Maine Policy Review Spring 2017 by University of Maine

Spring 2017 · Vol. 26, No. 1 · $15

Maine Policy Review

Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center

Maine Policy Review

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

PUBLISHER MARGARET CHASE SMITH POLICY CENTER Jonathan Rubin, Director

EDITORIAL STAFF

Maine Policy Review (ISSN 1064-2587) publishes

EXECUTIVE EDITOR

independent, peer-reviewed analyses of public policy issues relevant to Maine.

Linda Silka Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center

The journal is published two times per year by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine. The material published within does not necessarily reflect the views of the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center.

EDITOR Barbara Harrity Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center

The majority of articles appearing in Maine Policy Review are written by Maine citizens, many of whom are readers of the journal. The journal encourages the submission of manuscripts concerning relevant public policy issues of the day or in response to articles already published in the journal. Prospective authors are urged to contact the journal at the address below for a copy of the guidelines for submission or see the journal’s website, http://digitalcommons.library .umaine.edu/mpr/.

PRODUCTION Beth Goodnight Goodnight Design

DEVELOPMENT Eva McLaughlin Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center

COVER ILLUSTRATION Robert Shetterly

PRINTING University of Maine Printing Services

For permission to quote and/or otherwise reproduce articles, please contact the journal at the address below. Current and back issues of the journal are available at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/ The editorial staff of Maine Policy Review welcome your views about issues presented in this journal. Please address your letter to the editor to:

Maine Policy Review

5784 York Complex, Bldg. #4 University of Maine Orono, ME 04469-5784

207-581-4133 • fax: 207-581-1266 http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu mpr@maine.edu

The University of Maine does not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, including transgender status and gender expression, national origin, citizenship status, age, disability, genetic information or veteran status in employment, education, and all other programs and activities. The following person has been designated to handle inquiries regarding nondiscrimination policies: Director, Office of Equal Opportunity, 101 North Stevens Hall, 207.581.1226, Email: equal.opportunity@maine.edu

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

My Creed . . . is that public service must be more than doing a job efficiently and honestly. It must be a complete dedication to the people and to the nation with full recognition that every human being is entitled to courtesy and consideration, that constructive criticism is not only to be expected but sought, that smears are not only to be expected but fought, that honor is to be earned but not bought.

Margaret Chase Smith

THANKS TO… Contributors

Peter and Nancy Mills

and anonymous Contributors

Peter Bowman Stanley R. Howe, Ph.D. James P. Melcher

Kenneth Palmer Douglas Rooks Elizabeth and Michael Saxl

Friends

Howard P. Segal David Vail and anonymous Friends

Volume 26 of Maine Policy Review is funded, in part, by the supporters listed above. We encourage you to consider making a tax-deductible contributions to show your support for the journal. Checks should be made payable to the University of Maine and can be mailed to the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center, 5784 York Complex, Bldg. 4, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5784. Donations by credit card may be made through our secure website at digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr and by clicking “Donate.” Information regarding corporate, foundation, or individual support is available by contacting the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. If you would like receive email updates about future issues of MPR, please send an email to mpr@maine.edu and we will add your address to our electronic mailing list.

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

Contents

THE MARGARET CHASE SMITH ESSAY Can Maine Prosper? Leadership, Research, and Partnership for Economic Growth By Yellow Light Breen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

REFLECTIONS Why Doesn’t Science Get Used? The Upcoming Focus on Citizen Science By Linda Silka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F E AT U R E S commentary

Maine Energy Planning Roadmap— Energizing Maine’s Future by Lisa Smith and Jeff Marks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Impacts of Recent Mill Closures and Potential Biofuels Development on Maine’s Forest Products Industry by Mindy S. Crandall, James L. Anderson III, and Jonathan Rubin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Owning Maine’s Future: Fostering a Cooperative Economy in Maine

Maine’s Artisan Cheesemakers: The Opportunities and Challenges of Being an Artist, Scientist, Agriculturalist, Alchemist, and Entrepreneur by Stephanie Welcomer, Jean MacRae, Brady Davis, and Jacob Searles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic Cigarettes in Maine: Health Effects, Marketing, Use, and Regulation by David E. Harris, Barbara Lelli, and Sarah Mayberry . . . . .

by Davis F. Taylor and Rob Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maine’s Culture of Reuse and Its Potential to Advance Environmental and Economic Policy Objectives by Cindy Isenhour, Andrew Crawley, Brieanne Berry, and Jennifer Bonnet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sharing Isn’t Easy: Food Waste and Food Redistribution in Maine K–12 Schools by Brieanne Berry and Ann Acheson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

MARGARET CHASE SMITH LIBRARY HIGH SCHOOL ESSAY CONTEST First-Place Essay

Crusade against the Drugs, Not the Users 36

by Gabrielle Kyes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Second-Place Essay

High Society by Abigail Hande . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Third-Place Essay

Knowledge Is Power: Preventing Drug Use through Education by Sigrid Sibley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

The Margaret Chase Smith Essay

Can Maine Prosper? Leadership, Research, and Partnership for Economic Growth by Yellow Light Breen1

year and a half ago, I took a 50 percent pay cut and added three hours a day to my daily commute to start work at the Maine Development Foundation (MDF). I had to ask myself, “Are you really that crazy passionate about what MDF does?” Yes, I am. MDF is a unique place— created nearly 40 years ago by the legislature, but designed to be independent of state government. Our membership and board of directors comprise an equal blend of for-profit and nonprofit organizations, as well as government. The latter includes two members of the governor’s cabinet. We’re a classic public-private partnership. Our mission is to work on longterm economic development strategies for Maine across sectors. If it’s short term, someone else does it. If one sector can tackle it, they will. We only get involved when it’s thorny and involves the statewide picture. This fits my passion. I grew up in the rural Somerset County town of Saint Albans, but then having worked for both state government and a statewide company, I got to see every region of Maine. We do many different things at MDF, but as we try to articulate what our programs have in common, we’ve boiled it down to three things: leadership, trusted research, and creative crosssector partnerships. MAINE’S ECONOMIC CONTEXT

aine’s economic situation requires both brutal honesty and unquenchable optimism, both of which can be found in Measures of Growth,

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

MDF’s signature product Figure 1: Vision: A High Quality of Life for All Maine People for 23 years.2 A leader from Washington County who served on the original Maine Economic Growth Council told me, “You may take it for granted now, but at the Economy time, the notion we could get a politically unfiltered view of what was really going on in the Maine economy was a rather elusive thing. So, Quality of Life don’t take this for granted.” Campaigns were won and lost based on partisan slants on how the economy was fundaCommunity Environment mentally doing and who could take credit. I love the Growth Council’s “Vision” pictograph (Figure 1) because it speaks to a holistic view of the economy. We talk is one of the world’s rarest economic about the economy not for its own sake, assets, even in North America. but because it’s really about quality of Maine’s international exports have life for Mainers. A strong economy stood out recently, too, as they have supports that vision, but we also need a grown even as national exports have healthy environment and vibrant dipped slightly. communities—all three together. It’s the Last year, the council awarded a delicate balance between the three that gold star to something that may seem defines success and makes our work surprising: the cost of doing business challenging and rewarding. (Figure 2). Maine, we generally think, Where do we stand? First, the good has notoriously high costs, but the trend news. Measures of Growth awards gold for cost of doing business is down; from stars, and two this year concern environhighest in New England, we’re now mental issues. Maine is consistently at second lowest. That’s dramatic. And, 90 percent to 95 percent for high levels unless you celebrate progress, you won’t of water quality, while the nation lags at continue the hard work to move long30 percent to 45 percent. Our air quality term trends in the right direction. We is also high and improving. Maine’s enviare a high-cost state in a high-cost region ronment is a signature asset. Finding in a high-cost country. We won’t have economic opportunities while preserving the lowest cost of doing business, but we quality of life is vital because clean water can moderate it and exploit other assets.

THE MARGARET CHASE SMITH ESSAY

Figure 2:

Cost of Doing Business, 2000–2014

130

Moody’s Analytics Index Points

U.S. ME

CT NH

MA VT

120

110

100

U.S. Average — 100 Index Points

90 2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

Source: Maine Economic Growth Council and MDF, Measures of Growth 2017.

Figure 3:

Total Percentage of GDP Spent Toward R&D in 2014

4.7%

Not-for-Profit University & College

Industry

Benchmark for 2020

2.8%

1.6% 1.1%

0 Maine

EPSCoR*

U.S.

New England

* Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research

Source: Maine Economic Growth Council and MDF, Measures of Growth 2017.

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

Now, the brutal honesty: red flags. They involve the overarching metric of value added per worker, or productivity. Maine is at the bottom, and for several years, we’ve been last in the nation. This rating partially reflects the economic sectors that predominate in Maine’s economy. Can we drive greater productivity not only in manufacturing or business services, but also in the tourism and hospitality sector? There are two fundamental issues feeding into productivity: the education and skill level of our workforce and the innovation supporting our workers. I’m often asked whether Maine has a good educational system or poor one. Maine has made a lot of progress

over the past 30 years. In the early 2000s, I went to Washington, D.C., to attend a ceremony at which Maine was recognized as the highest-performing state for K–12 education. We do a lot of things right, and Maine is still equal to, or slightly better than, the national average in K–12 education. But we also persistently trail the New England average in postsecondary (college) degrees by 15 percent. We’re in a highcost region, but lag behind in higher education levels that could help drive higher productivity. It’s a huge ongoing challenge. The other key red-flag issue is research and development (R&D) spending, which contributes to, and is reflective of, an economy’s level of innovation, the ultimate driver of most economic growth. Maine is at just one-third the national average (Figure 3). We trail our region dramatically, and we even trail other rural states. A National Science Foundation program targeting states with low basic R&D (such as Maine), called EPSCoR, tries to prime the pump. And Maine is behind even the EPSCoR states’ average! Maine is fortunate to be home to some world-class nonprofit research institutions and performs comparatively well in the percentage of our total R&D that comes from this sector. However, the overwhelming majority of R&D spending comes from the private sector, so creating a business climate where investment can flourish is critical to raising this number. I’ve done a lot of work on education reform, and we get trapped in a loop where people say, “Are you saying that everyone in our workforce needs a higher education degree?” No, but it was 30 percent in 2002, and when you throw in associate’s degrees and credentials, the research indicates that a thriving economy requires 60 percent of our workforce to have a degree, or significant 6

THE MARGARET CHASE SMITH ESSAY

industry certificate, by 2025—not 100 percent, but significantly higher than where we are now. We need to invest in our people, and we also need to create a climate for capital investment and innovation in the broader economy. In fact, about 15 years ago, a study by Maine’s State Planning Office found that the only two variables that correlate well with prosperity differences among states were (1) the proportion of working-age residents with at least bachelor’s degree and (2) investment per worker in R&D. What kind of programs or policy will promote these goals? How do we use leadership, research, and partnerships to move these insights into policy dialogue, systems change, and community change? STARTING WITH LEADERSHIP

primary focus at MDF is leadership. The original goal of our Leadership Maine program was training 1,000 leaders, a milestone we passed last year. Taking 40 leaders each year—privatesector executives, directors of nonprofits, policymakers, administrators, and higher education leaders—the program emphasizes economic assets and opportunities across the state in different sectors. Take last year’s journey: The research at the Jackson Laboratory, for instance, is extraordinary. There is no replacement for seeing it and hearing firsthand about oncology research and behavioral studies of mice that inform new treatments for autism. There is amazing stuff going on in Bar Harbor. We visited the blueberry barrens. What’s a more traditional Maine industry? You can’t, by definition, do much to it, or it’s not a wild blueberry. Yet they’ve managed to quadruple productivity in 40 years. Dave Yarborough of the University of Maine has spent 43 years helping drive innovation. We met young University of Maine MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

graduates overseeing satellite-guided robotic systems that perform integrated pest management. Research is helping bring back the shellfish industry and help it diversify as climate change pressure builds on lobsters. Can we create new revenue streams before it’s too late? And, a new paper mill operation opened last fall Downeast, the St. Croix Tissue division of Woodland Pulp. The tissue market is growing across the developing world. Demand for newsprint and writing paper has declined, but demand for tissue is strong. We saw the gigantic Bates Mill No. 5 in Lewiston, four acres per floor. It was slated for demolition until a young architect in Lewiston went to the city council and said, “This place defines the community in which we grew up. You need to give us a reprieve in order to create a vision.” Now they’re on the cusp of renovating the space and using it to anchor downtown Lewiston. Innovation is everywhere: the ski industry, shipbuilding and boatbuilding, even modern wood heat systems. Good leaders encourage and drive innovation. The 1,000 Leadership Maine graduates aren’t working together directly, but rather indirectly: we’ve created a dispersed network of people across the state who share insights and the ability to collaborate. We perform the same role for the legislature, in our Policy Leaders Academy program. This isn’t a yearlong journey; we get only a few days. We took legislators recently from Bangor to Presque Isle to Millinocket to show them signature assets and challenges of communities struggling with change. Seeing all of this and hearing from local leaders firsthand is invaluable to their work as legislators. As one former legislator remarked, “If it wasn’t for MDF and the Policy Leaders Academy, state legislators would get no professional

development at all.” That’s a responsibility we take seriously. UNLEASHING HUMAN POTENTIAL

ow do we work in partnership to unleash the potential of people across the state and not just those in leadership positions? It goes back to that fundamental: Invest in people and prosperity will follow. MDF is part of Maine’s new Education and Workforce Coalition. We’re working with the higher education system, adult education, and employers, along with key support organizations. The fundamental premise: We have to do two things in the face of our demographic shifts. We have to sustain and grow our workforce, and we have to dramatically increase postsecondary education credentials, including industry certificates and on-the-job training, not just degrees. (A credential of value is anything that commands a wage premium 20 percent higher than a high school diploma alone.) We need 158,000 additional workers with credentials—a big number. We can, perhaps, generate half through systems already in place. A sea change will be needed for the other half. We focus on adult workers, where our systems are weakest. Maine has a huge K–12 education system, with policy leadership from the Department of Education and the State Board of Education, but the adult education system isn’t really a system. It’s a scattered set of 100 sites, most managed by parttime employees. At least 75 percent of progress toward that big education-attainment goal will be from adults already in the workforce. Currently, employers and individual employees interact with dozens of collegiate institutions and navigate a variety of barriers to learning while living and working. How can our systems 7

THE MARGARET CHASE SMITH ESSAY

be more intentional, easy to navigate, and quicker to support adult learners? The workforce is not just a quality issue but also a quantity issue. While Maine may be the oldest state in the nation, we are at the leading edge of a worldwide challenge. Aging citizenry is also a huge problem in Europe and Japan and across the United States. It’s just more dramatic in Maine. For the first time in more than a century, Maine has more deaths than births. But in the country’s 50 largest metropolitan regions, none are adding population except through immigration. The idea we can grow our workforce without immigration is wishful thinking. Maine is the oldest state demographically and getting older—not because our growth in the senior-citizen-age bracket is faster, but because we don’t have enough younger people coming in. That’s where immigrant populations can have the biggest impact. You can boil down the statistics to this: Maine’s working-age-to-senior ratio, 3:1 today, is projected to be 2:1 by 2032, just 15 years away. That’s a crushing burden. We’ll need to bring more people in and keep seniors working longer, some because they want to, some because they have to. And, we’ll have to be a lot more productive. Each of us working in 2032 must generate more economic output, and we’ll need more of us through increased immigration. Our recent report, in cooperation with the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, is called Maine’s Labor Shortage: New Mainers and Diversity.3 It isn’t about federal immigration policy, but about getting our fair share of international immigration that does occur. Maine’s share is now smaller than New Hampshire’s, smaller than Idaho’s. How can we make Maine a welcoming and economically viable place for immigrants? MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

The percentage of foreign-born people in Maine now is 3.5 percent vs. 13.1 percent for the United States and 12.3 percent for New England. Yet half a century ago, Maine had a higher percentage of foreign-born people than the rest of the nation. So the idea that this need for immigrants is a break from our heritage is not true. It’s also not true that we found it easier to welcome immigrants of the past. We weren’t particularly welcoming to the FrancoAmericans and Irish and treated them as second-class citizens. We’ve faced similar challenges before. Can we face them better and more humanely this time? UNLEASHING COMMUNITY POTENTIAL

esearch, leadership, and partnership drive local economic progress too. MDF’s Maine Downtown Center is part of the national Main Street program.

We work with dozens of communities. Return on investment is 23 to 1. Communities fully involved in this program spent about $11 million over 13 years, about $100,000 per community per year. They’ve attracted almost $250 million in capital investment. More than 900 buildings have been rehabbed and 285,000 volunteer hours donated. The magic comes from the grass roots. The national model requires three things: commitment from the municipalities, businesses, and residents. It sounds simple, but it’s hard to create and even harder to sustain. There has to be financial investment from all three groups, and they must all be involved in leadership. The downtown group has to work on four elements and with equal vigor: organization to sustain the program; promotion through festivals, events, and marketing; infrastructure design, with facades, traffic patterns,

Aerial view of a festival in downtown Skowhegan, one of the Main Street communities.

THE MARGARET CHASE SMITH ESSAY

waterfronts; and focused business attraction and assistance. Without all four elements, and all three sectors, it fails. Simple, but hard to do. UNLEASHING KEY SECTORS

final big example of how MDF leverages research, leadership, and partnership has been our recent work with the forest products industry. This being Maine, I was at lunch one day when a top congressional aide, at the next table, said, “We might have a project that we need your help on.” The next week I had a conference call with staff from the entire congressional delegation, who collectively said, “We asked the federal government to come in, as they would after a natural disaster, to respond to the closing of six paper mills.” After a natural disaster, the federal government sends in a multiagency team and assesses all the available resources. Then they said, “We’re worried they’ll agree, and there will be no one to meet them. Will MDF coordinate?” This project is a multiyear engagement to assess challenges, generate solutions, track progress, and hold each other accountable. It hasn’t been easy. The concentrated economic hit was along the Penobscot River. Statewide, it was a significant hit, but in the Penobscot region, it was exponentially worse. From 2014 to 2016, Maine’s forest products industry lost more than $1 billion in annual economic impact and more than 5,000 jobs. Despite these reductions, however, forest products is still an $8 billion industry employing more than 30,000 Mainers directly and indirectly. How can we sustain this industry and drive future growth? The essence is to come up with a coherent and shared vision of what this industry could be and how it can fit into the global economy. Other states and countries are doing it, but Maine hasn’t. MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

MDF supported industry and community leadership in coming up with their own recommendations, which the federal agencies then included in their recent report. Our goals: • Sustain existing forest products businesses • Attract capital investments and develop greater economic prosperity across the state for existing and new businesses • Support revitalization of rural communities as places where people want to live, work, and visit Together, we also developed nine priorities; several aim to create an industry-wide business plan, so when we’re advocating for policy change, targeting economic development incentives, or pitching the state to investors, we are advocating, targeting, and pitching in a coherent, focused way. Priorities for communities include dealing with brownfields and reuse of mill sites, along with diversifying and strengthening Maine’s rural economy. Although some towns will have a path still linked to the forest products industry, many will not. How will they diversify? We’re really just getting rolling. Putting out a report doesn’t make anything happen. How do we leverage that key leaders come to, and stay at, the table and that the congressional delegation has been relentless in supporting us? We announced some new investments immediately, but many will take time. Although we don’t know where the recent partnership between the University of Maine and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee will go, in five years it may be the single most important thing to emerge: an opportunity to be a manufacturing R&D hub for nanocellulosic wood fibers in industrial products we can’t now imagine.

It may include creating wood-based polymers for 3D printing of boat hulls, combining our international leadership in boat building with reinventing “wooden” boats. Success involves flipping the narrative. One of the hardest things about working with the forest products industry is the impression that it’s dying. Why build a strategy or attract innovation for a dying industry? Yet, Maine has competitive advantages. More than half its 17 million forested acres are certified as sustainably managed and harvested, the highest proportion in North America. So, part of flipping the narrative is seeing Maine’s forest resources in a different way. Trees are not just for traditional wood products. There is rising demand for bio-based products: chemicals, plastics, advanced materials, biofuels. Anything we make with hydrocarbons, we can make from wood fiber. The head of R&D for Sappi, one of the world’s largest papermakers, with two Maine mills, said, “We’re not in the business of making paper; we’re in the business of manipulating the cellulosic fiber of wood. We just happen to make paper today.” It comes back to how we leverage leadership, trusted research, and creative cross-sector partnerships to move forward on challenging issues, some at a grassroots level, some at an individual level, and some at a complex macroeconomic level. How do we achieve our holistic vision? CIVILITY

inally, I want to consider how we talk: civility. When I was two weeks into this job, I got a call from several legislative leaders. When we met, they talked about the Policy Leaders Academy and said, “It’s great and valuable, but it’s even more necessary we have tools to work together across partisan divides. 9

THE MARGARET CHASE SMITH ESSAY

There are some great national programs on civility and civil discourse. Will you help bring it to Maine?”4 We thought a few seconds and said, “Yes,” because we recognize that if we’re working on anything big and substantive, there has to be a sustainable consensus. Many efforts take five, ten, fifteen years to make progress. You need a big center and a center that can hold, so you need to be able to work together. State Treasurer Terry Hayes was there and had a lapel pin that said “Civility.” I coveted her pin and said, “I wish I had one of those.” When I got to the office the next morning, there was a note and the civility pin. Several months later, I was talking to Senate President Mike Thibodeau, and he coveted my civility pin, asking, “Where can I get one of those?” I handed over my lone civility pin. We ordered 1,000 more because we figured every legislator and those who work with them should have one. We ran out, ordered 2,500 more, ran out again, and are handing out 5,000 more around the state. Years ago, I was a college intern for Senator George Mitchell. One day, I helped serve as tour guide to a visiting group from the Knights of Columbus ladies’ auxiliary from Old Town. At the end, these women (median age perhaps 70) presented the majority leader of the US Senate with a petition urging him to oppose abortion. George Mitchell has long been a champion of reproductive rights and was then primary sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act. Here were constituents urging him to take a position diametrically opposed. Yet I have never seen anyone more respectful, more cordial, and more committed to listening to and having dialogue about a difficult issue. That says a lot about how the way we do this work really matters. How we model civility toward each other can MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

have a lasting impact. If we channel research, leadership, and partnership through the prism of civil discourse, we can work together to grow Maine’s economy. ENDNOTES 1 Thanks to Douglas Rooks for editorial assistance. 2 The 2017 Measures of Growth is available at http://www.mdf.org. 3 Maine’s Labor Shortage: New Mainers and Diversity is available at http://www.mdf.org. 4 See for example, http://nicd.arizona .edu/next-generation.

Yellow Light Breen is president and chief executive officer of Maine Development Foundation. Breen’s passion is promoting economic and educational opportunity for all Mainers regardless of geography or background. Breen has a diverse background in business, public policy, and law. He spent 12 years as an executive with Bangor Savings Bank. Prior to that, he was a senior official at the Maine Department of Education and an advisor to Independent Governor Angus King.

ENERGIZING MAINE’S FUTURE

C O M M E N T A R Y

Maine Energy Planning Roadmap—Energizing Maine’s Future by Lisa Smith and Jeff Marks

INTRODUCTION

dentifying effective and efficient ways to heat and electrify Maine homes, buildings, and factories, and to fuel cars, trucks, and boats are consistently at the top of Maine governors’ priority lists, whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents. Advancing energy policies for the benefit of communities, businesses, and residents is increasingly necessary to drive economic development, enhance environmental quality, and achieve energy security. The Maine Governor’s Energy Office (GEO), with the guidance of a diverse and accomplished steering committee and funding provided by the US Department of Energy (DOE), is developing a Maine Energy Planning Roadmap (Maine Energy Roadmap) scheduled for release in January 2018. The Roadmap will provide a framework for evaluating existing and proposed energy policies, so Maine’s goals to lower energy costs, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, make efficient use of a diverse energy portfolio, and bolster state energy planning can be achieved. The Environmental and Energy Technology Council of Maine (E2Tech), a nonpartisan representative of a growing sector of the Maine energy economy and a key partner in the project, is tapping into its network of stakeholders to

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

discuss, evaluate, and help solve the state’s critical energy problems. Compared to most states, even other New England states, Maine is an outlier in its demographics, energy generation, and energy consumption. These differences produce unique energy challenges for Maine. Although Maine is larger geographically than the other five New England states combined, it has a relatively small population of about 1.3 million people, most of whom live in rural areas (US Census Bureau 2017). The state’s rural nature means its citizens travel more miles than those in many other states, and nearly 100 percent of Mainers are dependent on oil for transportation (US EIA 2016a). It also has the oldest population in the country, and some of the oldest housing stock (US Census Bureau 2017; US EIA 2016a). Furthermore, approximately 65 percent of Maine households still use oil as their primary heating fuel, more than any other state (US EIA 2016a). Maine also has the most energy-intensive economy in New England. As a result, Maine’s high electricity costs (eleventh highest in the nation) place Maine’s businesses at a competitive disadvantage (US EIA 2016a). All these issues clearly highlight the need to develop a Maine-specific energy plan. Not only must Maine pursue lower energy prices for its citizens and its industries, but the state must also seize

its available energy opportunities to build a stronger economy that will employ more Mainers. Fortunately, Maine has many assets available to address its energy challenges including in-state renewable resources and regional access to natural gas from the south and hydropower resources from the north. Furthermore, Maine’s abundant natural wind, water, and biomass resources are economic drivers and position the state as a leader in renewable energy. Nearly 70 percent of the electricity generated in Maine is from renewable resources (US EIA 2016a). And although, Maine constitutes only 10 percent of New England’s electricity demand, it supplies 50 percent of the renewable electricity generation for the region (US EIA 2016a). The ultimate goal of the Maine Energy Roadmap is to establish an implementable, stakeholder-driven plan with a framework to enable development of sustainable energy policies and programs. Without a comprehensive Roadmap to guide policymakers, Maine will continue to be vulnerable to the effects of high and volatile energy prices and will be unable to establish a cost-effective, sustainable path for the production, delivery, and use of energy by all sectors in the state. ENERGY POLICY—THE PAST

he phrase energy policy covers a wide scope of policy actions. These actions include, but are not limited to, market regulatory changes, environmental regulations, tax laws, incentive programs, and state mandates. Maine’s energy policy is comprised of an often-contradictory mix of statutes, regulations, and programs that influence residential, industrial, and commercial

ENERGIZING MAINE’S FUTURE

C O M M E N T A R Y heating and electricity use; renewable electricity generation; natural gas delivery and consumption; electricity reliability and resiliency; electricity transmission and distribution; transportation; GHG emissions; and state government energy use. Historically, the development of energy policy in Maine has not been the result of thoughtful, comprehensive analyses of costs and benefits; instead, state energy policies reflect a disjointed, decentralized culture and political process, one in which the objectives of special interests often dominate and policy initiatives are advanced without a consistent standard of evaluation. No single entity manages the study, creation, and execution of Maine’s energy policy. A combination of the state legislature, state and federal regulatory agencies, and quasigovernmental organizations oversees public funds, market regulations, programs, and laws relating to energy generation, distribution, consumption, and price. The primary entities include the Maine GEO; the legislature’s Joint Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology; the Public Utilities Commission (PUC); Office of the Public Advocate; Department of Environmental Protection; and Efficiency Maine Trust. Other ancillary committees, nonprofits, and state offices operate in this sphere, but the entities listed here are the primary policy actors. As a result, Maine’s energy policy has become the interplay between this complex bureaucratic structure and outside forces such as rapidly changing energy markets, emerging technologies, market externalities, behavioral changes, regional mandates, and federal policy initiatives.

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

HEATING AND TRANSPORTATION —EXAMPLES OF FLAWED (OR ABSENT) ENERGY POLICIES

il is the primary heating fuel used by Maine households. Despite record low prices for heating fuel over the last couple of years, the probability of significant price volatility remains due to factors such as global market changes and political upheaval in oil-producing countries. Low-income households are most vulnerable to oil-pricing shocks. While the state has financial incentives for installing energy-efficiency measures and upgrading old heating systems, these incentives reach only a small segment of Maine citizens. Approximately 5 percent of Mainers use natural gas to heat their homes (US EIA 2016a), but natural gas poses its own capacity and price challenges due to high winter demand and lack of infrastructure, particularly in rural areas of the state where natural gas infrastructure has not yet been built. Transportation accounts for half of the state’s energy use, emissions, and costs, and Maine is nearly 100 percent dependent on petroleum to fuel all its modes of transportation. There are fewer alternative-fuel vehicles per capita here than other New England states and little infrastructure for alternative-fuel vehicles (electric, natural gas, or biofuels). As with heating oil, gasoline and diesel fuel prices can be extremely volatile due to global, national, and regional constraints. Yet, there are no policies to reduce our reliance on petroleum in the transportation sector. ENERGY POLICY—THE FUTURE

aine Governor Paul LePage’s energy goals are to reduce Maine’s energy costs, not harm the environment, and decrease the state’s reliance on oil.

Maine already produces nearly half of New England’s renewable generation and nearly 70 percent of its own electricity generation with renewable resources (US EIA 2016b). Furthermore, Maine’s electricity industry accounts for less than 10 percent of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in Maine (US EIA 2016b), while the transportation sector contributes about 53 percent of CO2 emissions. Most utilities and business groups share the governor’s disinclination to subsidize additional renewable electricity generation or to spend resources on a patchwork of policies that do not result in a positive change. On the other hand, clean energy companies and environmental groups support energy policies that drive additional in-state renewable electricity generation, which they believe will lead to reduced energy costs, improved environmental quality, and green jobs. These divergent goals often lead to inertia when it comes to moving Maine’s energy policy forward. We believe there is a need for a holistic and unified approach to setting energy policy. A strong, implementable energy roadmap can provide guidance and potentially common ground to policymakers as they assess strategies for meeting energy goals. It also may facilitate economic development in the energy sector. Currently, there is no consensus on the appropriate objectives, and therefore, no robust integrated path forward. Despite different perspectives on electricity policy, and given that most of the state’s GHG emissions and oil use are in the heating and transportation sectors, perhaps we should shift our policymaking approach to address the biggest challenges. The steering committee, established at the outset of this planning process, has already identified several general

ENERGIZING MAINE’S FUTURE

C O M M E N T A R Y themes and objectives that will inform and guide development of the Roadmap. Addressing all of these is beyond the scope of the project, but the Roadmap may consider the following: • Strategies to ensure long-term energy affordability and price stability for Maine residents and businesses. • Initiatives to move Maine from a high-carbon to a low-carbon future.

• Discussion of energy-sector workforce development and training to attract and retain skilled workers.

• Recognition that current regulations and pricing mechanisms for electricity are based on old paradigms. New technologies and methodologies (clean energy, distributed generation and off-grid solutions, increased grid security and reliability, penetration of smart grid, and energy storage) will require new ways of thinking, pricing, and regulating.

The state’s industrial and transportation energy consumption along with its heating needs during the winter give Maine the highest per capita energy usage in New England. How do we reduce consumption while increasing productivity and make the most of each unit of energy? When dealing with energy efficiency, do we look long term and construct new, more efficient housing to replace older, inefficient units or focus on the short term and retrofit existing inefficient housing? Do we enact more stringent building and appliance-efficiency standards? When dealing with electricity, what combination of energy efficiency, demand management, and access to distributed energy and storage do we need? When dealing with transportation, do we try to change vehicle and public transportation use? Because of the complex interaction between sectors, there are no easy answers to these questions. But, the steering committee and stakeholders will consider these questions, and others, in the coming months.

• A focus on reducing Maine’s dependence on petroleum-based fuels for heating and transportation through new technologies and use of alternative fuels. • Review of regional (New England and our Canadian neighbors) activities on renewable energy, electricity procurement, and transmission. • Discussion of new standards for policy development and implementation. For example, can we evaluate policies based on whether they increase gross domestic product per unit of energy input, lower GHG emissions per unit of energy

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

• Approaches to encourage business and economic development in Maine’s energy sector including companies designing, manufacturing, and installing alternative energy systems and technologies. • Ways to stimulate research, development, deployment, and commercialization of new and emerging energy systems and technologies.

• Consideration of Maine’s unique demographics when setting transportation and heating policy.

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

consumed, and lower the cost per unit of energy consumed?

•

2017

CONCLUSION

aine’s largest end use for energy, and greatest consumption of oil, is in the transportation sector. Yet, we have no coordinated policy on reducing oil use or advancing alternative fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure. Heating Maine’s homes and businesses is a perennial challenge, yet we fret every winter to ensure that our most vulnerable stay warm. Maine has the highest per capita energy usage in New England, but we don’t have a focused strategy for reducing oil dependence while increasing productivity. Are these the right priorities? The Maine Energy Roadmap will identify the state’s most urgent energy challenges and obtainable opportunities; outline the state’s energy priorities; and include policy evaluation measures to find the right solutions for Maine. A pathway to a more affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy future is ahead of us. We will need resilient political will and a compelling roadmap to lead the way. If Maine Policy Review readers are interested in contributing to the Maine Energy Roadmap, please contact the authors. REFERENCES US Census Bureau. 2017. QuickFacts: Maine. https://www.census.gov /quickfacts/table/PST045216/23 [Accessed May 22, 2017] US EIA (US Energy Information Administration). 2016a. Maine: State Profile and Energy Estimates. US EIA, Washington, DC. https://www.eia.gov /state/analysis.php?sid=ME US EIA (US Energy Information Administration). 2016b. State Carbon Dioxide Emissions, US EIA, Washington, DC. https://www.eia.gov /environment/emissions/state/

ENERGIZING MAINE’S FUTURE

C O M M E N T A R Y Lisa Smith is senior planner with the Governor’s Energy Office (GEO). She has a background in energy and environmental planning and policy and has worked on a variety of energy policy issues for the GEO, from renewable electricity generation to delivered heating fuels. She is also the principal author of the 2015 Maine Comprehensive Energy Plan Update. Jeff Marks is the executive director of the Environmental and Energy Technology Council of Maine (E2Tech) and was a director at United Technologies Corporation (UTC), a Fortune 50 company on the cutting edge of the aerospace, buildings, and energy industries. Marks has represented companies in the chemical, electric utility, forest and paper, petroleum, renewable energy, and other industries and served at all levels of government in various political and policy roles.

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

MILL CLOSURES, BIOFUELS, AND MAINE’S FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES

Impacts of Recent Mill Closures and Potential Biofuels Development on Maine’s Forest Products Industry by Mindy S. Crandall, James L. Anderson III, and Jonathan Rubin

sawtimber dominated the state harvest (Figure 1). In the second half of the 1800s, wood pulp began replacing fabric rag in paper production, and Maine’s pulpwood harvest started to climb steadily. By 1890, Maine was the leading paper-producing state in the country, a position the state held until the 1960s (Ray Routhier, Maine Sunday Telegram, October 26, 2014). As of 2013, Maine remained both the largest wood products and pulp and/or paper producer in terms of gross state product (GSP) in New England (BEA 2017). An estimate of the economic contribution of the

Abstract The economic contributions of a sector (i.e., employment, output, value added) are a measure of how money from that sector moves about a regional economy. Using 2014 estimates of economic contributions from the forest product industry in Maine, we estimate the 2016 contribution by considering the impacts from several recent mill closures (five pulp/paper, two bioelectric). The loss of these mills, particularly paper mills, reduces the economic contributions of the forest products industry relative to the state economy and distorts markets for low-value wood. We also explore a prospective opportunity to revive low-value wood markets by modeling the economic impacts from a hypothetical colocated biorefinery, where wood chips are turned into advanced fuels and chemical coproducts. The dollar value of economic impacts from such an investment are small relative to the total industry, but they may prove significant for some rural communities.

