Guiding Principles For A Practical and Sustainable

Guiding PrinciplesFor A

Practical and Sustainable ApproachTo Forest Carbon Sequestration Projects

In The Southern United States

Developed by the Services, Utilization and Marketing Task ForceApproved by SGSF on June 16, 2009

Authors:

John FendersonBuck KlineJosh Love

Hughes Simpson

Southern Group of State Foresters 10/01/2009

Page 2

AcronymsATFS American Tree Farm System HWP Harvested Wood ProductsBAU Business as Usual RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas InitiativeCCX Chicago Climate Exchange SFI Sustainable Forestry InitiativeFSC Forest Stewardship Council SGSF Southern Group of State ForestersGHG Greenhouse Gas

For more information about this report, contact Mike Zupko: [email protected] ; 770/267-9630

ContentsAcronyms ........................................................................................................................................ 2Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3Approach .................................................................................................................................... 3Key Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 3

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5General Forest Carbon Policy Recommendations ......................................................................... 5

Protocol Development Authority ............................................................................................... 5Non-Offset Incentives ................................................................................................................. 5“Stacking” Environmental Attributes/Credits ............................................................................. 6Co-Benefits of Forestry Offsets .................................................................................................. 6

Eligible Activities ............................................................................................................................ 7Carbon Pools .................................................................................................................................. 8Measurement and Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 9Verification ................................................................................................................................... 10Baselines and Additionality ......................................................................................................... 11Leakage ........................................................................................................................................ 13Permanence ................................................................................................................................. 15Forest Sustainability .................................................................................................................... 17Contracts ...................................................................................................................................... 19Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 20Appendix: A Comparison of Selected Programs, Policy and Protocols .........................................21

ELIGIBLE FOREST ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................... 22ELIGIBLE FOREST CARBON POOLS ............................................................................................ 23MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING ........................................................................................ 24REPORTING PERIOD .................................................................................................................. 26ADDITIONALITY ........................................................................................................................ 27BASELINES ................................................................................................................................ 29PERMANENCE ........................................................................................................................... 30LEAKAGE ................................................................................................................................... 32VERIFICATION ........................................................................................................................... 33SUSTAINABILITY ........................................................................................................................ 36

Southern Group of State Foresters10/01/2009

Page 3

Executive Summary

Introduction

This paper examines the key issues surrounding the development and application of forest-based offset projects in the southern region of the United States and provides the Southern Group of State Foresters’ (SGSF) recommendations for how these issues should be addressed in federal climate policy, should legislation be enacted.

SGSF is committed to participating in any process for formulating national rules for developing, measuring and reporting forest-based offset projects. The policy issues involved will be complex and will certainly be debated among stakeholders as policy is developed. These key policy issues are identified in this paper.

Approach

The SGSF Services, Utilization and Marketing Task Force convened the Forest Carbon Work Group in order to identify the key policy issues for forestry offsets in the U.S. Each key issue is explained and alternative approaches are discussed. Recommendations are provided for addressing each issue, along with a rationale. The policy recommendations represent the consensus of the work group.

Key Recommendations

Eligible Activities: Eligible activities should include, at a minimum, the following: afforestation/reforestation, forest management, avoided forest conversion, urban forestry and harvested wood products.

Eligible Carbon Pools: At a minimum, aboveground live biomass, belowground live biomass and harvested wood products should be included in any forest-based offset project.

Measurement and Monitoring: Reference tables and growth/yield models should be utilized as options for calculating carbon stocks in afforestation/reforestation projects, as long as direct measurements are used to “true up” estimates. Harvested wood products should use national estimates. Statistically-designed, re-measurable forest inventories should be conducted periodically for forest management projects. Offset rules should employ a sliding scale in lieu of a required level of statistical precision, with discounts applied to credible carbon based on the lower bound of measurement error.

Verification: Verification should be conducted by an independent, third party organization. State and/or federal agencies should play a role in providing oversight to improve market transparency. A national GIS database should be developed to track offset projects, preventing double counting. Verification methods and results should be made public to provide even greater market transparency.


Page 4

Baselines and Additionality: The base-year approach to baseline establishment should be employed for forest-based projects in the southern United States. Carbon sequestration achieved above the base year should be considered additional and credible.

Leakage: Internal sources of leakage should be addressed through entity-wide carbon stock reporting. Pending further data, external sources of leakage should be ignored as having a significant impact on the efficacy of a forest project.

Permanence: Forestry projects should employ one of several methods available to mitigate the risk of decreases in carbon stocks that may result from a natural disturbance. Short-term, renewable contracts should be employed to ensure that credible carbon is maintained.

Forest Sustainability: Forest projects should demonstrate a commitment to sustainable forest management by obtaining a state Forest Stewardship Plan. If appropriate, SFI, ATFS or FSC forest certification should be utilized.

Contracts: Contracts should specify project length, monitoring requirements, verification requirements, carbon maintenance/replacement requirements and should have dispute resolution mechanisms in place.

In addition, four general forest carbon policy recommendations are provided:

Protocol development authority: The USDA Forest Service under the direction of the Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets National should develop protocols for forest-offset projects.

Non-offset incentives: Programs that do not rely on offsets should be developed and implemented that reward landowners for maintaining and enhancing forest carbon stocks on private land.

“Stacking” environmental attributes or credits: The sale of carbon offsets should not preclude forest owners from participating in other ecosystem services markets.

Co-benefits of forest offsets: Offsets from forestry activities provide a myriad of co-benefits (clean water, wildlife, aesthetics, recreation, etc.) and should therefore be given priority in climate policy.


Page 5

Introduction

This paper examines the key issues surrounding the development and application of forest-based offset projects in the southern region of the United States and provides the Southern Group of State Foresters’ (SGSF) recommendations for how these issues should be addressed in federal climate policy, should legislation be enacted.

SGSF is committed to participating in any process to formulate national rules for developing, measuring and reporting forest-based offset projects. The policy issues involved in this process will be complex and a source of significant debate.

This paper provides policy recommendations for nine key issues:Eligible activities1. Carbon pools2. Measurement and Monitoring3. Verification4. Baselines and Additionality5. Leakage6. Permanence7. Forest Sustainability8. Contracts9.

In each section, the issue is described and alternative approaches are discussed. SGSF recommendations are presented, along with a rationale.

General Forest Carbon Policy Recommendations

Protocol Development Authority

If a federal climate policy is established in the United States, protocols and procedures for offset programs should not be detailed in legislation. The responsibility for developing protocols and procedures for forest-offset programs should be delegated to the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, under the direction of the Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets.

Non-Offset Incentives

Given the appropriate incentives, private forestlands have enormous potential to provide climate benefits through carbon sequestration; however, programs that rely on carbon credit transactions (i.e. offsets) will likely not be sufficient to meet the nation’s climate goals. Federal climate policy should support and expand policies and programs that keep forests in forests by slowing conversion to non-forest uses, incentivizing sustainable forest management and expanding the forest resource base. These policies should focus on enhancing the climate benefits of forests by incentivizing activities that will maintain and enhance carbon stocks on privately-held lands, and should adopt protocols and


Page 6

procedures that are broader and less rigorous than those required by offset markets. Such a program should be practice-based and should be administered in the same fashion as other environmental incentive programs. Contracts should be limited to 10 to 15 years.

