John Gunn, Ph.D.
Senior Program Leader
Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences
Brunswick, Maine
ACES - 10 December 2008
7/25/2016
1
Outline
 Overview of forest carbon offset market
requirements applicable to family forest lands
 Exploration of how family forest landowners in
Maine could take advantage of carbon markets
 With focus on application of Baseline
Measurement and Additionality concept to FF
lands
7/25/2016
2
Maine Family Forest Carbon Pilot
Project
 USDA NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant
 Partnership with TCNF and Pinchot Institute for
Conservation
 Still a work in progress
7/25/2016
3
Maine’s Family Forests
 100,000 landowners who own between 10 and 1,000
acres of forest land
 5.5 million acres, or 33% of Maine's forest (55% in
Northern US)
 40% of wood used in Maine's forest products
industries
 24% of harvests with a forester (implies some form of
management planning) – Northern US – only 4%
with a management plan
7/25/2016
4
WHAT ROLE WILL FAMILY
FORESTS PLAY IN FOREST
CARBON OFFSET MARKETS
AND GHG MITIGATION?
7/25/2016
5
The current carbon offset market
landscape …
 Markets & Registries becoming established
(Regulatory and Voluntary - >$64 billion in 2007)
 Standards, Protocols, & Rules developing
 Primary Pathways Relevant to North American forest
owners:
 Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX)
 California Climate Action Registry (CCAR)
 Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS)
 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
7/25/2016
6
How forests play a role in markets
 Afforestation
 Avoided deforestation or conversion
 Reforestation/restoration
 Forest management
 Enduring wood products/product
substitution
7/25/2016
7
Forests and Carbon –
Market Entry Requirements Emerging:
 Demonstrate that entity-wide forest holdings are
sustainably managed.
 Demonstrate long-term commitment to maintain
carbon stocks.
 Use of approved methods to quantify carbon
stocks.
 Independent third-party verification of carbon
stocks.
7/25/2016
8
The Language of Ecosystem Services
Baselines
Additionality
Permanence
Leakage
7/25/2016
9
Uncertainty around these concepts will
define available ES markets (voluntary
vs. regulatory)
Baselines
Additionality
Permanence
Leakage
7/25/2016
10
Basic Elements of the Major Forest Carbon
Offset Standards
Standard
Baseline
Additionality
Permanence
CCX
Base Year
=Net Growth – Harvest
15 years
VCS
5-10 Years Prior
Inventory and
Practices
Practices
“forever” w/
risk assessed
CCAR
Regulatory BAU
Practices
Perm.
Easement
RGGI Proposed
FIA mean
> FIA mean
99 years
7/25/2016
11
Can a credible and efficient
framework be developed for
the inclusion of FF owners in
carbon offset markets?
7/25/2016
12
Issues with developing a FF Carbon
Program
 Existing systems not appropriate:
 CCX – serious concerns about legitimacy
(additionality and permanence)
 VCS – currently requires 5-10 years prior
baseline data & harvest history; disincentive to
those practicing responsible management
7/25/2016
13
Issues with developing a FF Carbon
Program
 < 25% with rigorous inventory & mgmt plans
 Wide range of stand types and dev. stages
 High $/acre costs to achieve baseline inventory,
monitoring, and legal compliance
 Defining appropriate baseline
 Defining additional carbon practically &
credibly (use CCAR as model)
7/25/2016
14
FF Project Baseline and Additionality
 Baseline Inventory
 13 parcels in pool, 3,465 acres (12 to 615 acre parcels)
 Baseline aboveground inventory conducted (to
WoodsWise cost share statistical requirements – typical
prism cruise e.g., 1 sample pt. per 3 acres @ 10BAF)
 CWD transects
 Models to Calculate Additionality (eligible carbon)
 Use widely available NED-2 (NE-TWIGS, which is an
approved growth model for use on CCX projects)
7/25/2016
15
Defining BAU: Silvicultural Activities 2006
 Regulatory baseline is not BAU in Maine
 76% of all FF harvests were “partial harvests” (83%
under 1,000 acres)
 Partial harvest is the BAU for FF - Can we define the
typical “Partial Harvest”?
 Unfortunately, FIA and MFS Silv Activities Reports do
not support a rigorous definition of “typical” BAU
7/25/2016
16
Forest Management Model Treatments
Run
Treatment Label
Description
Baseline
B
Natural Stand Development
