up and will probably come up in further and some of the conversations. There is a lot of activity in the offset field. A lot of big companies are trying to buy and are purchasing carbon offsets but we have multiple systems and really no overarching policy that would systematize that entire process and making sure that we're apples and apples and not apples, oranges and kumquats, if you will. And I think the opportunity is there. There's certainly a willingness, especially within some of the big investors to look at this in a much more deliberate way. And I hope I think actually some of the conversations tomorrow will get there. A lot of what I've talked about is probably had more of a private lands focus but we can't ignore the federal forest estate not only in terms of the sheer extent of the opportunity for reforestation and for creating healthy forest stands but the investment that would be required to do that and then the longterm risk associated with those sites that require active management to keep them functioning. In addition is how do you use those areas to achieve some of the carbon goals that we have and what's the actual number for that in the long run? And then finally, as discussed in a recent paper in science by Andrew, I get all there's a lot of risk associated with forest and being able to incorporate that risk into the amount of land set aside or tagged as a carbon for carbon or climate mitigation through carbon. How do we build that in? What's the projections associated with that? And I've actually heard over the years one interesting point that for at least the private lands side to have risk reduction by having the federal lands be in the surety or insurance for those private land investments. Is that even legitimate? So I think all of those areas are not insurmountable but they would give us I think a much stronger basis for being able to do the right calculation at the right scale over the right time and give us some level of confidence that in fact these treatments will add up these activities will add up to a successful use of forest and reforestation. So thanks very much and I'm looking forward to further conversation on this. Great, thank you so much, Ann. I really like also how you ended with the future research opportunities. I know we've got a couple of questions in already so I'll hand it over to Jenny, but before that I wanted to just mention that if anyone does have any comments on some of those research opportunities using the Q and A function to ask question or thoughts about it would be great. Okay, Jenny. Thank you, thanks Sarah. And Ann, thank you. That was fantastic talk, lots of information there. I'll go to Shafiq who has a couple of questions. Shafiq, would you like to unmute yourself and ask your questions? Thanks Jenny. Ann, I had a question in terms of you said close the balance on the forest. Where are the largest uncertainties that lie in trying to close that balance today? Where do you see the biggest challenges? Since we do have such a large area of private forest lands where there's not an integrated management approach, to me I think that would be where some of the great gains could be made. And I say that because you do, as I said, you have these 11 million forest land owners, many who seem, who are not locally based, a lot of them are absentee or only use their properties for recreation purposes, which is a valid use. But being able to capture that community and to give them the tools that they need, which means we're talking about incentives. And I think there are market driven incentives, but there's also those that we've used successfully at USDA for conservation purposes. And I'd love to really test those more deliberately in the forest landscape. I guess the other piece I would just mention is that the challenges we have in the federal lands, because we're mostly in the West, we've always had this notion if you're using, if you're cutting wood for a product, you've got to get whatever it is. It could be thinnings for wildfire prevention. You've got to get the wood to a mill or to a facility for treatment. And innovation would be as if we could get the facility to where the wood is, so that you're reducing transportation costs or increasing the efficiency. And what could that look like? I haven't seen a whole lot of work on that, but I think the opportunity is really quite strong there. Yeah, so I think, thank you for that. Michelle, we have you back, I think. Can you ask your question there? Okay, I think I did it. Can you hear me now? Okay, good. Yep. Sorry, the button kept on vanishing on me. Well, thank you for the presentation. It's really informative and I see that you cited some of the work of my colleagues at the Nature Conservancy. And just wanted to see if I could get your thoughts on, we highlight substitution and opportunities for reduction potential there through wood products. One thing I'm still trying to think through is how do we, you know, we can model it and see evidence that we can reduce emissions and climate impacts that way, but how do we in real time monitor substitution and reductions to actually ensure those benefits are happening? And that's where I get stuck. We could monitor in the forest and do inventory there, but as things start to travel down through the supply chain, it seems like it gets more challenging and there's more uncertainty introduced as things move through the supply chain. So do you have any thoughts on how we might be able to track that in real time to actually ensure that we get those benefits? Yeah. Amazon's to be doing that pretty well. It's tracking of products. And I think that's who you'd want to engage with is the manufacturing and the business side of the equation to talk through what are the systems that we have in place already that perhaps could be amended or could service the basis for doing that real time tracking. You know, for example, and this is analogous but not directly related, there is a thing called the National Establishment Trend Survey that gives you accurate information for every business and every zip code on what the income is, what the algo is, what the labor force is, and that gives you very powerful information on what's happening at a business level but then could be aggregated by a community level. So people know how to report things in a very deliberate way. I think the increasing automation of some of this reporting, I joke about Amazon, but there's a reason why their logistics work so well because there is a really rapid tracking. So how could you apply that kind of technology to some of the questions that we have? That if you look at a mill, there are mills are metered, there is energy being metered, there's water being metered. How else could that be adjusted? We put in those not transponders but the barcades on particular wood so that as a tree leaves a forest to a mill, people can track it and this has to do with illegal logging. So I think we're only limited by our imagination on this but we'd have to ask the question to the right community who would then want to be making those kinds of investments and just my guess, my last point on this I haven't thought about it until you raised the question. If you have the Amazons and the Delta Airlines and the McDonald's investing in offsets because they see some value in it, they're going to want to track that investment and so they haven't accepted, I think, to think and help answer the question you were just posing.