INTRODUCTION

s the most heavily forested state in the nation, Maine is well known for its iconic forests and its reliance on the forest products industry (Smith et al. 2009). From the King’s Broad Arrow era, when prime white pine trees were marked for the exclusive use of the British king and navy, to the days when Bangor was the “lumber capital of the world,” to the rise and dominance of pulp and paper, Maine’s forest products industry has experienced significant changes, but has remained an important component of the state’s economy (MFPC 2013). At the turn of the last century,

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

Harvest by Product Class in Maine, 1904–2014

Figure 1:

Harvest, in Thousands of Green Tons (5-year Rolling Averages)

14,000 Sawlogs Pulpwood

12,000

Firewood Biomass Chips

10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

1904

1914

1924

1934

1944

1954

1964

1974

1984

1994

2004

2014

Source: Maine Forest Service

•

2017

MILL CLOSURES, BIOFUELS, AND MAINE’S FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES

forest products industry to Maine using data for 2011 put the total output contribution at close to $8 billion, or 6.4 percent of the GSP, while the employment contribution represented 1 out of every 20 jobs (MFPC 2013). Over the last decade, however, the forest-based economies of many states have seen downturns, and Maine’s was no exception. Declines in many industries in the early 2000s were followed by sharp reductions in output in forest products due to the decline in the housing market and Great Recession of 2007–2009 (Woodall et al. 2011). The decline of pulp and paper due to combination of factors, including increased competition from plantation-grown trees in Brazil and other countries, strongly declining demand for printing and writing papers, the high cost of the US dollar, and internet adoption, has been even more precipitous and alarming (The Economist 2016; Johnston 2016). In 2010, 12 pulp and/ or paper mills were operating in Maine; at the time of this writing (spring 2017), only six remain. Many of the closures were concentrated in central Maine, leaving the Penobscot River Valley without paper production for the first time in more than a century. These closures, along with recent closures of two biomass electricity-generating plants, have increased uncertainty about the current state and the future of the entire forest products industry. The market for low-grade material, such as that traditionally consumed by pulp and paper mills or biomass generating plants, improves the economic feasibility of sawtimber cultivation and harvesting by providing additional revenue for forest operations. Forest managers in Maine often depend on the markets for low-grade wood to remove small trees that allow the total biological growth to be concentrated on the higher-quality sawtimber stems. Biomass harvesting also improves the economic returns from entering a stand to harvest any material. Nationally, and in Maine, significant research attention is directed at alternative uses of low-grade wood, such as production of biofuels and chemical coproducts (Grebner et al. 2009). This research focus is driven in part by the desire to enhance economic activities in rural areas (Benjamin, Lilieholm, and Damery 2009). The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA 2007) codifies the national push for increased energy security through a reduction in the use of fossil fuels for transportation by increasing the use of advanced, low-greenhouse-gas-emitting biofuels from sources such as woody biomass (Neupane and Rubin 2016). MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

Given the market uncertainties around the future viability of pulp and paper production in Maine and the importance of low-grade wood markets in supporting the forest industry, we set out to investigate two critical questions: • Where is the forest products industry in terms of economic importance following these closures? • What is the economic potential from emerging technologies, such as the use of woody biomass for advanced biofuels, to revive markets for low-value wood? ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY IN 2016

ne useful metric for understanding the relative economic importance of an industry to a state or regional economy is looking at its economic contribution. Economic contribution differs from economic activity in one critical way: it expands the measure to include economic activity that is not only directly attributable to an industry, but also the economic activity generated because the industry exists. The economic contribution of a given industry is commonly estimated using a model of a region’s economic activity. We use the IMPLAN model, an input-output model originally developed by the US Forest Service (IMPLAN Group LLC). IMPLAN is widely used for this purpose as it specifically addresses these indirect and induced effects (or multiplier effects) of the economic activity in each industry of interest (Henderson et al. 2017). In addition, it generates estimates of both direct and multiplier effects for several metrics of interest: employment, labor income, total output, and value added (a measure of contribution to GSP). Estimating Economic Contribution Direct contributions arise from an industry’s employment of workers, wages paid to them, the value of the production (direct sales), and the value added to the inputs in the production process. Indirect contributions result from industry purchases of goods and services from supporting industries as a part of doing business, for example, the purchase of a piece of harvest equipment. As these supporting industries supply needed goods and services, they also generate indirect employment, wages, production, and value in the economy. Induced contributions are those generated by 16

MILL CLOSURES, BIOFUELS, AND MAINE’S FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES

the household purchases of goods and services by We applied this adjustment to the calculated 2014 employees in both the primary and supporting induseconomic contribution to estimate the contribution in tries. Induced contributions include things like restau2016. This method allowed us to estimate the significant rant meals that a sawmill worker purchases. The direct impacts from the closures. It also assumes no decreases effect of production activity in an industry thus has or increases in the other non-pulp-and-paper firms additional effects that are larger and are collectively between 2014 and 2016. Pulp and paper comprised 69 called multiplier effects. In this article, the industry of percent of the economic contribution of the forest prodinterest is any related to the primary use of the forest ucts industry in 2014. That dominance suggests that resource, including land management activities, logging and hauling of wood, biomass Figure 2: Map of Maine Pulp/Paper and Bioelectric Mills electricity generation, sawmills and other by Operational Status primary solid wood processing, and primary manufacturing of pulp and paper. The economic contribution of the forest products industry in 2014 was updated Madawaska using both public and proprietary IMPLAN data (Anderson and Crandall 2016). To estimate the 2016 contributions, we account Fort Fairfield for the closures of mills located in Millinocket (February 2014), Bucksport (Decemeber Ashland 2014), Lincoln (September 2015), Old Town (November 2015), and Madison (May Penobscot 2016), along with the closures of two River Area biomass electricity-generating plants in Jonesboro and West Enfield (March 2016) and significant cutbacks in production at the mill in Jay (October 2015). Millinocket To capture the impact of these recent plant closures, we used announced reducEast Millinocket tions in employment from the news media. Lincoln While imperfect, this method allowed us to West Enfield avoid a significant delay in waiting for Stratton updated official data. The mills that closed Woodland were some of the smaller ones in Maine and Old Town were not likely representative in terms of the Madison Brewer Jonesboro productivity of the remaining mills. Thus, Hinkley the loss of these mills represents a smaller Rumford Bucksport Jay than average loss to the industry in terms of Livermore Falls output. To account for this, we adjusted the Augusta likely change in output sales by estimating a Monmouth Gardiner ratio of input to employment for select mills, using industry data. Overall, the Lisbon Falls output-to-employment ratio of these mill Status closures was reduced by 35 percent when Pulp/Paper, Open Westbrook calculating impacts; that is, we estimate the Pulp/Paper, Closed, 2000–2013 closed mills were 65 percent as productive Pulp/Paper, Closed, 2014–2016 N as the remaining mills (Peter Triandafillou, Bioelectric, Open personal communication, May 26, 2016). Bioelectric, Closed

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

MILL CLOSURES, BIOFUELS, AND MAINE’S FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES

Table 1:

Estimated Economic Contribution of Maine’s Forest Products Industry (FPI) in 2016 ($2016) Direct Contribution

Contribution

Total Multiplier (Indirect + Induced) Effects

FPI Output ($ thousand) Jobs Wages Proprietors’ Income

FPI

FPI Support

Total Impact non-FPI

Total

$4,889,267

$617,575

$414,409

$2,620,051

$8,541,302

12,572

1,990

1,040

17,935

33,538

$664,056,504

$93,717,637

$50,976,529

$748,919,925

$1,557,670,595

$93,099,947

$54,106,618

$32,933,481

$95,226,720

$275,366,766

estimating the changes in pulp and paper in this way will capture the bulk of the recent decline. Economic Contribution of the Forest Products Industry in 2016

Since 2011 (the time of the last study of Maine’s forest products industry’s economic contribution), the economic contribution of the forest products industry in dollars has fallen slightly, while Maine’s employment has increased 2.1 percent and real GSP has decreased 0.5 percent (Table 2). In relative terms, the importance of Maine’s forest products industry has declined somewhat, but it still represents an important component of Maine’s economy. The forest products industry’s direct employment and total employment contributions have fallen (-14.7 percent and -13.5 percent, respectively), but real per worker incomes related to the forest products industry have gone up approximately 6.1 percent. Thus, the impact of mill closures may be overstated by simply counting the mills that have closed or counting the number of jobs that have been lost. Nonetheless, the

Using the methods we just described, we estimate that Maine’s forest products industry has a total 2016 statewide economic contribution, including multiplier effects, of $8.5 billion in sales output, 33,538 supported full- or part-time positions, and $1.8 billion in labor income. The total employment in the forest products industry of 14,562.5 jobs supports an additional 18,975 jobs in Maine (Table 1). The forest products industry provides just over 4 percent of the employment in Maine; put another way, just under 1 out of 24 jobs in Maine are associated with the forest product industry. This is a reduction from 1 Table 2: Summary of Forest Products Industry (FPI) Contributions to in 20 jobs in 2011. Maine’s Economy in 2011 Compared with 2016 ($2016)) Maine’s forest products industry contributes an 2011 2016 Percentage Change estimated $2.7 billion in Maine Gross State $55.7 billion $55.4 billion -0.5 value-added contribution, Product or just under 5 percent of FPI Value Added $3.5 billion $2.7 billion -22.6 GSP. Just under $1 out of Percentage of Gross 6.38% 4.96% every $20 of Maine’s GSP -22.2 State Product (1 out of 15.7) (1 out of 20.2) is associated with the FPI Total Sales forest products industry $8.6 billion $8.5 billion -1.2 Contribution (Table 2). Although the recent All Maine Jobs 794,279 811,321 +2.1 mill closures have domiFPI Jobs 38,789 33,538 -13.5 nated news about the Percentage of 4.88% 4.13% -15.3 industry and had signifiEmployment (1 out of 20.5) (1 out of 24.7) cant local impacts in some Total Payroll $1,999 million $1,833 million -8.3 communities, the industry Total State and as a whole has not experi$323.4 million $278.4 million -13.9 Local Taxes enced such a sharp decline. MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

MILL CLOSURES, BIOFUELS, AND MAINE’S FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES

closures still represent significant absolute employment and output losses in the industry and a spatial consolidation. These losses also cause ripple effects throughout the forest products industry due to the decline in markets for low-grade wood previously used by those mills. POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES IN WOOD PROCESSING

he development of technologies or industries that use low-value material from Maine’s forests has much appeal. By reviving demand for low-value material, new technologies and products may improve forest management options and enable the sustained production of sawtimber targeted for lumber production. Increased demand also would improve the economics of both harvesting and forest management and improve national energy independence. For all these reasons, research into emerging technologies for wood use has considered development of such technologies a potential economic win from both an industry and community perspective (Crandall et al. 2017). The presence of such a demand center in the Penobscot River Valley would also bring significant benefits for forest landowners and managers, as there are no longer markets for low-value material within economically feasible hauling distances. Emerging technologies being explored for the use of wood include mechanical, chemical, and heat (pyrolosis) processing to create products ranging from refined fuel chips and biodiesels to biochar (charcoal that is used as a soil amendment) (Carrasco et al. 2017; Dickerson and Rubin 2010). The scale of these ideas range from small mobile processing centers to large integrated biorefinery centers; many are still in the demonstration phase. Producing advanced fuels from bio-based sources is more expensive than petroleum. Unless consumers are willing to pay a price premium, the economic feasibility of large-scale projects in a time of low oil and gas prices frequently rests on subsidies or energy policies. The Forest Bioproducts Research Institute (FBRI) at the University of Maine has focused on demonstrating technologies to produce advanced biofuels and coproducts from low-value woody biomass. Chemical engineers, economists, and others have quantified the available biomass feedstock supply, patented conversion processes to turn wood chips into refined fuel and coproducts, and assessed the potential acceptance of the

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

development of such an industry in central Maine (McGuire et al. 2017; Rubin et al. 2015; Whalley, Klein, and Benjamin 2017). However, at least one key question remained: What might be the local economic impact of the operation of such a facility on a community? To estimate the potential economic impact of a new plant producing wood-based biofuels in Maine, we used recent results from the FBRI that modeled hypothetical plant operations, along with our economic contribution estimate for the forest products industry in 2016. The scenario reported here is a static analysis of the marginal contribution of such an operation colocated with existing pulp or paper mill infrastructure and does not include construction period impacts. The assumption of colocation is consistent with a techno-economic study that estimated the cost and inputs of the plant (Langton 2016). We converted the techno-economic analysis into a production function for use in IMPLAN and adjusted down our initial estimates of the effect of the plant on increases in harvesting employment to account for the known excess capacity in the harvesting sector. This scenario provides insight into the potential additional effects that such development might have on the wider forestry economy and local communities. What Would a Biorefinery Look Like? Our analysis assumed a biorefinery that produces biofuels and organic chemicals, employs 40 workers, and consumes 2,000 dry metric tonnes (4,000 green tonnes) of biomass each day—just slightly smaller, in terms of fiber use, than an average pulp mill in Maine. We assumed that the plant earns enough revenue to support its operation costs and upkeep without contracting or expanding its production. Because the economic impacts of the plant’s estimated $550 million construction cost will not generate sustained impacts in the local economy, we remove interest and depreciation from our operational analysis (Langton 2016). A production function indicates how much the plant must spend on each input to achieve a dollar in sales. Typically, a production function is a fixed set of ratios that scales linearly with changing revenue (quantity) under a fixed price. Our analysis assumes constant production under a variable price, resulting in fixed expenditures and not a fixed production function. This means that the owners maintain constant production of biofuels without regard to maximizing profit. Thus, our analysis looks only at base impacts from the biorefinery breaking even. 19

MILL CLOSURES, BIOFUELS, AND MAINE’S FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES

Since we assumed the biorefinery will make use of woody biomass residuals instead of roundwood, our analysis changed the predicted increase in harvesting jobs from the biofuel plant, given current excess supply in the low-value wood markets. The cost of delivered biomass varies significantly depending on the proportion of a harvest that is biomass and how contractors apportion their total harvesting costs between roundwood, pulpwood, and biomass chipping during harvest (Rubin et al. 2015; Whalley et al. 2017). If the total harvesting cost of an operation is split proportionally by amount of each product received (roundwood, pulpwood, biomass), the market price for biomass is approximately $30–35 per green ton, the price used in our analysis. An operation that solely havests biomass, where all the costs are attributed to biomass, would probably require a market price higher than is supportable by current demand. Thus, loggers cannot effectively expand biomass-only harvesting in a fiscally feasible way. Currently in an area without demand, low-value material is left on site when pulpwood and roundwood are harvested for other uses; hence, the addition of demand for the low-value residuals will limit the impacts a new biofuel facility could have on harvesting jobs. In other words, we expect that the plant’s demand for biomass would not go far towards increasing the overall demand for biomass in Maine. In our scenario, currently operating harvesters with excess capacity could see an approximately 449 job-equivalent increase in activity in total. These harvesters are unlikely to hire many more loggers, but would be spared the pressure to downsize from reduced demand. Economic Impacts of a Biorefinery Given the production values just detailed and making the adjustment for known capacity and economic feasibility in the biomass supply chain, we Table 3:

estimated the additional annual economic impact of a biorefinery at roughly $88 million (Table 3). In addition, the operation of such a facility has the potential to increase total employment attributed to the new activity by over 160 jobs. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

aine’s forest products industry remains important to the state, but it is facing several challenges. Although its economic impact is about the same as it was in 2011, the importance of Maine’s forest products industry, as a percentage of GSP, has fallen. This decrease is largely due to the decline in pulp and paper, as some other parts of the industry, such as primary wood processing, have grown. The major issue facing Maine’s forest products industry is the closing of five paper mills and two bioelectric plants between 2014 and 2016. These closures caused immediate loss of jobs and outputs through direct and multiplier effects, mostly concentrated in the Penobscot River Valley. However, these closures pose a larger challenge than just immediate job losses because the market for low-value material is shrinking. Access to markets for low-quality material can often define the profit margins for a forestry interest or harvest operation, especially if there has been any previous investment in the land. Without a market for lower-quality products, there is less incentive to manage forestlands and no financial incentive to remove poor-quality trees. This creates an environment where high-grading—the removal of only quality trees— is attractive to harvesters. In a region dominated by natural regeneration, this creates a long-term problem in forest stocking and composition. Healthy and quality forest products in the future directly depend on what we leave behind in the forest today and how we tend it over the coming decades.

$550M Hypothetical Biofuel Plant (Biorefinery) Impacts, after Adjustments for Harvesting

Impacts Output Employment Compensation Proprietors’ Income

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Multiplier Effects

Total Impact

Direct Contribution

FPI

FPI Support

non-FPI

Total

$68,982,104

$2,269,137

$1,076,954

$15,820,216

$88,148,411

40.0

23.4

4.7

92.0

160.1

$2,600,000

$558,610

$176,712

$4,339,034

$7,674,356

$388,402

$100,134

$528,966

$1,017,502

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

MILL CLOSURES, BIOFUELS, AND MAINE’S FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES

Because of these economic and management concerns, new technologies that use biomass and residuals, such as a biorefineries, are potentially important. Development of these technologies would help support the entire forest industry in the area, improving the economic outlook for harvesters and forest managers producing other forest products. Our analysis indicated that one such plant could add $88 million and 160 jobs to the overall industrial impact across the state. In an industry that generates $8.5 billion in economic impact and over 33,500 jobs, these numbers may seem small. However, such a plant could represent significant injections of economic activity in some of the most depressed areas of Maine. In addition, this analysis does not capture the overall support for the interdependent industries that such development provides. Technologies to better use raw forest material have the potential to benefit the state, the industry, and particularly the rural communities where such a facility might be located. Because Maine has both extensive forest resources and an active forest industry, investments based on these potential technologies will support the continued health of both industrial and small landowner management activity and the forest itself. Furthermore, although small compared to paper mills, such biorefineries could play an important role in diversifying the overall forest industry by broadening the types of end-product uses to more than pulp and paper or solid wood products. Although significant hurdles remain in economic feasibility of such projects, particularly in times of low petroleum prices, the development of such emerging technologies for low-value wood can better sustain the forest products industry and rural communities in the state. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported in part by NSF SEP Award 1230908 and the Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station. The authors wish to thank as well an anonymous reviewer for constructive suggestions. REFERENCES Anderson III, James L., and Mindy S. Crandall. 2016. Economic Contributions of Maine’s Forest Products Industry in 2014, with Adjustments to 2016. A Report for the Maine Forest Products Council. University of Maine, Orono.

BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2017. Annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by State: GDP in Current Dollars. http://www.bea.gov /iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=70&step =4&isuri=1&7003=200&7001=1200&7002=1&7090 =70 [Accessed January 1, 2017] Benjamin, Jeffrey, Robert J. Lilieholm, and David Damery. 2009. “Challenges and Opportunities for the Northeastern Forest Bioindustry.” Journal of Forestry 107(3): 125–131. Carrasco, Jose L., Sampath Gunukula, Akwasi A. Boateng, Charles A. Mullen, William J. DeSisto, and M. Clayton Wheeler. 2017. “Pyrolysis of Forest Residues: An Approach to Techno-Economics for Bio-Fuel Production.” Fuel 193(1 April): 477–484. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2016.12.063 Crandall, Mindy S., Darius M. Adams, Claire A. Montgomery, and David Smith. 2017. “The Potential Rural Development Impacts of Utilizing Non-Merchantable Forest Biomass.” Forest Policy and Economics 74(January): 20–29. doi:10.1016 /j.forpol.2016.11.002 Dickerson, Catherine, and Jonathan Rubin. 2010. “Bioproducts Process Pathways for Kraft Paper Mills.” Journal of ASTM International (JAI) 7(3). doi:10.1520 /JAI102571 The Economist. 2016. “Pulp Producers in Brazil: Money That Grows on Trees.” The Economist (March 26). http:// www.economist.com/news/business/21695530-brazils -economy-crumbling-its-giant-pulp-firms-are-booming -money-grows-trees Grebner, Donald L., Gustavo Perez-Verdin, James E. Henderson, and Andrew J. Londo. 2009. “Bioenergy from Woody Biomass, Potential for Economic Development, and the Need for Extension.” Journal of Extension 47(6): 8. Henderson, James E., Omkar Joshi, Shaun Tanger, Leslie Boby, William Hubbard, Matthew Pelkki, Hughes, David, W., T. Eric McConnell, Wayne Miller, Jarek Nowak, Charles Becker, Tim Adams, Clay Altizer, Rick Cantrell, Jesse Daystar, Ben Jackson, James Jeuck, Mehmood Sayeed, and Phil Tappe. 2017. “Standard Procedures and Methods for Economic Impact and Contribution Analysis in the Forest Products Sector.” Journal of Forestry 115(2): 112–116. doi:10.5849/jof.16-041 Johnston, Craig M.T. 2016. “Global Paper Market Forecasts to 2030 under Future Internet Demand Scenarios.” Journal of Forest Economics 25:14–28. Langton, Robert. 2016. A Techno-Economic Analysis of the Acid Hydrolysis Dehydration Process (AHDH) for the Production of Drop-in Biodiesel. Master’s thesis, University of Maine. http://digitalcommons.library .umaine.edu/etd/2551 MFPC (Maine Forest Products Council). 2013. Maine’s Forest Economy. Augusta.

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

MILL CLOSURES, BIOFUELS, AND MAINE’S FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES

McGuire, Julia B., Jessica E. Leahy, Mindy S. Crandall, James A. Marciano, and Robert J. Lilieholm. 2017. “What’s Next for Maine’s Forests? Mill Town and Statewide Community Perspectives on the Value, Management, and Future of Maine’s Forests.” Spire: The Maine Journal of Conservation and Sustainability (May 4). Neupane, Binod, and Jonathan Rubin. 2016. “Implications of U.S. Biofuels Policy for Sustainable Transportation Energy in Maine and the Northeast.” Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews (December). doi:10.1016 /j.rser.2016.11.253 Rubin, Jonathan, Binod Neupane, Stephanie Whalley, and Sharon Klein. 2015. “Woody Biomass Supply, Economics, Biofuel Policy: Maine and Northeastern Forests.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2502(Jan): 108–115. Smith, W. Brad, Patrick D. Miles, Charles H. Perry, and Scott A. Pugh. 2009. Forest Resources of the United States, 2007: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. General Technical Report, USDA Forest Service, no. WO-78. Whalley, Stephanie, Sharon J.W. Klein, and Jeffrey Benjamin. 2017. “Economic Analysis of Woody Biomass Supply Chain in Maine.” Biomass and Bioenergy 96(January): 38–49. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.10.015 Woodall, Christopher W., William G. Luppold, Peter J. Ince, Ronald J. Piva, and Kenneth E. Skog. 2011. “An Assessment of the Downturn in the Forest Products Sector in the Northern Region of the United States.” Forest Products Journal 61(8): 604–613.

James L. Anderson III is a PhD student in the University of Maine’s School of Forest Resources. With a degree in statistics from Virginia Tech, Anderson became interested in forest products through carpentry and construction. His research interests are forest resource markets and market modelling, statistical and machine learning applications in forestry research, and forest product development.

Jonathan Rubin is the director of the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center and professor of economics at the University of Maine. He was a Fulbright Scholar at the Clean Energy Research Center, University of Botswana, and a visiting fellow at the Cambridge Center for Climate Change Mitigation Research, University of Cambridge. He is the chair of the Environment and Energy Section of US Transportation Research Board. Rubin’s research focuses on using economic mechanisms to assist with the attainment of environmental goals.

Mindy S. Crandall is an assistant professor of forest management and economics at the University of Maine, where she joined the faculty in the School of Forest Resources in 2014. She holds degrees in forest management and applied economics. Her research is focused on the forest products industry, forest management, and rural forest-located communities, and the interactions between them.

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

FOSTERING A COOPERATIVE ECONOMY IN MAINE

Owning Maine’s Future: Fostering a Cooperative Economy in Maine by Davis F. Taylor and Rob Brown

Finland chose the latter, joining the European Union and becoming a bigger player in international trade Maine’s economy faces a host of well-known challenges: reliance on natural resource in the high-tech and natural resource extraction or low-quality service jobs, geographic isolation, challenging climate, and sectors. What is less known to the out-migration, especially of young adults. Staying on this course is undesirable, but rest of the world is that Finland traditional economic development fixes have had limited success. The authors examine simultaneously saw the growth of the possibilities of making cooperatively owned businesses a central feature of Maine’s thousands of new, domestically economy. They outline the characteristics, benefits, and challenges of cooperatives oriented, cooperatively owned busiand identify six important sectors of the Maine economy in which cooperative ownernesses. The growth of Finland’s ship already plays an important role or could make more contributions to economic and cooperative economy helped carry community vitality. The authors describe several other regions, with a focus on Finland, the country through turbulent with strong cooperative economies or businesses, and examine the socioeconomic beneeconomic times because it emphasized employment, rootedness in fits and institutional features that encourage the development of cooperatives. The article community, and expanded market concludes with policy recommendations that could facilitate similar outcomes in Maine. presence, and balanced the cutthroat competition and downward pressure on wages associated with interINTRODUCTION national trade (Skurnik and Egerstrom 2007). Fostering this substantial cooperative economy meant that Finland onsider an economy facing significant economic would never be solely reliant on the vagaries of global challenges. This economy, with an export-oriented trade; nor would Finns need to rely completely on history based largely on natural resource industries, government to protect them from the oscillations of the faces increased global competition due to trade liberalglobal economy. ization, along with declining long-term relative prices Although Maine and Finland have much in in its historical backbone industry, forest products. The common, they also have considerable differences. What economy is relatively small, geographically isolated, and is it about Finland that facilitates a strong cooperative faces challenging weather that inhibits the growing economy, and what benefits does a cooperative economy season, year-round tourism, and inmigration. The popuprovide? This article assesses the possibilities, benefits, lation is small, relatively dispersed, and homogenous. In and drawbacks of fostering a cooperative economy in many respects, this economy is in deep trouble, even as Maine. By cooperative economy, we mean an economy a few southern and coastal population centers are faring in which cooperatives—businesses formed and owned relatively well. by consumers or workers, or independent businesses The characteristics of this economy sound similar to that are locally rooted and controlled—play a significant those of contemporary Maine. The profile, however, is economic and cultural role and set the standard for effidrawn from Finland circa the late 1980s and early 1990s. ciency, good pay, upward mobility, equity in income The collapse of the Soviet Union, Finland’s largest and wealth, and long-term community resilience. We trading partner, sent the Finnish economy into a tailspin. will start by envisioning a cooperative economy in Finland was at a crossroads: its choices, to turn inward Maine, then describe cooperatives and how they funcor increase its competitiveness and further open its tion, along with their benefits and drawbacks. We will economy to the benefits and costs of international trade. then focus on the role that cooperatives can and do play Abstract

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

FOSTERING A COOPERATIVE ECONOMY IN MAINE

in key sectors of Maine’s economy. We conclude with an examination of successful cooperative economies elsewhere and policy recommendations for fostering a cooperative economy in Maine. WHITHER THE MAINE ECONOMY?

s with Finland’s economy in the late twentieth century, Maine’s economy could follow a wide range of possible paths. For this analysis, we focus on three possibilities: (1) maintaining the status quo, (2) expanding application of traditional community and regional economic development measures, and (3) fostering a cooperative economy (Taylor et al. 2016). Business as Usual Looking ahead to 2030, a time when today’s children will be making their own way in the world, it is possible that the economic and demographic trends of the past several decades continue. The most challenging factor in this scenario is Maine’s aging population. With the oldest workforce in the nation, the impending wave of baby boomer retirements this country faces (dubbed the silver tsunami) has already crashed upon Maine’s shores. Meanwhile, continued mechanization and offshoring of jobs carries on unabated, leading to fewer good-paying jobs in rural Maine. There are flickers of growth in tourism, health care, and some innovation-related industries such as biotech, but poor wages in some of these sectors and a lack of critical mass in others limit their impact. Too many young people leave the state, and not nearly enough younger professionals and entrepreneurs from other areas move here, even as Maine continues to be a desirable place for them to spend their vacations. Communities throughout rural Maine, caught in a spiral of diminishing jobs, population, tax revenue, and services, slip further into poverty and isolation. The divergent trajectories of the two Maines continue, with a few southern coastal counties prospering while most other counties are struggling economically and socially. Attracting and Fostering Economic Investment

Another possible scenario for Maine leading up to 2030 is that the state tries traditional economic development fixes on a much bigger scale than it currently does, aiming to reverse the current trends. In this scenario, Maine invests massively in higher education, physical and broadband infrastructure, and tax breaks meant to MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

lure businesses. These strategies, however, are extremely expensive, their benefits flow disproportionately to the communities that were already doing relatively well, and the approach leaves Maine jobs and incomes in a tenuous position because the firms attracted to Maine can easily depart anytime thereafter. In rural communities, grassroots efforts by townspeople identify assets and small-scale economic opportunities, and communities are rightly proud of their occasional development successes. Limitations in infrastructure, education in entrepreneurship, and access to start-up capital, however, mean these bootstrap efforts are frequently too little, too late to meet the needs of most Mainers. Innovations in Ownership: A New Economic Dynamism

Consider a third scenario for 2030 in which Maine is well on its way toward a more diversified and equitable economy, with more sustainable and growing businesses across many sectors and communities. The linchpins of this economy are cooperatively owned businesses: businesses owned by consumers, workers, or groups of producers and independent businesses. Traditional investor-owned firms and family businesses still outnumber cooperatively owned firms in 2030, but the cooperative firms build a foundation for widely shared prosperity in Maine. The creation of consumer cooperatives provides needed services and jobs in small towns. The opportunity to be a worker–owner of a small business helps retain and attract more qualified, self-directed workers and turns jobs in one of the state’s largest industries, tourism, into lucrative and satisfying career paths for many Mainers. Cooperatives formed by farmers, artisans, and other small-scale producers lower the cost of inputs and expand access to new markets. Independent businesses join together to share the expense of professional back-office operations or marketing and supply agreements. More young people, low-income people, women, Native Americans, and New Americans have the basic knowledge and access to resources and assistance to start new cooperatives or convert existing businesses into employee ownership. These consumer-, worker-, and producer-owned businesses are deeply rooted in their communities and are better able to compete; they implement technological improvements in ways that balance employment and profitability. To be clear, a cooperative economy is a 24

FOSTERING A COOPERATIVE ECONOMY IN MAINE

high-value complement to, not a replacement of, other needed public investments such as expanding broadband, providing support to entrepreneurs, strategic research and development, and upgrading the skills and knowledge of Maine’s workforce. However, widespread adoption of an innovative ownership model allows more Mainers to participate in more businesses that generate more wealth and security and strengthens our communities and economy in sustainable, equitable, and locally controlled ways. Is the third scenario possible? Based on previous research, experiences of other regions, and our own experiences in cooperative development, our answer is “Yes.” Although we clearly favor fostering a cooperative economy in Maine, this article is meant to be an overview, touching on many of the opportunities, challenges, and models that should be considered and researched further.

shareholders; worker cooperatives and ESOPs are a growing presence in many of Maine’s economic sectors, including retail, restaurants, construction and engineering, insurance, and manufacturing. Business cooperatives are formed by independent businesses to gain better access to the inputs they need to operate or to improve their ability to sell the products and services they create (this latter form are also called producer cooperatives). Multistakeholder cooperatives are owned by some combination of workers, consumers, and producers. Most cooperatives formally operate under key principles that were first formulated in Rochdale, England, in the shadow of nineteenth century industrialization and later codified by the International Co-operative Alliance (http://ica.coop/en/whats-co-op /co-operative-identity-values-principles):

COOPERATIVES: CHARACTERISTICS, BENEFITS, AND CHALLENGES

2. Democratic member control (each member gets one vote in governance matters)

ooperatives businesses (co-ops) are owned and governed by their members, who form the cooperatives to meet their needs. Co-ops can form as new start-ups or as a conversion from a conventionally owned business and fall into a few general categories. Consumer cooperatives are owned by people purchasing the firms’ products or services. Worker cooperatives are fully owned by workers, whereas employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) are businesses in which the employees are significant (generally nonvoting)

1. Voluntary and open membership

3. Member economic participation in the cooperative (people invest in the cooperative and profits are shared) 4. Autonomy and independence 5. Education, training, and information for members 6. Cooperation among cooperatives 7. Concern for community

EXAMPLES OF MAINE CO-OPS Consumer Cooperatives

Employee-owned Businesses—Worker Cooperatives

• Eastern Maine Electric Co-op • Belfast Food Co-op • University Credit Union • Medomak Mobile Home Cooperative (housing)

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

• Island Employee Cooperative (groceries and retail) • Local Sprouts Cooperative (café and catering) • Insource Renewables (renewable energy equipment installers)

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

Employee-owned Businesses— Employee Stock Ownership Plans • Moody’s Co-Worker Owned (vehicle collision repair) • VIA Agency (advertising and marketing) • French & Landry (construction)

Business Cooperatives

Multistakeholder Cooperatives

• Ace Hardware

• Fedco Seeds

• Associated Grocers of New England

• Maine Farm & Sea Cooperative

• Independent Retailers Shared Services Cooperative • Stonington Lobster Co-op

FOSTERING A COOPERATIVE ECONOMY IN MAINE

Many studies have examined the efficiency of cooperative firms, especially of worker-owned firms, and most evidence indicates that worker ownership does, in fact, increase productivity, profitability, and stability. The finding extends to ESOP companies, which although they do not give workers the same set of rights to direct the firm as in worker cooperatives, nevertheless greatly broaden profit sharing and create incentives for worker engagement in management, planning, and innovation. Interestingly, research shows that for ESOPs this improved performance is most pronounced in the firms that act most like cooperatives, that is, they have explicit structures that promote and facilitate broadbased participation in the governance and management of the firm (Logue and Yates 2006; Blasi et al. 2008; Kurtulus and Kruse 2017). Cooperatives help members avoid the monopoly power of a single seller (e.g., a food cooperative providing an alternative local shopping opportunity) and monopsony power of a single buyer (e.g., forest property owners buying a sawmill to avoid delays by an outside mill owner) (Hansmann 2000).

Cooperatives have the potential to expand the benefits of firm creation and ownership to more people who would not think of themselves as entrepreneurs. Additionally, studies show that a good job is about more than pay; it involves social interaction, a sense of purpose, and autonomy (Schwartz 2015). Employee ownership allows workers to have a greater voice in shaping workplace policies, benefits, and culture. Cooperatives have the potential to expand the benefits of firm creation and ownership to more people who would not think of themselves as entrepreneurs. Usually, entrepreneurship entails relatively large amounts of start-up capital, risk, and time, for which many Mainers have neither the appetite nor the wherewithal. Through the pooling of resources, however, cooperative entrepreneurship requires lower levels of up-front capital, risk, and time from its individual members. MAINE POLICY REVIEW

â&#x20AC;˘

Vol. 26, No. 1

â&#x20AC;˘

2017

Cooperatives often provide significant benefits to their local communities. Because cooperatives are owned by their members and designed to serve them, they are more likely to be locally oriented and have little motive to move in search of lower costs or stronger markets. Food cooperatives have a higher local economic multiplier, make more local purchases, create more jobs per dollar of revenue, create more full-time jobs relative to part-time jobs, and provide better benefits than do conventional grocery stores (ICA Group 2012). The numerous potential economic and social benefits of cooperatives beg the question, Why are there not more of them in the United States? Cooperatives have several inherent economic disadvantages relative to conventional firms, four of which are most significant. First, the costs of directing a firm rise when ownership and stakeholders are more diverse, and a slower response time can allow business challenges to escalate into real threats. Second, formation of conventional firms usually takes the talent, hard work, and risk tolerance of a small number of individuals, and it is easier for those individuals to reap the (potentially large) rewards of their efforts. In cooperatives, however, the benefits are shared among the wider ownership, so there may be less incentive for firm formation (Hansmann 2000; Dow 2003). Third, access to capital can be difficult, particularly for cooperatives formed by people with limited means. Our experience is that most lenders are unfamiliar with the cooperative business model, and for a lender, unfamiliarity equals risk. Risk, real or perceived, leads lenders to overprice capital or to not lend at all. Additionally, individual entrepreneurs commonly provide personal guarantees and offer major assets such as a home for collateral, whereas these options are unlikely and often impossible for members of a cooperative. The second and third challenges can be overcome when a conventional business is converted to cooperative ownership. In this case, start-up entrepreneurs can be fully rewarded for their efforts by the terms of the sale. Conversion also means a lender is being asked to finance the sale of a business with collateral, cash flow, and a record of accomplishments to employees who understand the business and its customers, which reduces the perception of risk. There are a growing number of successful conversions where innovative transaction designs, governance structures, and finance models offer examples for how this can be done efficiently. We address conversions more fully later in this article. 26

FOSTERING A COOPERATIVE ECONOMY IN MAINE

The greatest challenge, however, may be one of culture or mind-set. Neither entrepreneurship nor cooperation (in the sense of ownership) are widely taught, promoted, or understood in the United States. A successful and sustainable worker co-op, for example, requires a different mind-set toward livelihood. It is a model of business ownership that can be accessible to people with a wide variety of skills and capacities, but developing a sense of ownership over one’s work and benefiting from that work through an ownership stake in the firm requires a shift in thinking, which takes time (Abrams 2008). However, evidence from other regions suggests that it is possible to overcome these obstacles with the right institutional and educational framework. HISTORICAL EXAMPLES OF BROAD-BASED OWNERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES

road-based ownership models have been a central element in the development of the United States. While the founders of our country took for granted the disenfranchisement and exploitation of enslaved Africans, they otherwise perceived widespread ownership of the means of production (land, at the time) as essential for promoting equality and prosperity and for creating a stable, well-functioning democracy. Legislation such as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the Homestead Act of 1862 were critical institutional junctures in American history, moving the United States away from the grossly unequal patterns of land distribution that plague many other parts of the world. The benefits of ownership were not limited to land and agriculture: Benjamin Franklin created some of the first cooperatives including the nation’s first book library, fire protection services, and a mutual insurance company (Curl 2012). One of Maine’s earliest major industries, the cod fishery, often used arrangements whereby fishing seamen received a share of the profits from the catch rather than a wage and sometimes even owned a share of the fishing vessel. This arrangement was deemed so advantageous that sharemen vessels benefited from legal and financial incentives provided by the US government (Blasi, Freeman, and Kruse 2013). The greatest period of cooperative innovation and growth in the United States was in response to the Great Depression, a pattern consistent with that of cooperative development in Finland. Large swaths of rural America gained access to electricity for the first time through

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

rural electric cooperatives. These electric cooperatives still service three-quarters of the US landmass and 13 percent of the population (https://www.electric.coop /electric-cooperative-fact-sheet/) including most of Downeast Maine. Cooperative ownership also had a substantial impact on food security during this period, as large-scale regional cooperatives in farming, food production, distribution, and retail grocery stores sustained many communities with consumer, producer, and worker ownership. ESOPs emerged in the United States in the 1970s. In 1984, legislation championed by President Ronald Reagan and Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill became law and provided substantial tax and regulatory benefits for ESOPs and worker co-ops. In the years following passage, there was a notable rise in the number of conversions, and today the United States has over 7,000 employee-owned firms with about 13.5 million employee-owners and $1.1 trillion in assets. In 2013, the most recent year for which figures are available, employee-owned firms generated $92 billion dollars in profits for their owners (NCEO 2016).

