There are a variety of types of skidding and forwarding machines used to move whole trees, slash, or chips from the woods to a landing or roadside location in forestry. In the subsequent sections, traditional ground-based skidding and forwarding equipment types are described briefly, as are some specialized forwarders for woody biomass.

Ground-based log skidders may be tracked or wheeled machines. Log skidders are capable of working on moderate slopes (<40%) and may be configured as either cable or grapple skidders. Cable skidders have a large hydraulic winch on the back, which log ‘chokers’ are attached to, allowing multiple stems to be winched to the machine and elevated off the ground prior to skidding to the landing. Grapple skidders have a large hydraulic grapple on the rear of the machine that lifts logs off the ground for skidding (Figure 14.5). Cable skidders thus have the advantage of being able to pull felled trees out of areas that may be difficult for the machine to navigate, or preferable to avoid, such as streamside management zones (SMZs), while grapple skidders must be able to back up directly to bunched logs where they lay. Working under similar conditions, grapple skidders have higher production rates than cable skidders, and are more common. On the west coast of the United States (Oregon and Washington), shovel logging has largely replaced the use of skidders for ground-based yarding in industrial forest operations. However, skidders are still used commonly in the inland northwest and in the eastern United States.

A variety of instruments and methods are used by farmers to manage risk. The use of production inputs to limit yield risk was discussed in a previous section. Insurance is a traditional instrument used to mitigate risk by pooling a large number of independent risks, collecting premiums from each, and paying benefits to those suffering losses. Crop insurance is available in many countries and is often underwritten or re-insured and subsidized by governments. In the United States, the national crop insurance program requires a history of at least three years of production yield in a given location before offering insurance. Pilot programs for new crops may provide coverage until a larger program is established. Crop insurers may also offer crop income insurance where a degree of price risk mitigation is included with yield risk mitigation in the insurance contract. Collaboration with crop insurers on establishment of a new crop insurance program can provide an important risk mitigation alternative for farmers.

Futures markets and options provide an important price risk management instrument for buyers and sellers of large volume commodities. Futures and options contracts are standardized contracts traded on central exchanges. The futures contracts specify date, location, quantity, and quality of a commodity to be delivered. By taking an offsetting position (called a hedge) in the futures markets, buyers and sellers can essentially lock in the price they will receive or pay for the commodity. Costs of using this instrument include transaction fees paid to brokers and the maintenance of a margin account with the brokerage. The margin account is a cash reserve that buyers and sellers must maintain with the exchange to ensure that they will honor their obligations under the contract. A large amount of capital may be required to maintain margin accounts. Most futures contracts no longer allow actual delivery and are cash settled instead, based on a specified spot market price. In either case, the price that a buyer or seller receives locally may differ with date, location, and quality from the price used to settle the futures contract. The difference between cash price and futures price is called basis. Basis is variable over time, so it is a remaining source of risk for futures contract hedgers, albeit considerably smaller than overall price risk. Options contracts are derivatives of futures contracts that are also traded on central exchanges. Commodity producers and consumers can buy options to establish a minimum or maximum price that they will receive or pay. They pay a premium to purchase the option contract. As option buyers they do not have to maintain a margin account. If prices move adversely, they can sell the option and recover the difference between the floor or ceiling price established with the option and the current price of the underlying futures contract. These contracts are unlikely to be available for new small volume commodities but are available for large scale crops, including wood products, and can be established for new crops when the volume becomes large enough.

Production contracts and marketing contracts are used widely in agriculture, particularly for specialty crops. Marketing contracts are also used where buyers and sellers seek to avoid marketing and procurement costs by establishing longer-term contracts for delivery and pricing. Marketing contracts may establish the schedule for delivery, the terms for pricing, and penalties, bonuses, and courses of action for various circumstances that may arise. Production and marketing contracts are also used for commodity agricultural products where buyers desire specific qualitative traits in their purchases and those traits are more costly to measure than to acquire through contract. Production contracts may include terms where the buyer provides some inputs such as genetic stock, provides harvesting or transport of the crop, and acquires all product from the crop. The production contract may provide a specified price with quality adjustments to be paid by the buyer to the seller upon collection of the product.