“Stacking” Environmental Attributes/Credits

Forest-based activities that are undertaken to offset carbon emissions should be allowed to participate in other environmental market activities (e.g., water, biodiversity). Environmental attributes may be sold individually or bundled and contracts should clearly specify which of these attributes is included in a transaction. Allowing landowners to leverage value from all ecosystem services their forests provide will create higher value and greater incentives to keep forests in forests.

Co-Benefits of Forestry Offsets

Forests provide numerous benefits to society, not just their ability to sequester carbon. These services also include water quality/quantity, flood control, aesthetics, recreation and wildlife habitat. Historically, these societal benefits have been taken for granted, with no dollar value placed on their environmental contributions. Monetizing forest carbon through private forest landowner participation in these markets provides an opportunity for a measure of compensation for the provision of a societal benefit. Since most of the land in the South is in private ownership, landowners that are able to generate additional revenue from carbon markets may be more likely to maintain their forestlands, resisting the pressure to develop their lands. Therefore, forest-based offsets should be given priority over other offset categories.


Page 7

Eligible Activities

Issue:

In order to have a viable forest carbon offset market, landowners must know which activities will be eligible to participate. Identifying the primary activities is essential to generating greater landowner participation and ultimately increased environmental benefits.

Alternatives Considered:

Afforestation/Reforestation, Forest Management, Urban Forestry, Harvested Wood Products, Avoided Forest Conversion, Biomass, Product Substitution, Non-Offset Incentive Program

Recommendation:

Eligible activities should include, at a minimum, the following: Afforestation/Reforestation, Forest Management, Avoided Forest Conversion, Urban Forestry and Harvested Wood Products. In addition, an incentive program to recognize the many environmental benefits that forests provide should be developed.

Rationale/Discussion:

Planting trees on open lands, including urban landscapes, as well as lands that were forested in the past but are not currently forested have been shown to increase carbon stocks in both tree biomass and soils. These methods are widely recognized by many current forest offset standards and protocols. In addition, sustainable forest management can also provide quantifiable increases in carbon stocks. Carbon is also sequestered in harvested wood products (HWP), such as dimensional lumber and as such, should be included when determining eligible activities. Markets should also recognize the climate benefit of activities that prevent forestland conversion. Greater utilization of wood products also has the ability to replace more energy intensive building materials, such as steel, plastic and concrete,

leading to less overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Not all landowners will be eligible to participate in these markets; however, this should not discount the importance of their forestlands in mitigating any potential impacts from increased carbon dioxide emissions. An incentive program to reward landowners for maintaining forestlands and the numerous benefits they provide society, should be developed to ensure these lands remain forested.


Page 8

Carbon Pools

Issue:

Central to any carbon-marketing scheme is identifying the various carbon pools associated with the forestry-offset project. Dividing the project into various pools is important because of the need to utilize various inventory processes that are pool-specific. Also, this method of carbon accounting facilitates the elimination of de minimis pools for certain project types, optional pool reporting and utilizing cost-effective inventory processes that are pool specific.


Carbon pools generally include aboveground live biomass, belowground live biomass, dead biomass, soils, litter and HWP. Deciding on which carbon pool to account for depends on the nature of the forestry offset project being implemented. As a rule, carbon pools that are expected to significantly change over the life of the project should be quantified and reported. Generally, it is optional to measure/report carbon pools that are not expected to change over the life of the project. For example, a managed forest project may elect not to account for the soil carbon pool since that pool may not be expected to change significantly over the life of the project. This would avoid unnecessary costs associated with inventory, reporting and verification. However, it may become profitable to include optional pools should market prices for carbon significantly increase.

Recommendation:

At a minimum, aboveground live biomass, belowground live biomass and HWP should be included in any forest-based offset project. Afforestation projects should also be credited for soil carbon at the same rate allowed for no-till agriculture. Since soil carbon is generally unchanged in existing managed Southern forests, it should be considered a stable pool and therefore measurement should be optional.


For landowners to profitably participate in carbon markets, it will be very important to identify the appropriate carbon pools required by the market and the inventory costs associated with each pool. The upfront inventory costs to enter the market are a major consideration. The recommendations above reflect those pools most easily measured through the use of models and ground-level inventory. They also reflect the carbon pools most likely to be eligible for market participation.

Including HWP is important for a number of reasons. First, the additional financial compensation for carbon storage in wood products may be a major factor in determining if a forest-based offset project is economically viable for a landowner. Second, crediting the HWP pool directly values utilizing wood in many industries over materials like plastic, concrete and steel. This helps give wood a competitive edge over materials that have a heavier carbon footprint and generally are not considered renewable resources.


Page 9

Measurement and Monitoring

Issue:

The method used to quantify forest carbon offsets is of critical importance in determining the number of credits that should be assigned to a project. Any quantification method employed should balance precision and accuracy with cost effectiveness, so landowner participation is not deterred. Questions regarding the procedures to quantify forest carbon stocks, including statistical design, frequency of inventories, use of growth and yield models and reference tables should be addressed.


Existing forest carbon markets employ different methods for quantifying forest carbon offset projects. These methods include reference tables, such as the Energy Information Administration’s 1605(b) guidelines, direct measurement, and growth and yield models.

Recommendation:

Reference tables and growth/yield models should be utilized as options for calculating carbon stocks in afforestation/reforestation projects, provided that direct measurements are used to true-up standard estimates. Carbon stored in HWP should be determined using national estimates (see U.S. Department of Energy 1605(b)). Statistically-designed forest inventories, administered by qualified foresters, should be conducted for forest management projects at the time of origination and completion. Credit issuance should be discounted on a sliding scale based on the quantifiable, statistical uncertainty obtained from the inventory. Re-measurable plots should be installed when conducting inventories. Approved growth and yield models (scientifically-based, regionally and species acceptable, peer reviewed) should be used to predict annual increases in carbon stocks. These models should provide conservative estimates to prevent huge changes in carbon stocks after “true-up” inventories conducted no longer than every 10 years, as well as after any harvest or major (stand-altering) disturbance.


Page 10


Forest inventories, based on statistically sound designs can be used to accurately measure the amount of carbon stocks in a forest. Measuring all trees on a stand is simply not practical and cost effective, and would severely limit landowner participation. Discounting carbon stocks can address the quantifiable uncertainty in the inventory. Establishing re-measurable plots is necessary in order to ensure repeatable measurements by qualified auditors and to reduce variance between periodic measurements. Using approved growth and yield models can also predict this change with accuracy, as long as conservative results are produced and reasonable true-up intervals are utilized.

Verification

Issue:

Verification is critical to determining the validity of forest-based offset projects. This aspect provides additional protection to the buyer and seller to ensure that any carbon credit transacted follows all rules, protocols and standards. Qualifications of the verifying organization, methods used, and frequency in which verification takes place must be documented to enhance the legitimacy and public acceptance of these projects.


Current markets differ slightly on how verification should be conducted in terms of methods and frequency. Most markets recognize the importance of independent, third party organizations in providing this service. Methods generally used include field and desk verification at the time of project origination and completion, as well as during specified intervals throughout the project. The Voluntary Carbon Standard requires a separate validation and verification assessment on all offset projects. Validation certifies the eligibility, additionality and methods used, while verification determines the amount of credits that should be issued.