The greatest period of cooperative innovation and growth in the United States was in response to the Great Depression…. THE PRESENT AND POTENTIAL ROLE OF COOPERATIVES IN MAINE

oday, cooperatives play an important part in key corners of Maine’s economy. We highlight six economic dimensions in which cooperatives already exist and in which they could play a strong role in the future: growing Maine’s food economy, creating affordable housing, preserving legacy businesses, assisting transitions in Maine’s forest products industry, transforming Maine’s tourism industry, and promoting craft manufacturing. Growing Maine’s Food Economy While Maine farming is enjoying a renaissance and the number of young farmers is growing, many farm and food businesses find obtaining financial sustainability 27

FOSTERING A COOPERATIVE ECONOMY IN MAINE

challenging. Producer, worker, marketing, and other types of cooperatives can allow Maine food producers to maintain their individuality and small scale while facilitating cost efficiencies that can lead to more farms and farmers, more sustainable profits, greater access to healthy food for middle- and low-income consumers, and a more resilient food system. Dairy cooperatives have long been central to that industry, giving a consistent advantage to their members in a volatile and challenging market. Members of the 21 lobster co-ops along Maine’s coast are estimated to pull in more than a quarter of the state’s overall catch, and these co-ops have played a significant role in building that iconic Maine industry.1 Cooperatives have also long played a role in providing processing and distribution infrastructure for food producers. Additionally, worker-owned farms, such as New Roots Farm in Lewiston formed by Somali immigrants, can help new farmers start their operations and own their land by pooling capital and expertise. Due to the age of Maine farmers, approximately 400,000 acres of farmland will soon change hands, and many farmers over the age of 65 do not have identified successors.2 Similarly, many of our rural grocery store owners are also near retirement age. Converting farms, grocery stores, and other elements of our food supply chain to worker-, consumer-, or producer-owned businesses would help preserve much-needed employment and access to food. Creating Affordable Housing Many Maine communities face significant challenges maintaining and creating adequate affordable housing; cooperative ownership can help communities make progress on this front. In Lewiston, for example, Raise-Op Housing Cooperative has purchased several apartment buildings in the downtown, and residents share ownership, gain access to affordable housing, renovate deteriorating buildings, and develop connections among themselves and with the broader community. Raise-Op members range from low- to middle-income families and include veterans, immigrants, small-business owners, single parents, and senior citizens. Another model for affordable homeownership is the growing number of resident-owned communities (ROCs), in which residents of manufactured-home parks form cooperatives and purchase the parks from investor-owners. Often when investors or developers by these parks, lot rents increase substantially, or residents are forced to move so that buyers can redevelop the MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

properties. In the United States, there are 201 ROCs in 14 states, with a total of 12,515 homes. In Maine, 368 homes in eight manufactured housing communities have been preserved by residents forming ROCs. Maine has more than 500 manufactured housing parks, which are home to more than 10,000 Mainers; they are the largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing in Maine. We could do much more to advance this model.3 Preserving Legacy Businesses Nationally, the largest single source of avoidable job loss is from business closings due to owner retirement, a trend that will likely accelerate as the annual retirement rate likely doubles over the next 20 years. Our research (using the Small Business Administration, US Census, and similar data sources) indicates that Maine has roughly 32,000 small businesses with employees, which employ over half of our workforce. Seventy-five percent to eighty percent of the owners of these small businesses will want to retire in the near future, but only 20 percent of them have a concrete succession plan. Furthermore, although some family businesses will successfully transition to younger family members, only about 30 percent succeed in the second generation (Hilburt-Davis and Green 2009). Maine’s perpetually anemic economy cannot handle the rapid loss of jobs and economic activity that could come from thousands of businesses closing and liquidating over the next decade. Conversion to employee ownership could be a silver bullet for addressing this silver tsunami—a chance to permanently bend the arc of opportunity in this state toward a sustainable, broadly shared prosperity. For business owners, selling to employees can yield a better sale price and reduce their tax liability from the sale and preserve their legacy. Employees then have the opportunity to become cooperative entrepreneurs and build wealth through ownership. Additionally, the jobs, profits, and ownership stay locally rooted, which benefits the community. Compared to similar conventionally owned firms, employee-owned businesses are more productive and profitable, create more jobs, and are less likely to lay off workers in an economic downturn (Kurtulus and Kruse 2017). Assisting Transitions in Maine’s Forest Products Industry

Conversion to employee or producer ownership could hold great promise for easing some of the transitions currently taking place in Maine’s wood products 28

FOSTERING A COOPERATIVE ECONOMY IN MAINE

industries. Paper mill closures threaten both the jobs that result from the mill operation and those of the wood suppliers as they lose places to sell their wood. Looking at the role played by forestry-related cooperatives in Scandinavia, along with case studies of such cooperatives in Quebec, suggests that co-ops can also ease transitions in Maine’s wood products industries. For example, Boisaco, Inc., is a multistakeholder industrial cooperative owned by hundreds of millworkers, loggers, residents and small-business owners in a small town in northern Quebec. The cooperative formed in 1984 to take over a sawmill after the facility’s third bankruptcy in 10 years. Desjardins Credit Union provided initial financing backed by the provincial government. Since then, the cooperative has invested heavily in its growth, diversified its product lines, and now employs over 600 people. More than 30 percent of its millworkers have served on the firm’s board of directors (Bau 2012). While Boisaco does not directly involve wood suppliers, regional landowners who sell to the mill do benefit from it. Certainly, mill ownership by Maine landowners, workers, and communities merits investigation as a means of preserving market access and jobs. Transforming Maine’s Tourism Industry A cooperative economy could also transform Maine’s tourism industry. The tourism industry is not often viewed as a path to steady, high-paying jobs and economic prosperity. We think this can and should change. While retail merchants, design-and-build firms, high-end chefs, and creative consultants do very well in businesses that serve tourists or seasonal residents, this prosperity can be greatly broadened through worker ownership. Fast-food servers, gardeners, and housekeepers can have a greater stake and play a more rewarding role in the tourism industry. This proposition is independent of the kinds of tourism in which Maine engages, but would have a profound impact on the benefits the state receives from the industry. Not only would worker-owners see better wages and career growth, they would also gain a greater sense of pride in themselves and their work, have a greater sense of investment in the local community, and be more likely to become long-term residents. Promoting Craft Manufacturing Cooperatives are particularly well suited to promoting and strengthening craft manufacturing in Maine. While traditional large-scale manufacturing MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

continues to decline in Maine, and other states have a lead in high-tech manufacturing that will be challenging for Maine to overcome (Moretti 2012), we see a strong future for smaller-scale manufacturing of unique products that are marketable based on Maine’s reputation for quality. It is an economic strategy focused on developing brands, rather than producing commodities. Just as smart retailers don’t compete directly with big-box stores, craft manufacturing does not compete on the basis of cheap labor and lots of machinery; it relies on highly skilled workers producing a small quantity of unique products that cannot effectively be made in (or marketed from) places like China. Microbrewing is an example of such craft manufacturing for which Maine is known nationally: Maine is one of the top five states in microbreweries per capita and production (https://www. brewersassociation.org/statistics/by-state/). For inspiration on how to preserve and promote our heritage industries and craft manufacturers, Maine could look to the Carolina Textile District (CTD) in rural North Carolina, which, like Maine, has seen a devastating loss of textile, furniture, and other manufacturing jobs in recent decades. The CTD is a nascent cooperative network of small- to medium-sized textile manufacturers created by Opportunity Threads (a worker-owned contract cut-and-sew facility), Burke Development, Inc. (the economic development entity for Burke County), and the Manufacturing Solutions Center (a research and development organization). While North Carolina’s textile industry as a whole has struggled, a recent survey showed that 90 percent of CTD partners have added employees, 87 percent have increased investment in the business, and average sales growth has been about 15 percent (Chester 2015). Additionally, the CTD is helping more of these manufacturers convert to worker cooperatives as their owners plan for retirement. GLOBALIZATION INSURANCE: FINLAND’S LEAP OF CAUTION3

useful step between noting the characteristics and potential of cooperatives, on the one hand, and suggesting policy recommendations to foster cooperatives in Maine, on the other, is to examine successful cooperative economies elsewhere in the world. Finland offers highly relevant lessons for Maine, given our economic, social, and geographic similarities. However, Finland, unlike Maine, ranks near the top of every index 29

FOSTERING A COOPERATIVE ECONOMY IN MAINE

of social and economic health as one of the world’s most equitable, educated, and prosperous economies. Their economy has found a balance between lucrative, highly competitive, and at times unstable export-oriented manufacturing and services and the need to create local resilient communities. While the Finnish government plays a significant role in buffering its citizens against the risks of global competition, it is no accident that Finland also has the world’s highest per capita concentration of cooperatives. Over 17 percent of Finns are employed by cooperatives, and 84 percent of Finns are a member of at least one cooperative. In Finland as of 2014, over 5,000 cooperatives created employment for more than 90,000 workers and generated annual revenues of $40.9 billion. In addition, cooperatives constitute the majority of many industries. For example, Valio, a consortium of dairy cooperatives, includes 85 percent of dairy farmers in the country. Another example of the scale and impact of cooperatives in Finland is the S Group, a network of 28 consumer cooperatives that together make up the largest cooperative in Finland. With their 270,000 members, they control a 44 percent market share in daily goods through ownership of hotels, restaurants, gas stations, and banks.

Finland also has the world’s highest per capita concentration of cooperatives. Apart from some economic and geographic similarities with Maine, what is most important about the Finnish cooperative economy is its tremendous recent growth. Industrialization came late to Finland compared to the rest of Europe, so cooperatives did too. But otherwise the Finnish cooperative sector was fairly similar in size to those in other Scandinavian countries (where co-ops play a bigger role than in the United States) until the 1990s, and worker-owned cooperatives were virtually unknown until that time (Kalmi 2013). In the 1990s, the cooperative economy in Finland grew rapidly: from 1987 to 2006, 2,921 new cooperatives were established, including 696 worker, service, and expert cooperatives, 312 marketing cooperatives, and 152 publishing and media co-ops. As of 2013, 150 to 200 cooperatives are being formed in Finland each year, this in a country MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

with a population of roughly 5.5 million people (less than the population of Massachusetts). Finland had long-standing public policies supporting the development of cooperatives, and key business, political, and intellectual figures throughout the twentieth century popularized the cooperative model, but remarkably, public policy was not the primary driver of the development of cooperatives in Finland (Kalmi 2013). The development of co-ops in Finland contrasts with their development in other regions in Europe with strong cooperative economies. For example, Emilia Romagna (ER), a region in northern Italy, was historically mostly poor and agricultural and was utterly devastated in the aftermath of WWII. Yet today, the region has over 8,000 cooperatives and boasts the largest concentration of employee-owned businesses in the world, which generate about 13 percent of the region’s GDP. The region also has one of the top ten most prosperous, entrepreneurial, and equitable regional economies in all of Europe: with only 7 percent of Italy’s population, ER generates 9 percent of the country’s GDP, 12 percent of its exports, and a startling 30 percent of its patents. Furthermore, the household wealth of ER is 30 percent higher than the Italian average. While ER has strong cooperative trade associations and cooperative finance and education institutions, there was a greater emphasis on policy and legislative programs, including official acknowledgment in the Italian constitution, favorable tax status and incentives, and restrictions on distributions and reinvestment requirements that foster long-term cooperative growth (Restakis 2010; Hoover and Abell 2016). What, then, led to the noteworthy flourishing of cooperatives in Finland since the 1990s? We identify two critical elements. First, the cooperative sector in Finland had an effective, long-standing trade association of cooperatives that made cooperative development, education, finance, and promotion its mission. The Confederation of Finnish Cooperatives, founded in 1899 and better known as the Pellervo Society, has played an active, highly visible role representing its member cooperatives in economic and financial policy debates, creating education programs in cooperative development and management, and capitalizing cooperative banks and other financial institutions. (Not surprisingly, such supportive associations are associated with business cluster formation; the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association [MOFGA] and its fostering 30

FOSTERING A COOPERATIVE ECONOMY IN MAINE

of Maine’s local produce business cluster is a noteworthy example in Maine [Taylor and Miller 2010].) Second, the explosion of Finnish cooperatives in the 1990s was largely due to economic necessity. Finland started eliminating high protective tariffs in the 1980s, which fostered economic growth, but also left the country more exposed to international economic fluctuations. The fall of the Soviet Union and a recession in Finland’s Western European trading partners plunged Finland into the worst economic crisis in its history (Hjerppe 2008). This was Finland’s Great Depression, with unemployment surpassing 20 percent and an economic fallout dwarfing that of the 1930s. Finns responded to the crisis with a wave of cooperative formation. Some question whether the social and economic success of the Nordic countries is exportable (Midttun and Witoszek 2011). Some people argue that the achievements of Nordic countries come with large social safety nets, high taxes, and relatively high levels of economic coordination between labor, firms, and the government and that these features are associated with cultural factors such as a high degree of cultural homogeneity and an innate tendency toward social cohesion. “It might work in Finland, but it could never work in Maine. We’re just too different.” While there is little doubt that cultural attitudes play a significant part in the success of the Finnish cooperative economy, their role is also easy to overstate. First, the caricature is superficial. A deeper understanding of the country shows that Finns are an entrepreneurial people who see cooperation as a viable means to pursue common economic objectives (Skurnik and Egerstrom 2007). Entrepreneurship education is part of the national core curriculum for all public schools. Second, Finland may now appear to be socially tranquil and cohesive, but such was not always the case; the country endured a brutal civil war in 1918 that was fought along class lines, and severe class divisions existed well into the 1950s (Solsten and Meditz 1988). The key elements of Finland’s strong cooperative economy were (and are) a supportive trade association (Pellervo), which created fertile ground for a modest cooperative economy, and an economic crisis in the 1990s that demonstrated the advantages that cooperatives provide in tumultuous economic times. Additionally, it is important to recognize that the cooperative economy in Finland grew as a private-sector response to economic crisis; the Finns may have a significant social safety net, MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

but they also know how to pull themselves up by their economic bootstraps. It is clear from our study of various cooperative economies that there is no single policy or cultural characteristic that is critical to fostering a cooperative economy, but successful cooperative economies have several core commonalities: • Supportive public policy strategies including regulatory, tax, financing, and technical assistance • Knowledgeable and diverse financial institutions • Strong trade associations engaged in education, promotion, advocacy, technical assistance, and market research and development • Widespread education programs in cooperative business development and management

…cooperative economies were created to address particularly challenging economic situations. One critical element, however, is universal among regions that have developed strong cooperative economies: economic crisis. The examples we reference were all responses to economic crisis. Many other examples point to the same conclusion—cooperative economies were created to address particularly challenging economic situations. In fact, research in Finland shows that cooperative growth was greatest in regions that had the highest unemployment and the weakest economies (Kalmi 2013). Regardless of the differences between Maine and these other regions, this insight has tremendous value when considering what is possible here, since many Maine communities are experiencing severe, ongoing economic distress. BUILDING A COOPERATIVE ECOSYSTEM IN MAINE

e refer to the combination of the core elements that foster a cooperative economy as a cooperative ecosystem. In regions and sectors where cooperative ecosystems have developed, there have been impressive 31

FOSTERING A COOPERATIVE ECONOMY IN MAINE

results: stronger economies and communities, higher wages, more innovation and entrepreneurship, and lower levels of inequality. And the more developed and widespread the ecosystem, the more impressive the results. Economic development specialists have come to realize that patterns of economic development (cooperative or otherwise), along with the particular constraints that face a region and the institutional changes necessary to address the constraints, differ from place to place (Hausmann, Rodrik, and Velasco 2008). Finland, Emilia Romagna, and other successful cooperative economies demonstrate that, despite their unique histories, they are created by intentional support. So, to foster the growth of a successful cooperative economy, Maine must create an ecosystem with the right mix of policy, education, and promotional measures that meet its economic, cultural, and institutional situation. What follows is an agenda that draws on the best examples from elsewhere, tailored for Maine. Developing Cooperative and Employee-owned Businesses

First, state government and the philanthropic sector should prioritize the development of cooperative and employee-owned businesses. For example, state government spends hundreds of millions of dollars per year (both directly and through the tax code) supporting economic development, and agencies and publicly funded business-development programs have strategic plans that guide their work. Many of these programs target an array of specific sectors, regions, populations, and business types. We believe the development of cooperative and employee-owned businesses should be a public policy priority, too. Most philanthropy is dedicated to strengthening our families and communities and promoting an equitable, prosperous economy; helping people build successful cooperative enterprises would meet those philanthropic goals. Maine philanthropy could focus on education and outreach, technical assistance for rural, low-income, and immigrant communities, and policy research and development. Incentives for Conversion to Cooperative or Employee Ownership

Second, Maine should create incentives for the conversion of business assets to cooperative or employee ownership and reduce the cost of financing the sale. In 2017, the Maine Legislature is considering LD 1338, which would make the sale of any business, farm, MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

manufactured home park, or rental property exempt from income taxation if sold to a cooperative or employee-owned enterprise (including ESOPs). LD 1338 would also make interest income earned from financing these transactions tax exempt for sellers and Maine-based lenders. At the federal level, there is strong momentum behind legislation to expand tax incentives passed in 1984 for conversion to employee ownership and to reinstitute the interest-income exemption for financing conversions. It has a long and bipartisan list of sponsors—nearly 100 in the House (60 Republicans and 40 Democrats) and 34 in the Senate (17 Republicans, 15 Democrats, 2 Independents)—including Senators Susan Collins and Angus King. Other states are ahead of the curve, however. Eight states provide tax incentives for the sale of manufactured home parks to resident-owned cooperatives. Iowa and Missouri have both implemented a tax exemption of 50 percent on the sale of a business to employees, and New Jersey is considering bipartisan legislation to eliminate the capital gains tax on employee-ownership conversions. Needed Information and Technical Assistance

Third, Maine should ensure people can get the information and technical assistance they need to develop a new cooperative enterprise or pursue a successful conversion. To support employee ownership, the state should fund an Employee Ownership Center through a grant to a nonprofit business-development group with relevant expertise. Recently introduced federal legislation, dubbed the WORK Act, provides funding to states to establish and expand these centers. A center could offer direct business services and coordinate a clearinghouse of providers with expertise in conversion, organize educational forums, and create peer-to-peer networks of existing employee-owned firms willing to mentor those considering or executing this option. In the United States, seven state Employee Ownership Centers exist today. The oldest among them is in Ohio, where the centers have assisted in the conversion of more than 100 firms with roughly 15,000 employees at a tiny fraction of the cost of traditional public-sector jobs programs. Many of these firms have been small manufacturers, making their preservation all the more consequential for local communities. Providing more information to residents of manufactured housing parks and rental properties when a property is for sale could have a major impact on expanding affordable housing. Currently, Maine has a 32

FOSTERING A COOPERATIVE ECONOMY IN MAINE

weak resident-notification law when a park is offered for sale, and there is no notification requirement for the sale of rental property. By contrast, New Hampshire’s strong notification law has played a major role in roughly 30 percent of that state’s parks being purchased by residents over the past 30 years. A complementary strategy would be to develop a small matching grant program to defray some of the initial costs for the feasibility studies, valuations, and legal, accounting, and development assistance necessary for a business to determine if conversion is the right option. This initial exploratory phase is key to unlocking the potential for widespread adoption of the model. Again, other states are way ahead of us. Iowa has created a fund to pay up to $25,000 of the cost of feasibility studies for workers and business owners considering conversion. Ohio has a similar program funded with federal workforce development money. Massachusetts had a modest grant program providing a 1:1 match up to $5,000; funding for the grant was eliminated in the 2009 budget crisis, but in 2017 legislators are considering restoring the funding. Maine-based Banks

Fourth, Maine should invest a portion of our state’s deposits in Maine-based banks that have a commitment to lending to cooperative and employee-owned businesses. Maine’s treasurer has wide latitude in directing the state’s deposits to financial institutions that do the most good for Maine’s economy. For example, while rarely (if ever) done, Maine law already directs the treasurer to deposit up to $4 million in local banks for low-interest lending to agricultural enterprises and $4 million for certain small-business lending. This provision of current law could be tailored to apply to loans for agricultural enterprises and small businesses organized as cooperatives and employee-owned businesses. The treasurers of both Indiana and Ohio purchase special certificates of deposit in financial institutions to provide capital for low-interest loans for employeeownership conversions. Entrepreneurship Education Fifth, we cannot emphasize enough the need to improve entrepreneurship education, training, and mentoring opportunities. If we want more young people to make their lives in Maine, then we need to better equip them with the knowledge and skills needed

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

to be successful here. Every high school student should have opportunities to gain real-world experience through apprenticeships and internships, gain academic, technical, and soft skills in more innovative and personalized ways, and access a seamless pathway from high school to postsecondary education and training to employment. Cooperative Business Association Sixth, while a cooperative ecosystem rests on some foundation of public policy, cooperative enterprises themselves have a critical role to play. Building a cooperative business association (CBA) that facilitates peerto-peer technical assistance, mentoring, and networking, and advocates for wider understanding and support of the cooperative economy would greatly strengthen a cooperative ecosystem. A CBA could also facilitate partnerships between cooperatives and high school, college, and adult education programs, teaching the basics of cooperative business education integrated with existing curriculum and paired with actual work experience. CONCLUSION

o be clear, building a cooperative economy is not about the government picking winners and losers. It is not a big government program meant to fix people’s problems, nor is it a laissez faire grab bag of ineffectual policy nudges. Building a cooperative economy means creating a comprehensive, coordinated ecosystem of public and private institutions, policies, educational opportunities, incentives, and finance, which will help people to help themselves. Without question, cooperative and employee ownership delivers material benefits to, and improves the economic health of, workers, families, and communities. However, cooperatives provide much greater benefits: cooperative ownership provides hope and a sense of control over one’s future, which many Mainers currently lack in their economic lives. Cooperatives promote self-reliance, entrepreneurship, and resilient, interdependent communities, and they do so through locally rooted, private-sector enterprises. Hope, control over one’s future, influence in one’s community, self-reliance, and community interdependence are in fairly short supply these days. Building a cooperative economy by fostering a cooperative ecosystem is something we can do about it. -

FOSTERING A COOPERATIVE ECONOMY IN MAINE

ENDNOTES 1 Percentage catch based on author calculations using data from Maine Department of Marine Resources. 2 https://www.mainefarmlandtrust.org/farmland -access-new 3 National data on ROCs comes from ROC-USA (see http://www.myrocusa.org/news/229475/10000th -home-made-secure-and-affordable-through -resident-ownership-movement.htm). Maine data on ROCs were compiled by the authors based on technical assistance provided by the Cooperative Development Institute. Maine data on mobile home parks was compiled by the authors based on Maine state licensing records. 4 This case study, including cited data, is drawn from Pellervo (2014), except where noted. REFERENCES Abrams, John. 2008. Companies We Keep: Employee Ownership and the Business of Community and Place. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River, VT. Bau, Margaret. 2012. Boisaco, Inc., a Community Owned Industry in Remote Quebec. USDA Rural Development, Stevens Point, WI. Blasi, Joseph R., Richard B. Freeman, Chris Mackin, and Douglas L. Kruse. 2008. Creating a Bigger Pie? The Effects of Employee Ownership, Profit Sharing, and Stock Options on Workplace Performance. NBER Working Paper No. 14230. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Blasi, Joseph R., Richard B. Freeman, and Douglas L. Kruse. 2013. The Citizen’s Share: Putting Ownership Back into Democracy. Yale University Press, New Haven. Chester, Sara. 2015. “Connecting Heritage Assets to Modern Market Demand: Reinventing the Textile Industry and Restoring Community Vitality to Rural North Carolina.” Economic Development Journal 14(4): 34–40. Curl, John. 2012. For All the People: Uncovering the Hidden History of Cooperation, Cooperative Movements, and Communalism in America. PM Press, Oakland, CA. Dow, Gregory K. 2003. Governing the Firm: Workers’ Control in Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hansmann, Henry. 2000. The Ownership of Enterprise. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Hausmann, Ricardo, Dani Rodrik, and Andrés Velasco. 2008. “Growth Diagnostics.” In The Washington Consensus Reconsidered: Towards a New Global Governance, ed. Narcis Serra and Joseph E. Stiglitz, 324–355. Oxford University Press on Demand, Oxford, UK.

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

Hilburt-Davis, Jane and Judy Green. 2009. “Family Businesses Have Traits to Survive.” Providence Business News. http://www.pbn.com /Family-businesses-have-traits-to-survive,40521 Hjerppe, Riitta. 2008. “An Economic History of Finland.” EH.Net Encyclopedia, edited by Robert Whaples. http:// eh.net/encyclopedia/an-economic-history-of-finland/ Hoover, Melissa, and Hillary Abell. 2016. The Cooperative Growth Ecosystem: Inclusive Economic Development in Action. Democracy at Work Institute and Project Equity, New York. http://www.project-equity.org/about-us /publications/the-cooperative-growth-ecosystem/ ICA Group. 2012. Healthy Foods, Healthy Communities: Measuring the Social and Economic Impacts of Food Co-ops. National Cooperative Grocers Association, Iowa City. Kalmi, Panu. 2013. “Catching a Wave: The Formation of Co-operatives in Finnish Regions.” Small Business Economics 41(1): 295–313. Kurtulus, Fidan Ana, and Douglas L. Kruse. 2017. How Did Employee Ownership Firms Weather the Last Two Recessions?: Employee Ownership, Employment Stability, and Firm Survival in the United States: 1999– 2011. W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo, MI. https://doi.org/10.17848/9780880995276 Logue, John, and Jacquelyn S. Yates. 2006. “Cooperatives, Worker-owned Enterprises, Productivity and the International Labor Organization.” Economic and Industrial Democracy 27(4): 686–690. Midttun, Atle, and Nina Witoszek. 2011. “Introduction: The Nordic Model—How Sustainable and Exportable Is It?” In The Nordic Model—Is It Sustainable and Exportable?, ed. Atle Midttun and Nina Witoszek. Norwegian School of Management. University of Oslo. Moretti, Enrico. 2012. The New Geography of Jobs. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston. NCEO (National Center for Employee Ownership). 2016. Economic Growth through Employee Ownership. NCEO, Oakland, CA. Pellervo. 2014. Cooperation in Finland. Pellervo Society, Helsinki. Available at https://www.slideshare.net /pellervo/ Restakis, John. 2010. Humanizing the Economy: Co-operatives in the Age of Capital. New Society Publishers, Vancouver, BC. Schwartz, Barry. 2015. Why We Work. Simon and Schuster, New York.

FOSTERING A COOPERATIVE ECONOMY IN MAINE

Skurnik, Samuli, and Lee Egerstrom. 2007. “The Evolving Finnish Economic Model: How Cooperatives Serve as ‘Globalisation Insurance.’” Paper presented at Co-operatives and Innovation: Influencing the Social Economy, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, May. Solsten, Eric, and Sandra W. Meditz. 1988. Area Handbook Series: Finland: A Country Study. Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Taylor, Davis F., and Chad R. Miller. 2010. “Rethinking Local Business Clusters: The Case of Food Clusters for Promoting Community Development.” Community Development 41(1): 108–120. Taylor, Davis, Rob Brown, Jonah Fertig, Noemi Giszpenc, Kate Harris, and Ahri Tallon. 2016. Cooperatives Build a Better Maine. Cooperative Development Institute, Northampton, MA.

Davis Taylor is a professor of economics at College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor and serves on the board of directors of the Cooperative Development Institute. Originally trained in microeconomics, his teaching extends across a broad range of economic topics and paradigms, emphasizing interdisciplinarity and pluralistic approaches. His research and community engagement focuses on cooperatives, cooperative economies, food systems, and ecological economics. Rob Brown is the director of Business Ownership Solutions, a program of the Cooperative Development Institute that promotes employee ownership and works with retiring business owners and their employees to facilitate conversion to workerowned cooperatives. He has also organized mobile home park residents to convert investorowned parks into resident-owned cooperatives. Brown has been a featured speaker at many national events, including as a William Jefferson Clinton Distinguished Lecturer at the Clinton Presidential Library and School of Public Service.

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

MAINE’S CULTURE OF REUSE

Maine’s Culture of Reuse and Its Potential to Advance Environmental and Economic Policy Objectives by Cindy Isenhour, Andrew Crawley, Brieanne Berry, and Jennifer Bonnet

Abstract Policies designed to extend the lifetime of products—by encouraging reuse rather than disposal—are proliferating. Research suggests that reuse can ease pressure on natural resources and improve economic efficiency, all while preventing waste. In Maine, there are clear signs of a tradition of reuse that might be used to advance these goals. But beyond discrete observations, proverbs, and anecdotal stories, little data have been collected upon which to estimate the potential of Maine’s reuse economy. This paper draws upon findings generated during the first year of a five-year interdisciplinary, mixed-methods research project designed to explore the environmental, social, and economic dimensions of reuse in Maine. Our preliminary findings suggest that Maine does, indeed, have a vibrant but underestimated reuse economy. Less expected are

the United States, reuse was both a practical and economic necessity (Glickman 1999; Cohen 2003). While the reuse tradition has gradually been replaced by increased access to affordable mass-produced and -marketed goods across much of the United States, particularly as the cost of new consumer goods fell relative to income over the last several generations (US DOL and US BLS 2006), signs of reuse remain apparent in New England.

findings that suggest reuse has promise to enhance economic resilience and contribute

BACKGROUND

to culturally appropriate economic development.

hroughout the state of Maine, it is difficult to miss the markers of a robust reuse economy. Yard sale signs are abundant from early spring until the winter weather arrives. Even in the dead of winter, stacks of Uncle Henry’s sit near cash registers in local shops from Portland to Fort Kent. Swap groups abound on social media, and numerous websites facilitate secondhand sales such as the Mama Swap of Maine or the Maine Buy Swap and Sell, whose tagline states, “Got Clutter? Don’t Wait Until Yard Sale Season.” The popular treasure-hunting program American Pickers has filmed several episodes in Maine and an entire reality TV show, Downeast Dickering, focuses on reuse bargain hunters and their use of Uncle Henry’s in Maine. Reuse and secondhand markets are certainly nothing new. In fact, they are the overwhelming historical precedent. Prior to mass production, the advent of the marketing industry, planned obsolescence, and the development of robust waste management systems in

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

ver the last century, global materials use has increased at more than twice the rate of population (US EPA 2013), in large part due to significant growth in the consumer goods sector. Today, the stuff we buy, use, and throw out accounts for 35 percent of material inputs in the global economy and constitutes nearly 75 percent of the municipal solid waste stream (MacArthur 2013). These are only a few of the statistics that have led

Photo: Ben Isenhour

A DRIVE DOWN MAINE’S COAST

MAINE’S CULTURE OF REUSE

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

emissions by 1 million tons per year—the same as taking 300,000 cars off the road (WRAP 2011). Similarly, MacBride’s study of US EPA waste data estimated that reuse has the potential to reduce landfilled municipal waste in the United States by 25 percent (2011). Based on these and similar findings, many governmental agencies, on multiple scales, have adopted policies that prioritize reuse above recycling and disposal (Schmidt et al. 2007). At the international level, the United Nations Environment Program’s 10-year framework on sustainable consumption and production encourages “the promotion of repair and maintenance work as an alternative to new products” (United Nations 2012: 5). In the United States, Oregon recently released a progressive strategic plan to extend product lifetimes and encourage repair and reuse (ODEQ 2016). The trend toward reuse is even more pronounced at the local level. Austin, Seattle, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, and Detroit are only a handful of the cities that have set up programs to facilitate and support reuse by sponsoring community swaps, repair events, industrial symbiosis projects, and materials exchanges (US EPA 2015). Here in New England, the regional office of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emphasized reuse, publishing a guide that directs readers to sites where businesses, local governments, and municipal residents can donate used goods. This effort was seen as part of the EPA’s mission to “promote reuse over traditional solid waste disposal of materials that still have ‘use’” (US EPA 2000: 2). In Maine, the legislature formally adopted a waste hierarchy (38 MRSA §2101) (Figure 1) that prioritizes reuse above all other waste management options except source reduction. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection Figure 1:

Maine’s Waste Hierarchy

Reduce The Waste Hierarchy

some to suggest consumption is “the mother of all environmental issues” (EEA 2012: 1). With growing awareness of resource depletion and climate change, increased attention has been directed at efforts to create more circular economies. In such economies, goods are designed for durability and to minimize materials use. Product lifetimes are extended until goods are no longer useful or repairable, and discarded materials are cycled back into the economic system to reduce waste and offset demand for virgin resource extraction, production, and the associated energy and emissions. Although often conflated with recycling, reuse is a radically different concept. While recycling is important for recovering materials with remaining value after disposal, it takes a lot of energy and water to convert packaging back into component materials. Recycling has contributed to reduced materials use, but these gains have not kept pace with increased production, resulting in net growth in materials use. Reuse, on the other hand, has much greater potential to reduce material use because it involves the recirculation of goods in their original form and thus does not require additional inputs. Reuse is focused on “object durability, so that repeated usage can take place” potentially offsetting, in many cases, demand for new production (Vaughan, Cook, and Trawick 2007: 128). We define reuse exchanges as the redistribution of previously owned material goods, in their original form, from one agent to another through a transfer of ownership (sale, swap, barter, gift) or temporary use agreement (borrow, rental, lease, share, loan). The reuse economy encompasses a diverse range of exchanges, from free take-it shops at waste transfer stations to high-end antique stores, architectural or auto salvage, and peer-to-peer exchanges. Practices that extend product lifetimes such as restoration and repair are considered prepare for reuse and are also included in the set of reuse activities. The environmental benefits of reuse, while uneven from one product category to another, are well documented. Researchers have found significant net environmental benefits associated with the purchase of secondhand (rather than new) clothing, books, and electronics (Farrant, Olsen, and Wangel 2010; Thomas 2010; Castellani, Sala, and Mirabella 2015). While researchers have rarely attempted to document savings associated with reuse across multiple sectors, one study conducted in the United Kingdom conservatively estimated that formal sector reuse (not including peer-topeer exchanges) reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent

Reuse Recycle Compost Waste-to-Energy Landfill 37

MAINE’S CULTURE OF REUSE

(MDEP) has articulated the value of reuse as a wastereduction strategy, writing that “reusing items can save energy and money, and prolong the item’s useful life” (https://www1.maine.gov/dep/sustainability/sw -hierarchy.html). While Maine has not yet implemented any policies to support reuse in the waste hierarchy, some evidence suggests that many local communities are already contributing to waste-reduction and sustainability goals through reuse. More than 90 transfer and recycling stations throughout the state offer opportunities for reuse. Through transfer station take-it shops or community donation drives, 65 programs collected nearly 3,000 tons of reusable materials in 2014 (MDEP 2015). Maine also has some of the consistently lowest per capita waste-generation rates in the nation (van Haaren, Themelis, and Goldstein 2010; MDEP 2016) perhaps due, in part, to strong reuse activity. Many advocates have urged the creation of a new culture of reuse, one that is pleasurable and contributes to environmental benefits, cost savings for consumers, reduced waste tipping fees for municipalities, and even improved community economic resilience. Unfortunately, however, reuse economies and cultures are significantly understudied, and empirical research that might be used to foster a culture of reuse is scarce (Schor 2014; Stokes et al. 2014; Cooper and Timmer 2015). Although the environmental benefits of reuse are well documented, there have been few studies that explore the conditions that give rise to reuse economies or that examine the forms of reuse relative to their social and economic implications (Schor 2014; McLaren and Agyeman 2015). RESEARCH DESIGN

e suspected that Maine had a particularly vibrant reuse economy relative to other states, as well as a strong shared culture that supports these practices. Scholars specializing in development studies have long recognized that policies and programs are more likely to be successful if they are consistent with and responsive to existing cultural institutions and norms (Adams 2001; Shore, Wright, and Pero 2011). We wondered if, indeed, Maine has a particularly vibrant reuse economy, could it be used to support, or create incentives for, the advancement of economic, social, or environmental public policy objectives? To explore this question and others, we began to plan for a multiyear interdisciplinary research project in

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

the fall of 2015. The project was designed to describe the history, development, and contemporary form of Maine’s reuse economy with particular intent to describe its economic, social, and environmental character and analyze its potential in the context of sustainability and community resilience. The research was designed to unfold across multiple scales over time, beginning with national level spatial and economic analysis, proceeding with state-level surveys (first on the formal reuse sector and later on the peer-to-peer exchange economy), and concluding with case-study research at the community and household level. In this article, we detail the first three completed stages of our research, which sought to determine whether Maine’s reuse economy is exceptional relative to other states and to empirically explore the strength of the reuse sector across the nation and in Maine relative to a range of potential explanatory factors. The methodology in these first three stages of research included (a) national level spatial analysis of the reuse sector based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data between 2005 and 2015; (b) an initial review of original and historical primary sources to explore the cultural moorings of Maine’s tradition of reuse, and (c) a survey and follow-up interviews with reuse-establishment owners and managers in Maine. We will briefly detail each of these methods before discussing our findings. National-Level Spatial Analysis To begin our analysis of the reuse sector at the national level, we used the American Community and County Business Patterns surveys. Both of these instruments classify industries using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). This approach illustrated that our society’s methods of accounting for economic activity are not particularly well suited to understanding reuse. The NAICS code most appropriate for our investigation is 453310 for used merchandise stores, but unlike other six-digit-level classifications, there are no subcodes or layers of disaggregation. Therefore, this single code captures everything from used bookstores and antiques dealers to consignment shops, making it quite difficult to study the differences between various forms of reuse. Further, it seems that the classification system produces a limited and conservative view of reuse. For example, if a bike shop sells both new and used bicycles, it is not listed under the used merchandise classification. Also, many reuse establishments are 38

MAINE’S CULTURE OF REUSE

nonprofit entities including church thrift shops or charity consignment stores that are often not classified independently as used merchandise stores. Flea markets, which are ubiquitous in Maine, are classified as “other direct selling establishments.” Pawn shops, rental businesses, and repair shops, all parts of the reuse economy, are also listed under various service categories. As a means of further defining the reuse sector, we searched the Dun & Bradstreet business directory using derivatives of the NAICS code along with individual searches for thrift and antiques. Once these data were cleaned, we found that the number of establishments increased by nearly four times. Therefore, it seems safe to assume that the formal reuse sector indicated by the NAICS codes constitutes a limited and conservative estimation of the industry. These formal sector data on reuse also do not account for a significant portion of reuse activity, including all the peer-to-peer exchanges that take place directly between buyers and sellers at yard sales, community swaps, or even those mediated by Craigslist, Uncle Henry’s, or Facebook swap groups. We plan to estimate the value of mediated exchanges using the listed selling prices on platforms like Uncle Henry’s and Craigslist, but have no good indication of the household savings or income associated with participation in direct peer-topeer exchange—such as yard sales and community swaps—without additional research. We plan to investigate informal exchanges in year three of our project. For our initial spatial analyses, we used the used merchandise retail classification code even though it provides only a conservative picture of the scope and value of the reuse sector. Using BLS data from 2005 to 2015, we calculated location quotients (LQ), which provide a means of assessing the relative specialization of a particular characteristic within a population. Effectively, the LQ is a ratio of a ratio allowing for the comparison of characteristics across areas of varying size. The value of an LQ at a regional level indicates how intensive a characteristic is in one place compared to the country as a whole. Textual Analysis of Primary Sources

Through an analysis of contemporary and historical cultural artifacts, documents, and media, we aimed to thoroughly explore and understand reuse behaviors in Maine. All signs suggest that Maine has a vibrant culture of reuse, but what are the historical and contextual roots of any shared ideologies or behaviors that support MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

contemporary reuse markets? And what evidence do we have that clearly suggests the presence of a culture of reuse? Working with collections at the University of Maine’s Fogler Library, the Maine Folklife Center, and historical archives, we identified sources with references to Maine and at least one key term referencing the reuse economy (thrift, reuse, frugality, and used goods). We identified nearly 70 sources originally published between the late eighteenth century and the present and ranging from personal diaries and nonfiction books to blog posts and electronic journalism. While this work is still in process, we have analyzed many of these texts for evidence of a long-standing culture of reuse and for historical context that might help explain contemporary reuse behaviors in Maine. Surveys and Interviews with Reuse Establishment Owners and Managers

Using the 2015 Maine Business Directory, the research team compiled a database of approximately 600 formal sector reuse businesses in the state of Maine. We cross-checked the list against publicly available data on each business to capture email addresses. Once again, the process itself provided valuable insight. We found through the cross-check and postal service address checks that many establishments were no longer in business. Our database was reduced from over 640 establishments to approximately 450 still in business with viable addresses. This suggested to us that some reuse businesses may be transient or short lived, a point to which we will return. We sent surveys designed to gather information about reuse exchanges and motivation for participation in reuse via email and the postal service. To date, 72 surveys have been returned. We have also conducted interviews with five reuse-establishment owners and managers to further explore the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of these organizations and their contributions to Maine’s reuse economies. PRELIMINARY RESEARCH FINDINGS

ur analysis of primary texts corroborates what seems to be a tacit and shared understanding that Maine is home to a deeply rooted culture of reuse. Antiqueman’s Diary (Tuck and Fales 2000) details the experiences of Maine’s first full-time antiques dealer upon his arrival in Kennebunkport in 1893. It was during the nineteenth century that the term antique entered into English texts as something “applied to old 39

MAINE’S CULTURE OF REUSE

furniture, pictures, china, and other articles of virtu, esp. as sought for and collected by amateurs” (Oxford English Dictionary 2017).1 During this time, even visiting treasure hunters recognized a penchant for reuse in Maine, and they visited to hunt for valuable collectibles in the far reaches of rural Maine (New York Times, July 23, 1894). In later Depression-era texts, the proverb, “Use it up, wear it out, make do, or do without” emerged as an ethos of thrift commonly associated with New England (Doyle, Mieder, and Shapiro 2012). Indeed many of these historical sources and ethnographies identify Maine culture as one of “independence, ingenuity, thriftiness, and taciturnity” (Mieder 2008: 164). And these suggestions of a long-standing culture of thrift and reuse are still apparent today. Mainer and self-described “frugal zealot” Amy Dacyczyn began “promoting thrift as a viable alternative lifestyle” in a widely popular newsletter, the Tightwad Gazette, in the 1990s (Dacyczyn 1998). And since 2014, a fourpart realistic-fiction series is set in a secondhand shop in “North Harbor, Maine” (Ryan 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017), exhibiting an enduring association of reuse with the Pine Tree State. Our national-level spatial analysis of the reuse economy also validated our suspicion that Maine has an exceptional reuse economy. In 2015, for example, LQs Figure 2:

reveal that Maine ranked second in the nation in the number of reuse establishments relative to the total number of establishments in the state (Figure 2). Measured either by number of reuse establishments or sector employment, Maine’s reuse economy between 2005 and 2015 was consistently more active than national averages and typically ranks among the top 10 in the nation. The consistency with which Maine ranks highly on these measures raises several interesting secondary questions about the cultural norms and economic conditions that have fostered reuse in Maine. There are several potential explanations for Maine’s vibrant reuse economy that we will continue to explore as our research progresses. Frugality may be associated with an aging population reliant on fixed incomes, a remnant of an agricultural past, or a geographically isolated economy less infiltrated by national retail chains. But Judd’s work suggests that reuse has deeper cultural roots linked to an ethos of “intractable individualism” and a people of “singular persistence” focused on self-sufficiency and survival. He argues that these traits reflect the nature and reality of the “hinterland in which they live” (Judd and Beach 2003: 18). Similarly, Griswold argues that “Maine has always had a sharp sense of its distinctiveness” that “came from the state’s history as the

2015 Establishment Location Quotient

Range 0.790000 0.910000 – 0.960000 0.970000 – 1.000000 1.010000 – 1.040000

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

MAINE’S CULTURE OF REUSE

Massachusetts backwater—the state that didn’t gain statehood until some thirty years after the rest of the East Coast” (Griswold 2002: 78). Indeed, Maine is a relatively geographically isolated state with a well-documented preference for local ownership and self-sufficiency. Even dating back to the New Deal, historians have noted Maine’s preference for localized economic development rather than integration into “vast impersonal markets” (Judd and Beach 2003: 18). The Potential for Improved Economic Resilience

According to Alexander and Stone (2009), 90 percent of households reduced their spending because of the recent recession and nearly a third of households made “significant” reductions in purchases. This is to be expected. Indeed, the notion of counter- and pro-cyclicality are well established in the economic literature (see, for example, Gavin and Hausmann 1998; Ilmakunnas and Maliranta 2003), illustrating that while most sectors cycle with economic health (procyclicality), others exhibit greater strength in times of economic decline (countercyclicality). Empirical evidence finds countercyclicality occurs in recessions with consumption switching towards less expensive “inferior substitutes” (Basker 2011). The work of McCutcheon (2001), Horne and Maddrell (2002), and Mitchell and Montgomery (2010), finds that reuse exhibits strong countercyclical movements. Our analysis of the formal reuse sector in Maine indicates that the reuse sector experienced notable growth during the recession (Figure 3), suggesting that reuse might provide a valuable strategy for economic resilience and an alternative means of provisioning during difficult economic times. Our survey of the owners and managers of reuse establishments also seemed to support this conclusion. Several respondents, for example, noted that reuse had a “low cost of entry” and a “no-cost inventory” that allowed individuals to start businesses with few resources. As many Mainers enter retirement or are laid off from their work, reuse offers supplemental income and a low-stakes transition to new economic opportunities. Indeed, in the survey sent to reuse-store owners, nearly 80 percent cited self-sufficiency as their motivation for getting involved

Our research also revealed some interesting trends that suggest that reuse has already made important contributions to economic resilience in Maine, particularly in depressed rural areas. The financial crisis of 2007–2008 and subsequent recession was one of the most severe economic shocks to hit the United States since the Great Depression of the 1930s (Temin 2013). Signs of the economic consequences of the recession are still evident in the United States today, particularly in the large geographical disparities of recovery (Hutton and Lee 2012). This heterogeneity in recovery has put significant emphasis on the concept of regional economic resilience and is becoming a defining element of spatial development analysis (see, for example, Christopherson, Michie, and Tyler 2010; Martin 2012; Martin and Sunley 2015). A further spatial aspect of resilience is the rural/urban divide, with rural areas found to be more vulnerable to economic shocks than urban areas (Murphy and Scott 2014). Maine, a relatively rural state, has been particularly slow to recover from the recession, a trend exacerbated by economic pressures from paper mill closures. Over the past 15 years, employment in mills— once a linchpin of Maine’s economy—has Figure 3: Maine Employment in NAICS 453310 been cut in half (MDOL 2016). According to an article by Nick Sambides (Bangor 1,400 Daily News, January 18, 2017), mill 1,200 closures have been described as natural 1,000 disasters because of the devastating impact they have had on Maine towns. These rural 800 towns face the loss of their largest 600 employers, with few other opportunities for livelihoods available. Not only are jobs 400 difficult to come by since the recession and 200 mill closures, but poverty persists, especially in rural counties (Acheson 2015), 0 making it difficult for individuals to access 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 the material goods they need. MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

2013

2014

2015

MAINE’S CULTURE OF REUSE

in the reuse economy. One survey respondent described how reuse was a transition strategy: After I was downsized from my management position at a large health insurance company, I decided to go for it. I used my settlement monies for startup costs. Fortunately, the business took off and sales have increased every year since. Other research participants talked about taking up reuse as a seasonal or supplementary occupation to make ends meet. Maine was third in the country in its rate of multiple job holding (8.2 percent) in 2015, fifth in 2014 (8.0 percent), and third in 2013 (8.6 percent). These numbers are well above the US average, which has hovered around 4.9 percent for some time now (Campolongo 2017). It seems, therefore, that reuse can provide an opportunity for economic resilience and necessity-based entrepreneurship in areas with limited economic opportunity. These ideas are also consistent with the survey data, which indicate that most reuse businesses are small, with 2.04 fulltime employees on average, and the clear majority (81 percent) with annual gross sales revenues less than $250,000. Further, it appears that nearly half of these establishments are in rural areas (approximately a quarter report locations in urban or semiurban contexts) where reuse might be an attractive resilience strategy in the absence of alternatives.

Perhaps our most interesting and least anticipated finding is the potential for Maine’s reuse economy to contribute… to economic growth. The Potential for Culturally Consistent Economic Growth

Perhaps our most interesting and least anticipated finding is the potential for Maine’s reuse economy to contribute not only to economic resilience, but also to economic growth. While reuse economies tend to demonstrate countercyclicality, our data indicate that Maine’s reuse economy often defies a simple relationship. MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

Reuse is consistently strong in Maine and continues to grow even in the context of a gradual economic recovery. The sector shows significant variability year to year, but the overall trend reveals an increase in absolute numbers of establishments of 20 percent over the last decade. And while the average employment growth rate of all sectors in Maine is 1.1 percent, it is 6.5 percent per year for the reuse sector. Taken together, these observations raise important questions about the potential for reuse markets to contribute to economic development and growth in rural American communities where external investments are unlikely and conventional routes to economic development are limited. Johnstone and Lionais (2004) provide several case studies that suggest that the concept of community, conceived as localized networks of social and exchange relations, can act as a powerful tool for place-based development. Similarly, Bristow and Healy (2014) argue that place- and context- based development (often referred to as amenity development) is increasingly important in postindustrial regional economic resilience. If strong social relations and a sense of place can be leveraged, these authors assert that development initiatives can be responsive to economic, social, and environmental goals. All this seems to suggest that the strength of the reuse sector can be explained relative to not only economic cycles, rural poverty, or geography, but also to community character and an existing culture that supports reuse. Maine is already well known for its sense of place, unique character, and strong thrift and antiques tourism opportunities. Indeed the tourism industry sells the idea that Maine is a place of rugged beauty and thrifty, independent people who are deeply connected to the land (Lewis 1993). An important component of Maine’s tourist appeal is its simplicity and rural charm (Lewis 1993). Tourism is big business with a larger economic impact than Maine’s other top natural resource industries (forestry, agriculture, fishing, and aquaculture) combined (Munding and Daigle 2007). Several efforts have been made to promote tourism centered on reuse in Maine, including examples such as the Maine Antiques Trail (http://www.maineantiquetrail.com/) and Thrift Happy’s Maine Resale Directory (http://www .thrifthappy.com/maine.html). Our survey of reuse-establishment owners and managers also substantiates the idea that the reuse sector is closely linked with tourism, particularly during the summer months. In fact, nearly all the respondents (90 42

MAINE’S CULTURE OF REUSE

percent) reported that out-of-state visitors are “frequent” or “occasional” customers. Qualitative responses and interviews also point to the strong links between tourism and the reuse sector. In all, 17 respondents mentioned customers from away and the seasonality of many forms of reuse (particularly antiques and used books). One respondent, for example, mentioned that in promoting tourism, the state helps the reuse economy and noted that tourists are drawn to Maine by “the lure of the find.” As our research progresses, we will continue to explore, quantify, and analyze the potential for economic growth associated with a robust reuse economy. While we are still in the process of gathering the data necessary to describe and estimate the potential of reuse in Maine, one existing study provides a preliminary indication of localized economic growth associated with reuse. The state of Minnesota estimated economic activity and employment generated by the formal reuse sector (resale, repair, and rental) in 2010 and reported that the sector generated $4 billion in gross annual sales and directly employed 46,000 people. Perhaps more importantly, the study estimates that unlike corporate new-product retail, the economic benefits associated with the sector are distributed almost entirely locally (MPCA 2011). Empirical studies of economic localization provide examples of how shifts toward localized economic behaviors have not only reduced global materials use and the emissions associated with transport, but also fostered more equitable, economically sustainable, and socially engaged local economic development (De Young and Princen 2012; Lockyer and Veteto 2013; Litfin 2014). CONCLUSION: MULTIPLE OBJECTIVES AND A SINGLE POLICY

olicies designed to encourage reuse are emerging on multiple scales. Some signs suggest that the relationship between new product and reuse markets has started to shift due to “nearly two decades of heavy acquisition of cheap imports,…the proliferation of unwanted items” (Schor 2014: 1) and increased awareness of the environmental benefits of reuse (Scott et al. 2009; Yan, Bae, and Xu 2015). New forms of reuse are also emerging with advances in virtual exchange platforms that reduce transaction costs (Yokoo 2009) and with new concepts such as collaborative consumption (e.g., community tool sheds) and the sharing economy (e.g., tiny libraries,

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

car sharing) (Botsman and Rogers 2010; Agyeman, McLaren, and Schaefer-Borrego 2013; Orsi et al. 2013). In this context, advocates of reuse have urged communities and policymakers to adopt programs that can foster a culture of reuse that is enjoyable and provides environmental and economic benefits. We have provided preliminary research findings that suggest Maine already has a strong culture of reuse that is likely already contributing to reduced materials use, climate mitigation, and waste reduction. We have also provided preliminary evidence to suggest that Maine’s reuse economy has contributed to economic resilience and economic growth. These positive outcomes have all emerged from a local culture of reuse and in the absence of robust policies to support reuse and Maine’s waste management hierarchy. Policies to encourage the extension of product lifetimes through repair and reuse do exist. Oregon, for example, has a strategic plan that includes programs for considering durability in public procurement, grants to support the development of reuse infrastructure, and programs to encourage deconstruction over demolition. Sweden has implemented a tax rebate for citizens who choose to repair a good, rather than replace it, and cities across the country are hosting materials exchanges, repair cafes, and community swaps. Here in Maine, where reuse is embedded in local culture and practices, we suggest there is potential to expand the economic and environmental benefits of reuse with programs and policies like these that can provide additional incentives and support. Sustainable development is clearly not easy, but we have a large body of research to suggest that development programs and policies are more likely to result in positive and sustainable outcomes if they are consistent with local culture and institutions. While the environment-vs.-jobs rhetoric is pervasive, it seems to us that Maine’s existing culture of reuse could be used to help the state achieve progress on both environmental and economic policy objectives. ENDNOTES 1 Similarly timed usage of the term in American contexts appeared in the New York Times. A search for the terms antique, antiques, antiquing, antique shop, and antique dealer reveal common usage with regards to the sale of collectibles in the mid- to latter 1800s. Previous iterations of the term antique typically refer to periodization or to high-end sales, such as art auctions.

MAINE’S CULTURE OF REUSE

REFERENCES Acheson, Ann W. 2015. Poverty in Maine 2015. Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center, University of Maine, Orono. Adams, William Mark. 2001. Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third World. Routledge, New York. Agyeman, Julian, Duncan McLaren, and Adrianne SchaeferBorrego. 2013. Sharing Cities. Friends of the Earth, London. Alexander, Whit, and Dorian Stone. 2009. “How US Consumer Spending Is Changing.” McKinsey & Company (June). http://www.mckinsey.com /industries/retail/our-insights/how-us-consumer -spending-is-changing Botsman, Rachel, and Roo Rogers. 2010. What’s Mine Is Yours: How Collaborative Consumption Is Changing the Way We Live. Harper Collins, New York. Bristow, Gillian, and Adrian Healy. 2014. “Regional Resilience: An Agency Perspective.” Regional Studies 48(5): 923–935. Campolongo, Susan. 2017. Multiple Jobholding in States in 2015. Monthly Labor Review. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/article/multiple -jobholding-in-states-in-2015.htm Castellani, Valentina, Serenella Sala, and Nadia Mirabella. 2015. “Beyond the Throwaway Society: A Life CycleBased Assessment of the Environmental Benefit of Reuse.” Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 11(3): 373–382. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1614 Christopherson, Susan, Jonathan Michie, and Peter Tyler. 2010. “Regional Resilience: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives.” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 3 (1): 3–10. doi:10.1093/cjres/rsq004 Cohen, Lisbeth. 2003. A Consumer’s Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America. Knopf Random House, New York. Cooper, Rosemary, and Vanessa Timmer. 2015. Local Governments and the Sharing Economy. One Earth, Vancouver. Dacyczyn, Amy. 1998. The Complete Tightwad Gazette: Promoting Thrift as a Viable Alternative Lifestyle. Villard Books, New York. De Young, Raymond, and Thomas Princen, eds. 2012. The Localization Reader: Adapting to the Coming Downshift. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. DeMailly, Damien, and Anne-Sophie Novel. 2014. The Sharing Economy: Make It Sustainable.” Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, Paris. http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Economie -du-partage-enjeux-et-opportunites-pour-la-transition -ecologique

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

Doyle, Charles Clay, Wolfgang Mieder, and Fred R. Shapiro. 2012. The Dictionary of Modern Proverbs. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. EEA (European Environment Agency). 2012. Unsustainable Consumption: The Mother of All Environmental Issues? EEA, Copenhagen. https://www.eea.europa.eu /highlights/unsustainable-consumption-2013-the-mother Farrant, Laura, Stig Irving Olsen, and Arne Wangel. 2010. “Environmental Benefits from Reusing Clothes.” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 15(7): 726–736. doi:10.1007/s11367-010-0197-y Gavin, Michael, and Ricardo Hausmann. 1998. “Macroeconomic Volatility and Economic Development.” In The Political Dimension of Economic Growth, 97–116. St. Martins Press, New York. Glickman, Lawrence B. 1999. Consumer Society in American History: A Reader. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Griswold, Wendy. 2002. “History + Resources = A Sense of Place.” Maine Policy Review 11(1): 76–84. Horne, Suzanne, and Avril Maddrell. 2002. Charity Shops: Retailing, Consumption and Society. Routledge, New York. Hutton, Will, and Neil Lee. 2012. “The City and the Cities: Ownership, Finance and the Geography of Recovery.” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 5(3): 325–337. doi:10.1093/cjres/rss018 Johnstone, Harvey, and Doug Lionais. 2004. “Depleted Communities and Community Business Entrepreneurship: Revaluing Space through Place.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 16(3): 217–233. doi:10.1080/0898562042000197117 Judd, Richard W., and Christopher Beach. 2003. Natural States: The Environmental Imagination in Maine, Oregon, and the Nation. New Ed edition. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. Lewis, George H. 1993. “The Maine That Never Was: The Construction of Popular Myth in Regional Culture.” Journal of American Culture 16(2): 91–100. Litfin, Karen. 2014. Ecovillages: Lessons for Sustainable Community. Polity, Cambridge, UK. Lockyer, Joshua, and James R. Veteto. 2013. Environmental Anthropology Engaging Ecotopia: Bioregionalism, Permaculture, and Ecovillages. Berghahn Books, New York. MacArthur. 2013. Towards the Circular Economy: Opportunities for the Consumer Goods Sector. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation. MacBride, Samantha. 2011. Recycling Reconsidered. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

MAINE’S CULTURE OF REUSE

MDEP (Maine Department of Environmental Protection). 2016. Maine Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Capacity Report: Calendar Year 2014. MDEP, Augusta. MDEP. 2015. “Maine Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Capacity Report: For Calendar Year 2013.” MDEP, Augusta. http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/attach .php?id=634519&an=1 MDOL (Maine Department of Labor). 2016. “Employment and Wages by Industry Sector, Monthly 2000–2015.” Industry Employment and Wages. Center for Workforce Research & Information, MDOL, Augusta. https://www1 .maine.gov/labor/cwri/qcew.html Martin, Ron. 2012. “Regional Economic Resilience, Hysteresis and Recessionary Shocks.” Journal of Economic Geography 12(1): 1–32. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbr019 Martin, Ron, and Peter Sunley. 2015. “On the Notion of Regional Economic Resilience: Conceptualization and Explanation.” Journal of Economic Geography 15(1): 1–42. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbu015 McCutcheon, Ron. 2001. “Thrift Stores Thriving in Recession.” Inside Tucson Business (December 28): sec. 1. McLaren, Duncan, and Julian Agyeman. 2015. Sharing Cities: A Case for Truly Smart and Sustainable Cities. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Mieder, Wolfgang. 2008. “Proverbs Speak Louder Than Words”: Folk Wisdom in Art, Culture, Folklore, History, Literature and Mass Media. Peter Lang Publishing Inc., New York. Mitchell, Mark, and Rob Montgomery. 2010. “An Examination of Thrift Store Shoppers.” The Marketing Management Journal 20(2): 94–107. MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). 2011. A Study of the Economic Activity of Minnesota’s Reuse, Repair and Rental Sectors. Minnesota Management & Budget, St. Paul. Munding, Elizabeth, and John Daigle. 2007. “Nature-Based Tourism in Maine: The State’s Role in Promoting a Strong Tourism Industry.” Maine Policy Review 16(1): 66–77. Murphy, Enda, and Mark Scott. 2014. “Household Vulnerability in Rural Areas: Results of an Index Applied during a Housing Crash, Economic Crisis and under Austerity Conditions.” Geoforum 51 (January): 75–86. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.10.001 ODEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality). 2016. Strategic Plan for Reuse, Repair, and Extending the Lifespan of Products in Oregon. ODEQ, Portland. http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/prodstewardship/ Strategicplan.pdf

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

Orsi, Janelle, Yassi Eskandari-Qajar, Eve Weissman, Molly Hall, Ali Mann, and Mira Luna. 2013. Policies for Sharable Cities: A Sharing Economy Policy Primer for Urban Leaders. Sharable and The Sustainable Economies Law Center. http://www.shareable.net/ Ilmakunnas, Pekka, and Mika Maliranta. 2003. “The Turnover of Jobs and Workers in a Deep Recession: Evidence from the Finnish Business Sector.” International Journal of Manpower 24(3): 216–246. doi:10.1108/01437720310479714 Ryan, Sofie. 2014. The Whole Cat and Caboodle. Obsidian, New York. Ryan, Sofie. 2015. Buy a Whisker. Obsidian, New York. Ryan, Sofie. 2016. A Whisker of Trouble. Penguin Group USA, New York. Ryan, Sofie. 2017. Telling Tails. Berkley Prime Crime. New York. Schmidt, Jannick H., Peter Holm, Anne Merrild Hansen, and Per Christensen. 2007. “Life Cycle Assessment of the Waste Hierarchy—A Danish Case Study on Waste Paper.” Waste Management 27(11): 1519–1530. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2006.09.004 Scott, Kate, John Barrett, Giovanni Baiocchi, and Jan Minx. 2009. Meeting the UK Climate Challenge: The Contribution of Resource Efficiency. WRAP Project EVA128, Waste & Resources Action Programme, Banbury, UK. http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/meeting -uk-climate-change-challenge-0 Schor, Juliet. 2014. “Debating the Sharing Economy.” The Great Transformation Initative. http://www.tellus .org/pub/Schor_Debating_the_Sharing_Economy.pdf Shore, Chris, Susan Wright, and Davide Pero. 2011. Policy Worlds: Anthropology and the Analysis of Contemporary Power. Berghan Books, London. http:// www.berghahnbooks.com/title/ShorePolicy Stokes, Kathleen, Emma Clarence, Lauren Anderson, and April Rinne. 2014. Making Sense of the UK Collaborative Economy. NESTA & Collaborative Lab, London. Temin, G. Page. 2013. “Insights from the Great Depression.” In The Economic Crisis in Retrospect: Explanations by Great Economists, 95–110. Edward Elgar Publisher, Northampton, MA. Thomas, Valerie M. 2010. “The Environmental Potential of Reuse: An Application to Used Books.” Sustainability Science 6(1): 109–116. doi:10.1007/s11625-010-0115-z Tuck, Fred Bishop, and Dean Fales. 2000. Antiqueman’s Diary: The Memoirs of Fred Bishop Tuck. Tilbury House, Gardiner, ME. United Nations. 2012. A 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns. Rio + 20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio de Janeiro.

MAINE’S CULTURE OF REUSE

US DOL and US BLS (US Department of Labor and US Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2006. 100 Years of U.S. Consumer Spending: Data for the Nation, New York City, and Boston. US DOL and US BLS, Washington, DC. http://www.bls.gov/opub/uscs/report991.pdf US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Reuse in New England: A Resource Guide to Donation Opportunities for Businesses, Local Governments, and Residents. US EPA, Region 1, New England EPA901-B-00-001 US EPA. 2013. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2013 Fact Sheet. US EPA, Washington, DC. http://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal /pubs/2013_advncng_smm_fs.pdf US EPA. 2015. Managing and Transforming Waste Streams—A Tool for Communities. US EPA, Washington, DC. http://www2.epa.gov/managing-and-transforming -waste-streams-tool-communities van Haaren, Rob, Nickolas Themelis, and Nora Goldstein. 2010. “17th Nationwide Survey of MSW Management in the US: The State of Garbage in America.” Biocycle 51(10): 16. Vaughan, Paul, Matthew Cook, and Paul Trawick. 2007. “A Sociology of Reuse: Deconstructing the Milk Bottle.” Sociologia Ruralis 47 (2): 120–134. doi:10.1111/j.1467 -9523.2007.00432.x WRAP. 2011. Re-use—New Research Shows So-fa so Good, but so Many More Opportunities. http://www.wrap.org .uk/content/re-use-new-research-shows-so-fa-so-good-so -many-more-opportunities Yan, Ruoh-Nan, Su Yun Bae, and Huimin Xu. 2015. “Second-Hand Clothing Shopping among College Students: The Role of Psychographic Characteristics.” Young Consumers 16(1): 85–98. Yokoo, Hide-Fumi. 2009. “An Economic Theory of Reuse.” Sustainability Science 5(1): 143–150. doi:10.1007/s11625 -009-0091-3

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

Cindy Isenhour is an assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology and the Climate Change Institute at the University of Maine. She is also a faculty associate with the School of Economics and the Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions. Andrew Crawley is an assistant professor of regional economic development in the School of Economics at the University of Maine. He specializes in regional economic policy and economic modelling.

Brieanne Berry is a PhD student in the Anthropology and Environmental Policy Program at the University of Maine. She is a research assistant at the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center and the Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions, where her work focuses on consumption and waste. Jennifer Bonnet is a social sciences and humanities librarian at the University of Maine’s Fogler Library.

FOOD WASTE AND FOOD REDISTRIBUTION IN MAINE SCHOOLS

Sharing Isn’t Easy: Food Waste and Food Redistribution in Maine K–12 Schools by Brieanne Berry and Ann Acheson

15.8 percent of Maine households are food insecure (more than 200,000 individuals) (ColemanApproximately 30 percent of food in the United States is wasted. When food is landfilled Jensen et al. 2016). And although instead of eaten, the economic and natural resources used to produce and transport that food insecurity in the United States food are also wasted. At the same time, however, food insecurity remains a pressing is decreasing in the wake of the issue both in the United States and within the state of Maine. This paper explores efforts 2008 recession, in Maine the rate of to reduce food waste and address food insecurity in Maine’s K–12 school system, with food insecurity continues to rise an emphasis on food redistribution. Research indicates that schools produce substan(Coleman-Jensen et al. 2016). Food tial amounts of food waste, but little is known about strategies that schools employ to waste and food insecurity are deeply address food waste, either through formal policy or grassroots efforts. Based on an connected, and their effects are felt analysis of school board waste policies and interviews with school officials in Maine, in the state of Maine. this study suggests that the adoption of specific types of practices to reduce food waste The Food Recovery Hierarchy, is influenced by multiple factors. created by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), prioritizes ways to reduce food waste pproximately one-third of the food produced for based on environmental, economic, and social benehuman consumption in the United States is wasted fits (Figure 1). The diagram lists from top to bottom at either the retail or consumer level (Buzby, Wells, and the best solutions to reducing food waste: source Hyman 2014), and this waste comes at enormous reduction, feed hungry people, feed animals, industrial financial and environmental cost. Buzby, Wells, and uses, composting, landfill/incineration. The second Hyman (2014) estimate the retail value of this wasted solution, feed hungry people, sits at the intersection of food as more than $161 billion and the caloric value food waste and food insecurity. By redistributing food, as 141 trillion, more than 1,200 calories per person per we can feed people not landfills, support local comday. Additionally, the production and transportation of munities, and save money (https://www.epa.gov this wasted food accounts for approximately 25 percent /sustainable-management-food/reduce-wasted-food of US freshwater use and substantial amounts of fossil -feeding-hungry-people). Yet although food redistribufuels (Hall et al. 2009). Waste management adds addition—feeding hungry people—is prioritized above tional financial and environments costs, with food waste nearly all other strategies on the hierarchy, it does not costing $1.3 billion to landfill in 2010 (Buzby, Wells, seem to be a common practice. Composting, on the and Hyman 2014). other hand, may sit near “the bottom of the food Yet at the same time that the United States is landrecovery hierarchy, but it is often promoted as the first filling great quantities of food, millions of Americans solution by companies and municipalities” (Mourad are living with food insecurity, defined as the lack of 2016: 467). Indeed, according to Mourad (2016), the access to enough food for an active, healthy life. In strategies on the hierarchy compete with one another 2015, 12.7 percent of US households (42.2 million rather than work in tandem. people) were food insecure (Coleman-Jensen et al. 2016). Patterns of food waste and food insecurity in SCHOOL FOOD: A TANGLED WEB OF POLICY Maine generally follow those of the country as a whole: food waste makes up close to one-third of Maine’s resichools present a compelling setting to explore food dential waste stream (Criner and Blackmer 2011) and waste and food insecurity. They produce large Abstract

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

FOOD WASTE AND FOOD REDISTRIBUTION IN MAINE SCHOOLS

Figure 1:

EPA Food Recovery Heirarchy

Food Recovery Hierarchy red fer Pre st Mo

Source Reduction Reduce the volume of surplus food generated

Feed Hungry People Donate extra food to food banks, soup kitchens and shelters

Feed Animals Divert food scraps to animal feed

Industrial Uses Provide waste oils for rendering and fuel conversion and food scraps for digetstion to recover energy

Composting Create a nutrient-rich soil amendment

Source: https://www.epa .gov/sustainable -management-food/food -recovery-hierarchy

ed err ref tP as Le

Landfill/ Incineration Last resort to disposal

amounts of food waste in concentrated spaces and have existing policies to support the health and wellness of students. In particular, schools have robust hunger-prevention programs through the National School Lunch Act. Established in 1946, the National School Lunch Program has served over 224 billion lunches (USDA 2013). Indeed, hunger prevention is “the most widely agreed upon goal of school food programs, and school meals make a crucial difference in the lives of literally millions of American children every school day” (Poppendieck 2010: 161). The National School Lunch Program is administered through the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which determines meal patterns, school reimbursement rates, and safety standards (USDA 2013). Importantly, states may establish safety standards that are more restrictive than the federal requirements (Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act 1946). State-level oversight of school food programs can be complex. In Maine, school food is overseen at the MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

state level by both the Department of Education (DOE) and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which issues the Maine Food Code that outlines safety standards with which schools must comply (MDHHS 2013). Local school boards may also affect food programs as they set the policies for school administrative units in Maine (MRS Title 20-A, Chapter 101). This nested structure of local, state, and federal oversight can create uncertainty when the policies of different agencies and organizations do not align. Approaches to Food Waste and Food Redistribution in School Lunch Programs

National school meal programs are highly regulated by the federal government in terms of meal offerings, safety, and reimbursement. Although food waste and food redistribution have not been explicitly regulated at the federal level, federal guidance suggests that there is national-level concern with food waste in schools and support for food redistribution practices. For example, on May 1, 2017, the USDA began the regulatory process to relax Obama-era school meal standards. Although the proclamation by USDA Commissioner Sonny Perdue did not mention school food waste, the press release announcing the regulatory shift did. The press release quotes Commissioner Perdue: “If kids aren’t eating the food, and it’s ending up in the trash, they aren’t getting any nutrition—thus undermining the intent of the program.” The press release also quotes Patricia Montague, CEO of the School Nutrition Association: “We don’t want kids wasting their meals by throwing them away. Some of our schools are actually using that food waste as compost. That shouldn’t be happening.”1 The USDA has endorsed share tables as a way to redistribute food and reduce waste “if it is in compliance with local and State health and food safety codes” (Kline 2016). The USDA, however, does recognize the possibility of conflicts between federal and state policy: Local and State health and food safety codes may be more restrictive than the [Food and Nutrition Service] requirements, or may place specific limitations on which food or beverage items may be reused. To ensure compliance with food safety requirements, [Child Nutrition Program] 48

FOOD WASTE AND FOOD REDISTRIBUTION IN MAINE SCHOOLS

operators should discuss plans for a share table with their local health department and State agency prior to implementation (Kline 2016).

state-level guidelines or policies; in other instances, there are school district policies or guidelines; and in still other instances, there are less formalized school-level practices. Table 1 provides a summary of major strategies that schools are using to reduce waste in their lunch programs, along with the benefits and drawbacks of the

States around the country are trying a variety of approaches to reducing waste and redistributing food from school meal programs. In some instances, there are Table 1:

Food Waste-Reduction Practices in US Schools

Practice Source Reduction

Recess Before Lunch

Offer vs. Serve

Share Table

Food Donation

Feeding Animals

Compost

Benefits

Drawbacks

Ordering and preparing less food. Reconfiguring menus to serve popular meals more frequently and reduce serving of meals that frequently go uneaten.