Marketing contracts and production contracts help mitigate many of the ongoing risks in agricultural production. Such contracts still leave the farmer or the buyer subject to risk of contract failure. Financial failure or other inability or unwillingness of the other party to meet their obligations under the contract may leave the remaining party in severe financial difficulty; particularly if there are no other processors or suppliers of feedstock nearby. Parties to contracts should have plans for contract failure in place before the contract is signed.

Strategies for managing financial risk include the use of fixed rate debt, diversification of crop mix and other agricultural enterprises, maintaining a large cash reserve or diversi­fication of investments in unrelated assets. Taking on partners or shareholders to provide more equity capital is another common strategy to manage financial risk. Using contracts and insurance to limit the probability and severity of financial losses helps limit risk of financial failure.

18.4.1 Feedstocks

In Brazil, sugarcane-derived bioethanol is one of the most successful examples of large scale biofuel production, distribution and use. The use of ethanol in transportation and for the production of electricity from sugarcane residues accounts for nearly 16% of the total energy supply [1], making it the second primary source after oil. Current ethanol production is based on first generation (1G) technology, fermenting sugars extracted from sugarcane stalks. However, sugar only represents approximately one third of the energy content of sugarcane. The other two thirds are composed of straw that is either burned on the field or left as mulch, and bagasse, the fibrous material left from the juice extraction process, which is mostly used as fuel for process heat and electricity generation at the mill. Cellulosic ethanol, also known as second generation (2G) ethanol, can be produced from what is currently considered agricultural and industrial residues (straw and bagasse).

Bagasse is readily available at the plant site without collection and transportation costs, in the shredded form and with low ash content. However, two trends might put pressure on bagasse availability for cellulosic ethanol production: the declining fiber content of new sugarcane varieties — a target of most crop breeding programs — and the increase in surplus power generation, especially in the new mills. On the other hand, there are commercially available technologies to reduce process steam consumption — the main energy demand at the plant — thus reducing bagasse consumption and increasing its availability for cellulosic ethanol production.

Pre-harvest burning has been a conventional practice to facilitate sugarcane manual harvest. Due to environmental and socioeconomic reasons, there are ongoing burning phase out programs in the main sugarcane-growing regions in Brazil, with the gradual replacement of manual harvest with burning by mechanized harvest without burning leaving 10-20 tons (dry matter) of straw per hectare on the field. This lignocellulosic material has also been considered as a feedstock for cellulosic ethanol production in Brazil. However, the task of collecting, transporting and pre-treating this material presents important challenges that need to be overcome before it can be used on a commercial basis. The low mass and energy density, and the distribution throughout extensive land areas are limitations due to transportation costs. Collection methods such as bailing can deteriorate the quality of the feedstock by increasing the ash content to a level that requires a pretreatment to bring the values to acceptable levels [2]. There is ongoing research to develop mechanical harvesters that can efficiently handle both sugarcane stalks and straw, being capable of separating and conditioning the straw with sufficient load density for low-cost transportation as well as maintaining adequate quality for industrial use.

There are also potential benefits of leaving crop residues on the field, such as protection against erosion, nutrient cycling, soil carbon sequestration, weed suppression and soil moisture retention. On the other hand, considering the large quantities of residue generated and their high carbon-to-nitrogen ratio and fiber content, it is likely that removing part of the straw will still secure most environmental and agronomic benefits. Those benefits are site specific, so the amount of straw that can be removed sustainably should be calculated considering climate, topography, soil, and crop variables.

Sugarcane is a semi-perennial crop with a plant crop and successive regrowth crops, known as ratoons. After five or six harvests on average, it is necessary to replant the crop, and there is usually a period of a few months in which there is a fallow period or cover crops, usually legumes. Sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) has been evaluated as feedstock for both first and second generation ethanol production [3]. Currently, there is preliminary research in Brazil for cropping sweet sorghum in the short period between sugarcane cycles, providing supplementary feedstock for ethanol mills in a period of low sugarcane availability.

