To Address Climate Change Governments Are Not Just Reducing Emissions but Also Actively

ABSTRACT

To address climate change governments are not just reducing emissions but also actively fostering carbon sinks, especially forests (Binkley, 2002). In the absence of a national program to manage greenhouse gas emissions, states have been exploring voluntary mechanisms. The purpose of this article is twofold: to discuss whether states have developed programs to assist community-oriented forestry initiatives to access carbon markets; and to assess whether these programs address carbon sequestration quality and community oriented forestry criteria.

Background

Global temperatures have been increasing rapidly since the mid-20th century. In its 4th Assessment Report, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded with 90-99% certainty that this observed warming trend is attributable to increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2), the leading greenhouse gas of concern. As there is now broad scientific consensus that this trend in increased global temperatures is linked to human-induced emissions, the current debate regarding climate change now concerns how to best address the problem.

Global warming, or ‘climate disruption’, threatens natural systems by disturbing sensitive ecosystem balances. Climate change also may create significant disruptions to natural-social systems, including agricultural land or managed forests.

Planning for global warming mitigation necessitates management of both ‘sinks’ and ‘sources’. ‘Sources’, as the term implies, are sources of CO2. Industrial, residential, and transportation-related fossil fuel emissions are examples of sources, though natural processes such as volcanic eruptions also contribute to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Some of this CO2 is removed, or sequestered, from the atmosphere by natural ‘sinks’. Sinks include oceans, soils, grasslands, and forests. The United States federal government is just beginning to explore curtailing the country's dependence on fossil fuels and switching to alternative fuels. Because this transition will take time and thus a reduction in anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions will be gradual, it is necessary to better understand how other actors may enhance or increase sinks’ ability to sequester carbon.

Forests are sinks of particular interest because, first, they currently store significant amounts of carbon, and secondly, management can affect the storage capacity of forests. While fires and succession serve as natural influences on forest carbon sequestration, management entails deliberate decision-making on the part of landowners. Sustainable management can enhance carbon storage capacity in ways traditional management techniques cannot, [including longer rotations and removing less slash] (Ruddell et al. 2007; Montagnini and Nair, 2004; Siry et al. 2005). Additionally, forests can produce biofuels, cleaner[ALI1] fuels that could serve to replace fossil fuels in the coming years. Therefore, it is important to investigate possible ways of incentivizing landowners, both private and public, to manage their forests in ways that maximize carbon storage[ALI2].

One means to incentivize forest management for carbon storage is through market mechanisms. These include inventories[ALI3], registries, and markets. Inventories are undertaken by forest landowners to track or calculate carbon stocks and flows. There is no guarantee or inducement to enhance carbon storage, but simply undertaking and publicizing an inventory may influence policy makers or market interests (e.g. Songhen et al., 2005). Registries provide accounting standards for others to calculate and report their carbon budgets (e.g. The Climate Registry, Like inventories, they can facilitate policy making and promote voluntary offset purchases. Carbon markets can be either voluntary, in the absence of regulations, or mandatory, where national legal caps are in place. Currently there are no U.S. caps on greenhouse gas emissions, so all domestic carbon trading markets are voluntary.

Examples of voluntary markets in the U.S. aimed at domestic projects include the Chicago Climate Exchange and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative[ALI4] in the northeast U.S. currently under development. New markets continue to emerge as there are no national or internationally accepted standards or regulations but there is perceived opportunity (Yang, 2006). A factor that has inhibited uniform standards is the complexity of rule-making to manage issues such as permanence of carbon storage in forests, additionality of carbon storage, and leakage (Binkley et al., 2002), where activities affecting carbon storage may consequently occur elsewhere when a given project area enrolls in a carbon market. Foresters may be interested in participating in carbon markets to tap a new source of funding for existing forestry activities and avoid developing forestland, or to tap a source of funding to finance new management activities to sequester carbon (Smith et. al, 2006).

Community oriented forestry projects have several goals, including sustainability of ecosystems, societal benefits, economic viability, and transparency in decision making (Bend Conference; Brendler, 1998, Charnley & Poe; Glassmieir et al). Carbon sequestration is a relatively new goal which may or may not benefit each of the other goals of community oriented forestry (Corbera et. al, 2007; Technology and Sustainable Development Group, 2007). This article discusses whether emerging programs at the state level have addressed the original concerns of community oriented forestry.

Those concerned with developing projects for carbon markets should consider community-oriented forestry projects for two important reasons. First, about 49% of U.S. forestland is under private non-industrial ownership (Smith et al, 2001), with private ownership much more common in the east than in the west (USDA, 2001). Focusing carbon sequestration management solely on national or state forests therefore precludes a significant percentage of forestland, perhaps individually marginal but cumulatively significant. Therefore, it is important for carbon markets to have mechanisms to allow small-scale landowners to participate. Secondly, from the standpoint of long term impacts, investing in management by small-scale forest landowners improves the sustainability of significant acreages of U.S. Forests. Forest sustainability is a crucial aspect of future ecological and social resilience in a rapidly changing climate (Tompkins and Adger, 2004).

