Extending rotation age for carbon sequestration: A cross-protocol comparison of North American forest offsets

Through carbon offset programs, forest owners can be offered financial incentives to enhance the uptake and storage of carbon on their lands. The amount of carbon that can be claimed by an individual landowner will ultimately depend on multiple factors, including the productivity of the forest, the management history of the stand, and the program in which the landowner is participating. This project presents a modeling framework for forest carbon accounting which is driven by forest yield curves and carbon pool partitioning. Within this model the amount of creditable carbon generated from adjusting the rotation age of multiple forest stands can be estimated for 46 distinct North American forest types. The model also provides a comparison of total creditable carbon generated under three carbon accounting methodologies: the Department of Energy 1605b Registry, the Chicago Climate Exchange, and the Voluntary Carbon Standard. In our evaluation of a 5-year rotation extension across 102 unique modeling scenarios, we find large differences among the carbon accounting schemes. This has implications for both forest landowners and policymakers alike. In particular, methodologies to account for such issues as leakage, permanence, additionality, and baseline establishment, while potentially increasing the overall legitimacy of any forest carbon offset program, can reduce creditable carbon to the forest owner (by up to 70%). Regardless of the protocol used, we also note strong regional differences, with Pacific Northwest forests of fir, spruce, hemlock, alder and maple being the most effective at sequestering carbon on a per area basis.     

A comparison of carbon assessment methods for optimizing timber production and carbon sequestration in Scots pine stands

Projected changes in forest carbon stocks and carbon balance differ according to the choice of estimation methods and the carbon pools considered. Here, we compared three carbon assessment methods for optimizing timber production and carbon sequestration in six example Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stands in Finland. The forest carbon stock was assessed, with three methods: stem carbon, biomass expansion factors (BEFs), and a process-based model. Given a carbon price of 40 € t⁻¹ (equivalent to 10.9 € t⁻¹ CO₂) and a 3% discount rate, the highest average carbon stock and mean annual increment (MAI) were obtained with the BEF method. Increasing the carbon price from 0 to 200 € t⁻¹ resulted in longer optimal rotations and higher MAI, and increased the average carbon stock, especially when carbon was assessed by the BEF method. Comparison of these carbon assessment methods, using economic sensitivity analyses, indicated that optimal thinning regimes and average carbon stocks are strongly dependent on the assessment method. The process-based method led to less frequent thinnings and shorter rotations than the BEF method, due to different predictions of biomass production. As a cost-effective option, optimal thinning regimes play a very important role in timber production and carbon sequestration.     

Diverging incentives for afforestation from carbon sequestration: an economic analysis of the EU afforestation program in the south of Italy

This study analyses the change in faustmannian age considering the social benefits due to carbon sequestration under the Regulation 2080/92, the subsidies provided by the afforestation program and investigates, from the social point of view, the profitability of afforesting agricultural land. The analysis refers to Calabria, a region situated in the south of Italy. Representative species are chosen for this study. The optimal harvesting age excluding social benefits varies between 32 and 40 years according to the species considered. When including social benefits, optimal harvesting age increases for a carbon price of 20 €/t to 34–44 years and is close to the one excluding them. The inclusion of subsidies to encourage afforestation shortens the optimal harvesting age to 17–20 years from the forest owner's point of view. Interestingly the provision of subsidies contributes to a substantial increase in social loss due to the differences in optimal harvesting ages: starting from zero C price the loss vary between 65 and 165 €/ha according to the species used and increases with rising carbon prices up to 200–400 €/ha for carbon price of 100 €/t. Furthermore, results suggest that from the social point of view the profitability of afforesting agricultural land in the study region very much depends on the price of carbon, on the type of agricultural land afforested and on the species used.     

Farming carbon: an economic analysis of agroforestry for carbon sequestration and dryland salinity reduction in Western Australia

The widespread removal of native trees from the agricultural zone and replacement with annual crops and pastures is a major cause of dryland salinity in Australia. It has been recognised that a large proportion of the landscape needs to be replanted to trees to prevent further salinisation. However, for much of the agricultural zone, agroforestry is not an option due to lack of species that can viably generate the products currently demanded by the market. The emerging carbon market may provide a new agroforestry option for landholders, through carbon sequestration. This analysis assesses the viability of growing trees for the purpose of selling carbon credits, from a landholder’s perspective. Benefits of trees in preventing the onset of dryland salinity are accounted for. Two regions in Western Australia; a low rainfall (330 mm/year) region and a medium rainfall (550 mm/year) region, are analysed. At the expected carbon price of A$15/tCO₂-e, growing trees for carbon is not a viable alternative for landholders in the low rainfall region, due to low sequestration rates. In the medium rainfall region, growing trees for carbon and timber is a viable alternative; however the opportunity costs of land mean the carbon price would still need to be higher than expected for growers to choose this alternative. Accounting for the salinity prevention benefits makes growing trees a more attractive investment for landholders in both regions. However in both regions, even after accounting for salinity benefits, the price of carbon would need to be A$25–A$46/tCO₂-e higher than expected to make growing trees a worthwhile investment.