The growing interest in bioenergy crops led to the development of cane varieties with high stalk and leaf fiber and lower sucrose content, called “energy cane” [4]. Since the primary energy content per unit of cropped area is higher than with conventional sugarcane, energy cane has the potential to become another alternative feedstock for cellulosic ethanol production in Brazil.

A reasonable goal for design of a receiving facility for any bioenergy plant is:

1. weigh and unload a truck in 10 min, and

2. move material into, and out of, at-plant storage to support 24/7 operation.

The second most significant cost benefit of a multibale handling unit, after the improve­ment of truck productivity, is the improved cost effectiveness of receiving facility operations. Design of a logistics system must be integrated with the design of the receiving facility.

13.7.2 Farmgate Contract

Creation of a multibale handling unit will require specialized equipment, thus it is not offered as a practical option at the “farmgate” level. As an example, the rack system concept [6] envisions a farmgate contract whereby the contract holder grows the crop, harvests in round bales, and places these bales in single-layer ambient storage in an SSL. The contract holder owns the SSL and is paid a storage fee for each unit of feedstock that is stored. The biomass is purchased by the bioenergy plant in the SSL. All agricultural operations are now “sequestered” in the farmgate contract, which gives those seeking a farmgate contract a well-defined body of work to prepare their business plan.

13.7.3 Hauling Contract

The multibale handling unit system concept envisions that the hauling contractor will invest in the industrial equipment needed for year-round operation. Because the hauling contractor is hauling year-round, they can (1) afford to invest in higher capacity industrial — grade equipment designed for up to 5000 h/yr (or more) operation, and (2) their labor force will develop expertise at the operations, and the tons handled per unit of equipment investment will be a maximum. These two factors together create the potential to minimize hauling cost ($/ton).

Processed woody biomass is unloaded in different ways depending on the transportation method and capabilities of the concentration yard or facility to which it is delivered. High-volume operations, such as large combined heat and power boiler systems and elec­tric power plants, typically use hydraulic truck dumps. These systems raise conventional tractor-semi-trailers vertically and use gravity to dump the contents of their trailers into a transfer bin, pit or bunker, or onto a ground-level pad. Once dumped, the biomass can be moved from the unloading area by drag chains, conveyors, wheeled front-end bucket loaders, or similar handling equipment. Paired with large-volume chip vans, truck dumps are an extremely efficient unloading system. However, they are costly to install and main­tain, so they are generally found at facilities requiring hundreds of thousands of tons of feedstock per year. For smaller volume operations, such as distributed heating systems, self-unloading trailers are preferred. These trailers generally discharge onto a pad, where the material is moved by a rubber-tired front-end bucket loader. A variety of belly, side and end dump trailers are available for different truck and tractor configurations. However, walking floor (or live floor) self-unloading semi-trailers are a good option to maximize payload when a truck dump is not available or when the truck must unload in a covered

storage area or bunker with low overhead clearance that limits the use of side and end dump trailers.

Chipped or ground woody biomass can be stored in piles that are open to the weather (Figure 14.10). Obviously, moisture content is not a problem for conversion technologies that use wet chemical and biochemical processes, but even for thermochemical conversion processes where dry material is preferred, biomass harvested from green trees or logging residues that have received some field drying is unlikely to increase much in moisture content from precipitation when stored in piles outdoors. However, in most cases piles with high moisture content should be rotated to avoid degradation, which can change its physical and chemical properties, resulting in loss of energy content. Spontaneous combustion of green and wet chips can also occur if piles are allowed to remain outdoors without rotation for extended periods. This phenomenon is the result of microbial activity that produces heat, which can build up and cause combustion under some temperature, oxygen and moisture conditions. Regular rotation dissipates heat and changes pile conditions to make combustion unlikely.

Some woody biomass, especially residue from solid wood products manufacturing, has low moisture content as a result of kiln drying prior to final processing. In some cases, green woody biomass is dried prior to use, as in most fuel pellet manufacturing operations. Drying wood is expensive but elevates the recoverable energy content and value of the material. As a result, dry woody biomass should be kept in a dry condition using proper storage and handling procedures, which often include covered storage and short storage duration before use. Though spontaneous combustion and degradation are less of a concern with dry materials, dry biomass may require additional dust control, typically in the form of collection and exhaust systems that minimize fire, environmental and health risks. In general, the smaller the particles, the greater the need for such management systems.