There are numerous federal, state, and local forestry assistance programs to encourage private landowners to responsibly manage their land. However, there is a disconnect between existing institutions of sustainable forest management and the ‘new global paradigm’ of climate change. “Past silvicultural research has focused on timber production without complete accounting for effects on the forest carbon cycle, so existing experiments and analyses are inadequate for informing land managers about best management practices for carbon” (Birdsey, Pregitzer, and Lucier, 2006, 1467). Therefore, new forest management programs that focus specifically on carbon sequestration must emerge to fill the policy gap identified and highlighted by the IPCC Fourth Assessment report.

Several states have already designed programs to incentivize landowners to capture and reduce the release of carbon through avoided deforestation, reforestation of previously cleared lands, and the harvesting of woody biomass to use in the production of biofuels. States are the experimental laboratories of these emerging carbon markets[ALI5] where landowners can provide benefits to the wider community, while being rewarded financially for their efforts. Regional initiatives such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), and the Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (MGGRA) are currently in the developmental stage. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change advocates that regional initiatives “can be more efficient than programs at the state level, as they encompass a broader geographic area, eliminate duplication of work, and create more uniform regulatory environments” (PEW, 2008). However, whether based at the state or regional level,] carbon markets function as one of the many services that landowners can consider (Birdsey, Pregitzer, and Lucier, 2006).

In our review of state government action relating to carbon markets and community forestry (broadly defined), we identify several states with programs providing carbon market access to private landowners engaging in a wide range of activities to sequester carbon, and review case studies of the most developed programs. These institutions are constantly evolving and adjusting to changing societal values and global needs. Learning from the successes of the state programs can inform the ongoing development of future carbon sequestration programs.[ALI6] [The remainder of this article summarizes existing state-level programs assisting community forestry projects access carbon markets, and develops a framework for assessing these programs based on the technical criteria for carbon sequestration and the goals of community oriented forestry.] It is our intention to present accessible information to state agencies currently developing programs on what aspects have been successful in state forest sequestration programs elsewhere.

Assessment Framework

In order to provide a meaningful review of state programs to support carbon sequestration in small-scale forests, it was necessary to create a framework for comparison. To this end, we generated an "assessment framework" that incorporates both carbon sequestration and community oriented (COF) forestry goals. It is drawn from existing certification programs, the community-oriented forestry literature, and literature on forest based carbon sequestration. Part 2 of the study, utilizes an "assessment framework" rather than an "evaluation framework" because most state efforts are too young to evaluate with much rigor; the framework does not evaluate the program's success in addressing key concerns, but rather assesses whether or not a program attempts to address them at all.[ALI7]

This framework was utilized to compare between state programs. Additionally, the framework and the literature discussed below was used as guidance for the qualitative discussion of the case studies.

FCC[ALI8] Assessment Framework - Review of Existing Standards

In developing our assessment framework, we reviewed existing carbon market certification standards that have been utilized in various cap-and-trade systems. Carbon offset markets typically exist under compliance schemes or as voluntary programs. Compliance markets are created and policed by mandatory carbon reduction regimes, most notably the Kyoto Protocol. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) are the two project-based mechanisms allowed to be used by registered parties to fulfill their Kyoto targets for lower emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. CDM and JI have also been widely adopted by subsequent environmental certification standards created by conservation and development groups. In particular, our assessment framework was devised on the precedent of the Gold Standard. The Gold Standard is considered the leading authority of credible carbon-market standards, endorsed by 57 non-profit environmental and development organizations worldwide. The Standard is divided into three types of emission reductions projects: the CDM Market, the JI Market, and Voluntary Carbon Market. A project approved for Gold Standard Certification is required to adhere to the additionality tool created by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The project must also offer net-positive benefits to the environment, the socio-economic well-being of local populations, and must be recognized as a renewable energy or energy efficiency project.

There are many other noteworthy carbon standard programs that we consulted but do not list here, as they had similar criteria regarding various ecological and social considerations included in the above standards.

The overall consensus across the standard programs is that registered participants must go beyond “business as usual.” As such, the program must project to, preempt, or compensate for ecological inconsistencies (when feasible) that could otherwise render the goals of the project ineffective, such as leakage. Also, it must consider and account for other ecological components in addition to carbon sequestration, including the security and enhancement of wildlife habitat and resident biodiversity. Finally, a project must not disenfranchise the community in its proximity, or adversely affect it financially. Therefore, most certification processes require a transparent public process that allows active participation within the community. These common themes were incorporated into our framework.

