Fostering Carbon Credits to Finance Wildfire Risk Reduction Forest Management in Mediterranean Landscapes

Abstract

Despite the need for preserving the carbon pools in fire-prone southern European landscapes, emission reductions from wildfire risk mitigation are still poorly understood. In this study, we estimated expected carbon emissions and carbon credits from fuel management projects ongoing in Catalonia (Spain). The planning areas encompass about 1000 km2 and represent diverse fire regimes and Mediterranean forest ecosystems. We first modeled the burn probability assuming extreme weather conditions and historical fire ignition patterns. Stand-level wildfire exposure was then coupled with fuel consumption estimates to assess expected carbon emissions. Finally, we estimated treatment cost-efficiency and carbon credits for each fuel management plan. Landscape-scale average emissions ranged between 0.003 and 0.070 T CO2 year−1 ha−1. Fuel treatments in high emission hotspots attained reductions beyond 0.06 T CO2 year−1 per treated ha. Thus, implementing carbon credits could potentially finance up to 14% of the treatment implementation costs in high emission areas. We discuss how stand conditions, fire regimes, and treatment costs determine the treatment cost-efficiency and long-term carbon-sink capacity. Our work may serve as a preliminary step for developing a carbon-credit market and subsidizing wildfire risk management programs in low-revenue Mediterranean forest systems prone to extreme wildfires.

The Economic Value of Fuel Treatments: A Review of the Recent Literature for Fuel Treatment Planning

“…Carbon Offset Revenue Alcasena et al, 2021 [12] x x Buckley et al, 2014 [34] x x Huang et al, 2013 [39] x x Pacheco & Claro 2021 [40] x x Penman et al, 2020 [41] x…”

“…Another potential stream of revenue from fuel treatments could come from the generation and marketing of carbon credits. Studies in Arizona [39], Australia [41], California [34], and Spain [12] found loss of carbon during wildfire could be averted due to fuel treatments, leading to justification of carbon credits. However, only one study in southern Europe [40] found that the potential revenue from carbon credits could be sufficient to fully offset the cost of fuel treatments.…”

“…Finally, while the costs fuel treatments are generally incurred by land management agencies at the time of implementation, the benefits of fuel treatments can be borne over longer time horizons and incurred by land management agencies as well as other sectors of society. Given this complexity, it is perhaps not surprising that most investigators have focused on one category of fuel treatment benefits (e.g., suppression costs avoided, watershed services) and, as such, often are providing an incomplete accounting of and the net economic benefits from treatments [12][13][14].…”