For bioenergy facilities using roundwood delivered on log trucks or flatbed trailers, there are a variety of conventional options for unloading, handling, and storing wood. Log trucks can be unloaded by crane, either rotary or portal varieties, and easily stored in tall piles in a log yard. Unloading and storing wood in this fashion is an efficient option for high-volume operations and is commonly employed at conventional forest products manufacturing facilities. Grapple loaders and rubber-tired front-end log loaders can also be used effectively, although a larger land area is required due to the limited reach of the equipment. Log yards often employ both cranes and log loaders to stack and store roundwood. Low volume operations are unlikely to prefer roundwood as feedstock but can opt for grapple loading log trucks and a tractor or skidder to manage logs in the yard before processing.

Invasive species are any “alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause eco­nomic or environmental harm or harm to human health” [43]. Valery et al. [44] clarify the concept of “alien” at the ecosystem scale, rather than at the scale of geopolitical bound­aries (e. g., switchgrass is native to grasslands of the central United States, but alien to California grasslands). Biomass production for bioenergy has the central aim of maximiz­ing harvestable dry mass per unit land area, labor and input expense. As bioenergy crop candidate species have been evaluated for their ability to fulfill these production criteria, a suite of traits characterizing a bioenergy crop ideotype has been identified. Ideal bioenergy crops feature a C4 photosynthetic system, long canopy duration, perennial life history, no known pests or diseases, high relative growth rate to suppress competing vegetation, sterile seeds, storage of nutrients in underground organs prior to biomass harvest, and high water use efficiency [42]. As noted in Raghu et al. [45], with the exception of sterile seeds and perennial life history, all of these traits are risk factors associated with increased likelihood that a plant species will become invasive when introduced into favorable habitats beyond its native range.

Many scientists have expressed concern about the invasive potential of bioenergy crops over the past five years [45,46-52]. To date, such reports have largely approached the issue in one of three ways: literature reviews providing background on species being considered as potential bioenergy feedstocks [51]; bioclimatic envelope models to determine potential ranges for introduced crops [46, 53]; and qualitative analyses of risk using expert decision support systems, such as the Australian Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) or adaptations thereof, tailored to specific locales [47, 52]. Such approaches are a necessary beginning for evaluation of invasive potential of bioenergy crops, but the power of inferences made with these methods is limited by the lack of empirical evidence from within proposed areas of introduction, and further limited by variation in expert opinion driving these tools [54]. For those bioenergy crops nearing deployment, quantitative risk analysis based on field studies in the proposed production area will provide site-specific information on invasive potential [50]. A small number of such experiments have begun to appear in the scientific literature [55, 56], hopefully providing a more comprehensive understanding of invasiveness in coming years.

Impacts of invasive plants in their new habitats can range from modest effects on commu­nity composition to wholesale reorganization of ecosystem structure and function [57,58]. For example, invasion of montane forests in Hawaii by the fire-adapted grass Schizachyrium condensatum resulted in a more than fivefold increase in fire frequency and severity, altering species composition and nutrient flows [57]. The estimated combined economic impact of invasive species worldwide is in the order of $190 billion annually in lost revenues, ecosys­tem services and cleanup efforts [59]. Among current perennial bioenergy crop species, several are already known as invaders within the continental United States. These include Arundo donax [60], Miscanthus sinensis [51], Phalaris arundinacea [61], Phragmites australis [62], and Triadica sebifera [63]. The choking rhizomatous mats of vegetation produced by A. donax, P. arundinacea or P. australis in riparian corridors displace native vegetation and make lavish use of water resources [64]. Potential impacts of invasions by bioenergy crop species on wildlife populations are difficult to predict, since such studies are few and most draw conflicting inferences depending upon crop species, wildlife species and habitat of concern [65-67]. In addition to the scenario of bioenergy crops becoming invaders themselves, there is also the possibility that they will facilitate the invasion of other organisms. One such scenario includes augmentation of agricultural pest populations by providing them with over-winter habitat. For example, M. x giganteus has been found to serve as an alternate host for the Western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera), thereby creating the potential for increased severity of outbreaks of this insect pest and exacerbated crop yield losses [68].

