Carbon payments for extended rotations in forest plantations: Conflicting insights from a theoretical model

West, Thales A. P.; Wilson, Chris; Vrachioli, Maria; Grogan, Kelly A.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.010

Cited by 24 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly to previous studies (e.g. Guo and Gong, 2017;Adams et al, 2011;West et al, 2019), we chose to conservatively exclude carbon in harvested wood products from our analysis, as well as potential avoided emissions when these replace fossil-based alternatives. By doing so, we assume all carbon is released at harvest and likely underestimate the potential climate benefits of forest management practices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, when forest offsets are traded on markets, including the latter may yield to issues of double counting since they are usually already credited in the energy or construction sector (van Kooten and Johnston, 2016). We chose to apply an additionality condition based on management without climate benefits, but references are usually political constructs, the choice of which can affect outcomes (Asante and Armstrong, 2012;Lintunen et al, 2016;West et al, 2019). We used a range of high carbon prices consistent with France's climate objectives.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our analysis, we assume all carbon is released at harvest, and only carbon stored in forest biomass is valued. Because not all carbon harvested is immediately released, this approach underestimates the potential climate benefits of forest management (West et al, 2019). In the FFSM, harvests are short-term decisions that derive from timber supply at market equilibrium in the market module.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Landscape implications of managing forests for carbon sequestration

Rivière

Caurla

2020

Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explore the implications of managing forests for the dual purpose of sequestering carbon and producing timber, using a model of the forest sector that includes a Hartman-based representation of forest owners’ behaviour as well as heterogeneity in environmental conditions. We focus on France, where recent policies aim at increasing the carbon sink and where the diversity of forests makes an analysis of spatial dynamics relevant, and we use recent estimates of the shadow price of carbon consistent with the country’s climate commitments. Results suggest that forests may sequester up to 550 MtCO2eq by 2100, driven by changes in harvest levels and species choice, whilst rotation lengths increase overall. A spatial analysis reveals a high spatial variability for these trends, highlighting the importance of considering the local context. Changes in investment patterns affect the spatial distribution of forest cover types: by the end of the century, a majority of regions comprise a larger share of older, multiple-species and mixed-structure forests. Whilst such an evolution may present benefits in terms of biodiversity, ecosystem services provision and resilience, it raises questions regarding the adequacy of such developments with current forest policy, which also aims at increasing harvest levels. An overall mitigation strategy for the forest sector would likely include incentives to energy and material substitution in downstream industries, which we did not consider and may interact with sequestration incentives.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Landscape implications of managing forests for carbon sequestration

Rivière

Caurla

2020

Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Reduced Harvest pathway is a changed management approach to forestry that shifts harvest from natural forests to planted forests without increasing plantation area, therefore requiring decreased harvest intensity in temperate and boreal biomes and a cessation of commercial timber extraction in tropical forests (resulting in the greatest carbon gains from this pathway in tropical regions, reaching 80-100 t C ha −1 by 2100 in Southeast Asia and the Amazon basin). The economic impacts of reduced harvest can be offset against a shift away from timber products and increased efficiency and recycling of wood-based products, but may require compensation to land managers [70][71][72]. There is some debate about the role of timber in substituting more carbon intensive products, i.e.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Land Management Pathwaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic modelling shows substantial contribution of ecosystem restoration to climate change mitigation

Littleton

Dooley

Webb

et al. 2021

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Limiting global warming to a 1.5°C temperature rise requires drastic emissions reductions and removal of carbon-dioxide from the atmosphere. Most modelled pathways for 1.5°C assume substantial removals in the form of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage, which brings with it increasing risks to biodiversity and food security via extensive land-use change. Recently, multiple efforts to describe and quantify potential removals via ecosystem-based approaches have gained traction in the climate policy discourse. However, these options have yet to be evaluated in a systematic and scientifically robust way. We provide spatially explicit estimates of ecosystem restoration potential quantified with a Dynamic Global Vegetation Model. Simulations covering forest restoration, reforestation, reduced harvest, agroforestry and silvopasture were combined and found to sequester an additional 93 Gt C by 2100, reducing mean global temperature increase by ~0.12°C (5-95% range 0.06-0.21°C) relative to a baseline mitigation pathway. Ultimately, pathways to achieving the 1.5°C goal garner broader public support when they include land management options that can bring about multiple benefits, including ecosystem restoration, biodiversity protection, and resilient agricultural practices.

show abstract

“…Results-based assessments from the Amazon Fund adopt a baseline corresponding to a 10-year deforestation average, updated every 5 years (the same baseline as used for the Green Carbon Fund of the UNFCCC). This approach has caused controversy because rewarded reductions in deforestation can be short-lived (i.e., raising the issue of "permanence;" West et al, 2019), and this is aggravated by delays between the reporting of the reductions in question and the granting of financial rewards (e.g., Sax, 2019). For example, Brazil's January 2019 proposal to the Green Climate Fund to receive payment for the 2014-2015 avoided deforestation, covered a period when deforestation was trending upward since Brazil's deforestation slowdown ended in 2012.…”

Section: Attribution Of Deforestation Reductionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climatic Benefits From the 2006–2017 Avoided Deforestation in Amazonian Brazil

West

Börner

Fearnside

2019

Front. For. Glob. Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over three-fourths of Brazil's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions originate from land-use/cover change (LUCC). Alarming rates of forest loss in the Amazon region gained international attention in the past, but deforestation declined substantially since 2004 (although the rate has trended upwards since 2012). This result conforms to the GHG emission reduction targets set by the National Climate Change Plan, originally divided into three phases: 2006-2009; 2010-2013; and 2014-2017. According to the plan, emission reductions are measured against a deforestation baseline, initially corresponding to the average forest loss observed from 1996 to 2005 (reference period). We used an artificial neural network (ANN) model to spatialize the plan's original three-phase baseline and compare (i) the simulated carbon emissions from the baseline scenario to (ii) the emissions from observed deforestation during 2006-2017. Baseline spatialization was performed at the state level and informed by the 2000-2004 deforestation patterns in each state, resulting in nine state-specific calibrated ANNs. Simulated (baseline) and observed deforestation were compared to five biomass-density maps in order to estimate Brazil's GHG emission reductions. Our results indicate that forest loss during the study period was 62,321 km 2 lower than the baseline and associated with 1.5 ± 0.4 Pg of avoided CO 2 emissions to the atmosphere. Virtually all emission reductions (93%) occurred in the states of Mato Grosso (74%) and Rondônia (19%). In contrast, Roraima, Amazonas, and Amapá states increased GHG emissions by 44.8, 36.7, and 14.7 Tg CO 2 , respectively. Lastly, we discuss the issue of attribution of deforestation reductions for results-based payments (REDD+) and the emission reduction certificates issued by the Amazon Fund.

show abstract

Carbon payments for extended rotations in forest plantations: Conflicting insights from a theoretical model

Cited by 24 publications

References 29 publications

Landscape implications of managing forests for carbon sequestration

Landscape implications of managing forests for carbon sequestration

Dynamic modelling shows substantial contribution of ecosystem restoration to climate change mitigation

Climatic Benefits From the 2006–2017 Avoided Deforestation in Amazonian Brazil

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About