Recommendation:

Verification should be conducted by an independent, third party organization, approved by the market in which credits are registered. State and/or federal agencies should play a role in providing oversight to improve market transparency. A thorough conflict of interest assessment should be performed prior to project verification. Verification should consist of desk and field audits at the time of project origination and completion, with desk audits being conducted during the interim if credits are to be assigned. Credits should not be issued until verification has occurred. A national GIS database should be developed to track forest-based offset projects to prevent project developers from selling the same credits twice. In addition, verification methods and results should be made public to provide even greater market transparency.


Page 11


Approved, independent third party organizations are best suited to provide verification for forest carbon offset projects. Regulatory agencies facing budget shortfalls and limited personnel may not be able to perform this service in a timely manner. The two-step validation/verification process employed by some standards may lead to increased transaction costs, inefficiencies and reduced landowner participation. Thorough conflict of interest assessments are important to prevent fraudulent activity. Desk and field audits are necessary to ensure all registered projects are following the applicable rules and standards. Issuing credits prior to verification may lead to a lack of public acceptance and validity of the market.

Baselines and Additionality

Issue:

In order to generate marketable GHG emissions reductions, a forest-based offset project must sequester carbon that is in addition to what would have occurred in the absence of the project. Establishing additionality is a critical step in determining the validity of a project, since credible carbon (i.e., carbon eligible for offset markets) is utilized to offset emissions generated elsewhere. Determining project additionality is often a difficult and controversial issue, due to the inherent subjectivity of establishing baselines1.


Protocols for establishing forest project baselines utilize one of two general approaches. The first baseline approach is referred to as business-as-usual (BAU) in which actual increases in forest carbon stocks are compared to a reference case that represents carbon stocks in absence of the project activities. The reference case is projected into the future in order to measure actual forest carbon sequestered over time. The BAU baseline constitutes a performance standard that projects must exceed in order to generate credible carbon. A BAU baseline may be applied to an individual project (i.e., a reference case is formulated for a particular tract of forestland) or at a landscape level, in which project carbon stocks are compared to regional estimates of carbon sequestration for particular ownerships, age classes and species composition.

The second type of baseline is the “base-year” approach, which compares project-specific measurements of carbon stocks from one period to the next. The year in which the initial measurement of carbon is made provides the basis from which future carbon stocks are compared. Increases in carbon storage above the base-year inventory are considered additional and credible carbon sequestration2.

1 Refer to: Galik, C. 2008. A critical comparison and virtual “field test” of forest management carbon offset protocols. Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University. 2 Refer to Appendix for details on how each program addresses additionality and baselines.


Page 12

Additionality is often determined independently of baselines. Tests have been utilized to determine the additionality of forest projects. Often, these tests are focused on determining whether the proposed activity would have taken place anyway without revenue from the potential sale of credible carbon.

Recommendation:

The base-year approach, as applied by RGGI, CCX and 1605(b), should be adopted for forest-based offset projects undertaken on private lands. Financial additionality tests will not provide certainty, so should not be applied to private forest lands.


The rules for determining baselines and additionality have generated more controversy than any other aspect of forest project accounting. Much of the debate stems from the opinion that GHG emissions can only be offset using carbon that would not have been sequestered in absence of the project. Thus, support exists for the use of a BAU baseline in order to separate the net climate effects of the offset project from the background sequestration that would have taken place in absence of the project.

Unfortunately, BAU baselines, when applied to forest projects on private lands, are confounded by several important ecological, political and socio-economic factors unique to land-use. In order to establish carbon sequestration that “would have happened anyway”, a landowner must establish a projection of carbon stocks many years (often decades) into the future; incorporating a myriad of assumptions about future impacts, market demand for forest outputs, forest laws, tax policy and payments for other ecosystem services. Developing a baseline that successfully integrates these factors is a dubious exercise that will result in uncertainty in the baseline.

For example, future changes in forest harvesting laws might mandate the project maintain higher residual carbon stocks than was projected in the baseline. As a result, carbon that was once credible is deemed non-additional and the economic viability of the project is negatively impacted.

In states where forestry laws currently dictate management decisions, a case can be made for BAU baselines; however, changes in future policy are likely. Even if baseline assumptions hold true, verification of the project is questionable because credible carbon is based upon a counterfactual scenario — the baseline represents activities that never took place, and therefore cannot be accurately compared to actual carbon sequestration. It is impossible to separate credible carbon that is the result of management activities from background carbon sequestration that “would have happened anyway”.

Non-industrial private forests meet the increasing demands of a growing human population. The future economic, social and ecological demands that will be placed on private forests are uncertain. In the face of changing conditions, landowners may decide to develop the land, shorten rotation lengths, or clear-cut without regenerating a new forest of equal carbon stocks. In most states, all of these actions are legal and may be in the


Page 13

landowner’s best financial interest.

The base-year approach to baseline establishment does not rely upon complex assumptions about landowner intentions, market forces, or policy. Instead, only one assumption is made: all forest carbon stock changes (both increases and decreases) are the result of management actions undertaken by the landowner. Carbon stocks are measured at one point in time, then again at another point in time using the same methodology. Increases in carbon stocks are awarded as credible carbon, while decreases must be compensated for in accordance with contractual obligations.

Leakage

Issue:

Leakage occurs when a carbon sequestration project causes unintended increases or decreases in GHG emissions elsewhere. Leakage may have impacts at a regional, national or international level, making the quantification of this secondary effect difficult or impossible.


First, an explanation of leakage types:

Internal leakage � occurs when activities undertaken on a portion of a forest ownership result in changes in GHG emissions on a different portion of the same ownership (e.g., reduce harvesting in one area while increasing harvesting in another area).

External leakage � occurs when one forest owner’s carbon sequestration activities result in changes in other landowner’s behavior in a manner that increases GHG emissions.

Market leakage � is a type of external leakage that occurs when a forest project reduces the availability of a good, thereby transferring market demand to other forests.


Page 14

Activity-shifting leakage � occurs when a project does not replace a land-use activity, but merely displaces that activity to another location.

Positive leakage � occurs when one landowner’s activities have a positive impact on carbon sequestration in other forests.

There is general agreement among protocols that internal leakage should be addressed through entity-wide reporting of carbon stocks. When appropriate, forest certification through SFI, Tree Farm, or FSC may provide additional assurance that carbon stocks are managed sustainably.

Not all programs address external leakage in the same fashion3. The task of determining the direct impacts of one landowner’s decisions on other landowners, or broader market impacts, is exceedingly complex. As a result, some programs choose to ignore external sources of leakage. Those programs that have adopted methodologies for estimating leakage are not consistent with one another, or rely on limited data sets.

Recommendation:

Efforts should be made to control internal leakage through entity-wide reporting and, when applicable, forest certification. Until more data is collected, external leakage should be ignored as a significant detriment to forest projects. If carbon markets require estimates of external leakage, uniform national standard, based upon a consistent body of research, should be utilized.