The amount of biomass necessary to meet renewable energy goals is enormous and will, therefore, require huge land areas [69]. Pilot projects are already underway to develop biomass production potential, such as the initiative to grow M. x giganteus on marginal arable land in the Midwest United States, sponsored by the Biomass Crop Assistance

Program of the USDA Farm Services Agency [70]. This project calls for four 20 000 ha areas to be planted to M. x giganteus in Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Current qualitative evaluations of M. x giganteus traits suggest that it has low invasive potential in California and Florida [52,53]. However, even if the probability of a given bioenergy crop species becoming invasive is low, if it is greater than zero there will likely be escapes when production is fully scaled up by 105-106 ha, and 109 plants are involved.

Reducing the frequency and impact of biological invasions resulting from bioenergy production is essential to the sustainability of the enterprise. Three complementary types of actions are necessary to prevent and ameliorate bioenergy crop invasions: (1) germplasm screening; (2) production best management practices; and (3) containment. Most pre-introduction screening of bioenergy crop cultivars to date has been accomplished using variants of the Australian WRA [47,48, 52]. Following such initial screens with an empirically-based demographic modeling approach in planned areas of introduction will likely provide much more robust inferences on how much of a threat different crop cultivars are likely to be [50]. Such a system would be helpful not only for evaluating existing crop germplasm but would also help to define non-invasive crop ideotypes to guide breeding efforts [71].

When scaling up biomass production from test plots to production fields, best man­agement practices for plantation design, production and harvesting should all contribute to lower risks of invasion. A basic ground rule for siting plantations is that rhizomatous perennial grasses, which are easily dispersed by water, should not be planted adjacent to riparian areas [60, 62]. Quantitative knowledge of dispersal processes of the crop species is critical to designing effective buffer areas for production fields. A buffer strip surrounding the bioenergy crop should be sown to a turf or agronomic crop species for which weed management practices are well-characterized. This will form a containing perimeter for the bioenergy crop that is easily maintained as a pure stand and for easy monitoring of possible escapes. The width of the surrounding buffer area should be estimated as the product of the annual rate of vegetative spread of the crop and the number of years a production field will be maintained, possibly increasing the buffer area by some margin of error. If the bioenergy crop species has viable, wind-dispersed seed, as with Miscanthus sinensis [51, 56], it may be safer to embed a smaller biomass production area within a larger matrix of agronomic crop to form a barrier against seed dispersal. Such a design will help to provide containment of the bioenergy crop species even if monitoring efforts fail in some years.

Monitoring is essential for any containment strategy and should be performed annually along the entire perimeter of the bioenergy crop production field. Escapes should be flagged and terminated, and revisited for several years thereafter to ensure complete eradication

[72] . For wind dispersed species, monitoring efforts will need to extend beyond buffer areas into surrounding habitats that are likely to allow establishment of the bioenergy crop species

[73] . Such efforts will be aided at a local scale by empirical data on potential establishment of bioenergy crops in various types of non-arable lands, and at regional and larger scales through the use of climate-matching models [53].

Robert Keefe1, Nathaniel Anderson2, John Hogland2, and
Ken Muhlenfeld3

department of Forest, Rangeland and Fire Sciences, University of Idaho, U. S.A.
2Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, U. S.A.

3Southern Union Community College, U. S.A.

14.1 Introduction

The economics of using woody biomass as a fuel or feedstock for bioenergy applications is often driven by logistical considerations. Depending on the source of the woody biomass, the acquisition cost of the material is often quite low, sometimes near zero. However, the cost of harvesting, collection, processing, storage, and transportation from the harvest site to end users can be quite expensive. In many cases, the combined cost of logistics will exceed the delivered value of the resource by a substantial margin. Therefore, it is highly important to the economic success of any bioenergy project that the logistics of bringing the woody biomass to the consuming facility be optimized to the greatest extent possible.

