Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 1/2016

01-01-2016 | Original Article

Alternative approaches for addressing non-permanence in carbon projects: an application to afforestation and reforestation under the Clean Development Mechanism

Authors: Christopher S. Galik, Brian C. Murray, Stephen Mitchell, Phil Cottle

Published in: Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Afforestation and reforestation (A/R) projects generate greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction credits by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through biophysical processes and storing it in terrestrial carbon stocks. One feature of A/R activities is the possibility of non-permanence, in which stored carbon is lost though natural or anthropogenic disturbances. The risk of non-permanence is currently addressed in Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) A/R projects through temporary carbon credits. To evaluate other approaches to address reversals and their implications for policy and investment decisions, we assess the performance of multiple policy and accounting mechanisms using a forest ecosystem simulation model parameterized with observational data on natural disturbances (e.g., fire and wind). Our analysis finds that location, project scale, and system dynamics all affect the performance of different risk mechanisms. We also find that there is power in risk diversification. Risk management mechanisms likewise exhibit a range of features and tradeoffs among risk conservatism, economic returns, and other factors. Rather than relying on a single approach, a menu-based system could be developed to provide entities the flexibility to choose among approaches, but care must be taken to avoid issues of adverse selection.
Footnotes
3
Thresholds are based on categories and descriptions of loss detailed on pp 350–1 in Mason (2002), though the assignment of loss percentages to each threshold is ours alone. Assessing the risk of wind damage is a complicated undertaking, and we acknowledge this treatment vastly oversimplifies the effect of wind disturbance on forest stands. See, e.g., Quine (1995), Moore and Quine (2000), and Mason (2002) for more information.
 