H40BA
Heavy Harvest, 40 ft2 BA residual, return
35 years
H50BA
Heavy Harvest, 50 ft2 BA residual, return
35 years
H60BA
Heavy Harvest, 60 ft2 BA residual, return
35 years
Q70BA
Quality Harvest, 70 ft2 BA residual, return
15 years
Q75BA
Quality Harvest, 75 ft2 BA residual, return
15 years
Run6
Q100BA
Quality Harvest, 100 ft2 BA residual,
return 15 years
Run7
Clear Cut
Clearcut Year 1, return 45 years
Run1
Run2
Run3
Run4
Run5
7/25/2016
17
Figure 3. No Management Option, M3B Stand Type, Landowner H. Aboveground biomass (MT/ha) and
Treatment Type
140
120
A
b
o
v 100
e
g
r
o 80
u
n
d
60
B
i
o
40
m
a
s
s
20
0
2008
2009
2018
2024
2028
2038
2039
2044
2048
2054
2058
Year
B
7/25/2016
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
18
Figure 4. Aboveground Biomass (MT/ha) By Treatment Type (Run) - H2B Stand, Landowner A
200
180
A
B
O
V
E
G
R
O
U
N
D
B
I
O
M
A
S
S
Additional Carbon =
Natural Development Heavy Harvest Scenario
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2008
2009
2018
2024
2028
2038
2039
2044
2048
2054
2058
YEAR
B
7/25/2016
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
19
Figure 5. Eligible aboveground biomass (MT/ha) under Q75BA Minus H50BA harvest scenario for H2A
Stand, Landowner D.
300
Eligible
Carbon
A
b 250
o
v
e
g 200
r
o
u
n 150
d
B
i 100
o
m
a
50
s
s
0
2008
2009
2018
2024
2028
2038
2039
2044
2048
2054
2058
Year
7/25/2016
B AB POST H2A_D D
R1 AB POST H2A_D D
R2 AB POST H2A_D D
R3 AB POST H2A_D D
R4 AB POST H2A_D D
R5 AB POST H2A_D D
R6 AB POST H2A_D D
R7 AB POST H2A_D D
20
Hypothetical Landowner Revenue
Stand Type
Landowner Eligible
H Acreage MTCO2e/ac/yr
$/year ($5/t)
$
-
10 Year Total
Revenue
M3B
15
0.00
M2B
30
3.11
$
466.50
$ 4,665.00
M2A
23
3.33
$
382.95
$ 3,829.50
H2A
78
3.35
$ 1,306.50
$ 13,065.00
H3B
17
0.43
$
36.55
$
365.50
H1A
32
0.00
$
-
$
-
TOTALS
195
$ 2,192.50
$/ac/yr =
$
$
-
$ 21,925.00
11.24
NOTE: 1 Metric Ton (MT) of Biomass = 0.5 MT Carbon =3.667 MTCO2
7/25/2016
equivalent (MTCO2e)
21
Potential revenue comparison for a hypothetical
group based on Maine BAU Pilot Project approach
vs. CCX high estimate (no harvest).
Scenario
Annual Eligible Mean
Carbon
MTCO2e/acre
(MTCO2e/year)
Maine BAU
Performance
Standard
10,246
CCX (Natural 7,829
Stand
Development
only)
7/25/2016
2.98
2.28
Potential
Group
Annual
Revenue
$51,230
($5/MT)
Potential
Per Acre
Revenue
$14,483
($1.85/MT,
Oct. 2008
CCX price)
$4.22
$14.92
22
Transaction Costs
Transaction Cost
Inventory
Cost per Acre
$6.86
Management Planning
$11.33
Subtotal Planning and
Inventory
Growth Models
$18.19
Legal Expenses
$1.43
Total
$24.33/acre
$4.71
Description
Timber inventory, stand
typing, coarse woody
material transects
Management plan that meets
the Be WoodsWISE
requirements, including basic
GIS data layers
Cost-share would cover up
to $12/acre
NED-2 growth models and
harvest simulations
Research and contract
drafting
 Note Other remaining costs:
 Group Certification Administration; Verification ($12,321 total VCS + FSC); Long-
term Monitoring
7/25/2016
23
FSC Certification and Carbon
 Baseline Inventory, Monitoring, Verification
Required
 Reduce Transaction Costs through
“Aggregation” (=Group Certification)
 Some implication of “Permanence” (mitigate risks)
 Tool to address Internal Leakage
 Document co-benefits (mitigate uncertainty)
 Bottom Line – REQUIRED & PROVIDES
NECESSARY EFFICIENCIES
7/25/2016
24
Some Lessons Learned
 Defining BAU without a strong regulatory
framework will need good data
 Cost-share and certification infrastructure
supports needs for FF carbon offset projects
 Volume achieved through Improved Forest Mgmt
can generate revenue for landowners, but …
 “permanence” and $/MTCO2e are critical decision
points for FF landowners
7/25/2016
25
Next steps

Incorporate carbon-specific forest management
strategies into formal management planning.

Seek formal approval of Performance Standard
approach through VCS

Develop legal structure (50 year recorded
contract)

How do you bring this to large scale?

LCA vs. ecological forestry approach

Address External Leakage
7/25/2016
26
Contact
 John Gunn
jgunn@manomet.org
Acknowledgements:
Will Price, Pinchot Institute
David Saah, Spatial Informatics Group
John Battles, UC Berkeley
Paul Miller, Consulting Forester
David Ganz, TNC
7/25/2016
27