Optimizing the logistics for woody biomass fuels and feedstocks can best be accom­plished in the planning stages of the project. If the consuming facility is improperly located with respect to the geographic distribution of the woody biomass resource, the project will likely suffer a continuing economic burden in the form of excessive transportation costs. Furthermore, the design of any woody biomass-consuming operation is generally best served by providing for as much feedstock flexibility as the operation’s core conversion technology permits. That is to say that a wider range of feedstock species, form, particle size, ash content, and moisture content will be preferable from an economic standpoint. Increased feedstock flexibility expands the usable resource base, which in turn will serve to reduce risk and uncertainty in feedstock supply. Diversified feedstock supply chains may also reduce procurement costs by avoiding competition for biomass with other users, such

Cellulosic Energy Cropping Systems, First Edition. Edited by Douglas L. Karlen. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

as pulp mills and pellet manufacturers. Investments at the consuming facility in storing, pro­cessing and drying the woody biomass to the extent required by the conversion technology can offset the logistical disadvantage of performing these functions in the field.

Important production decisions are assumed to have been made prior to assembling enter­prise budgets. How much of each input to use, when to plant and harvest, which land to use, and many other control variables are treated as fixed in enterprise budgets. A crop enterprise budget is a “snapshot” or single point representation of a complex set of production possi­bilities. Usually, the crop enterprise budget portrays the profit maximizing or recommended set of practices and expected yield. Economists employ production functions to represent the physical and biological relationships inherent in crop production. Physical and biologi­cal scientists study the relationship between various input levels and management decisions and the resulting plant growth and yield characteristics of a crop. Economists are interested in analyzing which combination of inputs and management decisions results in the most

profit. Figure 15.1 illustrates a simple production function with quantity produced on the vertical axis and quantity of input used on the horizontal axis. The curved line represents the quantity produced as a function of the quantity of input used. Maximum yield y* occurs when input quantity x* is used. Profit maximizing yield y** occurs when input quantity x** is used. Profit maximizing quantities are defined by tangency of the line with slope px/py to the production function. This tangency is derived from a condition of profit maximization stated as Marginal Cost = Marginal Revenue.[4] In other words, at the profit maximizing level of input use, change in total cost equals change in total revenue. At this point on the production function, any additional use of input increases cost more than it increases revenue. Similarly, at the optimum point, any reduced use of input reduces revenue more than it reduces cost. A second order condition for this point to be a profit maximum is that the slope of the production function is declining. This characteristic reflects declining marginal yield response to additional input use as maximum yield is approached. An impor­tant general point is that the profit maximizing level of input use and yield is generally below maximum yield unless the input is free.

The identification of a profit maximizing set of inputs for a specific crop is very diffi­cult. Many inputs and interaction between inputs cause the simple input-output relation­ship depicted in Figure 15.1 to become a complex multivariate function. The relationship between control variables and other independent variables, such as prices, climate, and soils, further complicates the farmer’s decision problem. A sustained program of agricul­tural research and extension education combined with the practical experience of farmers has allowed United States agriculture to achieve very high and increasing levels of agricul­tural productivity. Yields of many crops have increased steadily over time while input use has remained constant or fallen. It is important to note that production cost per unit falls as yield increases as fixed and quasi-fixed costs are spread over more units of production. The link between productivity and sustainability is discussed in a later section.

15.1.2 Crop Rotations and Long Run versus Short Run Land Allocation

After approximating how much profit can be expected from each of several crops that could be grown, farmers must decide how much of their land and which land to allocate to which crops. Farmers may prefer to rotate crops on each field. For example, they may prefer to plant corn on a field one year and soybeans on the same field the next year. Yield and input cost may be conditional on rotation. Repeated planting of the same crop or the same class of crops on a field may result in increased pressure from disease, weeds and other pests. Increased disease and pest pressure may result in lower yields and increased rates of pesticide use. Rotating crops may allow use of a wider variety of control products and practices over time, resulting in higher yields and lower pest control costs. In dry climates, a fallow period may be included in the rotation to increase soil moisture and allow increased pest control. Crop rotations may include two or more crops being produced on the same field in a single year. Prolonged periods of temperatures above freezing and prolonged periods of absence of extreme heat and drought are conducive to more than one crop being produced on the same field in a year.