FCC Assessment Framework – Carbon Sequestration

To supplement our review of existing standards, we also identified key criteria from the literature for evaluating carbon sequestration projects. King (2004) described several key criteria to be addressed when assessing the validity of a carbon sequestration program, including additionality, permanence, and leakage. To address additionality, a project must define a baseline that all future levels must exceed. The project specific nature of baseline definition resulted in the development of a variety of methods for determining project baseline (see VCS, Gold Standard, green-E citations). Recognizing the variation in methods, it is critical that comparative evaluations of programs assess methodologies for defining baselines by individual programs, as these methodologies will ultimately be used to calculate the total carbon sequestered by a project. As[ALI9] a result of unintended negative consequences[ALI10] resulting from CDM offset projects, many international programs have identified the importance of regulating leakage throughout the lifespan of a given project (Aukland et al., 2003[ALI11]). High transaction costs associated with carbon offset programs may potentially inhibit the enrollment of small landowners (Skutsch, 2005). Permanence and verification components of programs have been recognized as potential financial hurdles that small landowners must overcome to enroll in carbon offset programs (Ruddle et al., 2007). Current voluntary markets such as the Chicago Climate Exchange require third party certification for the enrollment of forest based carbon offset programs (CCX citation). Mandating the enlistment of enrolled lands in conservation easements in order to ascertain permanence of enrolled lands may also discourage the enrollment of land owners (Ruddle et al., 2007). [ALI12]Masera et al. (2003) found that alternative forest management practices will affect carbon sequestration differently. [These include afforestation and reforestation.][ALI13]

As a result of the above review of the literature, the carbon sequestration component of our assessment framework for state programs reviews theit consideration of baseline measurement, additionality, permanence, leakage, program costs, and allowable management types.

FCC Assessment Framework – Community Forestry Goals.

This study examines state programs that assist small-scale and community oriented forestry (COF) programs to sequester carbon, focusing on the overlap between carbon sequestration programs and COF goals. To that end, we reviewed whether states incorporated COF goals in designing their programs. Charnley and Poe (2007) define three central characteristics of community-based forestry: a degree of management vested in local communities; social and economic benefits for the local community; and ecological health and sustainability. A widely-cited conference in Bend, Oregon (date) echoes these characteristics, but emphasizes the integrated nature of COF, defining the following four goals:

"Stewardship activities that emphasize ecosystem health but clarify and strengthen the links to the social and economic welfare of communities

Empowerment of rural communities through inclusive planning and decision-making processes that actively engage diverse interests, including forest workers and under-represented groups, and promote collaboration by restructuring relationships

Long-term investment in activities that restore and maintain healthy ecosystems and develop lasting stewardship between ecosystem and communities

Monitoring activities that gather and share information in ways that build trust, promote learning and ensure accountability" (ask Sarah?)

The assessment framework presented below incorporates these defining characteristics and goals (as well as other characteristics identified in the COF literature) through five categories: participatory process, accessibility of the program, economic viability, community benefits, and ecological sustainability. The participatory process criteria, for example, address the important element of community empowerment (Bend Conference; Brendler, 1998, Charnley & Poe; Glassmieir et al), assessing whether local communities have a say in decision-making. Accessibility criteria address issues of equity and scale. Scale is particularly important because several foundational papers define COF as small-scale (McDonough et al 1995; Glassmieir; Harrison et al, 2002). Charnley & Poe (2007) note that COF is commonly critiqued for unequal distribution of benefits. The accessibility of programs that support COF may be important for overcoming this critique. The Economic Viability and Community Benefits categories incorporate questions designed to assess the social and economic benefits of community-based forestry (Chanley & Poe, 2007). Economic well-being (Bend Conference; Charnley & Poe, 2007) is addressed through costs and incentives to participate, as well as support for other economic activities. Other social benefits, including public access to forest lands (Brendler, 1998; McDonough), education (citation?), and opportunities for participants and community members to connect with each other (Bend Conference), are also incorporated into these categories. The last category, Ecological Sustainability, addresses the third criterion of COF – ecological health and sustainability (Charnley & Poe, 2007). It also incorporates the importance of monitoring and information activities identified at the Bend Conference. [ALI14]

Methods

Data Collection

A census of all 50 United States was conducted to examine the role states play in assisting small-scale and community oriented[ALI15] forestry efforts to engage in carbon markets. We employed a purposeful, chain sampling strategy, in which state employees and individuals in the private sector knowledgeable about the status of state forestry carbon programs were identified by website or peer referral. Data were collected in three stages.

State Policy Census

After preliminary web searches, phone calls and e-mails were carried out with state employees and others identified online, and referrals/leads to other individuals were followed. Standardized, closed-ended interview questions were used in the initial communications to identify: 1) if each state had any programs in place to assist small scale forestry projects to engage in carbon markets; and 2) knowledgeable personnel with whom to speak further. In addition to inquiries about existing carbon sequestration programs, interviewees were asked if any programs were under development – that is, if legislation including provisions for sequestration programs had been passed, or if a climate action plan had been developed.