Explanation

Cost savings associated with ordering, preparing, and disposing of less food. Environmental benefits from reduced need to produce and transport food for service.

Student tastes may not match nutrition guidelines. Difficulties associated with accurately counting and preparing for student participation. Reduced student choice may result in more wasted food.

Scheduling recess before lunch has been shown to result in less wasted food.

Relatively simple solution, with no direct costs. Potential cost savings associated with disposing of less food. Students consume more nutrients from school lunch.

Scheduling recess before lunch can be challenging in larger schools with multiple lunch times. Not relevant for older students who do not have recess.

Required for high schools, offer vs. serve can be implemented in all other grades. Allows students to be offered all lunch components, but requires them to select their own combination of items that make up a reimbursable meal, with some restrictions.

Relatively simple solution, with no direct costs. Students have more choice and flexibility in their lunch options. Potential cost savings associated with disposing of less food.

This policy is already widely implemented in schools in the United States, with little further potential to reduce food watste. Meal pattern guidelines still require that students select specific combinations of lunch items.

A station in the cafeteria where students may place whole, unopened, and untouched food from the school lunch program for others to take at no cost. This strategy is recommended by the USDA.

Potential cost savings associated with disposing of less food. Students consume more of the nutrients from school lunch. Social benefits when students who do not have enough to eat can supplement from the share table.

Concerns about the safety of food after it has left the service line. Staffing needs may be too demanding for some schools, as tables must be supervised by an adult. Food not taken from tables cannot be re-served in Maine schools, which can result in waste.

Whole, unopened, and untouched food can be collected in the cafeteria and delivered to a local food bank or food pantry. This strategy is recommended by the USDA.

Potential cost savings associated with disposing of less food. Social benefits when food is redistributed to community members in need.

Logistical challenges associated with collaborating with a local food bank. Concerns about safety of food after it has left the service line. Food must be stored on site unless it can be delivered or picked up on a daily basis.

Food that does not contain, or has not come into contact with meat, can be given to farmers to use as animal feed.

Potential cost savings associated with disposing of less food. Nutrients in food go to animals.

Logistical challenges associated with finding and working with local farmers and ensuring that food does not come into contact with meat products.

Schools may compost on site or partner with food-scrap collection companies or farmers.

Potential cost savings associated with disposing of less food. Finished compost can be used in school gardens. Compost can tie into science curriculum. Relatively simple to roll out in cafeteria.

Calories and nutrients in food are not consumed by people. Can result in the waste of food that is still edible. Fees associated with food-scrap collection from outside companies.

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

â&#x20AC;˘

Vol. 26, No. 1

â&#x20AC;˘

2017

FOOD WASTE AND FOOD REDISTRIBUTION IN MAINE SCHOOLS

strategies. (For more detailed analysis and summaries of food waste-reduction strategies, including in schools, see Leib et al. [2016]; ReFed [2016]).2 MAINE SCHOOL FOOD WASTEREDUCTION STRATEGIES

he senior author (Berry) recently conducted exploratory research on food waste-reduction strategies in Maine’s K–12 schools, paying particular attention to institutional barriers associated with food redistribution. The research focused on the following questions: 1. How are formal policies supporting food redistribution in Maine schools? 2. In the absence of formal policy, how are schools reducing food waste? 3. How might boundary organizations contribute to more effective policies and practices? Methods The first step in the research involved examining available policies on reducing food waste in Maine schools. As there is little existing research on food waste-reduction practices in Maine schools, the methods used in this study were inductive and exploratory. In Maine, school administrative units (SAUs) oversee the administration of individual schools, and SAU policies are developed by local school boards.3 Although federal and state laws and regulations require that school boards address certain topics in their policies (http:// www.msmaweb.com/services/required-policies/), these regulations do not require school boards to develop waste policies. Still, school board policies are a useful starting point because they are comparable and consistent across the state and offer insight into how waste policies are developed in the absence of a formal requirement to do so. The findings are based on policy documents downloaded from 116 SAUs that make their policies available online. The analysis focuses on two specific sections within the policies: Section E: Support Services and Section J: Student Wellness. The Support Services section encompasses policies related to the school building, cafeteria, and other topics not directly related to students. The Student Wellness section contains policies focused on student health and wellbeing, including lunch-scheduling practices. In each policy document,

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

Berry searched these two sections for references to waste, including waste reduction, recycling, food waste, food sharing, food donation, and composting. Berry also searched for practices associated with food waste reduction in the literature: scheduling recess after lunch and enabling students to select their own lunch components from a set of choices (offer vs. serve) (Buzby and Guthrie 2002). Berry coded policies that contained sections on ways to reduce food waste based on policy type (offer vs. serve, recess scheduling, waste reduction) and by waste language (waste mentioned or waste not mentioned) using software designed for qualitative analysis. The next stage of research involved exploring any factors that might be associated with the emergence of policies devoted to reducing food waste. To this end, Berry analyzed the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch, the grades issued to schools by the Maine DOE, and per pupil operating costs for each SAU.4 These factors can serve as rough indicators of the poverty levels of the student population, the overall quality of education, and the resources available to the SAU, respectively. Each factor is an average of the entire SAU. School grades, the only non-numerical component, were calculated by assigning a number to the grades determined by the Maine DOE (A=5, B=4, C=3, D=2, F=1). The final stage of research was intended to determine whether practices to reduce food waste exist in the absence of policy, and if so, how these practices emerge. This research stage was informed by preliminary informational interviews with stakeholders engaged in reducing food waste in schools. These preliminary interviews provided much-needed insight into the food waste landscape in Maine schools and guided the development of interview questions and the selection of interview participants. Berry conducted semistructured interviews with six school officials to provide a deeper understanding of school practices than the formal policy analysis could provide. Because the participants were referred to Berry by nonprofit partners active in food waste reduction in Maine’s schools, the participants all had active food waste-reduction efforts in their schools and SAUs, which is not likely to be the case in the state as a whole. The participants were teachers, facilities managers, or food services professionals and represented four counties: Cumberland, York, Androscoggin, and Penobscot. All interviews were conducted over the phone, lasted between 30 and 50 minutes, and consisted of open-ended 50

FOOD WASTE AND FOOD REDISTRIBUTION IN MAINE SCHOOLS

questions covering topics such as current food wastereduction procedures, how practices and procedures emerged, perceptions of food redistribution as a wastereduction strategy, perceptions of composting as a wastereduction strategy, and perceptions of food insecurity as an issue within the school and surrounding community. Formal Waste-Reduction Policy Of the 116 school board policies publicly available online, eight (6.8 percent) contained dedicated wastereduction policies, eighteen (15.5 percent) contained passing references to food waste, and eleven (9.4 percent) promoted strategies that have been shown to reduce food waste, but did not mention food waste reduction. None of the policies examined promoted food redistribution, and four school board policies prohibited food sharing.

Dedicated waste-reduction policies Eight SAUs had dedicated waste-reduction policies. These were stand-alone components within Section E: Support Services and were framed in terms of either environmental sustainability or waste management and recycling. While all of the dedicated waste-reduction policies addressed recycling, only two mentioned food waste. In both, composting was mentioned as a strategy to reduce food waste, but food redistribution and food sharing were not included as waste-reduction strategies. One school policy explicitly links composting with recycling with a goal to “minimize the amount of waste sent to landfills and maximize the amount of waste, including food waste, that gets recycled while striving for zero waste.” It is possible that the six SAUs that did not address food waste in their dedicated waste-reduction policies intended for food waste to be included as part of an overall recycling strategy; however, we only consider the policies that directly mentioned food as having a food waste-reduction policy. Policies that reference food waste Eighteen SAUs had policies that referenced food waste, but were not about food waste. These policies took two distinct forms: offer vs. serve and scheduling recess before lunch. As discussed previously, allowing students to select their own lunch components is associated with reduced food waste. Offer vs. serve is a policy established in the 1970s that permits students to choose three of five offered menu items rather than requiring that they receive all five items. This policy is required for MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

high schools and is optional, but widely used, in elementary schools (Poppendieck 2010). Offer-vs.-serve policies were located in Section E: Support Services. Schools that mentioned food waste within an offervs.-serve policy did so in nearly identical ways: The “Offer vs. Serve Option” is designed to be more economical for the school unit and result in less waste. All lunches offered must contain five food items, but students have the freedom of choice in selecting the three, four or five items they intend to consume. They may refuse up to two items. This passing reference to waste reduction was the only place where waste was mentioned in these SAUs’ policy documents. Less common than offer vs. serve was the policy of scheduling recess before lunch. This practice is also associated with reduced plate waste (Buzby and Guthrie 2002), both because students who play before lunch have bigger appetites and because they do not feel compelled to rush through lunch in an attempt to get more time at recess. Policies that recommended or mandated scheduling recess before lunch were located in Section J: Student Wellness. As with offer vs. serve, these policies used similar language across different SAUs: Since research indicates that physical activity prior to lunch can increase the nutrient intake and reduce food waste, whenever possible, consider planning physical activities such as recess, before lunch. What separates the offer-vs.-serve and recess scheduling policies from the dedicated waste-reduction policies is their focus and intent. Dedicated waste-reduction policies highlight waste as an issue. SAUs that reference food waste within another policy do not have the same emphasis on waste as an issue meriting attention and instead frame waste reduction as an ancillary benefit. Policies that reduce food waste without waste-reduction language A final set of policies promote food waste reduction, but do not explicitly mention food waste. There were 11 SAU policy documents that fit into this category. These policies mentioned either offer vs. serve or scheduling recess before lunch, but did not discuss them in terms of food waste reduction. For example, one offer-vs.-serve policy simply read, “The School Committee authorizes 51

FOOD WASTE AND FOOD REDISTRIBUTION IN MAINE SCHOOLS

‘Offer vs. Serve’ for grades 1-12.” A recess scheduling policy stated, “To the extent possible: Schedule lunch periods to follow recess periods.” These policies have the effect of reducing food waste, but did not explicitly state reducing food waste as a desired or expected outcome. Factors in the emergence of formal policy The analysis yielded a limited number of SAUs with any kind of food waste-reduction policy. Berry sought to determine whether these SAUs had common characteristics that might affect the emergence of food waste-reduction policy. SAUs with waste policies were compared to the rest of Maine’s public school system although 73 SAUs were missing one or more of the above criteria, resulting in a total of 169 records for comparison (Table 2). SAUs with formal waste-reduction policies had a lower percentage of students who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and higher SAU grades and per pupil spending. Because of the small sample size, however, it is not possible to determine whether these results are significant in comparison to the larger group. With such limited results from the formal policy analysis, questions remain about how food waste-reduction policies emerge within schools and whether formal policy captures all efforts to reduce waste in Maine K–12 schools.

interviewing school officials from SAUs with and without formal policy. These results do not represent the state of Maine, but rather may be used to better understand how practices have emerged and what barriers to action exist within SAUs. Participants held different roles within their SAU; some worked at an individual school, while others worked at the administrative level. The six interview participants represented six SAUs. One SAU had a formal waste-reduction policy that mentioned food waste; one SAU had an offer-vs.-serve policy that mentioned food waste; two SAUs did not have any food waste-reduction policies; and two SAUs did not have policy documents publicly available online. All the SAUs had active composting and recycling programs in at least one school within the administrative unit, while food redistribution practices varied. Participants cited food redistribution practices including share tables (1), food donation to local pantries (1), and re-service of surplus food to students (1). Two participants were actively working to establish share tables, while one participant did not have any food redistribution programs. The following sections explore the development of food-waste reduction policies based on themes that emerged from these interviews.

Partnerships The participants identified partnerships as critical Beyond Policy: Action and Uncertainty components of food waste-reduction programs, particuDo school board policies reflect the actions SAUs larly in reference to compost programs. Participants are taking to reduce waste? If not, how are SAUs frequently referenced the support of waste-management approaching food waste reduction, and what barriers companies, food scrap-collection companies, environdo they face? The next stage in the project involved mental nonprofits, and Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) when discussing their school Table 2: Maine School Food Waste-Reduction Policies and Practices composting programs. This support took the form of site visits, Mean logistical planning, and troubleFree and Number Reduced Mean Mean shooting and was tailored to the SAUS Price Lunch SAU Per Pupil specific needs of SAUs. WastePolicy Type Analyzed Eligibility Grade Spending management companies provided (%) ($) grants and educational activities, Waste-reduction policy 8 43.0 3.36 12,362 while food scrap-collection Waste reduction 18 55.5 2.93 10,649 companies supplied templates for mentioned in policy the schoolwide rollout of Waste-reduction 11 60.9 2.80 10,758 composting programs. Site visits practices, no mention from the DEP allowed schools to of waste discuss site-specific details and State Total 169 52.5 2.92 11,349 access information from a trusted MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

FOOD WASTE AND FOOD REDISTRIBUTION IN MAINE SCHOOLS

source. A robust network of partners was critical to the adoption of composting programs in schools. Participants also mentioned partnerships in association with the establishment of food-redistribution programs, but the relationships described were quite different from those described in the preceding paragraph. The off-the-shelf solutions that exist for composting were not mentioned for food redistribution. One participant mentioned attending a workshop on share tables, noting, “they were a good support system and I was able to sort of bounce some questions and ideas off them.” Two participants mentioned the presence of hunger-prevention nonprofit organizations within their schools. While these organizations focus on food insecurity, they function independently of waste-reduction efforts with food sourced from outside the schools. Although a robust network of partners seems to have made a difference in the adoption of composting as a food waste-reduction strategy, fewer partners seemed to be available to support food redistribution efforts. Policy uncertainty Uncertainty is an important factor in the emergence of particular forms of waste-reduction practices in schools. Composting is an example of certainty. With strong networks of support from both the public and private sectors, schools seem to be well aware that composting is an acceptable practice for food waste reduction. A greater level of uncertainty surrounds food redistribution, however. One participant commented on this uncertainty explicitly: I’ve been to a couple of places…even at a PTA meeting where I heard someone from the EPA say that there wasn’t a policy, but yet I’ve come across Good Samaritan Law, where it says you can donate as long as you’re not reselling it or distributing it outside of the school, so I feel like that’s sort of still a vague area, or gray at least. Uncertainty was pervasive in discussions of food redistribution. Another participant questioned the types of items that might be acceptable to redistribute in schools: We have some questions about fruit. Can we put apples out? Bananas seem to be okay because you have a peel, but apples I’m not so sure about. So there are a lot of little issues that we need to overcome before we go full-bore with the sharing tables.

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

Unlike composting, where site visits and extensive support was available, participants had detailed questions about food redistribution and some struggled to find answers. Uncertainty was particularly problematic for some participants because of the perceived risks associated with food redistribution. Concerns about liability and student illness made it difficult for participants to adopt redistribution practices as quickly as they did with composting. One participant commented, “we had to do a bit of research just to make sure there was no insurance issue if anybody ate some rotten broccoli and got sick.” Another participant, whose SAU does not have food redistribution practices in place, noted, “we would certainly be willing to donate any of the surplus that we had, but again it would have to be done in a manner that the food safety is ensured.”

Concerns about liability and student illness made it difficult for participants to adopt redistribution practices as quickly as they did with composting. In the absence of certain policy regarding food redistribution, concerns about food safety and liability fall onto school officials. This uncertainty can prevent action, but it also provided the flexibility some participants needed to move forward. For these participants, the absence of policy concerning food redistribution allowed for action that made sense to them. A lack of policy led one participant to take the lead on a food redistribution program: The principal is very supportive of anything I’ve come up with. So I didn’t necessarily go through him to do the share table. I just kind of threw up some flyers and reached out to some teachers that I thought would be interested. Action in the face of uncertainty was not common among participants. Many participants performed extensive research before implementing food redistribution programs, with some involving students, cafeteria employees, and teachers in the process. 53

FOOD WASTE AND FOOD REDISTRIBUTION IN MAINE SCHOOLS

Seamless school integration Food waste-reduction practices may be selected based on how easily they can be integrated into existing school practices. For a school to start collecting food scraps for composting, the first step is to set out a dedicated bin in the cafeteria waste-sorting station. The simple integration was noted by one participant who commented, “It’s relatively simple. It’s just a matter of setting up labeled barrels in specific locations so kids know what goes where.” Another participant mentioned, “you just show them what to do, and they do it for a week, maybe two, and they’ve got it. And that’s sorting and everything.” While participants mentioned initial challenges with getting compost piles in order, others worked with local farmers or for-profit companies to outsource that aspect of the process. In many ways, food redistribution is fundamentally different from composting. Rather than simply putting food into a separate bin, food-redistribution programs keep food outside of the waste stream altogether. Whereas food waste intended for compost can be left unattended in a bucket, food that is redistributed must be monitored for safety. While schools are familiar with the process of hiring companies to manage their waste, the process of redistributing food either outside or within the school is often unfamiliar. With fewer partners to smooth the process and greater policy uncertainty, there are hurdles to overcome in establishing food-redistribution programs in schools. A green identity A final consideration in selecting a food wastereduction strategy is the extent to which it is perceived as green or sustainable. In many of the interviews, participants discussed composting and food redistribution in different ways. Compost fits neatly into other school green efforts like gardens. One participant noted that their food waste-reduction efforts “started with composting and gardening and where your food comes from…just eating healthier, really.” Participants frequently mentioned the connection between school gardens and compost and perceived gardens to be a waste-reduction strategy, where students eat things that they never would eat previously because they have grown it. Compost is also part of a cycle that can be an educational tool as well as a source of school pride. While participants were proud of their foodredistribution systems and saw these practices as important for both students and the community, food MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

redistribution was discussed differently. Whereas gardens and compost were components of a sustainable school, food insecurity and food redistribution were things to be kept quiet. One participant commented on the secrecy and need for confidentiality associated with food redistribution: Food donations are kind of funny because you have to keep them on the low-down. I know that a number of kids in the school itself benefit, their families benefit from the food pantry. We don’t know which ones, but I know that a fair number do. Further, some participants thought that a lack of exposure to food insecurity reduced support for foodredistribution programs. One participant commented, “if you don’t live that every day, or if you’re not around that every day, you have no reason to worry about it, right?” The need for discretion and confidentiality may affect the adoption of food redistribution as a strategy in schools, especially when programs such as composting can be celebrated and widely shared with the community as part of a sustainability program. Discussion This research suggests that formal food wastereduction policy in Maine schools does not tell the whole story. In the absence of formal policy, some SAUs are taking action to reduce food waste. These actions do not seem to be determined by school resources or community poverty levels, but the lack of comprehensive data on school waste-reduction efforts makes it impossible to state decisively what factors affect wastereduction practices. Instead, interview data suggest that these practices may be determined by a host of other factors including the presence of robust support networks, policy uncertainty, ease of integration into school practices, and associations with sustainability. What does this research say about how we might move food waste reduction “up the hierarchy” in Maine schools—from waste reduction to food redistribution? Although education and awareness are often promoted as first steps to changing behavior, even in SAUs without food-redistribution programs, these study participants were aware of the issue of food insecurity. Every interviewee identified food insecurity as a problem both in their SAU and the state as a whole. One commented that for many students, “their opportunity for food is at school and when they go home there’s not much there.” Participants showed a clear desire to connect students to 54

FOOD WASTE AND FOOD REDISTRIBUTION IN MAINE SCHOOLS

surplus food. Given the paucity of data available on school officials’ awareness of food insecurity and food waste as issues, we hesitate to suggest that all officials are well versed on these statistics. Yet from this research, there is evidence that knowledge of food insecurity was insufficient to promote food redistribution as a wastereduction strategy. Perhaps, as Pidgeon and Fischhoff suggest, “Well-informed individuals can rationally do nothing if they see no viable actions” (2011:38). Faced with policy uncertainty and a lack of robust networks, perhaps school officials perceive a lack of viable options for food redistribution. So rather than relying on knowledge and awareness, perhaps policy is the answer. Interview participants, however, had decidedly mixed responses to the idea of policy to support food redistribution. One participant feared the loss of autonomy and commitment through top-down solutions: I’m not a big fan of policy and rule making if it makes sense to do it. And I know that, I know that’s kind of how the world is changing. I would much rather go to a school and say “who’s got interest here? This is what we want to do, these are the reasons we want to do it and we know it can work and it’s really not that much extra” and get it going that way. You’re going to have so much more buy-in.…If you load up the schools with another policy and another procedure and another something that has to be done, I can eventually see some teacher saying, or staff member saying “well I’m doing this and this isn’t my everyday whatever and I want to be paid for this because we have to do it, and somebody has to do it so I’ll take it on” and then getting compensated for it, and I don’t think, personally, that’s the way it should go. Other interviewees thought that policy could nudge recalcitrant schools in the right direction or legitimize existing practices. These responses seem to indicate a degree of skepticism about the role of policy in Maine’s schools. FUTURE DIRECTIONS

chool food waste is a complicated terrain, fraught with concerns over safety, liability, and competing definitions of sustainability. The nested structure of food oversight in schools has amplified uncertainty,

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

MAINE CDC HEALTH INSPECTION PROGRAM Food Sharing Tables—Guidance for Schools Share tables help reduce food waste and encourage consumption of foods served at schools. These guidelines are intended to assist school staff who implement share tables. The Department is exercising its authority per 8-103.10 10-144 CMR Ch. 200 to grant a variance to the Maine Food Code to allow for the following procedure for share tables. Health Inspectors will review compliance with this variance during their inspections. Prior to sitting down, students or staff may place unwanted served food on the share table, so that another student may select the food item. • A school staff person must be designated to monitor the share table. • *Only food served by the school nutrition program may be placed on the share table. • **Only intact packaged items (i.e., pre-packaged crackers, fruit snacks, juices, etc.) or fruits with thick skins that can be peeled, such as oranges, bananas or tangerines, are suggested for placement on the share table. • Fruits having thin skins in which the skins are normally consumed, such as apples, pears, grapes and plums are not allowed. • ***Temperature-controlled intact packaged foods (i.e., milk, yogurt) must be held at proper temperature. Students may place milk, etc. in a small refrigerator, cooler or ice bath (provided by the school nutrition program) to prevent temperature abuse. • ****Food may not be returned to the kitchen for re-service and shall be disposed at the end of the 4-hour period or the end of the meal service. • Share tables should be used in combination with Offer Versus Serve and careful portion control to combat excess waste on trays. For more information about Offer Versus Serve visit www.fns.usda.gov/school For more information see 2013 Maine Food Code: *3-201.11A, **3-306.11, ***3-501.16, ****3-501.19 Source: http://maine.gov/doe/nutrition/resources /documents/ShareTableGuidanceHandout.pdf

FOOD WASTE AND FOOD REDISTRIBUTION IN MAINE SCHOOLS

particularly when it comes to food redistribution. Some of the uncertainty about safety and liability over food redistribution has begun to be addressed through recently issued guidelines on share tables issued by the Maine CDC Health Inspection Program (see sidebar). Although these guidelines are a start, they only cover some foods that could potentially be included for redistribution, e.g., they exclude fruits where the skins are consumed such as apples and pears, and the only redistribution mechanism addressed in the guidelines is share tables. As yet unanswered is how these guidelines will be disseminated so that schools may be supported and encouraged to establish share tables or other means of food redistribution. On Maine’s legislative front, a broad-based bill was introduced in the 128th Maine Legislature in 2017, sponsored by Rep. Craig Hickman (D, Winthrop), An Act To Address Hunger, Support Maine Farms and Reduce Waste (LD 1534). The bill explicitly references both food waste and food insecurity in Maine and provides strong support for food redistribution. Its provisions include creating guidance for homeowners, businesses, municipalities, and large institutions such as K–12 schools to set up food recovery and composting programs and strengthening liability protections for donors of food. The bill received strong support in testimony at the public hearing held by the Maine House Committee on Environment and Natural Resources from the Natural Resources Council of Maine, Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, the Conservation Law Foundation, and the Environmental Priorities Coalition (EPC), a group of 34 conservation, environmental, and public health organizations that unify around a common agenda every year. Following a committee work session, LD 1534 was tabled and carried over for the next legislative session. On the national level, Maine Congresswoman Chellie Pingree has been in the forefront of legislative efforts to reduce food waste and address food insecurity. In the 114th Congress (2015–2016) she introduced two bills on this issue: the Food Recovery Act (HR 4184)— comprehensive legislation to address food waste through federal investments and tax credits, research, and a public awareness campaign—and the Food Date Labeling Act of 2016 (HR 5298), which would establish a uniform national date labeling system as a way to reduce confusion and the waste of food and money and simplify regulatory compliance. Both bills were referred to committee, and Pingree intends to reintroduce them MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

in the 115th Congress (2016–2017). Pingree is also an original cosponsor of a bipartisan bill, the Food Donation Act of 2017, introduced by Congresswoman Marcia Fudge (D, Ohio), to modernize food donation protections. These state and national legislative and policy efforts make it clear that food waste and food insecurity are being recognized as important and interrelated issues that need to be addressed. At the same time, our preliminary research on food waste and food redistribution in Maine’s schools reveals some hesitancy toward formal policy. This hesitancy suggests that boundary organizations—organizations formed to create links between knowledge producers and users—might help negotiate the need for structure and certainty with the desire for flexibility and independence. Social scientists define boundaries as the “socially constructed and negotiated borders between science and policy, between disciplines, across nations, and across multiple levels” (Cash et al. 2002:1). In the context of school food waste, there are boundaries between schools, SAUs, food insecurity organizations, and policymakers, and the lack of shared understanding across these boundaries can prevent collaboration and effective problem solving. Boundary organizations mediate, translate, and coordinate action across boundaries (Cash et al. 2002), making it possible for institutions to collaborate. Boundary organizations could provide critical support for food redistribution and policy clarity and support for school officials. The school officials interviewed for this study were passionate about both reducing food waste and serving their students, but as educators and administrators, their primary focus was on students not policy. Some spent years establishing food waste-reduction programs in their schools, constantly proving the value of these programs to decision makers. For many interviewees, the support of outside organizations provided the final push needed to legitimize their efforts. Boundary organizations promoting food redistribution would be an effective tool for moving waste reduction in schools up the hierarchy while addressing food insecurity. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Brieanne would like to acknowledge the support of the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center and the Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions. Thank you, as well, to the school staff members who generously gave their time to participate in this research.

FOOD WASTE AND FOOD REDISTRIBUTION IN MAINE SCHOOLS

ENDNOTES 1 The proclamation is available at https://www.usda.gov /sites/default/files/documents/secretary-perdue-child -nutrition-proclamation.pdf and the press release at https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2017/05 /01/ag-secretary-perdue-moves-make-school-meals -great-again. 2 The Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation of Harvard Law School has a subdivision focused on food law and policy (http://www.chlpi.org/food-law-and -policy/), which has excellent resources on legal and policy aspects of food waste. 3 In Maine, 242 SAUs in Maine govern 620 public schools (https://maine.gov/doe/schools/summary.html). 4 School grades are available at https://maine.gov/doe /schoolreportcards/index.html and per pupil operating costs at https://www1.maine.gov/education/data /ppcosts/index.html. 5 More information about Congresswoman Pingree’s efforts are available at https://pingree.house.gov /media-center/press-releases/introducing -commonsense-bill-standardaize-food-date-labelng and https://pingree.house.gov/media-center/press -releases/pingree-kicks-her-efforts-reduce-food-waste -115th-congress. REFERENCES Buzby, Jean C., and Joanne F. Guthrie. 2002. Plate Waste in School Nutrition Programs: Final Report to Congress. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. http://www.d11.org/FNS /Recess%20Before%20Lunch/efan02009%20Plate %20Waste%20Study.pdf Buzby, Jean. C., Hodan F. Wells, and Jeffrey Hyman. 2014. The Estimated Amount, Value, and Calories of Postharvest Food Losses at the Retail and Consumer Levels in the United States. Economic Information Bulletin No. EIB-121. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. https:// www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/43833/43680 _eib121.pdf?v=41817 Cash, David, William Clark, Frank Alcock, Nancy Dickson, Noelle Eckley, and Jill Jäger. 2002. Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making Faculty Research Working Papers Series, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Matthew P. Rabbitt, Christian A. Gregory, and Anita Singh. 2016. Household Food Security in the United States in 2015. Economic Research Report No. 215. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

Criner, George K., and Travis L. Blackmer. 2011. 2011 Maine Residential Waste Characterization Study. School of Economics Staff Paper No. 601. University of Maine, Orono. MDHHS (Maine Department of Health and Human Services). 2013. State of Maine Food Code. DHHS-Health Inspection Program, and Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry. https://www1.maine.gov /dhhs/mecdc/environmental-health/el/site-files/rules /Food%20Code%20October%202013.pdf Hall, Kevin. D., Juen Guo, Michael Dore, and Carson Chow. 2009. “The Progressive Increase of Food Waste in America and Its Environmental Impact.” PLoS ONE 4(11): e7940. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0007940 Kline, Angela 2016. The Use of Share Tables in Child Nutrition Programs. Memorandum to Regional and State Directors SP 41-2016, CACFP 13-2016, SFSP 15-2016. USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, Alexandria, VA. https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/cn/SP41 _CACFP13_SFSP15_2016os.pdf Leib, Emily Broad, Christina Rice, Ona Balkus, Jill Mahoney, Alene Anello, Jabari Brown, Robin Cheng, Erika Dunyak, Daniel Edelstein, Claudia Golden, Candace Hensley, Meaghan Jerrett, Molly Malavey, Sydney Montgomery, Katherine Sandson, Marina Shkuratov, Steven Xie, and Conrad Zhong. 2016. Keeping Food Out of the Landfill: Policy Ideas for States and Localities. Harvard Law School Food Policy Clinic, Cambridge, MA. http:// www.chlpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Food -Waste-Toolkit_Oct-2016_smaller.pdf Mourad, Marie. 2016. “Recycling, Recovering and Preventing ‘Food Waste’: Competing Solutions for Food Systems Sustainability in the United States and France.” Journal of Cleaner Production 126:461–477. Pidgeon, Nick, and Baruch Fischhoff. 2011. “The Role of Social and Decision Sciences in Communicating Uncertain Climate Risks.” Nature Climate Change 1(1): 35–41. Poppendieck, Janet. 2010. Free for All: Fixing School Food in America. University of California Press, Berkeley. ReFed. 2016. A Roadmap to Reduce U.S. Food Waste by 20 Percent. ReFed (Rethink Food Waste Through Economics and Data). https://www.refed.com /downloads/ReFED_Report_2016.pdf USDA (US Department of Agriculture). 2013. National School Lunch Program. USDA, Alexandria, VA. https:// www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/NSLPFactSheet.pdf US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2017. Sustainable Management of Food Basics. https:// www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food /sustainable-management-food-basics [Accessed June 1, 2017]

FOOD WASTE AND FOOD REDISTRIBUTION IN MAINE SCHOOLS

Brieanne Berry is a PhD student in the Anthropology and Environmental Policy Program at the University of Maine. She is a research assistant at the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center and the Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions, where her work focuses on consumption and waste. Ann Acheson a research associate at the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine and past editor of Maine Policy Review. She has published extensively on poverty in Maine.

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

MAINE’S ARTISAN CHEESEMAKERS

fresh, local, and high-quality ingredients. Such producers can provide many potential economic and social Maine’s artisanal cheese sector has grown rapidly in the last six years. Maine cheesebenefits for the state. makers take a variety of approaches including those based on farmsteads and operaStrengthening support for tions sourcing milk from local dairies. This study examines cheesemakers’ business Maine’s small-scale cheesemakers operations and their approaches to sustainability, opportunities, and threats. Cheeseand increasing the interaction across makers report that they derive several benefits from their enterprise, but that they face cheesemakers’ value chains can have challenges to ensure their long-term sustainability. important social, economic, and environmental benefits. The USDA’s Local Food Systems report notes the aine’s artisanal cheese sector has opportunities to benefits of local food markets range from economic grow and strengthen its presence both locally and development to reduced energy use and greenhouse gas regionally. The quality of the state’s products is demonemissions (Martinez et al. 2010). Economically, not strated by the top awards from regional, national, and only does cheesemaking have a direct impact via revenue international cheese competitions won by several Maine to the producers, it can also help localize processing and cheesemakers. The quantity of licensed operations is reduce imports (Martinez et al. 2010) and generate increasing, placing Maine among the top artisanal multiplier effects associated with this revenue (Gabe, cheese-producing states in the country and at the top in McConnon, and Kersbergen 2010). the Northeast (Wilson and Roberts 2014). According We think it is crucial for the individual businesses to an article by Abigail Curtis (Bangor Daily News, in this sector, communities housing these businesses, October 25, 2015), because the cheesemaker-to-output and regions where these businesses are clustered that ratio is comparatively low, growth potential for the sector policymakers find the right mix of tools to support is strong. US demand for cheese has climbed steadily them. This study provides a descriptive analysis of key since 1995, with per capita consumption increasing factors in the business approaches cheesemakers are from 27 pounds per person in 1995 to 34 pounds per using. Outcomes from this study include policy and person in 2014 (USDA 2015). With Maine’s growing resource recommendations. reputation as a destination for consumers seeking good and interesting food—foodies—(Bieman 2015), the THE ARTISANAL CHEESE SECTOR OF MAINE demand for artisanal cheese appears to be growing. Cheesemakers are one of a growing number of new types rtisan cheesemakers are distinguished as such by two of creative producers who use Maine-based raw matemain factors: their scale and the use of by-hand rials to make products for higher-profit markets, thereby techniques. Artisanal scale is typically less than or equal supporting the production of raw materials upstream. to 100,000 pounds (and often considerably less) of These creative agricultural value-added producers can cheese per year, and cheesemaking is done by individact as a linchpin in Maine’s agricultural sector by uals who complete the process, rather than a machinedemanding a raw product, creating a food by which based process. Artisanal cheese production has grown Maine is known, and supplying a growing number of in the United States (Kiesel 2016), and there has been restaurants, retailers, and distributors specializing in a dramatic increase in Maine in the number of licensed Abstract

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

MAINE’S ARTISAN CHEESEMAKERS

Figure 1:

and gaps, providing specific contours of the needs of Maine’s artisan cheesemakers, as well as a fine-grained picture of their business practices.