In theory, internal leakage impacts can be mitigated by requiring entity-wide reporting that accounts for all harvests, plantings, mortality and growth in order to estimate net changes in carbon stocks; however, this approach may be difficult to implement practically. Landowners may own forestland in multiple counties or states, under a variety of legal classifications. Ensuring that all forestland is accounted for may provide some logistical challenges. A clearly-defined attestation by the landowner may be adequate to remedy this issue.

Accounting for leakage provides significant challenges for landowners. External leakage impacts may be difficult or impossible to accurately quantify. Although there is general consensus that external leakage is a real issue that may impact the efficacy of forest offset projects, there is little data available to accurately estimate these secondary effects of the project. Provided that further data is made available, national estimates of leakage may provide a solution to this problem.

Although most debate surrounds the negative impacts of leakage, regulations should also recognize the potential for positive leakage to mitigate negative impacts.

3 Refer to the Appendix for details on how different programs address external leakage.


Page 15

Permanence

Issue:

Permanence addresses the degree to which sequestered carbon is permanently removed from the atmosphere. Considerations of permanence, like additionality, are central to the carbon offset debate as it relates to forestry offset projects. Two elements need to be addressed: long-term atmospheric carbon removals and accumulated carbon storage reversals that can be caused by natural disasters such as wildfire, hurricanes, or insect and disease. Some insurance or risk-pooling mechanism needs to be in place to offset these losses should they occur.


Debated positions range from permanence being achieved in perpetuity through a conservation easement, short-term contracts measured in only a few years, or some type of deed restriction. There are several alternatives put forth by various registries, exchanges and carbon market standards to address permanence. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) addresses permanence by requiring landowners to maintain their forestry offset project for a period of 15 years. Only afforestation projects that have been placed under a permanent conservation easement are allowed by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Another approach recently put forth to address permanency and enhance smaller landowner participation in carbon markets is carbon banking4. To guard against the risk of reversals, the following methods may be used:

Buffer pools � — projects hedge against risk by placing a percentage of issued credits into a savings account.

Insurance � — indemnification against loses, where the insurer promises to issue payment to the landowner in order to compensate the credit purchaser.

4 For a detailed discussion of carbon banking, see: Bigsby, H., 2009. Carbon banking: Creating flexibility for forest owners. Forest Ecology and Management 257, 378-383.


Page 16

Like-kind pools � — forestland managed for carbon sequestration that serves as a replacement reserve for projects that generate and sell carbon credits.

Biological risk management � — forest management activities that reduce the risk of wildfire, pests and disease.

Recommendation:

To enhance the opportunity for non-industrial private forestland owners in the South to participate in carbon markets, it is recommended that term contracts be utilized. Contract lengths of 10 to 20 years may be acceptable to many landowners, especially when forest rotation lengths may span 25 to 80 years depending on the species and product being managed. Provisions for offset “rentals” should be included in regulations. Emitters who purchase rented offsets remain liable for offsets claimed and must renew or replace credits at the end of the contract. Market mechanisms will determine the value of rented carbon relative to permanent offsets and allowances. This will provide broader participation while ensuring that the integrity of the environmental benefit is maintained.

To ensure that project offset permanence is met there will need to be some mechanism to insure against reversals. Regulations should require that some provision be made to address non-permanence and natural disturbance in order to ensure the integrity of the offset. The manner in which reversal risk is addressed should be left to the determination of the market. All of the risk management strategies discussed above will have a place in a regulatory market.


To encourage the typical Southern forest landowner’s participation in any carbon market, be it a compliance market or a voluntary market, protocols that address permanence with short-term contracts is critical. Requiring long-term contracts or conservation easements will deter many landowners from entering the market.

All forest projects should include reversal mitigation strategies in order to ensure project integrity, public acceptance and credibility in the market.


Page 17

Forest Sustainability

Issue:

Forest projects are often required to provide evidence of sustainable forest management. Commonly, demonstrating sustainability is achieved through third party certification programs (i.e. SFI, ATFS, FSC). Third-party certification provides independent evaluation and monitoring of the project that can be leveraged to demonstrate sustainable project management and enhance transparency.


Protocols typically require that forest projects that include timber production obtain third party sustainability certification. For forest projects that do not include timber production, specific recommendations are provided; however, it is implied that management plans should be developed.

Recommendation:

All projects developed in the U.S. should be required to have a state Forest Stewardship Plan.

If applicable, projects should attain forest sustainability certification.


Page 18


Forest certification is an appropriate measure for forest-based offset projects that are managed for forest products as well as carbon sequestration. Obtaining certification can provide broad assurances to the market that the forest project is managed sustainably and effectively mitigate the risks of internal leakage. However, not all certification programs will be equally-applicable to all projects. The choice of which certification to obtain should be left to the discretion of project landowners.

State Forest Stewardship programs provide an opportunity for project landowners to develop high-quality management plans in coordination with state forestry agencies. Stewardship programs provide an existing platform that could be leveraged for forestry offsets to ensure sustainability and to enhance transparency.


Page 19

Contracts

Issue:

Contracts are another critical component of an effective carbon offset market. Just like verification, this aspect provides additional protection to both the buyer and seller. Specifically, these legally binding documents clearly define the delivery of carbon credits. Important considerations include contract duration, credit issuance, requirements for strict adherence to protocol rules and penalties for contract violations.


Virtually all existing carbon markets require some form of formal contract before entering into transactions. As with any other asset sale, verbal agreements are not recommended. Existing markets vary in how they define contract length (15, 20, 100 years), issue credits (annually, specific intervals), monitor projects and penalties for violations.

Recommendation:

Contracts should be written emphasizing that all applicable protocol rules should be followed for a specified length of time. Short term or annual “rental payment” type contracts are preferred, but should not be the singular option. Penalties should be significant and explicitly stated for landowners that violate the terms of the contract or falsify information on their application. Contracts should specify project length, monitoring requirements, verification requirements, carbon maintenance/replacement requirements, and should have dispute resolution mechanisms in place.


As a legally binding agreement, the contract aids transparency, lowers market risk, and by extension, encourages confidence and trust by the participants. This ensures that ownership, tenure and use rights are legally documented and undisputed and clear ownership of carbon credits is generated.


Page 20

Bibliography

Chicago Climate Exchange. (2008, December 14). Rule Book Chapter 9. Retrieved January 3, 2009, from http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=242

Environmental Protection Agency. (2008, August 13). Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Offset Methodology for Project Type: Afforestation/Reforestation . Retrieved December 22, 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/stateply/documents/resources/draft_reforestation_offset_protocol.pdf

Forest Sector Workgroup on Climate Change Mitigation. (2008). Final Report. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from www.ecy.wa.ga/climatechange/2008/FA_for.htm

Galik, C. (2008). A Critical Comparison and Virtual Field Test of Forest Management Carbon Offset Protocols. Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University.

Kollmuss, A. M., Lee, C., & Polycarp, C. (2008). A Review of Offset Programs: Trading Systems, Funds, Protocols, Standards and Retailers. Stockholm Environment Institute.

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. (2008, December 31). Model Rule. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from www.rggi.org/model_rule_key_documents_link

Sampson, N., Ruddell, S., & Smith, M. (2007). Making Forest Carbon Credits Feasible: A Policy Document.

