1. Panel Overview: Insights from Policy & Project-Level Research
Ken Andrasko
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Forestry & Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Modeling Forum 2
Shepardstown, WV, 10/8-11/02

2. How Can Policy & Project-Level Analysis Inform National-Level Modeling?
Much of policy debate focused on sinks project-level technical issues: internationally & domestically.
Technical issues important at national level, especially in voluntary programs:
baseline setting, additionality, leakage, duration of GHG benefits, monitoring.
National programs essentially scale-up farm- or landowner-level activities.
Bundling of heterogeneous land parcels & transaction costs:
determine how much of biophysical potential is economic & can be mobilized.

3. Technical Issues like Additionality, Duration, Transaction Costs of Bundling Will Determine Sequestration Achievable Nationally
Economic
Potential
Biophysical
Potential
Market or Achievable
Potential ?? ??
Cost of carbon ($/t C)
Market Failures & Barriers:
Examples:
- Bundling costs
- Monitoring costs
- Low payments/acre
- Absence of markets
Issues: Examples
- Baseline chosen
- GHG leakage
- Duration of benefits
Carbon sequestered or emissions avoided (t C)
Source: derived from Sathaye, Makundi, Andrasko et al, 2001

4. Overview of Panel
2 talks: soil C measurement & monitoring costs and methods: Sian Mooney & Tris West
Find measurement costs small, & degree of heterogeneity important.
Suggest C management response curves.
Find duration of GHG benefits varies by practice and GHG source or pool, & is critical to quantifying net GHG benefits.
Hall & Lempriere identify issues re developing offset trading market in Canada.
Murray: national dataset (NRI) vs econometric model for setting afforestation baseline in case study in Mississippi bottomlands.
Discussant: John Horowitz, U of MD.