In each planting period, farmers’ crop selection decisions may be further constrained by availability of seed and other inputs. Farmers may deviate from their usual rotation when potential profit from a crop or input constraints suggest a crop mix different than their longer term crop rotation.

Multiseason and perennial crops require farmers to make a longer-term decision about land allocation. Expected profit from a perennial crop over a 3-5 year period may be compared to several single season crops and other multiseason alternatives. The importance of time in farm decision making is emphasized by perennial crop decisions.

The Council on Sustainable Biomass Production (CSBP) is a multistakeholder organiza­tion established in 2007 to develop voluntary sustainability standards for the production of second generation, cellulosic biomass and its conversion to bioenergy. “CSBP has gener­ated broad, multistakeholder consensus guidelines for sustainability that will serve as the foundation for a certification program for sustainable biomass and bioenergy production. This effort will set the emerging cellulosic bioenergy industry on a course of continuous improvement with support from growers, all sectors of industry including refineries, and social and environmental interests” [36]. It is an institution based in the United States that includes as members U. S. industry, environmental, biophysical research institutions, such as the Energy Bioscience Institute at the University of Illinois and the Institute of Renew­able Natural Resources at Texas A&M University. Of the 20 CSBP members, only The Great Plains Institute addresses parts of social sustainability in its mission and has farm organizations as partners. CSBP has developed sustainability standards while the industry evolves, rather than retrofitting the industry to the standards.

CSBP has developed a biomass to bioenergy sustainability standard in two phases. The first is from field to energy production facility entry gate (biomass producer standard)’ the standard that was released on 12 June 2012. The second is for energy production facilities (biomass consumer standard). CSBP is working on an auditing and certification process. Of the nine principles, Principle 6 addresses social sustainability directly.

Socioeconomic Well-Being

CSBP embraces a tripartite vision of sustainability, focusing on practices and products that are environmentally, socially, and economically sound. This Principle speaks to the need for sustainable distribution of socioeconomic benefits to the various participants in biomass and bioenergy production systems. A sustainable commercial model benefits from the support of wealth creation in local communities.

PRINCIPLE 6: Biomass and bioenergy production take place within a framework that sustainably distributes overall socioeconomic opportunity for and among all stakeholders

(including land owners, farm workers, suppliers, biorefiners, and the local community), ensures compliance or improves upon all applicable federal and state labor and human rights laws, and provides for decent working conditions and terms of employment [37]. Specification of this principle mainly addresses labor relations.

Compliance with Labor Laws

Ensure that human rights and labor laws are respected in biomass production fields for both employees and contractor employees.

Fair Labor Standards Act

Participants demonstrate employee protection that is compliant with or exceeds the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and all other federal and state labor laws.

IMPLEMENTATION: Participants demonstrate employee protection concerning minimum wage and overtime pay; health, retirement, and leave benefits; equal opportunity hiring; safety and health in the workplace; fair youth employment; and union rights, among others, unless state law requires greater employee protection. Participants’ contracts with contractors or contracting agencies require they abide by or exceed the employee protection requirements stipulated in the FLSA and all other applicable federal and state labor laws.

Fair Treatment of Workers

All workers and contractors shall receive fair treatment.

Grievance Procedures

Participants with 10 or more full-time employees, including seasonal workers, have a management policy that provides a mechanism for employees to raise concerns, safety issues, or grievances without fear of termination or any other reprisal, and inform workers of the policy at the time of hire or adoption of the policy.

IMPLEMENTATION: Participants demonstrate a system for the operation that provides a platform for employee grievances without fear of reprisal. Participants’ contracts with contractors or contracting agencies require comparable grievance procedures.

Employment Contract

Participants provide workers with a written agreement describing the terms of hire.

IMPLEMENTATION: Participants demonstrate a written agreement (e. g. employment contract) regarding hiring, firing, working hours, and vacation time. Participants demon­strate compliance with local, state, and federal labor contract laws. Participants’ con­tracts with contractors or contracting agencies require written agreements describing terms of hire.