U.S. Department of Energy. (2007, January ). 1605(b) Technical Guidelines for Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emmisions, Part I: Forestry Appendix. Retrieved February 5, 2009, from http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/Forestryappendix%5B1%5D.pdf

Volunatry Carbon Standard. (2008, November 18). Guidance for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Projects. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from http://v-c-s.org/policydocs.html

Voluntary Carbon Standard. (2008, November 18). Tool for AFOLU Methodological Issues. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from www.v-c-s.org

Voluntary Carbon Standard. (2008, November 18). Voluntary Carbon Standard Guidelines. Retrieved January 11, 2009, from v-c-s.org.

Western Forestry Leadership Coalition. (2009, February 18). A Framework for Forests and Climate Change: Western Region Policy Themes, Principles and Key Approaches. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from http://wflcweb.org/pressandpolicy/policy_statements_resolutions.php


Page 21

Appendix: A Comparison of Selected Programs, Policy and Protocols


Page 22

ELIG

IBLE

FO

RES

T A

CTIV

ITIE

S

Prog

ram

/ El

emen

t or

Issu

eCh

icag

o Cl

imat

e Ex

chan

ge (C

CX)

Volu

ntar

y Ca

rbon

Sta

ndar

d (V

CS)

Calif

orni

a Cl

imat

e A

ction

Re

gist

ry (C

CAR)

Will

ey, Z

. Cha

mei

des,

B.,

ed.

2008

. Har

ness

ing

Farm

s an

d Fo

rest

s in

the

Low

-Car

bon

Econ

omy.

Duk

e U

nive

rsit

y Pr

ess.

Regi

onal

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Initi

ative

(RG

GI)

Elig

ible

acti

vitie

sA

ffore

stati

onA

ffore

stati

on, r

efor

esta

tion

and

re-v

eget

ation

Refo

rest

ation

No

spec

ific

proj

ect t

ypes

, bu

t inc

lude

s ex

ampl

es

of a

ffore

stati

on, f

ores

t m

anag

emen

t, fo

rest

con

serv

ation

Affo

rest

ation

Fore

st m

anag

emen

tA

gric

ultu

ral l

and

man

agem

ent

Impr

oved

fore

st m

anag

emen

t

Urb

an fo

rest

ryIm

prov

ed fo

rest

man

agem

ent

Avoi

ded

conv

ersi

on

Re

duce

d em

issi

ons

from

de

fore

stati

on a

nd d

egra

datio

n (R

EDD

)

Urb

an fo

rest

ry

Prog

ram

/ El

emen

t or

Issu

eM

aine

For

est

Serv

ice

RGG

I Re

com

men

dati

ons

Sam

pson

et a

l. 20

07. M

akin

g Fo

rest

Car

bon

Cred

its

Feas

ible

: A

Pol

icy

Pape

r.

Clim

ate

Lead

ers

Fore

st S

ecto

r W

orkg

roup

on

Clim

ate

Chan

ge M

itiga

tion

Fin

al

Repo

rt (W

ashi

ngto

n St

ate)

Elig

ible

acti

vitie

sU

rban

fore

stry

U

rban

fore

stry

Affo

rest

ation

/ref

ores

tatio

nA

ffore

stati

on/r

efor

esta

tion

Fore

st m

anag

emen

tA

ffore

stati

on

Urb

an fo

rest

ry

Refo

rest

ation

Fore

st m

anag

emen

t with

ha

rves

ted

woo

d pr

oduc

ts

Fo

rest

man

agem

ent

Av

oide

d co

nver

sion

Fo

rest

con

serv

ation

Av

oide

d em

issi

ons

from

nat

ural

di

stur

banc

e

Fo

rest

pro

duct

s

Subs

tituti

on o

f woo

d fo

r fo

ssil

fuel

inte

nsiv

e go

ods

Co

mpl

emen

tary

pro

gram

for

incr

easi

ng c

arbo

n st

orag

e th

at

does

not

rely

on

“cre

ditin

g”

Im

prov

ed re

cove

ry fr

om

man

ufac

turi

ng s

ites


Page 23

ELIG

IBLE

FO

RES

T C

AR

BO

N P

OO

LS

Prog

ram

/ El

emen

t or

Issu

eCh

icag

o Cl

imat

e Ex

chan

ge (C

CX)

Volu

ntar

y Ca

rbon

Sta

ndar

d (V

CS)

Calif

orni

a Cl

imat

e A

ction

Re

gist

ry (C

CAR)

Will

ey, Z

. Cha

mei

des,

B.,

ed.

2008

. Har

ness

ing

Farm

s an

d Fo

rest

s in

the

Low

-Car

bon

Econ

omy.

Duk

e U

nive

rsit

y Pr

ess.

Regi

onal

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Initi

ative

(RG

GI)

Carb

on p

ools

Affo

rest

ation

incl

udes

liv

e tr

ee a

nd s

oil

orga

nic

carb

on. F

ores

t m

anag

emen

t inc

lude

s ab

ove-

and

bel

ow-

grou

nd b

iom

ass,

in

clud

ing

stem

, br

anch

es, b

ark

and

coar

se w

ood

root

s an

d w

ood

prod

ucts

.

Affo

rest

ation

, ref

ores

tatio

n an

d re

-veg

etati

on: a

bove

-gr

ound

bio

mas

s, b

elow

-gro

und

biom

ass,

dea

d w

ood,

litt

er,

soil

orga

nic

carb

on, w

ood

prod

ucts

. Im

prov

ed fo

rest

man

agem

ent:

al

l poo

ls th

at w

ill d

ecre

ase

abov

e a

de m

inim

us o

f 5%

of

tota

l inc

reas

e sh

ould

be

mea

sure

d. S

oil c

arbo

n an

d be

low

gro

und

are

cons

ider

ed

de m

inim

us. D

ead

biom

ass

is

optio

nal.

(i) a

bove

gro

und

livin

g bi

omas

s (ii

) bel

ow g

roun

d liv

ing

biom

ass

(iii)

dead

bio

mas

s (iv

) soi

l (v

) woo

d pr

oduc

tsA

ll ar

e pr

ovis

iona

lly re

quire

d un

less

justi

fied

to b

e ex

clud

ed.

Prov

ides

met

hodo

logy

for

mea

suri

ng e

very

maj

or p

ool,

but

does

not

man

date

whi

ch p

ools

m

ust b

e re

port

ed. T

he b

ook

sugg

ests

that

a c

ompr

ehen

sive

ap

proa

ch to

mea

sure

men

t is

desi

rabl

e.

Live

abo

ve-g

roun

d bi

omas

s; li

ve b

elow

-gr

ound

tree

bio

mas

s;

soil

carb

on; d

ead

and

dow

n, o

ption

al if

ba

selin

e m

easu

rem

ent

for

this

poo

l is

near

ze

ro.

Prog

ram

/ El

emen

t or

Issu

eM

aine

For

est

Serv

ice

RGG

I Re

com

men

dati

ons

Sam

pson

et a

l. 20

07. M

akin

g Fo

rest

Car

bon

Cred

its

Feas

ible

: A

Pol

icy

Pape

r.