Maine’s Small Dairy Industry Growth

Number of Raw Milk and Cheese Producers

100 Raw Milk (Cow and Goat) Cheese

90 80

THE STUDY

e interviewed 30 (approximately 70 percent) of the 39 cheesemakers who were 40 members of the Maine Cheese 30 Guild (MCG) during 2016. (This study, therefore, may 20 not be generalizable to the 10 entire population of artisan cheesemakers and may reflect 0 characteristics idiosyncratic to the sample.) The MCG is the first modern organized Source: Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Milk Quality Lab, October guild of cheesemakers in the 2016. United States (Donnelly 2016), artisan cheesemakers from 21 in 2006 to 86 in 2016 and is Maine’s premier organization for cheesemakers, (Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and holding high-visibility events such as Open Creamery Forestry, Milk Quality Lab, personal communication). Day and the Maine Cheese Festival, as well as a range Figure 1 shows the rapid rise in both raw milk and of other activities oriented towards cheesemaking. The cheese producers in Maine since 2007. MCG has monthly meetings distributed across the The economic impact of these small businesses is state so that the widely dispersed cheesemakers are potentially notable. In a report on artisanal cheese in the accommodated. Founded in 2003 (Donnelly 2016), the United States, Kiesel (2016) states, “Sales in the natural MCG functions as an important hub for different types and specialty cheese markets are expected to reach $19 of education and information; it organizes and hosts billion in 2018. And small cheesemaking facilities cheesemaking workshops with national and sometimes accounted for 46 percent of all cheesemaking establishglobal experts, publicizes upcoming dairy workshops ments, up five percent since 2007.” Cheesemakers can and business seminars, and monitors and provides guidhave an impact on local employment, economic earnance and feedback on federal and state regulations that ings, other businesses, and community members. affect cheesemaking. Cheesemakers who source milk from dairies have an Central to cheesemaking is milk—and high-quality upstream effect on the milk producers, buying milk at cheese starts with high-quality milk. Cheese also varies prices typically higher than commodity market prices. based on the source of the milk. For example, sheep Synergies in the food system can be generated as farmmilk is higher in protein and fat than goat and cow milk. stead cheesemakers with small herds support farmers And the time of year, feed, and breed of animal also producing grain and hay, provide pig farmers with whey, influence milk composition. The fat content of different and supply various wholesale and retail markets with breeds of cattle, for example, ranges from higher (e.g., fresh and aged cheese. Jersey, Guernsey) to lower (e.g., Holstein). Table 1 presGiven the growth in the artisanal cheese sector, it is ents the breakdown of milk type and source for the 30 important to better understand the sector’s structure, cheesemakers who we interviewed. namely via cheesemakers’ scale, desired scale, capital This mix of sources has a number of implications. investment, sources of milk, market approaches, and For farmsteads in this sample, goats are the preferred core challenges. This study details Maine’s resources dairy animal, which parallels the wider US growth in MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1996

1995

MAINE’S ARTISAN CHEESEMAKERS

Table 1:

Milk Type and Source for Participating Cheesemakers Milk Source

Animal Source

Farmstead (%)

Cow

3 (10)

Goat

12 (40)

Goat+Sheep or Goat+Cow

Farmstead with External Source (%)

8 (27)

3 (10)

Total

External Source (%)

4 (13) 4

than 10,000 pounds per year. The total annual output of the 30 participants in our survey was approximately 246,300 pounds, for an average of 8,210 pounds per cheesemaker. Table 2 provides a more nuanced understanding of production by looking at production by type of source. In looking at this production breakout, we can see that cheesemakers who externally source cow milk produce the most cheese when measured on average (16,042 pounds per year). The mean, however, can be skewed by outliers such as one very large producer who is at a different level from the category’s average producers. The median measure, since it is not influenced by outliers, shows that the median for producers in this category is 3,950 pounds per year. This mean/median difference is also evident among goat milk farmsteads (mean = 5,763, median = 1,560). Farmsteads of cow milk or goat milk with cow milk externally sourced appear to have similar levels of production. It is also important to note that farmstead production measures do not necessarily reflect the farmsteads’ overall productivity, as farmsteads

Pounds

dairy goat farmsteads (Kiesel 2016). For cheesemakers using an external source of milk, cows are the exclusive source selection (though some expressed the desire to externally source sheep milk, but it is rarely available). With regard to the supply of cheese, results indicate that 63 percent of cheesemakers produce goat milk cheese, but because differences in the scale of cow vs. goat milk production, we cannot conclude that more goat milk cheese is being made. The Figure 2: Annual Cheese Production (Pounds per Year) results also indicate that some farmstead cheese- among Participating Cheesemakers makers who rely on seasonal ruminant lactation (mostly goats and sheep) are starting to exter13% Over 10,000 nally source from cow dairies so they can make cheese during the winter and have a steadier 27% 5,001–10,000 supply of cheese for markets. Figure 2 shows the scale of operations for 33% 1,000–5,000 the participating cheesemakers, which ranges from less than 1,000 pounds per year to more 27% Under 1,000 than 10,000 pounds per year. The vast majority of the cheesemakers interviewed produced less 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Table 2:

35%

Milk Type and Source for Participating Cheesemakers

Milk Source Farmstead with External Source

Farmstead

Animal Source

Total

Mean

Median

Cow

16,200

5,400

6,200

Goat

69,151

5,763

1,560

8,600

2,867

2,000

Goat+Sheep or Goat+Cow Total

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

93,951

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

Total

24,000 24,000

•

2017

Mean

6,000

Median

External Source Total

Mean

Median

128,340

16,042

3,950

5,250 128,340

MAINE’S ARTISAN CHEESEMAKERS

Pounds

Figure 3: Intended Scale Goals of Cheesemakers invariably produce other goods in addition to by Current Scale* cheese, including meat, yogurt, milk, fudge, vegetables, flowers, and more. The scale at which cheesemakers operate is Under 1,000 at the heart of the business, dictating quantity Not Sure and often quality parameters. Cheesemakers are 1,000–5,000 Less faced with scale trade-offs that are not easy to settle. Corresponding to increased production Same 5,001–10,000 are increased revenues and costs, potential effiMore ciencies from economies of scale, more visibility Double Over 10,000 for the cheese’s brand, and wider access to distribution channels. With increased production, 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 however, there is often less opportunity for chee- *Number of cheesemakers is on the horizontal axis with pounds of cheese per year per cheesemaker on the vertical axis. semakers to engage in the processes that attracted them to the field in the first place: time with the median production in the second highest level their animals, time with their hands in the curds, (5,000–10,000 pounds per year) is 7,500 pounds per creating new varieties of cheese, studying historical and year, then we can estimate that the two cheesemakers new trends, or interacting with customers. As scale who plan to double their production will result in an increases, external labor becomes crucial and division of additional 15,000 pounds of cheese per year. Based on labor becomes imperative. For the entire sector, projecthese assumptions and recognizing that they only repretions of future scale are an important indicator of the sent a subset of artisan cheesemakers, Maine’s artisanal sector’s projected output. We asked cheesemakers their cheese sector could see a minimum increase of 28,500 intended mid-term scale goals, and their responses indipounds per year of new cheese production. At an average cate that, at all levels of current production (less than of $20 per pound of cheese, this would lead to a net 1,000, 1,000–5,000, 5,001–10,000, and more than revenue increase of $570,000 per year. 10,000 pounds per year), there is a diversity of intent (see Figure 3). CHEESEMAKERS’ KEY BUSINESS DRIVERS Desired scale, therefore, provides insight into potential trends. The findings depicted Figure 3 indicate usinesses use a range of models in executing their that the sector may be changing shape, as some of the operations, but there are common patterns. It is smaller cheesemakers move to the next level of producuseful to think about a business as the set of assumption, while some of the cheesemakers currently producing tions it makes. Peter Drucker summarizes this: “These at a higher level may scale back and others may grow are the assumptions that shape any organization’s bigger. Using these findings, we can estimate mid-term behavior, dictate its decisions about what to do and scale changes to the sector. If we assume that “more” and what not to do, and define what the organization “less” production cancel each other out, there is no net considers meaningful results” (1994: 95–96). These gain or loss at any production level except one cheeseassumptions include characteristics of markets, techmaker planning to make more at the lowest production nology, customers, and strengths and weaknesses and level (less than 1,000 pounds per year). With the encompass its identity and operations. For the cheeseassumption that cheesemakers at the second lowest level makers surveyed in this study, business approaches were (1,000–5,000 pounds per year) are making a median of undergirded by two primary drivers: their core vision 3,000 pounds per year, then the three cheesemakers who and their economic urgency. plan to double production could result in an additional Cheesemakers can be divided into segments based 9,000 pounds of cheese per year. Additionally, assuming on the core visions that led them into cheesemaking an increase of 50 percent more for the three cheese(Paxson 2012). In our sample, the cheesemakers’ core makers at this level who plan to produce “more,” there visions differed between those who entered to focus on could an additional increase of 4,500 pounds of cheese the process of turning milk into cheese (cheese focus) per year. This give us an estimated total net increase in and those who entered to make cheese as a part of a this second lowest level of 13,500 pounds. If we assume

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

MAINE’S ARTISAN CHEESEMAKERS

wider farmstead encompassing dairy animals (farmstead focus). Each vision has a set of distinctive and overlapping values (Table 3). The other key driver for Maine’s artisan cheesemakers is the economic urgency of the operation, or the extent to which they are supporting themselves via cheesemaking. Some cheesemakers, regardless of source of milk, are supporting themselves with cheesemaking, while others are only supplementing their household income. Cheesemakers augmenting income have another household income, and though cheesemaking is Table 3:

expected to compensate the cheesemaker, it is not the defining source of household income. In this sample, the cheesemakers split nearly evenly: 16 were selfsupporting and 14 were augmenting income. Together, the core vision and the economic urgency drivers provide the basis from which cheesemakers’ business models emerge and evolve. For instance, pricing differences can be linked to the economic pressures facing the cheesemaker, as well as the cost structures behind the milk. For example, farmstead cheesemakers may have had to pay high hay prices to feed their animals over the winter. Market choices can also vary according to vision, that is, the story of the product may focus more on the cheesemaker or the cheese for a cheese-focused artisan and may focus more on the farmstead origins or the animals for the farmstead-focused artisan. In our study, we found three cheesemakers with a cheese focus who were self-supporting; five cheesemakers with a cheese focus who were augmenting income; thirteen cheesemakers with farmstead focus who were self-supporting; and nine cheesemakers with a farmstead focus who were augmenting income. For sector members, it is important to understand the capital investment linked to each approach, the market approach, and the profit level. To check how these business models corresponded to incurred capital investment, we compared the four business models to the capital investment levels of our survey: under $50K, $50–75K, $75–100K, $100–125K, $125–150K, over $150K (Table 4). It is notable that farmstead cheesemakers have a wider range of investment levels than cheese-focused cheesemakers and that farmstead-focused self-supporting cheesemakers have a higher level of capital investment than others. Another contrast is that most of

Comparison of Values Associated with a Cheese Focus or a Farmstead Focus*

Cheese Focus

Farmstead Focus

Pride in a well-made product

Using high quality ingredients

Controlling how product is sold

Connecting with customers through cheese

Connecting with customers through cheese, animals, and farmstead

Ties to the land and seasons through milk characteristics

Being on a farmstead

Carrying on cheesemaking tradition

Carrying on farming and cheesemaking traditions

Knowing where inputs come from

Creating inputs Caring for animals

*Values associated with these classifications are listed with overlapping values italicized.

Table 4:

Investment by Business Model

Core Vision Cheese Focus Farmstead Focus

Economic Urgency

<$50K (%)

$50–75K (%)

$75–100K (%)

$100–125K (%)

Augment income

5 (100)

Self-support

2 (67)

1 (33)

Augment income

3 (33)

4 (44)

1 (11)

Self-support

2 (15)

3 (23)

2 (15)

1 (8)

Total

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

$>150K (%)

Total 5

•

$125– 150K (%)

3 1 (11)

3 (23)

2 (15)

MAINE’S ARTISAN CHEESEMAKERS

the cheese-focused cheesemakers have lower levels of capital investment, less than $50,000. Business models also can influence the approach cheesemakers use to reach markets (Table 5). Marketing approaches for the cheesemakers fall into three general categories: direct, indirect, and mixed. Direct marketing includes an emphasis on selling directly to customers in face-to-face venues and includes outlets such as farm stands (connected with farmsteads) or cheese stands (connected with cheese-focused producers), CSAs, self-run online store, and farmers’ markets. Indirect marketing is selling cheese to an agent who represents the product and includes distributors, retail establishments (e.g., specialty stores and grocers), and restaurants. A mixed approach includes both direct and indirect methods. Interestingly, there was some use of indirect and mixed marketing approaches across all business models, but cheese-focused artisans were the least likely to use a direct-marketing approach. Farmstead cheesemakers relied more on either direct or mixed approaches, with 16 out of the 22 farmstead-focused producers using these approaches.

• Emerging cheesemakers are new to the businesses and are focusing on licensing, understanding and systematizing their cheesemaking processes, trying new products, experimenting with markets, and understanding distribution. The cheesemakers perform most of the tasks. • Optimizing cheesemakers have some cheeses that constitute their core products, but are adjusting their product mix to match market and price considerations. They are also experimenting with market approaches, but have goals regarding which markets are ideal. Prices are often, but not consistently, a result of cost and revenue analysis. Facility infrastructure and scale are dynamic as the cheesemaker aims to find revenue and profit levels that meet income goals. At this stage, the cheesemaker is likely to have part-time help who requires training. Interns and apprentices are sometimes used, though many also use year-toyear wage workers. • Maturing cheesemakers have developed their brand. The cheesemakers are known for expertise, and their cheeses are sought out. Cheesemaking processes and products are consistent though there are still new additions to the base products to meet emerging consumer demand as well as cheesemaker interests. Cheesemakers are not necessarily large in scale, but the price and revenue structures are established. Cheesemaking processes are consistent enough that horizontal integration is considered (e.g., ecotourism), and succession and exit strategies may be considered.

LIFE CYCLE OF CHEESEMAKERS

aine’s cheesemakers can also be categorized by the life cycle stage of their business. Business life cycle stages are categories representing the challenges and opportunities endemic to that phase of the organization’s evolution. Our study identified three stages: emerging (average of one year of making cheese professionally), optimizing (average of eight years of making cheese professionally), and maturing (average of 22 years of making cheese professionally).

Table 5:

Marketing Approach by Business Model

Core Vision Cheese Focus Farmstead Focus

Economic Urgency Augment income

Marketing Approach Direct (%)

Mixed (%)

1 (20)

Self-support Augment income

4 (44)

Self-support

4 (31)

Total

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

2017

Total

3 (60)

1 (20)

2 (67)

1 (33)

2 (22)

3 (33)

6 (46)

3 (23)

•

Indirect (%)

To help understand another aspect of the sector’s structure, we compare investment levels of the different life cycle stages. As reflected in Table 6, emerging cheesemakers have the lowest level of investment overall (less than $50,000). Optimizing cheesemakers have a range of investment levels, with the highest number being in the less than $50,000 category. Maturing cheesemakers also have a range of investment levels, indicating that 64

MAINE’S ARTISAN CHEESEMAKERS

not all established cheesemakers invest more than $150,000 in their nonland-based infrastructure.

Table 6:

Investment by Business Life Cycle Stage

<$50K (%)

$50– 75K (%)

$75– 100K (%)

$100– 125K (%)

$125– 150K (%)

>$150K

<50K

50-75K

75-100K

100K-125K

125-150K

>150K

Life Cycle (%) Total Market approaches also vary by Emerging 2 (50) 2 (50) 4 life cycle. Intuitively one might expect that more emerging cheesemakers Optimizing 8 (50) 2 (13) 2 (13) 1 (6) 3 (19) 16 would take a direct-marketing Maturing 2 (20) 3 (30) 1 (10) 2 (20) 2 (20) 10 approach and introduce their new Total 12 7 3 2 3 3 30 products to customers in face-to-face conversations. Because optimizers are searching for the fit between scale, Table 7: Marketing Strategy by Business Life products, and markets, one could expect that they Cycle Stage would be the most likely to pursue a mixed marketing strategy. Similarly, one might expect that maturing Direct Mixed Indirect cheesemakers would rely more on indirect-marketing Life Cycle (%) (%) (%) Total approaches such as distributors and retailers because Emerging 2 (50) 2 (50) 4 their brand is better known. Results from our study Optimizing 4 (25) 7 (44) 5 (31) 16 indicate some support for these expectations (Table 7). Maturing 4 (40) 3 (30) 3 (30) 10 Emerging cheesemakers are not using an indirect approach, but are trying some retailers in addition to Total 10 12 8 30 direct sales through CSAs, farm stands, and farmers’ markets. Optimizers are the most likely to be pursuing Figure 4: Satisfaction with Profit by Capital a mixed marketing approach, relying on direct sales and Investment* indirect channels such as distributors. Most maturing cheesemakers, somewhat surprisingly, are pursuing a More than Satisfactory direct-marketing approach though they also use indiSatisfactory 100% rect and mixed approaches. Less than Satisfactory To this point, we do not have an indication of the More than Satisfactory profit levels of artisanal cheesemaking. How satisfied Satisfactory 67% are artisan cheesemakers with their profit? We asked Less than Satisfactory 33% cheesemakers to rate their level of satisfaction and found that for some cheesemakers profit was not a More than Satisfactory straightforward economic measure, but was a holistic Satisfactory 100% measure inseparable from quality-of-life aspects of their Less than Satisfactory business (e.g., the satisfaction of making cheese, More than Satisfactory managing a herd, being one’s own boss). Satisfaction Satisfactory with profitability, for the cheesemakers sampled, is a Less than Satisfactory 100% measure of cheesemakers’ economic and business-re14% More than Satisfactory lated well-being. Satisfactory 57% Is profit at a satisfactory level attributable to Less than Satisfactory investment? Does money spent on capital investment 29% relate to profit satisfaction? Figure 4 indicates that at all More than Satisfactory 8% levels of investment, except for $75,000, most cheeseSatisfactory 67% makers are satisfied and possibly highly satisfied. Less than Satisfactory 25% How does profit relate to cheesemakers’ business 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 model? The two components of the business model are *Number of cheesemakers is on the horizontal axis with percentage whether the milk is from the cheesemaker’s farmstead at each level of satisfaction within the investment category next or is externally sourced from another dairy producer to the bar.

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

MAINE’S ARTISAN CHEESEMAKERS

Satisfaction with Profit by Business Model* More than Satisfactory

Satisfactory

61%

Less than Satisfactory

31%

More than Satisfactory Satisfactory

50%

Less than Satisfactory

50%

More than Satisfactory Satisfactory

100%

Less than Satisfactory More than Satisfactory

20%

Satisfactory

60% 20% 2

*Number of cheesemakers is on the horizontal axis with percentage at each level of satisfaction within the business model category next to the bar.

and whether the cheesemaker is self-supporting or augmenting income. As seen in Figure 5, farmstead-focused cheesemakers are most likely to be less satisfied with their profit. Cheese-focused cheesemakers who are externally sourcing their milk are more likely to be satisfied, regardless of whether they are self-supporting or augmenting income. Interviews indicate that farmstead-focused cheesemakers have more uncertainty about their animals and infrastructure costs, and less time to dedicate to cheesemaking, which could explain the lower profit satisfaction rate. Interestingly, among farmstead-focused cheesemakers, those augmenting income report higher levels of profit dissatisfaction. One possible explanation for this may be that farmstead-focused producers who are augmenting income are not completely focused on cheesemaking as an occupation, so they have not intensively matched selling price to incurred costs. All of the cheese-focused self-supporting producers are satisfied, and most of the cheese-focused producers who are income augmenters are satisfied. Profit trends may also be discernible by life cycle stage. At early stages of the life cycle, business risks are high because entrepreneurs are learning about rules of the sector, as well as situating their own internal business practices. We would expect profit-level satisfaction in the emerging stage to be lower than in later stages. In the maturing stage, the cheesemaker is more established and is oriented toward maintaining profit levels and eventually leaving the field. Optimizers, as the

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

name implies, are still in flux. Figure 6 indicates that as cheesemakers move from the emerging category, the likelihood of their being satisfied or highly satisfied increases. Notably though, at all stages, some cheesemakers are less than satisfied with their profit, suggesting that prices are not generating profits commensurate with goals. Profit satisfaction can be affected by cheesemakers’ market approach. Small businesses may struggle with the time needed for direct marketing, and indirect marketing may offer more opportunities to focus on the cheese. Yet, these artisans’ markets largely depend on product differentiation, which requires intensive marketing—often done by the

Figure 6:

Emerging Optimizing Maturing

Satisfaction with Profit by Business Life Cycle Stage*

More than Satisfactory

10%

Satisfactory

70%

Less than Satisfactory

20%

More than Satisfactory

Satisfactory

60%

Less than Satisfactory

33%

More than Satisfactory Satisfactory

50%

Less than Satisfactory

50% 0

*Number of cheesemakers is on the horizontal axis with percentage at each level of satisfaction within the business model category next to the bar.

Figure 7:

Mixed

Indirect

Less than Satisfactory

Direct

Cheese Focus/ Augment Income

Farmstead/ Cheese Augment Focus/ Farmstead/ Income Self-Support Self-Support

Figure 5:

Satisfaction with Profit by Marketing Strategy*

More than Satisfactory

10%

Satisfactory

60%

Less than Satisfactory

30%

More than Satisfactory Satisfactory

83%

Less than Satisfactory

17%

More than Satisfactory

10%

Satisfactory

60% 30%

Less than Satisfactory 0

*Number of cheesemakers is on the horizontal axis with percentage at each level of satisfaction within the marketing category next to the bar.

MAINE’S ARTISAN CHEESEMAKERS

cheesemaker. Figure 7 suggests that cheesemakers pursuing an indirect-marketing strategy are most likely to rate profit as satisfactory, and that though cheesemakers pursuing strategies of mixed and direct marketing are largely satisfied with their strategy, there is still a sizeable minority that is less than satisfied. To better understand the relationship between profit satisfaction and market approach, we looked at how they relate to the business model (Figure 8A) and to the business life cycle (Figure 8B). Comparing profit and market approach in relation to the business model reveals an interesting trend: farmsteads have the lowest levels of satisfaction across all marketing approaches, and self-supporting farmsteads who use a mixed marketing approach have lower levels of satisfaction. When we examine profit satisfaction and market approach relative to the business life cycle, a couple of Figure 8:

Cheese Focus/ Augment Income

Farmstead/ Cheese Farmstead/ Augment Focus/ Self-Support Income Self-Support

Satisfaction and Marketing Strategy by (A) Business Model and (B) Life Cycle Stage* Mixed

Indirect Direct Mixed Indirect Direct Mixed

Less than Satisfied

Indirect

Satisfied/ More

Direct Mixed Indirect Direct

Emerging Optimizing Maturing

Mixed

Indirect Direct Mixed Indirect

Less than Satisfied

Direct Mixed

Satisfied/ More

Indirect Direct 0

*Number of cheesemakers shown on the horizontal axis.

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

key patterns emerge. Mixed marketing approaches in emerging and optimizing stages are more likely to yield dissatisfaction with profit. It is also notable that most optimizers use a mixed marketing approach, whereas at the later stages of the business life cycle, more cheesemakers have moved to a direct-marketing approach. This could be because optimizers are exploring both indirect and direct markets to fine-tune the fit between their product mix and their intended consumer base. CHALLENGES, RESOURCES, GAPS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ndividual entrepreneurs face particular challenges germane to each stage of their business life cycle. To help Maine’s artisan cheesemakers, therefore, it is important to understand the challenges corresponding to each life cycle stage and cheesemakers’ strategies in responding to these challenges, the resources they use, and to identify any gaps in available resources.

Emerging Cheesemakers Emerging cheesemakers face the challenges of learning the craft, understanding the cost structure of their business, setting up infrastructure, and learning different marketing channels. To meet these challenges, we found that emerging cheesemakers are voracious consumers of information. They seek to understand cheesemaking recipes and processes, milk sanitation, infrastructure basics, herd management, marketing options, and policies and regulations that affect the business. They use a range of information-seeking behavior and look for many different sources of information. There are resources available for some of these challenges. For dairy- and business-related state regulatory information, these cheesemakers often turn to University of Maine’s Cooperative Extension and to state agencies such as the Maine Milk Quality Laboratory. For federal regulations, cheesemakers access information via the MCG, the American Cheese Society (ACS), and the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (MDACF). Herd management presents a challenge, especially for goat and sheep farmsteads. Veterinarians specializing in these ruminants are rare. Often farmsteaders rely on other goat- or sheep-based cheesemakers for advice and help, but they also use books and the internet as resources. For cow farmsteads, Cooperative Extension 67

MAINE’S ARTISAN CHEESEMAKERS

plays a larger role, as do veterinarians, which may be attributable to the historical presence of cow-based dairy farms in Maine and the Maine Dairy Association. For information related to mechanical infrastructure, most emerging cheesemakers turn to established cheesemakers, and they network with the MCG. By visiting other dairies, they can see the layout of milking parlors, creameries, aging caves, and more. Sometimes sales associates of companies that sell infrastructure can be a trusted partner in assessing needs and options. In general, though, emerging cheesemakers assess their infrastructure needs through other cheesemakers and through other external sources. For information about markets, most emerging cheesemakers adopt a trialand-error approach, trying direct or mixed approaches and seeing how they fit. The MCG has several educational seminars that help emerging cheesemakers with techniques, troubleshooting, addressing infrastructure questions, (e.g., aging facilities), along with some business workshops. The MCG has also served an invaluable role in connecting cheesemakers to each other. Resources for a spectrum of informational needs are listed at on their website (http://www.mainecheeseguild.org). Additionally, the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association’s (MOFGA) apprenticeship program has provided a pipeline of potential apprentices as well as opportunities for apprenticeships prior to starting a business. Some cheesemakers have also used a limited number of national and international apprentice pipelines, with mixed results. The Southern Maine Dairy Goat Association is a source of information and support for goat-based farmsteads in southern Maine. Although there are a number of resources available for emerging cheesemakers, several gaps remain: • A comprehensive and up-to-date list of steps involved in becoming a licensed cheesemaker • Information and counseling about marketing approaches • Resources for goat and sheep herd management • Business help, including cost management, pricing, and loan sources Optimizing Cheesemakers Optimizing cheesemakers have successfully navigated the emerging stage, and face a shifting set of challenges. These cheesemakers are concentrating on MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

refining the product line, adjusting the infrastructure to meet supply goals and consumer demand, pursuing marketing strategies more vigorously, and strategically networking to balance exchanging information while protecting competitive approaches. Optimizing cheesemakers are determining their product mix, which involves identifying distinctive characteristics and a customer base that fits. They usually hire labor, so supervision becomes an issue for scale increases and distribution help. The cheesemakers need to find ways to transport cheese to market that minimize cost and time, yet allow them to connect with retailers, distributors, and customers. Cheesemakers in this group need to match infrastructure to scale and product mix, which becomes a challenge involving “what if ” revenue and cost projections, and they need to fund infrastructure improvements, especially pasteurizers. Additionally, the hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) processes become part of the cheesemakers’ goals. Producers try to link their pricing calculations to their long-term goals and a more articulable cost structure. Furthermore, for farmsteads in this category, maintaining their herds or flocks is an ongoing concern. Optimizing cheesemakers seek information more strategically, and there are more two-way information flows as some cheesemakers begin to more vigorously pursue collaborations with others, leveraging knowledge and resources. Though they continue to attend workshops held by the MCG and Cooperative Extension, they select these workshops to dovetail with evolving scale, product, price, and market mix positions. Although some cheesemakers in this category have received financial help from banks, due to scale and personal financial resource limits, it is not common. Also, some have hired an independent business consultant, but that depends on their financial resources. These tasks are crucial to the health of each business and to the sector as a whole. Yet, although some resources exist for optimizing cheesemakers, there are several gaps in resources, including • Business consulting to help with detailed and customized projections of different pricing, marketing, costs, distribution, and scale questions • Labor issues continue to be a challenge • Resources for maintaining goat herds and sheep flocks

MAINE’S ARTISAN CHEESEMAKERS

• Increased access to sources of financial support for technology upgrades, such as pasteurizers and aging facility improvements Maturing Cheesemakers

Maturing cheesemakers, who are focused on brand development and have developed a consistent scale, product mix, and marketing approach, face challenges related to maintaining a viable income level amid growing competition, augmenting cheese production without jeopardizing high-demand core products, and training highly skilled labor and perhaps successors in preparation for exits. These cheesemakers are involved with horizontal integration into related products to build brand identity and reduce dependence on cheese. Labor continues as an issue for this group as well as a way to maintain scale and potentially offer an employee the opportunity to take over the business. These cheesemakers are concerned with tapping potential markets that reward consistency and quality, along with planning for the eventual next steps to scale down, or exit, or sell the business. And for farmstead-based cheesemakers, maintaining the herds or flocks is also a concern. Though some resources bolster maturing cheesemakers’ tasks, there are several gaps: • Business consulting regarding brand worth estimates, debt restructuring, horizontal integration opportunities and potential exit strategies • Labor issues can be a bigger challenge for maturing cheesemakers because of the importance of highly skilled workers to maintaining quality and quantity • Resources for maintaining goat herds and sheep flocks General Recommendations The following recommendations are tied to the gaps our study identified and stem from cheesemakers’ two key operational areas (cheesemaking and farmstead herd/infrastructure). The recommendations include business functions, advocating for supportive policies, and specific resource needs for the sector (summarized in Figure 9). Specifically we recommend:

Cheesemaking resources • Continue cheesemaking and food sanitation workshops

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

• Continue work of trade association organizations, particularly MCG, Southern Maine Dairy Goat Association, MOFGA • Continue events that connect consumers, retailers, and restaurants to Maine’s cheese and cheesemakers • Build HACCP workshops • Build and maintain online resource targeting emerging cheesemakers Herd and infrastructure • Increase resources for research and outreach for goats and sheep • Workshops on infrastructure improvements, innovations, and options • Increase incentives for entry of sheep-based dairies Business • Workshops for market development and selection • Small business consulting, including business plans, marketing, cost and price structuring, scale projections • Succession planning, increase access to organizations that specialize in processes and funds Advocacy • Advocate for continued low entry barriers to encourage new cheesemakers • Advocate for artisan-scale-friendly state and federal policies (e.g., the 60 day rule) Sector support • Build artisan cheesemaking training at a community college or four-year institution • Assess existing apprentice programs and identify successful characteristics • Conduct distribution assessment—form a working group to assess strategies for either hubs or mass transit options • Increase state agricultural support personnel for goat and sheep, pasture management, climate change adaptation • Increase support for artisanal cheese as part of Maine’s distinctive food branding

MAINE’S ARTISAN CHEESEMAKERS

Figure 9:

Summary of Recommendations Cheesemaking

Herd and Infrastructure

• Online resources needed for starting cheesemakers

• Increase resources for research and outreach (e.g., Cooperative Extension) for goats and sheep

• Help with HACCP

• Workshops on infrastructure selection and options • Increase incentives for dairy/sheep businesses Business • Workshops for market development and selection • Small business consulting, including marketing, cost/price structuring, scale projection • More succession options, processes, or accessible organizations to aid in succession planning Advocacy • Advocate for entry barriers to remain low to encourage new entrants to the sector • Advocate for artisanal cheese-friendly state and federal policies Sector Support Needed • Artisanal cheesemaking program • Apprentice training programs • Distribution assessment • Goat and sheep, pasture management, climate change adaption support personnel • Small agriculture business support • Resources for artisanal cheese promotion

Also note that three other reports suggest actions relating to this study’s recommendations and provide comprehensive analyses of Maine’s agricultural sector: • Action Plan for Agriculture and Food System Development: Creating Job Growth in Agriculture and Food Production: Opportunities and Realities (Wilson and Roberts 2014) • Growing Maine’s Food Industry, Growing Maine: The Maine Food Cluster Project (Bieman 2015) • The Maine Food Strategy Framework: A Tool for Advancing Maine’s Food System (Maine Food Strategy 2016). Maine’s artisanal cheese sector faces many of the same challenges confronting Maine’s small farmers. Because of their small scale, they do not receive subsidies that go to larger mass-produced manufacturers. Additionally, regulations are often aimed at larger-scale producers, so artisans bear disproportionate costs to meet regulatory statutes. Furthermore, they usually have

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

few full-time employees, so there is little backup in terms of staff or expertise. Perhaps most challenging, however, are the gaps in physical and knowledge-based infrastructure. As suggested in a report on agricultural sectors in the Northeast, “cheesemakers need educational offerings, research, and technical support; unfortunately, the region suffers a lack of these services” (Wilson and Roberts 2014: 10). Our recommendations underscore the findings of Wilson and Roberts (2014) and include specific areas to target. Maine’s artisanal cheesemaking sector has a visible presence in the state’s agricultural, food, and cultural systems. Its high quality has been recognized at the highest national levels. Through innovation, networking, and intense effort, cheesemakers have implemented strategies to move themselves through the business life cycle phases. However, the sector’s potential impact and long-term health is challenged because of absent or inadequate resources related to business and technology consulting, goat and sheep management expertise, distribution hubs or networks, and advocacy for scale-appropriate regulations and local food system resilience. -

MAINE’S ARTISAN CHEESEMAKERS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was funded by a Sustainability Research grant from the University of Maine’s Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions.

REFERENCES Bieman, Betsy. 2015. Growing Maine’s Food Industry, Growing Maine: Highlights from the Maine Food Cluster Project. Harvard Kennedy School, Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government, Cambridge, MA. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/programs /maine/report Donnelly, Catherine, ed. 2016. The Oxford Companion to Cheese. Oxford University Press, New York. Drucker, Peter F. 1994. The Theory of Business. Harvard Business Review, Cambridge, MA. Gabe, Todd, James C. McConnon Jr., and Richard Kersbergen. 2011. “Economic Contribution of Maine’s Food Industry.” Maine Policy Review 20(1): 36–45. Kiesel, Laura. 2016. “How Real Cheese Made Its Comeback.” The Atlantic (July 15). https://www.theatlantic.com /technology/archive/2016/07/real-cheese-is-back/491402/

Stephanie Welcomer is a professor of management at the University of Maine. Welcomer’s research has focused on the intersection of sustainable businesses, communities and environments and she has recently published articles on climate change and farming, farmers’ adaptation strategies for energy resources, and pro-environmental behavior. Jean MacRae is an associate professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Maine. In addition to teaching environmental engineering topics, she does research in environmental microbiology. She is also faculty advisor of the UMaine chapter of Engineers Without Borders, an organization dedicated to improving quality of life in the developing world.

Maine Food Strategy. 2016. The Maine Food Strategy Framework: A Tool for Advancing Maine’s Food System. http://mainefoodstrategy.org/the-framework/

Brady Davis is a recent graduate of the University of Maine where he studied business management and received a minor in sustainable food systems. He was also a member of the Honors College. His long term goals are varied and regularly shifting, but his desire is to stay connected to

Martinez, Steve, Michael S. Hand, Michelle Da Pra, Susan Pollack, Katherine Ralston, Travis Smith, Stephen Vogel, Shellye Clark, Luanne Lohr, Sarah A. Low, and Constance Newman. 2010. Local Food Systems: Concepts Impacts, and Issues. ERR 97, USDA, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. Paxson, Heather. 2012. The Life of Cheese: Creating Food and Value in America. University of California Press, Oakland. USDA, Economic Research Service. 2015. Per Capita Consumption of Selected Cheese Varieties. http:// www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/dairy-data.aspx Wilson, Rosalie, and Jeffrey Roberts. 2014. Action Plan for Agriculture and Food System Development. Report for Northern Community Investment Corporation, Lancaster, NH.

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

Maine remains constant.

Jacob Searles is a recent graduate from the University of Maine with a bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering. Jacob plans to move to Portland, Oregon, in the fall and hopes to attend Portland State University to pursue an MBA.

ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES IN MAINE

Electronic Cigarettes in Maine: Health Effects, Marketing, Use, and Regulation by David E. Harris, Barbara Lelli, and Sarah Mayberry

by the surgeon general and use the term youth to refer to middle and high school students or those Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are electronic nicotine-delivery systems (ENDS) that younger than 18 [US DHHS 2014, deliver a vapor of nicotine and other potentially dangerous chemicals to the user; nonus2016]). E-cigarettes are also ers are also exposed. Driven by a well-funded advertising campaign, use of e-cigarettes proposed, if not marketed, as has increased in Maine until it now exceeds the use of combustible cigarettes among harm-reduction and smoking-cessayouth. In 2015, 14.5 percent of female high school students and 18.8 percent of male tion aids for current smokers, high school students in Maine reported current use of e-cigarettes. Maine laws and city although debate rages on this subject ordinances restrict e-cigarette use in some places where combustible cigarettes are even in the medical literature banned, but legislative gaps remain. Most Maine schools, colleges, and hospitals also (Avdalovic and Murin 2015; ban e-cigarettes, but again gaps remain. This article explores the marketing and use of Middlekauff 2015; Yeh 2016). e-cigarettes nationwide and in Maine and proposes policies to restrict access and use, Given the rapid increase in particularly by youth. e-cigarette use, which is altering the tobacco-use landscape in Maine and nationwide, it is not surprising that INTRODUCTION legislative and regulatory efforts to control access to and use of e-cigarettes have struggled to keep up. Recent lectronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are electronic nicoefforts nationally and in Maine have brought the use of tine-delivery systems (ENDS) consisting of a fluide-cigarettes under some of the same restrictions that filled chamber, a power source (battery), a heating apply to the use of combustible cigarettes, but regulaelement, which evaporates the chemicals in the fluid, tory gaps remain. This article explores the health effects, and a second chamber in which the evaporated chemmarketing, and legislative or regulatory restrictions of icals are cooled into an aerosol. The aerosol is inhaled e-cigarettes with a focus on Maine. It proposes policy through a mouthpiece (Orellana-Barrios et al. 2015). initiatives to limit use of e-cigarettes in the state, particThe fluid used in e-cigarettes does not have to contain ularly among youth, that will still allow current adult nicotine, but it usually does. It also contains a solvent smokers of combustible cigarettes to access e-cigarettes and may contain other chemicals as flavorings or if they choose to use them as smoking- reduction or contaminants (Dinakar and O’Connor 2016). Both -cessation devices. This subject is important because the nicotine (Yan and D’Ruiz 2014; Lopez et al. 2016) e-cigarettes have become available only recently, are and the other chemicals (Kosmider et al. 2104, 2016; gaining quickly in popularity, and may reverse decades Farsalinos, Voudris, and Poulas 2015) in e-cigarettes of declining use of tobacco products. Given the centrality may present health hazards to the users and to those of the health impacts of e-cigarettes to any restriction who inhale secondhand vapors. efforts, we will begin with an exploration of e-cigarettes E-cigarettes have been available in the United States and health. for only a decade. Driven by a robust and effective advertising campaign (US DHHS 2016), in that short HEALTH EFFECTS OF E-CIGARETTES time the use of e-cigarettes by youth has increased sharply and now exceeds the use of combustible cigaNicotine rettes by this age group. (For the purposes of this paper, hen a person smokes an e-cigarette her blood we have adopted the terminology of two recent reports nicotine levels rise rapidly and, depending on the Abstract

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES IN MAINE

brand used, reach as high as, or even higher than, levels produced by smoking combustible cigarettes (Flouris et al. 2013; Yan and D’Ruiz 2014; Lopez et al. 2016). Consequently, use of e-cigarettes can produce similarly acute cardiovascular effects as the use of combustible cigarettes including increases in blood pressure and heart rate (Yan and D’Ruiz 2014). Chronic use of nicotine causes dependence similar to that of cocaine use. Physical signs of nicotine dependence begin rapidly with regular use, and youth are particularly vulnerable to nicotine dependence. Additionally, chronic exposure to nicotine from combustible cigarettes has negative effects on brain development in adolescent smokers; nicotine also crosses the placental barrier of a pregnant smoker and impairs brain development in the fetus (US DHHS 2016). Because some brands of e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes produce similar nicotine blood levels, it is likely that there would be similar nicotine dependence and brain development harm with e-cigarettes. There is ample epidemiologic evidence that nicotine use commonly precedes the use of illicit drugs such cannabis and cocaine (Kandel, Yamaguchip, and Chen 1992). However, that association alone could either suggest a gateway model in which nicotine dependence produces specific biological changes that lower the threshold to repeated use of other drugs or a more general common-liability-to-addiction model in which multiple latent traits place an individual at risk for addiction to a range of substances. One potential criticism of the gateway model is that it lacks a specific biological mechanism (Vanyukov et al. 2012). Although more study is needed, this criticism has been partially addressed by murine studies showing that nicotine primes the reward and memory centers of the brain for enhanced effects of cocaine (Kandel and Kandel 2014). Other Risks The fluid used in e-cigarettes contains a solvent, usually vegetable glycerin or propylene glycol, and may also contain one of more than 7,000 flavorings (Dinakar and O’Connor 2016). The solvents and many of the flavorings used in e-cigarettes are on Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) list of food additives generally regarded as safe (GRAS). However, chemicals on the GRAS list are considered safe for oral ingestion; their safety for inhalation in an aerosol is usually unknown. For instance, the solvent propylene glycol and the flavoring diacetyl are both on the FDA GRAS list, but exposure to a mist of propylene glycol causes eye and MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

upper respiratory irritation and inhalation of diacetyl is associated with the potentially serious lung disease bronchiolitis obliterans (known as popcorn lung) (Rowell and Tarran 2015). Although the amounts of harmful substances can vary depending on the brand of e-cigarette, method of testing, and voltage used in the vaporization process, researchers have identified a long list of potentially harmful substances in e-cigarette vapor including the carcinogen formaldehyde (Kosmider et al. 2104; Farsalinos, Voudris, and Poulas 2015), the respiratory irritant benzaldehyde (Kosmider et al. 2016), and metal and silicate particles probably derived from the chambers or heating element of the e-cigarette (Williams et al. 2013). Ultrafine particles (particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter capable of penetrating deep into the lung and causing a range of respiratory diseases) have been found in e-cigarette vapors (Fernández et al. 2015). In areas with ongoing heavy e-cigarette use, levels of these ultrafine particles can exceed those found in bars that allow the smoking of combustible cigarettes (Soule et al. 2017). Secondhand smoke from combustible cigarettes is a combination of the main-stream smoke exhaled by the smoker and side-stream smoke coming directly from the burning cigarette.1 Although e-cigarettes do not produce side-stream smoke as combustible cigarettes do, e-cigarette users exhale some of the aerosol from their device, thereby exposing nonsmokers to the aerosol. The health impacts of this exhaled aerosol on nonsmokers are difficult to measure (US DHHS 2016). However, levels of ultrafine particles are higher in the homes of e-cigarette smokers than in those of nonsmokers, but lower than in the homes of combustible cigarette smokers (Fernández et al. 2015). Other risks related to e-cigarettes do not derive directly from their use. There is enough nicotine in e-cigarette fluid to sicken or even kill a child if it is ingested, and one intentional nicotine suicide by a 24-year-old woman has been reported (Dinakar and O’Connor 2016). Between September 2010 and February 2014, over half of the 2,405 calls to US poison control centers about e-cigarette poisonings concerned children less than five years old (Chatham-Stephens et al. 2015). E-cigarettes also cause injury when they catch fire or explode, which can happen during recharging (US DHHS 2016). Furthermore, depending on the design, users can modify e-cigarettes to deliver a range of illegal drugs including narcotics, steroids, and cannabis (Brown and Cheng 2014). 73

ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES IN MAINE

Smoking-cessation Aid

Can e-cigarettes act as a harm-reduction or smoking-cessation method for current smokers? A meta-analysis by Kalkhoran and Glantz (2016) concluded that current smokers who also smoked e-cigarettes were less likely to quit than those who did not; one of the few randomized controlled trials on this subject found that e-cigarettes were about as effective as nicotine patches in helping current smokers quit (Bullen et al. 2016). Offering free e-cigarettes to current smokers who do not intend to quit causes them to reduce their consumption of combustible cigarettes (Polosa et al. 2014), but e-cigarettes are not generally available free. A nonrandomized study found that smokers who chose e-cigarettes as a smoking-cessation device were more likely to quit successfully than were those who used over-the-counter nicotine replacement. However, the two experimental groups in this study differed in multiple ways including a higher socioeconomic status for those who chose e-cigarettes, which may have made them more likely to succeed. The authors readily admit the possibility of unmeasured confounders, and users of prescription smoking-cessation aids were excluded from the study so no comparison between these methods and e-cigarettes was possible (Brown et al. 2014). E-cigarettes are not currently recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) or approved by the FDA for smoking cessation (Siu 2015). Nonetheless for a current smoker, switching to e-cigarettes is undoubtedly safer than continuing the use of combustible cigarettes. Some clinicians believe that they should not discourage their patients from using e-cigarettes as a smoking-cessation tool, whereas others counter that FDA-approved smoking-cessation devices already exist and that clinicians should engage in evidence-based practice (Yeh 2016). (Smoking combustible cigarettes is the largest cause of preventable death in the United States, responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year, so saying that e-cigarettes are less dangerous than combustible cigarettes sets a rather low safety bar.) MARKETING AND USE OF E-CIGARETTES

he current form of e-cigarettes was invented in China in 2003 (US DHHS 2016) and has been marketed in the United States since 2007. The total value of e-cigarette sales in the United States is projected to reach $10 billion in 2017 (Global Sources 2015).

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

â&#x20AC;˘

Vol. 26, No. 1

â&#x20AC;˘

2017

Considering that the sale of combustible cigarettes in the United States is declining, it is clear that e-cigarettes represent the future of the tobacco industry. Most of the major multinational tobacco companies are in the e-cigarette business, and 10 large companies control more than two-thirds of the US e-cigarette market (OrellanaBarrios et al. 2015). E-cigarettes are fully integrated into the overall tobacco production and marketing system, and because the nicotine in e-cigarettes is derived from tobacco, it is reasonable to consider e-cigarettes tobacco products that should be subject to all restrictions currently in place for such products. Proponents of e-cigarettes, however, dispute this idea. E-cigarettes come in several forms: disposable models, models with replaceable nicotine-containing cartridges, and tank models that the user fills with nicotine-containing fluid (Orellana-Barrios et al. 2105; US DHHS 2016). Between 2010 and 2014, e-cigarette prices fell dramatically as sales increased (US DHHS 2016). In Maine, the value of sales of disposable e-cigarettes in food, drug, and mass merchandising stores rose from $144,000 to $220,000 per year (52 percent) between 2012 and 2013, while sales of starter kits rose from $85,000 to $106,000 per year (25 percent) and sales of cartridge refills rose from $40,000 to $92,000 (131 percent). In the same period, the average price of these items in Maine fell between 5.8 percent and 6.9 percent (Loomis et al. 2016). However, because e-cigarettes are also sold in convenience stores and smoke shops in Maine and sales data for those venues are not available, these figures do not provide a full accounting of e-cigarette sales in the state. Use Trends E-cigarettes are gaining in popularity, particularly among youth. A national study conducted in 2013 and 2014 found that 10.7 percent of 12- to 17-year-old youth used e-cigarettes while 13.4 percent used combustible cigarettes (Kasza et al. 2017). Data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS) reveal that the percentage of high school students who reported using e-cigarettes in the previous 30 days increased from 1.5 percent in 2011 to 16 percent in 2015, with a particularly sharp increase after 2013. For middle school students, the increase was from 0.6 percent in 2011 to 5.3 percent in 2015 (US DHHS 2016). This trend occurred in a period when, according to the NYTS, use of combustible cigarettes in both of these age groups fell. By 2015, the use of e-cigarettes was about twice as high 74

ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES IN MAINE

as the use of combustible cigarettes among both high school and middle school students (Singh et al. 2016). It is possible that increasing use of e-cigarettes by youth relects them substituting e-cigarettes for combustible cigarettes. However, this does not seem to be the case. In the US population at large, per capita consumption of tobacco and cigarette smoking rates have been falling since the 1960s, and smoking rates among high school students have been declining since the late 1990s, long before e-cigarettes were available. The rates of decline show no signs of steepening since the introduction of e-cigarettes (US DHHS 2014). In Maine in 2015, 14.5 percent of female high school students and 18.8 percent of male high school students reported current use of electronic cigarettes. This level of use exceeded that of combustible cigarettes (10.5 percent for female and 11.7 percent for male students), but was less than the national median by state (23.5 percent) (Kann et al. 2016). There is also evidence that the use of e-cigarettes and the use of combustible cigarettes are mutually reinforcing. Youth who use e-cigarettes are more likely to become heavy smokers of combustible cigarettes (Leventhal et al. 2016), and young smokers of combustible cigarettes are more likely to become users of e-cigarettes (Wang et al. 2016). The increase in e-cigarette use among youth has led to concern that e-cigarettes are ushering in a new epidemic of nicotine dependence that will affect other age groups. E-cigarette use rates among 18- to 24-yearolds are beginning to increase (US DHHS 2016). Among working adults, e-cigarette use was highest for those 18 to 24 years of age and those with incomes of less than $35,000 per year. It fell progressively as age and income increased. In the Northeast in 2014, 2 percent of working adults used e-cigarettes, about half the rate found in other regions of the country (Syamlal et al. 2016). Marketing of E-cigarettes In the United States, e-cigarettes were initially advertised and marketed on the internet and from stalls at shopping malls. They are now advertised on television and in print media as well. Tobacco companies have also taken advantage of the widespread use of social media among youth to market e-cigarettes (US DHHS 2016). At least until recently, tobacco companies gave away free e-cigarettes at events such as music performances and automobile races (Durbin and Boehner 2015). MAINE POLICY REVIEW

â&#x20AC;˘

Vol. 26, No. 1

â&#x20AC;˘

2017

They also use celebrities to market their products (Dinakar and Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Connor 2016) and advertise using attractive models and sexually explicit images designed to appeal to youth in general and young males in particular (US DHHS 2016). These tactics closely mirror those used by tobacco companies to market combustible cigarettes in the past.

The increase in e-cigarette use among youth has led to concern that e-cigarettes are ushering in a new epidemic of nicotine dependence that will affect other age groups.

Expenditures on e-cigarette ads rose to between $115 million and $125 million in 2014 (Kim, Arnold, and Makarenko 2014; US DHHS 2016). These ads are effective at reaching (Truth Initiative 2015) and influencing (Farrelly et al. 2015) youth. Since FDA regulations restricting the advertising of tobacco products do not apply to e-cigarettes, it is currently legal to advertise e-cigarettes on TV and radio. The appearance of such ads represents the return of advertising by multinational tobacco companies to venues from which they had been restricted since tobacco advertising was banned in 1970. The Maine Association of Broadcasters states that Maine radio and TV stations cannot advertise smoke shops, cigarettes, small cigars, or smokeless tobacco, but that they can advertise cigars, pipe tobacco, and e-cigarettes.2 Tobacco companies have taken advantage of the less stringent restrictions on e-cigarettes in another way as well. Flavorings other than menthol are banned from combustible cigarettes under the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act because they appeal to youth. However, flavored e-cigarettes are legal. Youth find the flavorings attractive (Kong et al. 2015) and commonly begin their use of e-cigarettes with a flavored brand (Ambrose et al. 2105). 75

ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES IN MAINE

LEGISLATION RESTRICTING SALE AND USE OF E-CIGARETTES National Legislation Federal regulation of smoking began in the late 1980s with restriction of smoking on commercial airline flights and in railroad cars.3 In the 1990s, Congress expanded these restrictions to include indoor facilities at which federally funded children’s services were provided and indoor facilities that were constructed, operated, or maintained with federal funds (Pro-Child Act of 1994).

The first laws to regulate smoking in Maine, passed in 1887 and 1909, also sought to restrict the exposure of youth to tobacco. In this period, the federal government also sought to protect children from becoming smokers by establishing minimum legal purchasing ages and regulating youth access to tobacco products from vending machines and similar unmonitored outlets (Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration Reorganization Act). Federal laws did not directly regulate the tobacco industry until 2009 with passage of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The FDA was given the authority to impose new warnings and labels on tobacco packaging, to limit advertising of tobacco products to minors, and to ban certain products such as flavored cigarettes altogether. For the first time, tobacco companies were required to seek FDA approval for new tobacco products. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act had broad support, including from some representatives of tobacco farming states.4 The act passed and was signed into law by President Barak Obama on June 22, 2009. Although e-cigarettes had been marketed in the United States since 2007, they were not mentioned in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Nearly a decade passed before the FDA issued rules that brought e-cigarettes under the regulatory power of the federal government. The so-called deeming rule, which extended the FDA’s regulatory authority to all MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

tobacco products including e-cigarettes, was published in the Federal Register in May 2016 and took effect in August 2016. It required new health warnings, banned free samples, and restricted youth access to newly regulated tobacco products by not allowing products to be sold to those younger than 18 and not allowing tobacco products to be sold in vending machines unless in an adult-only facility. Maine Legislation The first laws to regulate smoking in Maine, passed in 1887 and 1909, also sought to restrict the exposure of youth to tobacco. Tobacco legislation again appeared in Maine at about the same time it did at the national level. Between 1973 and 2015, the Maine Legislature took up some 249 separate bills and resolves addressing the topic. Of that number, about 75 substantial bills or amendments were passed into law. It often took many attempts to pass regulation concerning a tobacco-related practice. For example, the first bills to ban smoking in public places and in state government buildings were introduced in 1973, but a bill was not successfully passed until 1987.5 The trajectory of e-cigarette legislation in Maine is more recent and straightforward. In March 2015, An Act to Protect Children and the Public from Electronic Cigarette Vapor was introduced in the Maine House of Representatives. The bill included a definition of e-cigarettes and amended the Maine law that regulates smoking in public places so that smoking included the use of e-cigarettes.6 The bill was assigned to the Joint Standing Committee on Health and Human Services, which held public hearings in April and May 2015. Proponents attending the hearings included Jeff McCabe speaking for the House Democratic office, Attorney General Janet Mills, and representatives of the American Lung Association, Cancer Action Network, Maine Public Health Association, American Heart Association, Maine Nurse Practitioner Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and Maine Medical Association. Opponents attending the hearings included State Budget Solutions (a nonpartisan, voluntary membership organization of state legislators dedicated to the principles of limited government, free markets, and federalism), RAI Services Company (Reynolds Tobacco Company), and four private citizens. The bill barely cleared the Joint Committee on a six to five vote. After the definitions of electronic smoking device and smoking were amended slightly, the final bill 76

ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES IN MAINE

(Public Law, Chapter 318 [H.P. 769 – L.D. 1108]) passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate by large majorities and was enacted into law unsigned by Governor Paul LePage on July 4, 2015. The central effect of the new law was to include the use of e-cigarettes in the definition of smoking and to prohibit their use in public places along with combustible cigarettes. A public place includes any place not open to the sky into which the public is invited or allowed and outdoor eating areas (MRS, Title 22, Sections 1541[6], 1542, and 1550). The new law also had the effect of banning the use of e-cigarettes in state parks and historic sites where smoking has been illegal since 2009, on or within 20 feet of a beach, playground, snack bar, group picnic shelter, business facility, enclosed area, public place, or restroom (but not on trails).7 Maine enacted a second e-cigarette law in 2015— An Act to Require Child-resistant Packaging for Nicotine Liquid Containers. This bill amended Maine laws regulating retail tobacco sales and addressed the danger that nicotine liquid poses to children by requiring that nicotine-containing liquid be distributed in child-resistant packaging. The law also defines electronic nicotine-delivery device as a device that makes use of nicotine liquids including, but not limited to, e-cigarettes (Public Law, Chapter 288 [H.P. 290 – L.D. 423]). There are other Maine laws that regulate cigarettes, tobacco, or smoking that were not amended by the e-cigarette laws enacted in 2015. However, some of these other laws have been interpreted to cover e-cigarettes. This includes the law regulating the distribution and sale of tobacco. Maine’s attorney general interprets the term tobacco products as used in that law to include electronic smoking devices and components, presumably because they contain nicotine derived from tobacco, and regulates them like combustible cigarettes. E-cigarettes also appear to fit the definition of cigarette in the Maine Tobacco Acts (MRS, Title 22, Chapters 262-A, §1551A[1], 1555-B, 1553-A, 1551[1-B], 1555-F, 1580-G, and 1580-L) because cigarette is defined, in part, as any product that contains nicotine and is intended to be burned or heated under ordinary conditions of use and contains tobacco in any form. For the same reasons, providing e-cigarettes to minors may also be a Class D crime in Maine under statutes that prohibit furnishing cigarettes or tobacco to a child less than 16 years of age (MRS, Title 17-A, Chapter 23, §554[1-B]). There are still several Maine laws that regulate combustible cigarettes but not e-cigarettes, including MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

excise tax laws on cigarettes and tobacco products (MRS, Title 36, Chapter 704). The law that covers smoking policies in rental housing also does not include e-cigarettes in the definition of smoking (MRS, Title 14, Chapter 710, §6030-E). Similarly, the law that prohibits smoking in vehicles when children under the age of 16 are present does not appear to extend to the use of e-cigarettes because it defines smoking in a way that does not include e-cigarettes. Interestingly, Maine laws that ban smoking in elementary and secondary schools and in workplaces have not been amended to explicitly prohibit the use of e-cigarettes. The law that prohibits smoking in the buildings or on the grounds of any elementary or secondary school in Maine defines smoking as “carrying or having in one’s possession a lighted cigarette, cigar, pipe or other object giving off or containing any substance giving off smoke and the use of smokeless tobacco”(MRS, Title 22, Chapter 263, §1578-B). The Workplace Smoking Act of 1985 requires employers to ban indoor smoking and prevent environmental tobacco from circulating into enclosed areas. The definition of smoking in workplaces is similar to the one for elementary and secondary schools (MRS, Title 22, Chapter 263, §1549, 1578-B[1-D], and 1580-A). However, Maine elementary and secondary schools do ban the use of e-cigarettes in their buildings and on their grounds as a matter of policy. MAINE MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES RESTRICTING E-CIGARETTES

he interiors of Maine’s municipal buildings are all tobacco (including e-cigarette) free because they fall under the definition of public places. However, local ordinances dictate the rules for the use of tobacco products in outdoor areas owned by municipalities including parks, beaches, playgrounds, and other recreational facilities.8 Maine has eight cities with population greater than 20,000, based on 2010 census data and annual re-estimates since. Maine’s four largest cities (Portland, Lewiston, Bangor, and South Portland, in order of size) all include e-cigarettes in their ban on smoking in at least some public outdoor places. Portland extended its ban on smoking in city parks and other public grounds to include e-cigarettes in 2015. In another progressive step, the Portland City Council raised the minimum age for the purchase of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, from 18 to 21 years of age in 2016. 77

ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES IN MAINE

In response to effective lobbying and educational efforts by the Maine Public Health Association and Maine Breathe Easy Coalition, the Lewiston City Council voted to extend its tobacco-free policy to include all “city-owned athletic fields, city-owned parks, city-owned playgrounds, city-owned trails and cityowned beaches” and within 20 feet of the entryways or windows of indoor city facilities in 2013. E-cigarettes are explicitly included in the Lewiston regulatory definition of tobacco products. In Bangor, smoking, including the use of ecigarettes, is prohibited “in a public park that has amenities specifically constructed for use by children, including, but not limited to, playgrounds, swimming pools, sporting fields and buildings” by city ordinance adopted in 2016. South Portland’s municipal code bans smoking, including the use of e-cigarettes, “at or within 20 feet of all parks, beaches and outdoor recreation facilities owned and/or maintained by the City” and “at or within 20 feet of all designated school bus stops within the City limits.” The list of specific city facilities covered by the South Portland tobacco-free policy includes trail systems. Thus, it should be noted that the inclusion of trails in Lewiston and South Portland’s smoking and e-cigarette prohibition goes well beyond the regulations currently in place at Maine state parks. In the other Maine cities with populations greater than 20,000 (Auburn, Biddeford, Sanford, and Brunswick, in order of size), smoking regulations in general, and e-cigarette policies in particular, are more variable. In Auburn, the city council approved a resolution making city parks smoke-free in 2011. The resolution did not include enforcement provisions, however, and the current city ordinance codes do not mention the ban. By contrast, a Biddeford ordinance designates “City-owned playgrounds, sports fields, parks and beaches” as tobacco- and smoke-free zones and includes e-cigarette use in its definition of smoking and an enforcement mechanism. In 2002, in response to lobbying by an antitobacco youth group, the Sanford City Council voted to adopt a tobacco-free policy for all municipal parks, athletic fields, recreational facilities, and assembly areas. However, the policy does not include e-cigarettes, which were not available in 2002, and restrictions on e-cigarettes have not found their way into the Sanford City Code. Brunswick municipal ordinances prohibit smoking in municipal buildings and designate outside smoking areas away from building doors and windows. MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

The regulations, however, do not specifically address e-cigarettes, and there are no regulations prohibiting smoking in city-owned outdoor areas. MAINE INSTITUTIONAL REGULATORY RESTRICTIONS ON E-CIGARETTES Educational Institutions Tobacco use is prohibited in the buildings and on the grounds of Maine K–12 schools by state statute. The definition of tobacco use, however, does not explicitly include the use of e-cigarettes (MRS, Title 22, Chapter 263, §1578-B [1-D]), but these are prohibited as a matter of policy.9 The situation in other Maine institutions, however, is more varied. During 2016, the Maine Breathe Easy Coalition, a statewide coalition of antismoking groups, which is part of the Tobacco Prevention Services at the MaineHealth Center for Tobacco Independence, gathered information about smoking policies at Maine hospitals and institutions of higher education. Public higher education institutions in Maine all ban the use of e-cigarettes anywhere on campus. The six institutions of the University of Maine System (University of Maine, University of Maine at Augusta, University of Maine at Farmington, University of Maine at Fort Kent, University of Maine at Machias, University of Maine at Presque Isle, and University of Southern Maine) all have policies explicitly forbidding the use of e-cigarettes anywhere on campus, as does Maine Maritime Academy. Six of the seven institutions in the Maine Community College System (Central Maine Community College, Kennebec Valley Community College, Northern Maine Community College, Southern Maine Community College, Washington County Community College, and York County Community College) also explicitly ban ecigarettes. Only Eastern Maine Community College does not have a specific policy banning e-cigarettes although it does include e-cigarette in its definition of tobacco products. Interestingly, although 1,700 colleges and universities in the United States are smoke-free and nearly 1,300 explicitly ban e-cigarettes (http://tobaccofreecampus. org/campus-list-progress), private colleges in Maine are more evenly split on totally banning tobacco products in general and e-cigarettes in particular. Only five of the eleven private colleges surveyed by the Maine Breathe Easy Coalition (Colby College, Husson University, Kaplan University, Maine College of Art, and University 78

ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES IN MAINE

of New England) explicitly ban the use of e-cigarettes anywhere on campus, although Saint Joseph’s College includes e-cigarettes under its definition of tobacco products, which it does prohibit. Bates College, Bowdoin College, Thomas College, and Unity College continue to allow smoking of both combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes outside and away from buildings (either 25 or 50 feet), and College of the Atlantic has a designated outdoor smoking area. Hospitals Maine hospitals are much more homogeneous than higher educational institutions in banning e-cigarettes. Of the 36 Maine hospitals listed on the Maine Hospital Association website, all but one (St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center in Lewiston) have a 100 percent tobacco-free policy. Nine of the eleven Maine hospitals with at least 100 beds (Maine Medical Center, Eastern Maine Medical Center, Central Maine Medical Center, St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center, Mercy Hospital, Southern Maine Health Care, Maine General Medical Center, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Spring Harbor Hospital, and New England Rehabilitation Hospital) explicitly ban e-cigarettes. Acadia Hospital in Bangor is tobacco-free, but does not explicitly ban e-cigarettes.10 Housing Tobacco use, including the use of e-cigarettes, has also been an issue in rental housing. A national survey of adult residents of multiunit housing found that 24.4 percent reported some type of tobacco use and 0.8 percent reported using e-cigarettes exclusively, while 34.4 percent of multiunit housing residents with smokefree homes reported incursions of secondhand smoke from smoking neighbors (Nguyen et al. 2016). This has led to efforts to restrict the use of tobacco products in rental housing. A federal rule issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requiring all Public Housing Agencies (PHA) nationwide to initiate a smoke-free policy went into effect on February 3, 2017 (with an 18-month implementation period). This rule bans smoking in all living units and indoor common areas. It also bans outdoor smoking within 25 feet of PHA buildings. However, the tobacco products prohibited by this ban include cigarettes, cigars, pipes, and waterpipes, but not e-cigarettes. Once fully implemented, the HUD ban will cover 1.2 million housing units nationwide, which are home to over 2 million residents. The ban is expected to save MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

PHAs $16–38 million per year in maintenance costs and an additional $38 million per year by reducing fire risk. The healthcare savings are projected to be even larger. During the public comment period for the rule, many commenters asked HUD to include e-cigarettes in this ban, citing health concerns about the exhaled vapor and the potential fire hazard of exploding e-cigarettes. Other comments objected to a ban on e-cigarettes citing the need for more scientific study of e-cigarette harms and the lower damage of e-cigarette vapors to the dwelling units, compared to the substantial damage caused by the smoke from combustible cigarettes. HUD ultimately decided not to include e-cigarettes in its list of banned products, mostly because the monetary savings to PHAs from an e-cigarette ban would have been small, but did give individual PHAs the option to ban e-cigarettes in their local rules.11

E-cigarettes, while less lethal than combustible cigarettes, can definitely cause nicotine dependence and are probably directly harmful. The nearly 2,700 PHA housing units in Maine’s four largest cities are covered by the HUD smoking ban. This includes 1,174 units managed by the Portland Housing Authority, which have been smoke-free since 2011; 437 units managed by the Lewiston Public Housing Authority; 741 managed by the Bangor Housing authority; and 346 managed by the South Portland Housing Authority. Because e-cigarettes are not included in the HUD ban, however, none of these housing units are e-cigarette-free.12 Many private Maine landlords also ban smoking in their buildings presumably for the same financial and health reasons, but the number of private landlords in Maine who ban e-cigarettes is unknown. CONCLUSIONS

-cigarettes, while less lethal than combustible cigarettes, can definitely cause nicotine dependence and are probably directly harmful. They may help 79

ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES IN MAINE

some current smokers reduce their consumption of combustible cigarettes or abstain completely; however, they are not approved as smoking-cessation devices and may not be more effective than currently approved methods. Ultimately, the fact that e-cigarettes are less lethal than combustible cigarettes is not a strong argument for lax restrictions. The risks of e-cigarettes must be weighed carefully against the proposal that e-cigarettes can be used as smoking-cessation devices before they are allowed to proliferate in society (Avdalovic and Middlekauff 2015). E-cigarettes are marketed aggressively and effectively by multinational tobacco companies that take advantage of what they learned marketing combustible cigarettes and the lower restrictions on e-cigarette marketing. As a result, e-cigarettes are gaining in popularity, particularly among youth, and sales of e-cigarette products are growing rapidly. Many, but not all, Maine institutions (e.g., hospitals and colleges) have adopted policies that include e-cigarettes bans to create an environment that is 100 percent tobacco-free. These policies have the advantage of being clear and comprehensive, making the enforcement of e-cigarette bans straightforward. This may be a particular advantage in college settings where the dual use of e-cigarettes to deliver other drugs is an issue. These 100 percent tobacco-free policies also extend to other tobacco products including smokeless tobacco products (chew, snuff, snus), which have their own health risks such as nicotine dependence and oral cancers. Federal and state laws remain a patchwork, however. They explicitly ban e-cigarette use in some—but not all—places where the use of combustible cigarettes is banned. Some of Maine’s larger municipalities ban e-cigarettes from outdoor public spaces, but these restrictions are also variable. In Maine, antismoking nonprofits, health profession organizations, and youth groups have been effective at lobbying city councils to enact smoking and e-cigarette bans. POLICY RECOMENDATIONS

• Maine should expand and better coordinate efforts to gather data about the use and marketing of e-cigarettes with the goal of identifying trends and allowing timely responses by the legislature and public health community. National health-monitoring

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

systems that include sufficient Maine data to allow state-specific analysis are just now catching up with the rapid growth in e-cigarette use. The NYTS has asked questions about e-cigarette use since 2011, but the YRBSS has only covered e-cigarette use since 2015. The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, which monitors health indicators among women who have recently given birth, asks about use of combustible cigarettes, but not about e-cigarettes. Thus, some Maine-specific data do exist, but more are needed. The Maine Department of Health and Human Services should collaborate with interested public health researchers to expand and cross-reference these data sources for a comprehensive picture of e-cigarette use in Maine. This endeavor would identify specific groups who would benefit from enhanced educational efforts and nicotine-cessation services. • Maine should undertake a comprehensive review of its tobacco-restriction legislation with a goal of identifying and filling gaps in current state legislation that apply to e-cigarettes. Some Maine laws that regulate combustible tobacco products explicitly include e-cigarettes; others laws that do not explicitly include e-cigarettes have been interpreted as applying to e-cigarettes. However, some Maine tobacco laws, such as excise tax laws on cigarettes and tobacco products, laws concerning smoking policies in rental housing, and laws that prohibit smoking in vehicles when children under the age of 16 are present, do not include e-cigarettes. This review (which could be undertaken by advocates for reduced tobacco use in collaboration with partners from the University of Maine School of Law) would identify gaps in legal protections against e-cigarettes that could be closed by legislative action. These legislative changes could reduce use of e-cigarettes by making them more expensive and expanding e-cigarette-free areas. • State and local ordinances should be expanded to more effectively regulate retail sales of e-cigarettes and extend smoke-free environments. Maine antismoking groups have effectively lobbied for e-cigarette restrictions at the state and local level. As was the case in the movement to 80

ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES IN MAINE

ban outdoor smoking in public places (Harris, Roy, and Mayberry 2012), youth groups have been central to these efforts. Antismoking groups and organizations with a public health mission should make a priority of working with youth groups to encourage initiatives before the state legislature and city councils to modify local ordinances to create restrictions on e-cigarette purchase and use. The outdoor bans on e-cigarette use that have been enacted in several Maine cities and the 2016 Portland ordinance raising the legal age for the purchase of tobacco products from 18 to 21 years old are just two example of regulations that should be adopted by other Maine municipalities. The purchase age for tobacco products could even be raised statewide. Legislation to do this is currently under consideration as LD 1170. Prohibiting the use of flavorings other than menthol in e-cigarettes would also make them less attractive to youth (although this change would probably need to occur at the national rather than the state or local level). None of these changes would make e-cigarettes unavailable to current adult smokers who choose to use e-cigarettes as smoking-cessation devices. • More Maine institutions should adopt tobacco-free policies that explicitly include the use of e-cigarettes. The statewide Maine Breathe Easy Coalition has built an excellent monitoring system of e-cigarette restrictions at Maine institutions. This system should be maintained and expanded to provide a complete picture of e-cigarette restriction in Maine. These efforts would expand tobacco- and e-cigarette-free environments both indoor and outdoor. The monitoring system maintained by the Maine Breathe Easy Coalition could expand to include information about the enforcement of e-cigarette bans. Getting input from the people responsible for enforcing these bans would help determine their real-world impacts and suggest ways to make these bans more effective. ENDNOTES 1 See https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes /tobacco-and-cancer/secondhand-smoke.html for a more complete discussion.

