• Who We Are
    • The Climate Trust
    • Climate Trust Capital
    • Achievements
    • Leadership And Board Of Directors
  • What We Do
    • Action
    • Impact
    • Case Studies
  • Financials
  • Media
    • Blog
    • News & Press
The Climate Trust | Addressing Criticism of Improved Forest Management Carbon Projects

Addressing Criticism of Improved Forest Management Carbon Projects

Forestry, Scorcher

Over the last few years, there have been a series of articles criticizing forest carbon offset projects. Specifically, they have criticized a limited set of Improved Forest Management (IFM) projects as not actually providing the emissions reduction benefits that were claimed. In a nutshell, the assertion is that many credits have been generated and sold that do not represent a real change of behavior, i.e. companies are paying for carbon that is and would have been sequestered anyway.

We have addressed some of the core misconceptions around this in several previous posts (linked below), but I wanted to specifically address some inaccuracies that have surfaced recently.

First, forest and other carbon projects are not actually trying to measure change of behavior as individual behavior is difficult if not impossible to predict. A forest that from an organizational or economic perspective may seem secure today may be cut tomorrow if and when conditions change. Past behavior and good intentions do not guarantee additional carbon sequestration and storage into the future. By entering a forest carbon contract, forest landowners commit to managing for carbon stocks beyond their regulatory obligations and financial incentives. This is important as land changes hands, organizations and landowners experience financial difficulties, harvesting technology improves, and timber prices generally go up over time. Forest carbon stocks are not truly protected unless there are legal constraints on harvesting that transfer with the property. That is what forest carbon projects provide.

Second, timber that is currently unmerchantable or inaccessible should not be sold as carbon credits. Carbon project developers operating under scientifically peer-reviewed registry protocols must extensively document that the timber and carbon being preserved and sold as carbon credits is in fact merchantable and that local demand and milling capacity exist to process it. Extensive and painstaking research and analysis goes into building project-specific baselines that outline the most realistic and economically optimal forest management strategy for each landowner and forest. Any existing constraints on timber harvesting, be they organizational mission, state forest practices act, or legal easements, must be considered. Beyond this, we interview local foresters, review practices on similar forestlands and analyze aerial imagery to ensure that baseline scenarios are in line with common regional practices. All of this is then reviewed and scrutinized by an objective third-party auditor. Any assertion that these factors aren’t considered is inaccurate.

Third, current voluntary and compliance market registry approved protocols do not allow the sale of carbon that is already legally protected. Any existing legal constraints on timber harvesting, be they organizational, state forest practice laws, or property restrictions (i.e. conservation easements), must be accounted for. If a pre-existing conservation easement truly prohibits timber harvesting (very few do) then that land is not eligible to generate carbon offsets. Again, any assertion to the contrary is completely inaccurate. 

Many of the market improvements that recent articles seem to be advocating for are already incorporated in existing protocols that are regularly updated to integrate the latest scientific understanding and improve accuracy and rigor. The American Carbon Registry is in the process of updating their voluntary IFM protocol. I would invite anyone who thinks these projects lack vigor to read it and/or the California Air Resource Board’s IFM protocol. (Linked below)

Forest carbon projects legally protect and increase forest carbon stores for between 40 and 100 years depending on the registry. The coming century promises to be full of challenges associated with climate change. Protecting these carbon forests will be critical to mitigating climate change and building community resilience by providing a myriad of co-benefits in addition to carbon sequestration such as heat mitigation, wildlife habitat, and clean water.

As one of the oldest carbon market entities in the U.S. we invite good faith debate and discussions that help ensure offset projects are having their intended climatic effect. Good faith debate starts with good information.

News + Resources

Previous Blog Posts on Additionality and Carbon Accounting
https://climatetrust.org/the-role-of-economic-motivation-in-forest-carbon-accounting/
https://climatetrust.org/baselines-and-additionality-in-forest-carbon-projects/
https://climatetrust.org/objective-economic-additionality-v-subjective-behavior-predictions/

ACR IFM Protocol: https://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/standards-methodologies/improved-forest-management-ifm-methodology-for-non-federal-u-s-forestlands

CARB IFM Protocol: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/protocols/usforest/forestprotocol2015.pdf

Tags
Adaptation
Aggregation
American Carbon Registry
Biochar
Blue Carbon
C-AGG
California Air Resources Board
California Carbon Info
Cap and Invest
carbon offset standards
Carbon Pricing
Carbon-Pulse
Clean Power Plan
Climate Action Reserve
Climate Bonds
Conservation Finance Network
Corporate Social Responsibility
CORSIA
Culture
Dairy Digester
Ecosystem Marketplace
Edible Portland
Energy Central
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Justice
EPAF
Farm Power Northwest
GreenBiz
IPCC
Job Announcement
Leadership
Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Milestone
Oregon Carbon Dioxide Standard
Oregon Clean Fuels Program
Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council
Oregon Global Warming Commission
Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy
Paris
Portland General Electric
REDD
Renewable Fuel Standard
Renewable Identification Numbers
Request For Proposal
RGGI
Rice
Risk Management
Scientific American
Social Cost of Carbon
Supply Chain
Sustainable Business Oregon
Triple Pundit
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Verified Carbon Standard
Western Climate Initiative
Recent Comments
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
Proud Member Partners in Diversity
  • DONATE
  • CAREERS
  • CONTACT

©2020 The Climate Trust. Crafted by ILLUSIO