Literature
go back to reference Bermejo I, Cañellas I, San Miguel A (2004) Growth and yield models for teak plantations in Costa Rica. For Ecol Manag 189:97–110CrossRef Bermejo I, Cañellas I, San Miguel A (2004) Growth and yield models for teak plantations in Costa Rica. For Ecol Manag 189:97–110CrossRef
go back to reference Bird DN, Dutschke M, Pedroni L et al. (2004) Should one trade tCERs or ICERs? ENCOFOR Bird DN, Dutschke M, Pedroni L et al. (2004) Should one trade tCERs or ICERs? ENCOFOR
go back to reference Blanco G, Gerlagh R, Suh S et al. (2014) Drivers, Trends and Mitigation. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. IPCC Working Group III contribution to the 5th Assessment Report of IPCC. http://www.mitigation2014.org. Cited 12 May 2014 Blanco G, Gerlagh R, Suh S et al. (2014) Drivers, Trends and Mitigation. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. IPCC Working Group III contribution to the 5th Assessment Report of IPCC. http://​www.​mitigation2014.​org. Cited 12 May 2014
go back to reference Brown S, Burnham M, Delaney M et al (2000) Issues and challenges for forest-based carbon-offset projects: a case study of the Noel Kempff climate action project in Bolivia. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 5:99–121CrossRef Brown S, Burnham M, Delaney M et al (2000) Issues and challenges for forest-based carbon-offset projects: a case study of the Noel Kempff climate action project in Bolivia. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 5:99–121CrossRef
go back to reference Cooley DM, Cousky K, Galik CS, Holmes T, Cooke R (2012) Managing dependencies: towards a more complete evaluation of forest offset reversal risk. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 17:17–24CrossRef Cooley DM, Cousky K, Galik CS, Holmes T, Cooke R (2012) Managing dependencies: towards a more complete evaluation of forest offset reversal risk. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 17:17–24CrossRef
go back to reference Dale VH, Joyce LA, McNulty S et al (2001) Climate change and forest disturbances. Bioscience 51:723–734CrossRef Dale VH, Joyce LA, McNulty S et al (2001) Climate change and forest disturbances. Bioscience 51:723–734CrossRef
go back to reference Diaz D, Hamilton K, Johnson E (2011) State of the forest carbon markets 2011. Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington Diaz D, Hamilton K, Johnson E (2011) State of the forest carbon markets 2011. Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington
go back to reference Galik CS, Cooley DM (2012) What makes carbon work? A sensitivity analysis of factors affecting forest offset viability. For Sci 58:540–548 Galik CS, Cooley DM (2012) What makes carbon work? A sensitivity analysis of factors affecting forest offset viability. For Sci 58:540–548
go back to reference Galik CS, Jackson RB (2009) Risks to forest carbon offset projects in a changing climate. For Ecol Manag 257:2209–2216CrossRef Galik CS, Jackson RB (2009) Risks to forest carbon offset projects in a changing climate. For Ecol Manag 257:2209–2216CrossRef
go back to reference Kaul M, Mohren GMJ, Dadhwal VK (2010) Carbon storage and sequestration potential of selected tree species in india. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 15:489–510CrossRef Kaul M, Mohren GMJ, Dadhwal VK (2010) Carbon storage and sequestration potential of selected tree species in india. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 15:489–510CrossRef
go back to reference Kim M, McCarl BA, Murray BC (2008) Permanence discounting for land-based carbon sequestration. Ecol Econ 64:763–769CrossRef Kim M, McCarl BA, Murray BC (2008) Permanence discounting for land-based carbon sequestration. Ecol Econ 64:763–769CrossRef
go back to reference Maréchal K, Hecq W (2006) Temporary credits: a solution to the potential non-permanence of carbon sequestration in forests? Ecol Econ 58:699–716CrossRef Maréchal K, Hecq W (2006) Temporary credits: a solution to the potential non-permanence of carbon sequestration in forests? Ecol Econ 58:699–716CrossRef
go back to reference Moore J, Quine CP (2000) A comparison of the relative risk of wind damage to planted forests in border forest park, Great Britain, and the Central North Island, New Zealand. For Ecol Manag 135:345–353CrossRef Moore J, Quine CP (2000) A comparison of the relative risk of wind damage to planted forests in border forest park, Great Britain, and the Central North Island, New Zealand. For Ecol Manag 135:345–353CrossRef
go back to reference Moura-Costa P, Wilson C (2000) An equivalence factor between CO2 avoided emissions and sequestration—description and applications in forestry. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 5:51–60CrossRef Moura-Costa P, Wilson C (2000) An equivalence factor between CO2 avoided emissions and sequestration—description and applications in forestry. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 5:51–60CrossRef
go back to reference Murray BC, Sohngen BL, Ross MT (2007) Economic consequences of consideration of permanence, leakage and additionality for soil carbon sequestration projects. Clim Chang 80:127–143CrossRef Murray BC, Sohngen BL, Ross MT (2007) Economic consequences of consideration of permanence, leakage and additionality for soil carbon sequestration projects. Clim Chang 80:127–143CrossRef
go back to reference Noble I, Apps M, Houghton R et al (2000) Implications of different definitions and generic issues. In: Watson RT, Noble IR, Bolin B et al (eds) Special report on land use, land-use change, and forestry. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Geneva Noble I, Apps M, Houghton R et al (2000) Implications of different definitions and generic issues. In: Watson RT, Noble IR, Bolin B et al (eds) Special report on land use, land-use change, and forestry. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Geneva
go back to reference Olschewski R, Benítez PC (2005) Secondary forests as temporary carbon sinks? The economic impact of accounting methods on reforestation projects in the tropics. Ecol Econ 55:380–394CrossRef Olschewski R, Benítez PC (2005) Secondary forests as temporary carbon sinks? The economic impact of accounting methods on reforestation projects in the tropics. Ecol Econ 55:380–394CrossRef
go back to reference Paul T, Kimberley M, Beets P (2008) Indicative forest sequestration tables. Prepared for the New Zealand ministry of agriculture and forestry, by Scion. Rotura, NZ Paul T, Kimberley M, Beets P (2008) Indicative forest sequestration tables. Prepared for the New Zealand ministry of agriculture and forestry, by Scion. Rotura, NZ
go back to reference Quine CP (1995) Assessing the risk of wind damage to forests: practice and pitfalls. In: Coutts MP, Grace J (eds) Wind and trees. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Quine CP (1995) Assessing the risk of wind damage to forests: practice and pitfalls. In: Coutts MP, Grace J (eds) Wind and trees. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
go back to reference Smith JE, Heath LS, Skog KE et al. (2006) Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-343. U.S. department of agriculture, forest service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA Smith JE, Heath LS, Skog KE et al. (2006) Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-343. U.S. department of agriculture, forest service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA
go back to reference Sohngen B (2003) An optimal control model of forest carbon sequestration. Am J Agric Econ 85:448–457CrossRef Sohngen B (2003) An optimal control model of forest carbon sequestration. Am J Agric Econ 85:448–457CrossRef
go back to reference Subak S (2003) Replacing carbon lost from forests: an assessment of insurance, reserves, and expiring credits. Clim Pol 3:107–122CrossRef Subak S (2003) Replacing carbon lost from forests: an assessment of insurance, reserves, and expiring credits. Clim Pol 3:107–122CrossRef
go back to reference UNFCCC (2011a) Decision 2/CMP.7 Land use, land-use change, and forestry. December, 2011 UNFCCC (2011a) Decision 2/CMP.7 Land use, land-use change, and forestry. December, 2011
go back to reference Environmental Protection Agency (2009) EPA analysis of the American clean energy and security act of 2009 in the 111th congress. Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington Environmental Protection Agency (2009) EPA analysis of the American clean energy and security act of 2009 in the 111th congress. Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington
go back to reference Van Wagner CE (1978) Age-class distribution and forest fire cycle. Can J For Res 8:220–227CrossRef Van Wagner CE (1978) Age-class distribution and forest fire cycle. Can J For Res 8:220–227CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Alternative approaches for addressing non-permanence in carbon projects: an application to afforestation and reforestation under the Clean Development Mechanism
Authors
Christopher S. Galik
Brian C. Murray
Stephen Mitchell
Phil Cottle
Publication date
01-01-2016
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change / Issue 1/2016
Print ISSN: 1381-2386
Electronic ISSN: 1573-1596
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9573-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 1/2016 Go to the issue