1. Family Forests and Carbon Markets – Developing the Maine Family Forest Carbon Pilot Project
John Gunn, Ph.D.
Senior Program Leader
Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences
Brunswick, Maine
ACES - 10 December 2008
9/16/2018

2. 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
9/16/2018

3. Maine Family Forest Carbon Pilot Project
USDA NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant
Partnership with TCNF and Pinchot Institute for Conservation
Still a work in progress
9/16/2018

4. 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
9/16/2018

5. WHAT ROLE WILL FAMILY FORESTS PLAY IN FOREST CARBON OFFSET MARKETS AND GHG MITIGATION?
9/16/2018

6. 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)
9/16/2018

7. How forests play a role in markets
Afforestation
Avoided deforestation or conversion
Reforestation/restoration
Forest management
Enduring wood products/product substitution
9/16/2018

8. 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.
Common elements of most carbon market opportunities.
9/16/2018

9. The Language of Ecosystem Services
Baselines
Additionality
Permanence
Leakage
9/16/2018

10. Baselines Additionality Permanence Leakage
Uncertainty around these concepts will define available ES markets (voluntary vs. regulatory)
Baselines
Additionality
Permanence
Leakage
9/16/2018

11. Basic Elements of the Major Forest Carbon Offset Standards
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
Perm. Easement
RGGI Proposed
FIA mean
> FIA mean
99 years
9/16/2018

12. Can a credible and efficient framework be developed for the inclusion of FF owners in carbon offset markets?
9/16/2018

13. 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
9/16/2018

14. 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)
9/16/2018

15. 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 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)
9/16/2018

16. 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
9/16/2018

17. Forest Management Model Treatments
Run
Treatment Label
Description
Baseline B
Natural Stand Development
Run1
H40BA
Heavy Harvest, 40 ft2 BA residual, return 35 years
Run2
H50BA
Heavy Harvest, 50 ft2 BA residual, return 35 years
Run3
H60BA
Heavy Harvest, 60 ft2 BA residual, return 35 years
Run4
Q70BA
Quality Harvest, 70 ft2 BA residual, return 15 years
Run5
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
9/16/2018

18. 9/16/2018

19. 9/16/2018

20. 9/16/2018

21. Hypothetical Landowner Revenue
Stand Type
Landowner H Acreage
Eligible MTCO2e/ac/yr
$/year ($5/t)
10 Year Total Revenue
M3B 15
0.00 $ $
M2B 30
3.11 $
$ 4,665.00
M2A 23
3.33 $
$ 3,829.50
H2A 78
3.35
$ 1,306.50
$ 13,065.00
H3B 17
0.43 $ $
H1A 32 $ $
TOTALS
195
$ 2,192.50
$ 21,925.00
$/ac/yr = $
NOTE: 1 Metric Ton (MT) of Biomass = 0.5 MT Carbon =3.667 MTCO2 equivalent (MTCO2e)
9/16/2018

22. Potential revenue comparison for a hypothetical group based on Maine BAU Pilot Project approach vs. CCX high estimate (no harvest).
Scenario
Annual Eligible Carbon (MTCO2e/year)
Mean MTCO2e/acre
Potential Group Annual Revenue
Potential Per Acre Revenue
Maine BAU Performance Standard
10,246
2.98
$51,230 ($5/MT)
$14.92
CCX (Natural Stand Development only)
7,829
2.28
$14,483 ($1.85/MT, Oct CCX price)
$4.22
9/16/2018

23. Transaction Costs Transaction Cost Cost per Acre Description Inventory
$6.86
Timber inventory, stand typing, coarse woody material transects
Management Planning
$11.33
Management plan that meets the Be WoodsWISE requirements, including basic GIS data layers
Subtotal Planning and Inventory
$18.19
Cost-share would cover up to $12/acre
Growth Models
$4.71
NED-2 growth models and harvest simulations
Legal Expenses
$1.43
Research and contract drafting
Total
$24.33/acre
Note Other remaining costs:
Group Certification Administration; Verification ($12,321 total VCS + FSC); Long-term Monitoring
9/16/2018

24. 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
9/16/2018

25. 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
9/16/2018

26. 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
9/16/2018

27. 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
9/16/2018