Clim

ate

Lead

ers

Fore

st S

ecto

r W

orkg

roup

on

Clim

ate

Chan

ge M

itiga

tion

Fin

al

Repo

rt (W

ashi

ngto

n St

ate)

Carb

on p

ools

Not

spe

cifie

dA

ll po

ols

that

are

thou

ght t

o be

si

gnifi

cant

ly a

ffect

ed s

houl

d be

in

clud

ed. I

f poo

ls c

an b

e sh

own

to h

ave

negl

igib

le im

pact

or

will

rem

ain

cons

tant

, the

y m

ay

be e

xclu

ded.

Live

tree

s an

d sn

ags,

bel

ow-

grou

nd b

iom

ass,

und

erst

ory

vege

tatio

n, d

own

dead

woo

d,

duff

and

soi

l.

All

carb

on s

tora

ge p

ools

that

ar

e th

ough

t to

be s

igni

fican

tly

affec

ted

shou

ld b

e m

easu

red;

no

spe

cific

s pr

ovid

ed fo

r de

term

inati

on.


Page 24

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T A

ND

MO

NIT

OR

ING

Prog

ram

/ El

emen

t or

Issu

eCh

icag

o Cl

imat

e Ex

chan

ge (C

CX)

Volu

ntar

y Ca

rbon

Sta

ndar

d (V

CS)

Calif

orni

a Cl

imat

e A

ction

Re

gist

ry (C

CAR)

Will

ey, Z

. Cha

mei

des,

B.,

ed.

2008

. Har

ness

ing

Farm

s an

d Fo

rest

s in

the

Low

-Car

bon

Econ

omy.

Duk

e U

nive

rsit

y Pr

ess.

Regi

onal

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Initi

ative

(RG

GI)

Base

line

esta

blis

hmen

t an

d pe

riod

ic

mea

sure

men

t ch

arac

teri

stics

Com

bina

tion

of

grow

th/y

ield

m

odel

s an

d di

rect

m

easu

rem

ents

to

esta

blis

h ba

se y

ear.

Net

car

bon

chan

ges

are

mea

sure

d us

ing

grow

th/y

ield

m

odel

s an

d di

rect

m

easu

rem

ent.

Dire

ct m

easu

rem

ent w

ith

grow

th/y

ield

mod

els

Dire

ct m

easu

rem

ent a

nd

grow

th/y

ield

mod

els

to e

stab

lish

BAU

; dire

ct m

easu

rem

ent

peri

odic

ally

Met

hodo

logi

cal

reco

mm

enda

tions

pro

vide

d.

Stan

dard

fore

stry

sam

plin

g te

chni

ques

des

igne

d to

ens

ure

prec

isio

n an

d ac

cura

cy fo

r al

l ca

rbon

poo

ls.

Dire

ct m

easu

rem

ents

fo

llow

ing

guid

elin

es to

es

tabl

ish

base

yea

r

Mea

sure

men

t in

terv

alSt

ock

chan

ges

estim

ated

on

annu

al

basi

s

Max

imum

of fi

ve y

ears

Ann

ual r

epor

ting

usin

g gr

owth

/yi

eld

mod

els

and

inve

ntor

ies.

D

irect

mea

sure

men

t dat

a m

ay

be n

o ol

der

than

12

year

s.

Inve

ntor

y co

nfide

nce

mus

t be

repo

rted

on

annu

al b

asis

so

annu

al d

isco

unts

can

be

appl

ied.

10 y

ears

bet

wee

n pl

ot s

ampl

ing

Carb

on m

ust b

e ca

lcul

ated

no

less

th

an e

very

five

yea

rs;

Unc

lear

if d

irect

m

easu

rem

ent i

s re

quire

d to

cal

cula

te

carb

on s

tock

s

App

rove

d ca

rbon

es

timati

on

met

hods

Dire

ct m

easu

rem

ent,

gr

owth

/yie

ld m

odel

s ap

prop

riat

e fo

r si

te a

nd s

peci

es,

affor

esta

tion

tabl

es

App

rove

d on

cas

e by

cas

e ba

sis,

onl

y cu

rren

tly a

ccep

ted

met

hodo

logi

es a

re C

CAR

and

Clea

n D

evel

opm

ent

Mec

hani

sm

Mus

t con

form

to C

CAR

prot

ocol

Met

hodo

logy

pro

vide

d (s

tand

ard

sam

plin

g te

chni

ques

)O

nly

dire

ct

mea

sure

men

t; n

o la

ngua

ge p

rovi

ding

for

grow

th/y

ield

mod

els

App

rove

d fo

rest

inve

ntor

y m

etho

dolo

gies

Case

by

case

bas

is,

base

d up

on s

ound

fo

rest

mea

sure

men

t pr

inci

ples

and

resu

lt in

de

sire

d ac

cura

cy

Case

by

case

bas

isSi

te a

nd s

peci

es a

ppro

pria

te,

peer

revi

ewed

N/A

Sam

plin

g m

ust

be c

onsi

sten

t w

ith 1

605(

b)

Part

1 a

ppen

dix:

fo

rest

ry s

ectio

n 3:

mea

sure

men

t pr

otoc

ols

for

fore

st

carb

on s

eque

stra

tion.

Dis

coun

ting

for

unce

rtai

nty

Yes,

twic

e th

e re

port

ed s

tatis

tical

er

ror

Yes

Yes

Not

spe

cifie

d


Page 25

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T A

ND

MO

NIT

OR

ING

Prog

ram

/ El

emen

t or

Issu

eM

aine

For

est

Serv

ice

RGG

I re

com

men

dati

ons

Sam

pson

et a

l. 20

07. M

akin

g Fo

rest

Car

bon

Cred

its

Feas

ible

: A

Pol

icy

Pape

r.

Clim

ate

Lead

ers

Fore

st S

ecto

r W

orkg

roup

on

Clim

ate

Chan

ge M

itiga

tion

Fin

al

Repo

rt (W

ashi

ngto

n St

ate)

Base

line

esta

blis

hmen

t an

d pe

riod

ic

mea

sure

men

t ch

arac

teri

stics

Base

yea

r ap

proa

ch

with

FIA

car

bon

stoc

ks

perf

orm

ance

sta

ndar

d

Follo

w 1

605(

b) g

uide

lines

Scie

ntific

ally

-app

ropr

iate

m

etho

dolo

gies

, rec

omm

ends

sa

mpl

ing

met

hodo

logy

that

fo

llow

s ge

nera

l 160

5(b)

gu

idel

ines

. Rec

omm

ends

FO

RECA

RB2

carb

on to

ol a

nd

RAPC

OE

mod

el.

100-

year

BAU

bas

elin

e ba

sed

upon

bes

t sci

ence

ava

ilabl

e an

d in

clud

ing

all p

ools

Mea

sure

men

t in

terv

alPe

r RG

GI r

ules

Dire

ct m

easu

rem

ent s

houl

d be

use

d at

end

of r

epor

ting

cont

ract

per

iod

to tr

ue u

p es

timat

es b

ased

upo

n gr

owth

/yi

eld

mod

els

Not

spe

cifie

dN

ot s

peci

fied

App

rove

d ca

rbon

es

timati

on

met

hods

Not

spe

cifie

d

Gro

wth

and

yie

ld w

ith

quan

tifiab

le u

ncer

tain

ty

(dire

ct m

easu

rem

ents

nee

ded

to v

alid

ate

grow

th/y

ield

m

odel

s pe

riod

ical

ly, o

r di

rect

m

easu

rem

ents

.