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

2 See the Maine Association of Broadcasters website (http://www.mab.org/advertising-faqs/tobacco -advertising/) for a full set of these recommendations. 3 For information on early federal tobacco product legislation see https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads /PL100-202.pdf, http://uscode.house.gov/statutes /pl/101/164.pdf, and http://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org /files/live/United%20States/United%20States%20-% 20Smoking%20on%20Passenger%20Flights%20-% 20national.pdf. 4 Virginia Senators Jim Webb and Mark Warner supported the measure despite the tobacco industry’s presence and influence in their state. 5 See http://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/lldl/smoking /index.html for a detailed legislative history of smoking and tobacco laws in Maine. 6 House Paper (H.P.) 769 – L.D. 1108 was introduced by Jeff M. McCabe (D-Skowhegan) and cosponsored by Patricia Hymanson (D-York) and Linda Sanborn (D-Gorham). 7 Public Law, Chapter 65 (S.P. 26 – L.D. 67)(2009)(codified as Maine Revised Statutes, Title 22, §1580-E). E-cigarette use is prohibited in the listed areas because the law specified that smoking has the same meaning as in MRS, Title 22, Section 1541(6). 8 Maine city ordinances were obtained from the websites of each city: Portland: http://www.portlandmaine.gov /documentcenter/view/8889 Lewiston: http:// www.ci.lewiston.me.us/ DocumentCenter/Home /View/217 Bangor: http://ecode360.com/6893684 South Portland: http://www.southportland.org / files/6814/7922/8044/CH_18_Parks_and_Recreation.pdf Auburn: http://www.auburnmaine.gov/Pages/ Government/City-Charter-Ordinances Biddeford: http://www.biddefordmaine.org/index.asp Sanford: http://www.sanfordmaine.org/index.asp Brunswick: https://www.municode.com/library/me /brunswick /codes/code_of_ordinances 9 For example school policies: Biddeford: https://drive.google.com/file/d /0B5NvUuaxkjJ6ZkZycGxLSldUNUU/view RSU 11 (Gardiner): https://drive.google.com/file /d /0ByqAJqNOmUgVOHJNQlIyNkVlcDA/view MSAD 17 (Oxford Hills): http://wdb.sad17.k12.me.us /Action.lasso?-database=policy.fp5&-layout =basic&-response=%2fpolicy%2fDetail.htm& -recordID=6&-search 10 The Maine Breathe Easy Coalition has mapped the smoking policies of educational institutions and hospitals at http://breatheeasymaine.org/maps/

ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES IN MAINE

11 Wording, legislative history and expected savings from HUD regulation were gathered from the federal register (https://www.federalregister.gov /documents/2016/12/05/2016-28986/instituting-smoke -free-public-housing; https://www.federalregister.gov /documents/2016/12/05/2016-28986/instituting-smoke -free-public-housing) and from the HUD website (https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents /huddoc?id=finalsmokefreeqa.pdf). 12 Information about Maine’s Public Housing Authorities was gathered from the websites of each city’s PHA: Portland Public Housing Authority: http://www .porthouse.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/53; Lewiston Public Housing Authority: https:// affordablehousingonline.com/housing-authority /Maine/Lewiston-Housing-Authority/ME005; Bangor Public Housing Authority: http://www.bangorhousing .org/about-us; South Portland Public Housing Authority: http://www.spha.net/about/

Durbin, Dick, and John Boehner. 2015. “Should the Manufacture and Marketing of E-Cigarettes Be Strictly Regulated?” Congressional Digest 10–31. Farsalinos, Konstantinos E., Vassilis Voudris, and Konstantinos Poulas. 2015. “E-cigarettes Generate High Levels of Aldehydes Only in ‘Dry Puff’ Conditions.” Addiction 110:1352–1356. Farrelly, Matthew C., Jennifer Duke, Erik Crankshaw, Matthew E. Eggers, Youn O. Lee, James M. Nonnemaker, Annice E. Kim, and Lauren Porter. 2015. “A Randomized Trial of the Effect of E-cigarette TV Advertisements on Intentions to Use E-cigarettes.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 49(5): 686–693. Fernández, Esteve, Montse Ballbè, Xisca Sureda, Marcela Fu, Esteve Saltó, and Jose M. Martínez-Sánchez. 2015. “Particulate Matter from Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes: A Systematic Review and Observational Study.” Current Environmental Health Report 2:423–429.

Ambrose, Bridget K., Hannah Day, Brian Rostron, Kevin P. Conway, Nicolette Borek, Andrew Hyland, and Andrea C. Villanti. 2105. “Flavored Tobacco Product Use among US Youth Aged 12–17 Years, 2013–2014.” Journal of the American Medical Association 314(17): 1871–1872.

Flouris Andreas D., Maria S. Chorti, Konstantina P. Poulianiti, Athanasios Z. Jamurtas, Konstantinos Kostikas, Manolis N. Tzatzarakis, A. Wallace Hayes, Aristidis M. Tsatsakis, and Yiannis Koutedakis. 2013. “Acute Impact of Active and Passive Electronic Cigarette Smoking on Serum Cotinine and Lung Function.” Inhalation Toxicology 25(2): 91–101.

Avdalovic, Mark V., and Susan Murin. 2015. “Does the Risk of Electronic Cigarettes Exceed Potential Benefits? Yes.” Chest 148: 580–582.

Global Sources. 2015. “E-cigarette Market to Hit $10 billion by 2017.” http://www.globalsources.com/gsol /I/Electronic-cigarette/a/9000000134472.htm

Brown, Christopher J., and James M. Cheng. 2014. “Electronic Cigarettes: Product Characterization and Design Considerations.” Tobacco Control 23:ii4–ii10.

Harris, David E., Suzanne Roy, and Sarah Mayberry. 2012. “Outdoor Smoke-Free Policies in Maine.” Maine Policy Review 21(2): 92–102.

Brown, Jamie, Emma Beard, Daniel Kotz, Susan Michie, and Robert West. 2014. “Real-world Effectiveness of E-cigarettes When Used to Aid Smoking Cessation: A Cross-sectional Population Study.” Addiction 109:1531–1540.

Kalkhoran, Sara, and Stanton A. Glantz 2016. “E-cigarettes and Smoking Cessation in Real-World and Clinical Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.” The Lancet Respiratory Medicine 4:116–128.

REFERENCES

Bullen, Christopher, Colin Howe, Murray Laugesen, Hayden McRobbie, Varsha Parag, Jonathan Williman, and Natalie Walker. 2016. “Electronic Cigarettes for Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” The Lancet 382:1629–1637. Chatham-Stephens, Kevin, Royal Law, Ethel Taylor, Paul Melstrom, Rebecca Bunnell, Baoguang Wang, Benjamin Apelberg, and Joshua G. Schier. 2015. “Calls to Poison Centers for Exposures to Electronic Cigarettes—United States, September 2010–February 2014.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 63(13): 292–293. Dinakar, Chitra, and George O’Connor. 2016. “The Health Effects of Electronic Cigarettes.” New England Journal of Medicine 375:1372–1381.

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

Kandel, Denise B., Kazous Yamaguchip, and Evin Chen. 1992. “Stages of Progression in Drug Involvement from Adolescence to Adulthood: Further Evidence for the Gateway Theory.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 53:447–457. Kandel, Eric R., and Denise B. Kandel. 2014. “A Molecular Basis for Nicotine as a Gateway Drug.” New England Journal of Medicine 371(10): 932–943. Kann, Laura, Tim McManus, William A. Harris, Shari L. Shanklin, Katherine H. Flint, Joseph Hawkins, Barbara Queen, Richard Lowry, Emily O’Malley Olsen, David Chyen, Lisa Whittle, Jemekia Thornton, Connie Lim, Yoshimi Yamakawa, Nancy Brener, and Stephanie Zaza. 2016. “Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2015.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 65(6):1–174.

ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES IN MAINE

Kasza, Karin A., Bridget K. Ambrose, Kevin P. Conway, Nicolette Borek, Kristie Taylor, Maciej L. Goniewicz, K. Michael Cummings, Eva Sharma, Jennifer L. Pearson, Victoria R. Green, Annette R. Kaufman, Maansi BansalTravers, Mark J. Travers, Jonathan Kwan, Cindy Tworek, Yu-Ching Cheng, Ling Yang, Nikolas Pharris-Ciurej, Dana M. van Bemmel, Cathy L. Backinger, Wilson M. Compton, and Andrew J. Hyland. 2017. “TobaccoProduct Use by Adults and Youths in the United States in 2013 and 2014.” New England Journal of Medicine 376:342–353. Kim, Annice E., Kristin Y. Arnold, and Olga Makarenko. 2014. “E-cigarette Advertising Expenditures in the U.S., 2011–2012.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 46(4): 409–412. Kong, Grace, Meghan E. Morean, Dana A. Cavallo, Deepa R. Camenga, and Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin. 2015. “Reasons for Electronic Cigarette Experimentation and Discontinuation among Adolescents and Young Adults.” Nicotine & Tobacco Research 17(7): 847–853. Kosmider, Leon, Andrzej Sobczak, Maciej Fik, Jakub Knysak, Marzena Zaciera, Jolanta Kurek, and Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz. 2014. “Carbonyl Compounds in Electronic Cigarette Vapors: Effects of Nicotine Solvent and Battery Output Voltage.” Nicotine & Tobacco Research 16(10): 1319–1326. Kosmider, Leon, Andrzej Sobczak, Adam Prokopowicz, Jolanta Kurek, Marzena Zaciera, Jakub Knysak, Danielle Smith, and Maciej L. Goniewicz. 2016. “Cherryflavoured Electronic Cigarettes Expose Users to the Inhalation Irritant, Benzaldehyde” Thorax 71:376–377. Leventhal, Adam M., Matthew D. Stone, Nafeesa Andrabi, Jessica Barrington-Trimis, David R. Strong, Steve Sussman, and Janet AudrainMcGovern. 2016. “Association of e-Cigarette Vaping and Progression to Heavier Patterns of Cigarette Smoking.” Journal of the American Medical Association 316(18):1918–1920. Loomis, Brett R., Todd Rogers, Brian A. King, Daniel L. Dench, Doris G. Gammon, Erika B. Fulmer, and Israel T. Agaku. 2016. “National and State-Specific Sales and Prices for Electronic Cigarettes—U.S., 2012–2013.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 50(1): 18–29. Lopez, Alexa A., Marzena M. Hiler, Eric K. Soule, Carolina P. Ramôa, Nareg V. Karaoghlanian, Thokozeni Lipato, Alison B. Breland, Alan L. Shihadeh, and Thomas Eissenberg. 2016. “Effects of Electronic Cigarette Liquid Nicotine Concentration in Plasma Nicotine and Puff Topography in Tobacco Cigarette Smokers: A Preliminary Report.” Nicotine & Tobacco Research 18(5): 720–723.

Nguyen, Kimberly H., Yessica Gomez, David M. Homa, and Brian A. Kinget. 2016. “Tobacco Use, Secondhand Smoke, and Smoke-Free Home Rules in Multiunit Housing.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 51(5): 682–692. Orellana-Barrios, Menfil A., Drew Payne, Zachary Mulkey, and Kenneth Nugent. 2015. “Electronic Cigarettes— A Narrative Review for Clinicians.” The American Journal of Medicine 128:674–681. Polosa, Riccardo, Pasquale Caponnetto, Marilena Maglia, Jaymin B Morjaria and Cristina Russo. 2014. “Success Rates with Nicotine Personal Vaporizers: A Prospective 6-month Pilot Study of Smokers not Intending to Quit.” BioMed Central Public Health 14:1159. Rowell, Temperance R., and Robert Tarran. 2015. “Will Chronic E-cigarette Use Cause Lung Disease?” American Journal of Physiology—Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology 309:L1398–L1409. Soule, Eric K., Sarah F. Maloney, Tory R. Spindle,Alyssa K Rudy, Marzena M Hiler, and Caroline O Cobb. 2017. “Electronic Cigarette Use and Indoor Air Quality in a Natural Setting.” Tobacco Control 26:109–112. Singh, Tushar, René A. Arrazola, Catherine G. Corey, Corinne G. Husten, Linda J. Neff, David M. Homa, and Brian A. King. 2016. “Tobacco Use Among Middle and High School Students—United States, 2011–2015.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 65(14): 361–367. Siu, Albert L. 2015. “Behavioral and Pharmacotherapy Interventions for Tobacco Smoking Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.” Annals of Internal Medicine 163:622–634. Syamlal, Girija, Ahmed Jamal, Brian A. King, PhD, and Jacek M. Mazurek. 2016. “Electronic Cigarette Use Among Working Adults—United States, 2014.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 65(22): 557–561. Truth Initiative. 2015. “Vaporized: Youth and Young Adult Exposure to E-cigarette Marketing.” Truth Initiative, Washington, DC. http://truthinitiative.org/sites/default /files/Vaporized-Youth_and_young_adult_exposure _to_e-cigarette_marketing.pdf US DHHS (US Department of Health and Human Services). 2014. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress. US DHHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta. US DHHS (US Department of Health and Human Services). 2016. E-Cigarette Use among Youth and Young Adults. US DHHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.

Middlekauff, Holly. 2015. “Does the Risk of Electronic Cigarettes Exceed Potential Benefits? No” Chest 148: 582–584.

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES IN MAINE

Wang, Meng, Jian-WeiWang, Shuang-Shuang Cao, Hui-Qin Wang, and Ru-Ying Hu. 2016. “Cigarette Smoking and Electronic Cigarettes Use: A Meta-Analysis.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13(120): 1–16. Williams, Monique, Amanda Villarreal, Krassimir Bozhilov, Sabrina Lin, and Prue Talbot. 2013. “Metal and Silicate Particles Including Nanoparticles Are Present in Electronic Cigarette Cartomizer Fluid and Aerosol.” PLoS ONE 8(3): e57987. Yan, Sherwin X., and Carl D’Ruiz. 2015. “Effects of Using Electronic Cigarettes on Nicotine Delivery and Cardiovascular Function in Comparison with Regular Cigarettes.” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 71:24–34. Vanyukov, Michael M., Ralph E. Tarter, Galina P. Kirillova, Levent Kirisci, Maureen D. Reynolds, Mary Jeanne Kreek, Kevin P. Conway, Brion S. Maher, William G. Iacono, Laura Bierut, Michael C. Neale, Duncan B. Clark, and Ty Ridenour. 2012. “Common Liability to Addiction and ‘Gateway Hypothesis’: Theoretical, Empirical and Evolutionary Perspective.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 123S:S3–S17. Yeh, James S. 2016. “E-Cigarettes and Smoking Cessation.” New England Journal of Medicine 374:2172–2174.

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

David E. Harris is currently a professor in the University of Southern Maine School of Nursing and adjunct faculty at the University of New England Nurse Anesthesia program. He teaches classes in physiology and pathophysiology and researches community health issues. Barbara Lelli is a lawyer who works as an investigator for the Maine Employee Rights Group, a law firm that represents employees in employment discrimination claims. Her scholarly interests include the manner in which law and social policy affect animal and human health. Sarah Mayberry serves as program manager in the statewide Tobacco Prevention Services initiative at the MaineHealth Center for Tobacco Independence. She has 10 years of experience working on tobacco policy, prevention, and control.

STUDENT PERSPECTIVE

Margaret Chase Smith Library 2017 Essay Contest Each year the Margaret Chase Smith Library sponsors an essay contest for high school seniors. The essay prompt for 2017 was, How would you address the current lethal drug epidemic? The essays have been edited for length.

First-Place Essay

Crusade against the Drugs, Not the Users by Gabrielle Kyes

aine has become a hub for illicit drug use, especially use of opiates, an umbrella term for a variety of drugs including oxycodone, methadone, codeine, morphine, and heroin. They are deadly drugs, which destroy people’s lives. Opiate use, particularly heroin use, has been on the rise for a number of years. A profile of substance abuse trends in Maine, published in July 2015, states, “the number of drug offense arrests related to heroin quadrupled from 2010 to 2014” (Hornby Zeller 2015). Tackling opiate addiction needs to be a priority for Maine. We must lead addicts to recovery and end the cycle of addiction. It is now common knowledge that New England has a drug problem, especially to drug dealers originating in New York. They have targeted New Englanders, causing an increase in what’s known as “hillbilly heroin,” a term used to describe the perceived demographic to which these dealers are selling. Dealers are taking advantage of the uneducated, low-income people who are already addicted to legal opioids: prescription painkillers. Many people addicted to prescription pain medication have started to rely on illegal drugs because of increased restrictions on doctors prescribing such strong painkillers and the high prices of these prescriptions. Researchers have MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

found that social determinants, such as poverty, incomplete education, and unemployment, are strongly correlated with drug abuse. A growing number of people attempt to find relief in heroin and other opiates, despite the major health risks.1 From 2012 to 2014, there were 10.2 arrests related to heroin by the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency for every 100,000 residents in the state of Maine (Hornby Zeller 2015). Incarceration of people afflicted by addiction is a large part of this evergrowing problem in the state of Maine because while in prison, addicts do not have access to counseling or drugaddiction-specific medical attention, both vital to their recoveries. Because imprisoned drug addicts miss these key treatments, once released, they usually fall back into using. At that point, it is no longer a conscious choice. The body believes it needs a substance to survive, even though the substance is deadly. One of the common treatments for heroin addiction is prescription methadone. Its effects can last up to 24 hours, so daily doses to curb the need for heroin are often recommended by health professionals. However, like any drug, methadone can cause problems. Arguably, methadone is worse than heroin: it is even more addictive and has

worse withdrawal symptoms, including coma and death (Good 2016). Although some heroin addicts have successfully used methadone as a tool to recovery, there are also many instances of methadone dependency and deaths related to this supposed recovery drug. Other former heroin addicts often refer to methadone users as “lifers” because it is unlikely that they will ever stop using this substitute (Good 2016). Finding an effective, permanent solution or cure to opiate addiction, rather than allowing addicts to become dependent on yet another substance, is the next step to solving the drug crisis. With less drugdependence and addiction, more people are bound to be productive citizens who contribute positively to society. Instead of combatting drug use by incarcerating addicts and simply expecting them to stop using, we must show them we are on their side and confront sources of the problem with them by creating effective treatment and support programs. As an individual who has personally seen how addiction can ruin a person’s life and who has researched the severity of the situation in Maine, I propose a few things. • Provide literature regarding addiction, how to cope with it, how to cope with loved ones struggling with it, how to find help for yourself or a loved one. The information needs to be easily yet discreetly accessible. There also needs to be easily accessed, organized places for people to turn in their drug paraphernalia without fear of judgment, prosecution, or legal action. The people of Maine have a right to such information that can quite easily help them save a life.

STUDENT PERSPECTIVE

• Pass legislation requiring insurance companies to cover treatment and rehab for addiction. With the strong correlation between poverty and drug addiction, many addicts cannot get the help they need because they don’t have enough money to pay for the services they so desperately need. No person should be denied life-saving medical care. It is inhumane for the government to allow people to suffer through this disease without help.

up, but they do deserve a chance for redemption. If we as a society can stand beside addicts, create policies to help them get better, provide them with quality medical care, rehabilitate them, and assist them in assimilating into their communities so that they may become functioning and productive members of society once again, Maine will become an even better place. ENDNOTE 1 Information in this paragraph comes from the Rehab International website, American Cities with the Highest Addiction Rates. http://rehab -international.org/drug-addiction /american-cities-with-the-highest -addiction-rates [Accessed March 9, 2017]

• Decriminalize the use of drugs like heroin and work to rid our state of opioid dealers who profit off the sickness of others. Those who are addicted need help, and those who create the addicted need help too. They may use themselves, and their crimes do not justify society taking away their access to medical treatment or drug counseling. However, those who are not using must be held accountable for the deaths from overdoses that they caused by selling heroin or other opioids. They have no excuse for preying on those who are ill.

Gabrielle Kyes of Mattanawcook Academy in Lincoln has been a member of the jazz band and involved in musicals and plays at her school. She is a National Honor Society member and a participant in Girls State. She played tennis at Mattanawcook. Gabrielle will be attending the University of Maine, majoring in music performance in the fall.

REFERENCES Good, Jason. 2016. “Methadone: The Wrong Solution, #1 in a 3 part series on: Methadone: A ‘safe’ replacement for heroin?” Narconon Suncoast. http:// www.narconon-suncoast.org/blog /methadone-the-wrong-solution-1-in-a -3-part-series-on-methadone-a-safe.html Hornby Zeller Associaties, Inc. 2015. Substance Abuse Trends in Maine: State Epidemiological Profile 2015. Produced for Maine Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, Augusta. http://www.maine .gov/dhhs/samhs/osa/documents /SEOWEpiProfile2015FINALDRAFT.pdf

• Make treatment and rehab centers more accessible, especially in rural Maine. Quality treatment centers are often quite a long drive away from those in need, and many people do not always have access to transportation. I propose a shuttle bus system that can bring addicts to a facility near them. There is a heavy stigma surrounding addicts; many people are quick to judge addicts because they are ignorant of the nature of the disease. People who struggle with addiction are just that: people. They make mistakes, they slip MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

STUDENT PERSPECTIVE

High Society by Abigail Hande

o anyone observing America, it seems obvious that we have failed to make headway against the drug epidemic. Americans living in the worst-hit neighborhoods still face the reality of dealers on their doorsteps and shots in the night. Many fear for their lives or their children’s lives and sense that their communities have slid into a state of terror and disintegration. Even those fortunate enough to live in better neighborhoods cannot pick up a newspaper or watch television without confronting story after story about the toll of drugs and drug-related violence in families and communities. For most Americans, the drug epidemic has become a routine feature of life. Yet, we also hear that we have made great progress in the war on drugs, and victory is around the corner. This claim that we are winning the war on drugs is designed to support America’s present policies and to justify pouring even greater resources into what America has already done: harsher sentences and more jails and prisons. But, the drug epidemic remains out of control despite severe punishments. Really, the criminal-justice system’s effect on the drug epidemic is limited, but that does not mean that the criminal-justice system has no role to play in a more effective strategy against drugs. Drugs will always MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

be a law-enforcement problem. The real job is to define what we want the police and the courts to accomplish. We will never punish our way out of the drug epidemic. We can, however, use the criminal-justice system to improve the prospects of drug users who are caught in the endless loop of court, jail, and street. Law enforcement could help strengthen communities to defend themselves against violence, fear, and demoralization. Doing this well will require changes in priorities. We will have to shift from an approach in which discouraging drug use through punishment and fear is replaced with an approach that emphasizes different principles such as the reintegration of drug abusers into productive lives, the reduction of harm, and the promotion of community safety. First, we must rethink the criminal-justice system. We must adopt more reasonable sentences for drug offenses. The most wasteful and irrational feature of our drug epidemic has been the extraordinary escalation of sentences for drug offenses—especially low-level dealing and possession. It is now possible in some states, as well as through federal drug law, to be sent to prison for life without possibility of parole for possession of a small quantity of hard drugs. Many judges are disgusted at the harsh

and counterproductive sentences they are forced to hand down. The length of these sentences along with the great number of offenders sentenced are responsible for the overflowing of the courts and prisons. It is time to acknowledge that the increase of penalties in the United States has done nothing to improve public safety or to diminish the drug epidemic. Second, we need to focus on drug traffickers, not users. It is our treatment of drug users, along with the severity of our sentences, that distinguishes America from other countries with drug problems. Resources need to be freed up to focus more effectively on serious drug traffickers. Third, we need to provide serious help for drug abusers within the justice system. Even if we reduce the number of small-scale drug offenders we jail, large numbers of drug abusers will still pass through the criminal-justice system, both for serious drug offenses and for nondrug crimes. Despite increased awareness of the drug epidemic, most drug-abusing inmates receive no help for their problems, and for the minority who do, the help is minimal or inappropriate. Since the justice system is flooded with offenders whose main crime is drug abuse, we need to develop a comprehensive program, with firm supervision and guidance, which are necessary to make drug abusers make changes in their lives that could move them away from drugs and the drug culture. This would not be just drug treatment, but also help with problems that underlie drug use in the first place like jobs, housing, or family crisis. Serious drug help is not cheap, but it is cheaper than putting people in prison over and over again. There is no magic bullet for addicted prisoners. The time inside the prison, however, does offer an opportunity to make a difference and 87

STUDENT PERSPECTIVE

also during the difficult period of adjustment after prison release. Fourth, we need to shift lawenforcement priorities toward community safety. What drug-ridden communities need is help in protecting their residents from victimization by drug dealing and the crime and violence of drug culture. Along with the expansion of community policing, we need a commitment to helping communities provide their own civilian patrols, which can improve a community’s sense of security and reduce open drug trafficking and drug-related crime. Sadly the drug epidemic grinds on. In response, some argue that drugs should be seen as a medical problem, and the remedy is treatment on demand. Some people assume that if there are enough slots for all the addicted, the drug epidemic would be eliminated or at least manageable. But this is false. We do need more and better treatment, but treatment is not a cure-all. There is no shot that can wipe out drug addiction or its epidemic. But how can we improve treatment? First, we need to take treatment seriously. Treatment will only work well if it is adequately funded and delivered by staff with skills and commitment. Treatment programs must have rigorous standards because the range and quality of treatment programs are enormous. Second, treatment must be user friendly. Negative attitudes toward drug addicts account for a reluctance of many users. However, user friendly does not mean permissive. Supervision is crucial in helping people stay off drugs. Userfriendly treatment also means that programs must fit the culture of the people needing help. Third, aftercare must be made a priority. Most addicts relapse—often repeatedly—after they leave treatment. Therefore, a means of working with clients after they leave treatment is critical. An investment in maintaining the

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

gains made in treatment is more costeffective than repeatedly retreating addicts. Fourth, treatment must be linked to work. Successful treatment is linked to a stable job. Treatment programs need to support people for productive work, which will result in reductions in welfare dependency, crime, and drug use. The gap between what drug abusers need and what conventional treatment typically offers is wide. The treatment programs we now have are too often disconnected from the realities of addicts’ lives, and sometimes so alienating that many who need help avoid it. Tragically, that is especially true for adolescents. Although the need is clear and urgent, the response has been weak. Most illicit drug use starts in adolescence, and it is better to intervene early than to wait for adolescents to become seriously addicted adults and then try to treat them. Yet, for the most part that is what we do. Few adolescents seek treatment at all. Therefore, there is an urgent need to reach young drug abusers early. A prevention strategy for adolescent drug use cannot focus on drugs alone. Drug problems must be addressed as part of a program for improving health and welfare. One way to accomplish these goals would be through a network of public, community-based health clinics. The clinic would offer comprehensive health care along with confidential advice on everything from drugs to family problems. Although such programs are not cheap, initial investments are likely to save money as well as lives. Dealing with America’s drug epidemic means attacking the conditions that breed it. Healthy societies are not overwhelmed by drugs. Societies overwhelmed by drugs have other serious problems: poverty, inequalities, violence, infant mortality, and disease. It is not accidental that the United States has both the developed world’s worst

drug problem and its worst violence, poverty, and social exclusion. There is much to be done by way of more comprehensive and accessible drug-treatment programs, better-targeted prevention programs, and a better use of the criminal-justice system. These efforts will be frustrated, however, if people go back to the same conditions that encourage their drug use in the first place. This task will be long term and enormously challenging, but we must do it. We have the opportunity to relieve human misery that lies at the heart of the drug epidemic. We have been trying the alternatives for 50 years—moral exhortation, neglect, punishment, and treatment. We have tried everything but improving lives. Abigail Hande is a student at Highview Christian Academy in Charleston, where she participates in math team and drama. She will be attending the University of Valley Forge in Pennsylvania, majoring in elementary education with a minor in special education.

STUDENT PERSPECTIVE

TF hi ri rs dt - P l a c e E s s a y

Knowledge Is Power: Preventing Drug Use through Education by Sigrid Sibley

ach year, more Americans die from drug overdose than car accidents. In Maine alone, 208 people died of overdoses in 2014, while 131 died in car accidents (Diomede 2015). According to an article by Joe Lawlor (Portland Press Herald, March 6, 2017), in 2016, the number of overdose deaths rose to 378, compared to 160 vehicle deaths. Heroin is currently the most dangerous narcotic in the United States, but the misuse of synthetic opioids is growing exponentially. It’s not just adults who are being affected by drug use, often children become victims of their parent’s drug habits. Many babies exposed to drugs in the womb, both pharmaceutical and illicit, suffer from neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), which is “a result of the sudden disconnection of fetal exposure to substances that were used or abused by the mother during pregnancy” (Kocherlakota 2014). Symptoms of NAS typically occur 48 to 72 hours after birth and include seizures, hyperactive reflexes, excessive crying, vomiting, dehydration, and fever. Infants suffering from NAS are hospitalized for an average of 23 days after birth to receive pharmacologic treatment. On average, hospitalization and treatment costs $93,400 per infant (Barfield 2016). MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

NAS is especially prevalent in Maine. The Portland Press Herald (December 6, 2016) reported that 30.4 out of every 1,000 babies born in Maine hospitals in 2012 suffered from NAS, the second highest rate in the nation. Since President Nixon declared a war on drugs in 1971, several tactics have been used to reduce drug use in America, most focusing on eradicating the illegal drug trade. The Drug Enforcement Administration was founded in 1973 to control drug production, distribution, and trafficking, but the agency mostly focused on fighting international drug smugglers. While reducing access to drugs is helpful, it is not 100 percent effective in reducing drug use because people still make their own drugs or abuse prescription drugs. In 2014, 89 percent of overdose deaths in Maine were caused by abuse of legal pharmaceutical drugs (Diomede 2015). Instead of focusing on reducing the drug trade, there should be more effective drug-use-prevention programs. After all, there is no way to eradicate all forms of drug trade and production. It is more important that people know how to resist drug use if they encounter drugs. Unfortunately, most educational prevention programs have not been

effective. One of the most famous and widely used prevention programs is DARE. The DARE program sent police officers into schools to discuss the danger of drug use and the benefits of a substance-free life with students. A study by Lynam et al. (1999) looked at 1,004 20-year-olds who had received either DARE or a standard drug-prevention unit in sixth grade. The students who received DARE did not have different attitudes toward drugs and were not less likely to use drugs than the students who did not receive DARE. There are several theories on why DARE was not effective. First, the program typically only lasted a few months. It also consisted of police officers or other adults speaking to children, rather than encouraging peer interaction or discussion. The “Just Say No” campaign, launched by First Lady Nancy Reagan in 1986, has also been criticized for being ineffective. Critics claim the campaign’s failure is due to oversimplification of a complex issue. The program does not teach the social skills or resistance tactics needed to say no to drugs. While most efforts to curb drug use in the United States have failed, antitobacco campaigns have been more successful. In March 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) launched Tips from Former Smokers, which uses the stories of former smokers to motivate current users to quit and to prevent people from experimenting with cigarettes in the first place. The Tips campaign has motivated 500,000 people to quit tobacco, and the successful features of the campaign could be applied to a national drug-education campaign. Much of the success is due to the use of media, the diversity of their campaign, and a supportive partners program. The program also supports a diverse audience: the free helpline (1-800QUIT-NOW) is available in 89

STUDENT PERSPECTIVE

English, Spanish, and several Asian languages. The motivating stories on the Tips website are categorized by disease as well as demographic subgroups. This makes it easier for readers to find people with similar experiences and conditions. Most importantly, the Tips campaign works to engage the community so that tobacco users have support when they are trying to quit. There are some obvious differences between tobacco use and drug use. First of all, tobacco is legal. Tobacco users can call the CDC’s help line or reach out for support within their communities without fear of legal consequences. While drugs should not be legalized and society should not normalize drug abuse, there should be a support system in place to give drug users a chance to recover without being immediately punished, especially if they have not committed any other crimes. People who are struggling with, or at risk for, drug addiction should have the opportunity to improve their lives, whether it is a help line, accessible educational resources, or an outreach program. The outreach program of a national drug-education campaign would focus on educating both doctors and patients about the dangers of prescription pain medication, which is often a gateway to addiction. Through advertisements and public service announcements on a variety of media platforms including television and social media, the campaign would work to raise awareness of the dangers of using high-risk pain treatment such as opioids. The campaign would also work to educate both doctors and patients about low-risk alternatives for treating chronic pain such as physical therapy, meditation, and exercise. The campaign would also highlight the importance of storing pharmaceutical drugs in a safe space with restricted access. Many people become addicted to prescription drugs that were not MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

prescribed to them. In 2012, 21 percent of Americans who abused prescription drugs were originally prescribed the medication by their doctor, while 64 percent of abusers obtained the medication from a friend or relative, not a doctor (Diomede 2015). In addition to educating doctors and patients about prescription drugs, the campaign would focus on teaching doctors to recognize and treat mental illness, which is often an underlying cause of drug addiction. People who struggle with mental illnesses are far more likely to abuse drugs. In America, 12- to 17-year-olds who have had a major depressive episode in the past year are twice as likely to use illicit drugs. In 2014, six out of ten adults treated for addiction had a previously diagnosed mental illness (Diomede 2015). The outreach program would collaborate with schools to create long-term prevention programs that allow students to develop skills needed to resist peer pressure and make informed decisions regarding drug use. The prevention programs would last several years so the skills are revisited and reinforced. The program would encourage student discussion and interaction. Simply lecturing will not teach students to avoid drugs; students need to be able think for themselves and create a personal plan to prevent drug use. Overall, the Tips campaign has cost $48 million. A national drug-education campaign would cost at least as much. Many taxpayers may find it difficult to justify the high price of such a campaign, but $48 million is only a fraction of what illicit drugs cost the United States annually. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (https://www.drugabuse .gov/related-topics), the combination of crime, lost work productivity, and healthcare costs due to drug use is estimated at $193 billion per year. These are only monetary estimates. The heartache

and pain caused by drug abuse and overdose within our communities is immeasurable. A national drug-education campaign would help end the lethal drug epidemic and prevent more Americans from misusing both illicit and pharmaceutical drugs. It would also prevent families from losing a loved one. REFERENCES Barfield, Wanda. 2016. The Problem of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Washington, DC. https:// www.cdc.gov/cdcgrandrounds/pdf /archives/2016/august2016.pdf Diomede, Tim. 2015. SEOW Special Report: Heroin, Opioids, and Other Drugs in Maine. Maine Department of Health and Human Resources, Augusta. Kocherlakota, Prabhakar. 2014. “Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome.” Encyclopedia of Psychopharmacology, ed. Ian Stolerman, 547-561. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Lynam, Donald R., Richard Milich, Rick Zimmerman, Scott P. Novak, T.K. Logan, Catherine Martin, Carl Leukefeld, and Richard Clayton. 1999. “Project DARE: No Effects at 10-Year Follow-Up.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 67(4): 590–593.

Sigrid Sibley of Poland Regional High School is a member of the National Honor Society and served in the chorus for all four years of school, who will be studying music education at the University of Southern Maine this fall. She is a member of the school band and a madrigal acapella ensemble. She played soccer and was a counselor at a summer music camp in Yarmouth.

THE UPCOMING FOCUS ON CITIZEN SCIENCE

R E F L E C T I O N S

Why Doesn’t Science Get Used? The Upcoming Focus on Citizen Science by Linda Silka

t Maine Policy Review, we focus on publishing research that makes a difference for Maine, particularly looking for research that has the greatest potential to affect policy. To meet this mission, the next issue of Maine Policy Review will examine citizen science and how it helps to solve problems in Maine. So, my column for this issue is intended to start you thinking about how you might bring your expertise and skills to Maine’s growing leadership in citizen science work. What is citizen science and why should the people of Maine care about it? In citizen science, scientists are not working in isolation to decide what to study or how it should be studied; instead, they are working hand-in-hand with citizens. Scientists and fishermen work together to assess whether fish populations are declining. Homeowners and scientists join forces to investigate arsenic levels in wells. Scientists and farmers study changes in soil conditions that may affect productivity. Scientists and beekeepers study bee colony collapse, which is affecting the pollination of some of Maine’s most important crops. Scientists and Native American basket makers come together to study the emerald ash borer and how this pest could affect the trees of greatest importance to basket makers. Citizen science is where scientists and citizens and policymakers come together to use scientific approaches to study problems of common concern. Having an impact on policy is important, but policy impacts do not happen simply because scientists have studied an issue. Citizen science can be crucial to developing policy that is

MAINE POLICY REVIEW

•

Vol. 26, No. 1

•

2017

grounded in shared understanding. Consider vernal pools. The seemingly odd term vernal pools refers to seasonal pools of water: they exist for a short time in the spring and then dry up until the following year. They are tucked away in many places in Maine, sometimes on private land or land we might want to develop. Why should we worry about small pools that exist only seasonally? It turns out that these ephemeral pools and the lands around them play an unexpectedly outsized role in Maine’s web of plants and animals. Vernal pools are where the young of certain amphibian species are born and from which they make their way across nearby land to where they will live as adults. Eliminating vernal pools will have broad and unexpected impacts on Maine’s environment. Scientists working alone can study this as an abstract issue, but the question then is, Who cares? In contrast, when citizen become involved it can lead to policies that take into account real life, real conditions, real issues, and real promise. Citizen science has brought together scientists, citizens, and policymakers to figure out what kinds of land-use policies might maintain vernal pools while not discouraging development. Citizen science moves away from the scientists finishing their research and then pronouncing what should be done; citizen science instead can lead to a shared understanding of what can be done. As a field, citizen science is taking off, leading to an outpouring of books. As a starter, I encourage you to look at The Rightful Place of Science: Citizen Science by Darlene Cavalier and Eric B.

Kennedy. This short edited book (part of a series on new developments in science published out by Arizona State) is accessible, interesting, and timely. Among its many informative chapters is a chapter on policy, which talks about how we need to go back to some of our roots if science is going to make a difference. What does returning to our old roots mean? Well, if we look back in time, it turns out that most science was actually done by citizens and not by those who had gone to school to earn the official title of “scientist.” Moreover, Maine was a leader in scientific work advanced by citizens. Acadia National Park, for example, holds extensive scientific collections, largely the result of citizen naturalists collecting and recording data about the flora and fauna in the region. So citizen science has a long history to build, but at the same time, there is much that is new that makes citizen science even more viable today. In this year’s second issue of MPR, we will see that the availability of apps, cell phones, and computers are making it easier for all of us to systematically collect data that will answer the questions we have and make our lives—individually and collectively—better. We hope, after reading the next issue, you will become a part of this work. Linda Silka is the executive editor of Maine Policy Review. A social and community psychologist by training, Silka was formerly director of the University of Maine’s Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center. In addition to her role with MPR, she is a senior fellow at UMaine’s Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions. 91

5784 York Complex, Bldg. #4 Orono, ME 04469-5784

Maine Policy Review