Workplace Improvements

Participants provide opportunities for employees to make suggestions for workplace improvements.

IMPLEMENTATION: Participants demonstrate a system to provide an opportunity for employee suggestions and a sample of suggestions in the previous year.

Freedom of Association

Participants respect the right of workers to associate freely in the workplace and, if desired, organize among themselves to negotiate working conditions.

IMPLEMENTATION: Verified through private interviews employers and/or employees, or written policies and procedures.

Environment, Health, and Safety

Participants ensure that biomass production activities are conducted in a manner that protects the health and safety of employees. Table 17.3 represents an assessment of social sustainability for the crops discussed in this volume. This is done based on general literature and is not a case-by-case examination on the ground.

Compliance with Laws and Regulations

Participants maintain and provide documentation of compliance with federal, state, and local occupational health and safety laws and regulations.

IMPLEMENTATION: Participants demonstrate compliance with OSHA and applicable federal, state, or local laws or regulations. Participants’ contracts with contractors or con­tracting agencies require compliance with OSHA and applicable federal and state health and safety laws.

Training

Participants and Participants’ contracting agencies maintain and provide documentation that employees are trained for health and safety in the workplace.

IMPLEMENTATION:

• All employees, including seasonal employees, receive health and safety information, in a language they understand.

• All full-time employees receive health and safety training and get updated training at least every five years.

• All employees using potentially dangerous chemicals and machinery have received appropriate training.

• Supervisors are trained in emergency procedures and all provided information about who to contact in case of emergency and location of emergency kits.

• Participants’ contracts with contractors or contracting agencies require comparable train­ing and documentation for workplace safety training.

Hazardous Materials Protection

Participants and Participants’ contracting agencies provide, and employees use, adequate protective clothing, appropriate safety equipment, and filtered air respirator systems and/or positive pressure cabs for workers handling highly toxic chemicals.

IMPLEMENTATION: Participants document the purchase of Hazardous Materials Protec­tion for employees or identify the location of the equipment on the premises evidence of

worker education. Participants’ contracts with contractors or contracting agencies require comparable protective equipment and clothing for the use of hazardous materials.

Accidents and Injuries

Participants and Participants’ contracting agencies are prepared to handle injuries and chemical spills.

IMPLEMENTATION:

• Employees have access to well-stocked first aid kit at each work site.

• Employees are trained in emergency response procedures.

• Appropriate to the size of operation, procedures, materials, and training to address spills of hazardous materials are maintained.

Sanitation

Participants or Participants’ contracting agencies provide clean drinking water and sanitary services.

IMPLEMENTATION: Participants provide records that document employee access to san­itation devices and clean drinking water for employees. Participants’ contracts with con­tractors or contracting agencies have assurances to provide workers with clean drinking water and access to sanitation.

Insurance against Workplace Injury

Participants and Participants’ contracting agencies provide workers compensation for all full-time employees.

IMPLEMENTATION: Participants provide evidence of insurance policies documenting the purchase of insurance products to cover workplace injury situations. Participants’ contracts with contractors or contracting agencies require the purchase of workman’s compensation insurance [14-16, 37].

In addition, Principles 7 and 8 address the key social areas of legality and transparency and Principle 1 requires integrated resource management planning.

There are several types of commercially-available slash-forwarders that are purpose built to forward woody logging slash and tops from in-woods locations to a landing or road­side pickup for subsequent processing or transportation. These machines include simple

forwarders with bunks for transport of loose logging residue, machines with inverted hydraulic grapples that compress slash in order to increase payload capacity, and forwarders with mechanisms for wrapping slash into large bundles.

Alternatively, a variety of self-feeding chipper-forwarders now exists that are able to pick up and chip logging residue in the woods. Slash is picked up with a hydraulic arm and grapple, self-fed to an in-feed conveyor or feed roller mechanism, chipped, and carried in an internal container to the landing. Because chipper-forwarders densify biomass from logging residues in the woods prior to transport, these machines tend to have higher production rates than slash-forwarders [4].