Not

spe

cifie

d

App

rove

d fo

rest

inve

ntor

y m

etho

dolo

gies

Not

spe

cifie

d16

05(b

) gui

delin

es fo

r a

natio

nally

con

sist

ent a

ppro

ach

Not

spe

cifie

dN

ot s

peci

fied

Dis

coun

ting

for

unce

rtai

nty

Not

spe

cifie

dN

o sp

ecifi

cs, b

ut s

uppo

rts

disc

ounti

ngN

ot s

peci

fied,

but

impl

ied

that

di

scou

nting

will

be

appl

ied

Not

spe

cifie

d


Page 26

REP

OR

TIN

G P

ERIO

D

Prog

ram

/ El

emen

t or

Issu

eCh

icag

o Cl

imat

e Ex

chan

ge (C

CX)

Volu

ntar

y Ca

rbon

Sta

ndar

d (V

CS)

Calif

orni

a Cl

imat

e A

ction

Re

gist

ry (C

CAR)

Will

ey, Z

. Cha

mei

des,

B.,

ed.

2008

. Har

ness

ing

Farm

s an

d Fo

rest

s in

the

Low

-Car

bon

Econ

omy.

Duk

e U

nive

rsit

y Pr

ess.

Regi

onal

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Initi

ative

(RG

GI)

Repo

rting

per

iod

Repo

rting

thro

ugh

com

plia

nce

peri

od

(pha

se ii

end

s 20

10)

Min

imum

of 2

0 ye

ars,

m

axim

um o

f 100

yea

rsSi

x-ye

ar re

porti

ng c

ycle

; pro

toco

l in

dica

tes

that

you

mus

t rep

ort

annu

ally

for

100

year

s, o

r off

sets

ar

e ca

ncel

led

Repo

rting

sho

uld,

in th

eory

, be

inde

finite

; no

sche

dule

for

repo

rting

acti

vitie

s is

pro

vide

d

20 Y

ear

min

imum

re

porti

ng p

erio

d.

Prog

ram

/ El

emen

t or

Issu

eM

aine

For

est

Serv

ice

RGG

I Re

com

men

dati

ons

Sam

pson

et a

l. 20

07. M

akin

g Fo

rest

Car

bon

Cred

its

Feas

ible

: A

Pol

icy

Pape

r.

Clim

ate

Lead

ers

Fore

st S

ecto

r W

orkg

roup

on

Clim

ate

Chan

ge M

itiga

tion

Fin

al

Repo

rt (W

ashi

ngto

n St

ate)

Repo

rting

per

iod

Ass

ume

RGG

I rul

es

appl

ySh

ort t

erm

repo

rting

ob

ligati

ons

are

pref

erab

le; 1

0 to

15

year

s

Not

spe

cifie

dN

o sp

ecifi

c sc

hedu

le, b

ut li

kely

to

mir

ror

CCA

R


Page 27

AD

DIT

ION

ALI

TY

Prog

ram

/ El

emen

t or

Issu

e

Chic

ago

Clim

ate

Exch

ange

(CCX

)Vo

lunt

ary

Carb

on S

tand

ard

(VCS

)Ca

lifor

nia

Clim

ate

Acti

on

Regi

stry

(CCA

R)W

illey

, Z. C

ham

eide

s, B

., ed

. 20

08. H

arne

ssin

g Fa

rms

and

Fore

sts

in th

e Lo

w-C

arbo

n Ec

onom

y. D

uke

Uni

vers

ity

Pres

s.

Regi

onal

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Initi

ative

(RG

GI)

Perf

orm

ance

st

anda

rd o

r pr

ojec

t-sp

ecifi

c ad

ditio

nalit

y

No

form

al d

efini

tion

of a

dditi

onal

ity;

dete

rmin

ation

s ar

e ba

sed

upon

elig

ibili

ty

crite

ria

as o

utlin

ed in

th

e CC

X ru

lebo

ok

May

be

eith

er p

erfo

rman

ce

base

d or

pro

ject

spe

cific

; all

the

appr

oved

met

hodo

logi

es

are

curr

ently

pro

ject

spe

cific

Proj

ect-

spec

ific

perf

orm

ance

st

anda

rdPe

rfor

man

ce s

tand

ard

Proj

ect s

peci

fic

How

is

addi

tiona

lity

dete

rmin

ed?

Add

ition

ality

testi

ng

is n

ot d

istin

ct s

tep.

Ba

sed

upon

pro

ject

pe

rfor

man

ce. A

ll gr

owth

abo

ve

base

line,

as

esta

blis

hed

thro

ugh

rule

book

, is

cons

ider

ed c

redi

tabl

e

Proj

ect-

base

d ad

ditio

nalit

y te

st:

Step

1: r

egul

ator

y su

rplu

s St

ep 2

: im

plem

enta

tion

barr

iers

St

ep 3

: com

mon

pra

ctice

. O

ther

test

s av

aila

ble,

but

not

as

app

licab

le to

fore

stry

Ann

ual c

arbo

n st

ocks

min

us 1

00

year

bas

elin

e th

at in

corp

orat

es

lega

l, fin

anci

al re

quire

men

ts a

nd

man

agem

ent h

isto

ry

Use

s m

etho

d ca

lled

prop

ortio

nal

addi

tiona

lity

that

ass

umes

that

, in

abs

ence

of p

roje

ct, t

he p

roje

ct

land

wou

ld b

e m

anag

ed s

imila

rly

to o

ther

com

para

ble

land

s in

the

regi

on. E

.G.,

If ba

selin

e is

1 to

n/ac

re/y

ear,

then

onl

y th

at g

row

th

rate

that

exc

eeds

1 to

n/ac

re/y

ear

is a

dditi

onal

.

Base

yea

r ap

proa

ch.

Chan

ges

in c

arbo

n st

ocks

are

cal

cula

ted

usin

g st

ock

chan

ge

appr

oach

. Del

ta

betw

een

base

line

and

repo

rted

gro

wth

is

addi

tiona

l. N

et c

arbo

n =

subs

eque

nt in

vent

ory

min

us fi

rst i

nven

tory

.


Page 28

AD

DIT

ION

ALI

TY

Prog

ram

/

Elem

ent o

r Is

sue

Mai

ne F

ores

t Se

rvic

e RG

GI

reco

mm

enda

tion

s

Sam

pson

et a

l. 20

07. M

akin

g Fo

rest

Car

bon

Cred

its

Feas

ible

: A

Pol

icy

Pape

r.

Clim

ate

Lead

ers

Fore

st S

ecto

r W

orkg

roup

on

Clim

ate

Chan

ge M

itiga

tion

Fin

al

Repo

rt (W

ashi

ngto

n St

ate)

Perf

orm

ance

st

anda

rd o

r pr

ojec

t-sp

ecifi

c ad

ditio

nalit

y

Perf

orm

ance

sta

ndar

dPr

ojec

t spe

cific

Perf

orm

ance

sta

ndar

dPr

ojec

t-sp

ecifi

c pe

rfor

man

ce

stan

dard

How

is

addi

tiona

lity

dete

rmin

ed?

Base

yea

r ap

proa

ch.

Proj

ect C

sto

cks

com

pare

d to

FIA

mea

n st

ocki

ng to

det

erm

ine

leve

l add

ition

ality

. Be

low

FIA

mea

n:

(i) 5

0% c

redi

t for

new

ca

rbon

up

to F

IA m

ean

(ii) 1

00%

cre

dit f

or

addi

tiona

l car

bon

abov

e FI

A m

ean

Abo

ve F

IA m

ean:

(i)

75%

for

delta

(ii

) 100

% fo

r ne

w

grow

th.

Base

yea

r ap

proa

ch a

s de

fined

in

CCX

and

RG

GI.

Stoc

ks a

re

mea

sure

d su

bseq

uent

to b

ase

year

. Inc

reas

es a

re c

onsi

dere

d ad

ditio

nal.

Follo

ws

assu

mpti

ons

give

n in

RA

PCO

E m

odel

. Add

ition

ality

is

det

erm

ined

by

the

likel

ihoo

d of

land

use

con

vers

ion

for

crop

land

or

past

ure.

Det

erm

ine

likel

ihoo

d th

at c

ropl

and

will

be

con

vert

ed to

ano

ther

land

us

e an

d th

e lik

elih

ood

that

it

will

be

conv

erte

d to

fore

st u

se

base

d up

on n

ation

al d

ata

sets

. Fo

r so

uthe

ast,

affo

rest

ation

is

gene

rally

add

ition

al (9

9%).

Abo

ve B

AU m

ovin

g ba

selin

e


Page 29

BA

SELI

NES

Prog

ram

/ El

emen

t or

Issu

eCh

icag

o Cl

imat

e Ex

chan

ge (C

CX)

Volu

ntar

y Ca

rbon

Sta

ndar

d (V

CS)

Calif

orni

a Cl

imat

e A

ction

Re

gist

ry (C

CAR)

Will

ey, Z

. Cha

mei

des,

B.,

ed.

2008

. Har

ness

ing

Farm

s an

d Fo

rest

s in

the

Low

-Car

bon

Econ

omy.

Duk

e U

nive

rsit

y Pr

ess.

Regi

onal

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Initi

ative

(RG

GI)

Base

line

esta

blis

hmen

tBa

se y

ear

targ

et 9

0%

confi

denc

e +/

- 10%

er

ror

of m

ean

for

base

line

carb

on;

Dis

coun

ts a

pplie

d

With

out p

roje

ct (B

AU) i

s pr

ojec

ted

usin

g th

ree

crite

ria:

(i)

env

ironm

enta

l pra

ctice

s eq

ual c

omm

only

con

side

red

min

imum

sta

ndar

d (ii

) min

imum

lega

l re

quire

men

ts fo

r fo

rest

m

anag

emen

t (ii

) doc

umen

ted

hist

ory

of

fore

st

100-

year

mod

el o

f car

bon

stoc

ks

that

refle

cts

lega

l req

uire

men

ts,

phys

ical

lim

itatio

ns a

nd fi

nanc

ial

limita

tions

, pur

suan

t to

curr

ent

cond

ition

s; fi

nanc

ial a

naly

sis

of B

AU c

ondi

tions

; his

tory

of

man

agem

ent a

nd b

iolo

gica

l st

ocks

mus

t be

inco

rpor

ated

into

BA

U.

Carb

on s

tock

cha

nges

on

com

para

ble

land

s us

ed to

es

tabl

ish

base

line.

Thi

s is

a

“mov

ing”

bas

elin

e fr

om w

hich

pr

ojec

t can

be

com

pare

d.

Base

yea

r ap

proa

ch,

mea

sure

men

t m

ust r

esul

t in

95%

co

nfide

nce

+/- 1

0%

erro

r of

mea

n ca

rbon

st

ocks

Prog

ram

/ El

emen

t or

Issu

eM

aine

For

est

Serv

ice

RGG

I Re

com

men

dati

ons

Sam

pson

et a

l. 20

07. M

akin

g Fo

rest

Car

bon

Cred

its

Feas

ible

: A

Pol

icy

Pape

r.

Clim

ate

Lead

ers

Fore

st S

ecto

r W

orkg

roup

on

Clim

ate

Chan

ge M

itiga

tion

Fin

al

Repo

rt (W

ashi

ngto

n St

ate)

Base

line

esta

blis

hmen

tPr

ojec

t est

ablis

hed

usin

g ba

se y

ear

appr

oach

Base

yea

r us

ing

dire

ct

mea

sure

men

tPr

opor

tiona

l add

ition

ality

, ca

lcul

ate

likel

ihoo

d of

land

us

e co

nver

sion

. Bas

ed u

pon

prev

ailin

g tr

ends

in la

nd u

se

chan

ge in

the

regi

on.

Step

s:

(i) d

eter

min

e pr

obab

ility

of l

and

use

tran

sitio

n fo

r ea

ch p

ossi

ble

scen

ario

(Ii

) esti

mat

e ca

rbon

co

nseq

uenc

es o

f eac

h sc

enar

io

(Iii)

estim

ate

tota

l pro

ject

ba

selin

e by

sum

min

g ac

ross

pr

oduc

ts o

f eac

h tr

ansi

tion

and

asso

ciat

ed c

arbo

n st

ock

chan

ges

Stoc

ks a

bove

100

yea

r BA

U a

re

addi

tiona

l. Re

serv

ation

s ab

out

this

met

hod

are

voic

ed, b

ut

conc

lusi

on is

that

this

bes

t fits

in

with

oth

er o

ffset

cat

egor

ies.


Page 30

PER

MA

NEN

CE

Prog

ram

/ El

emen

t or

Issu

e

Chic

ago

Clim

ate

Exch

ange

(CCX

)Vo

lunt

ary

Carb

on S

tand

ard

(VCS

)Ca

lifor

nia

Clim

ate

Acti

on

Regi

stry

(CCA

R)W

illey

, Z. C

ham

eide

s, B

., ed

. 20

08. H

arne

ssin

g Fa

rms

and

Fore

sts

in th

e Lo

w-C

arbo

n Ec

onom

y. D

uke

Uni

vers

ity

Pres

s.

Regi

onal

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Initi

ative

(RG

GI)

Mai

nten

ance

of

carb

on s

tock

sPr

ojec

t ow

ner

agre

es

to m

aint

ain

proj

ect f

or

the

phas

e, a

s w

ell a

s 15

-yea

r no

n-bi

ndin

g le

tter

of i

nten

t to

mai

ntai

n la

nd in

fore

st

Det

aile

d ri

sk a

sses

smen

t for

ea

ch p

roje

ct a

ppro

ved

by a

ve

rifie

r. A

sec

ond

veri

fier

mus

t ag

ree

on th

e ri

sk a

sses

smen

t.

Hig

her

risk

for

reve

rsal

s m

eans

m

ore

cred

its d

epos

ited

into

th

e bu

ffer

rese

rve.

Res

erve

m

ay b

e dr

awn

dow

n ov

er

time

if re

vers

ibili

ty is

less

than

pr

edic

ted.

100-

year

con

trac

tual

obl

igati

on

to m

aint

ain

fore

st c

arbo

n st

ocks

Not

spe

cific

ally

add

ress

ed.

With

com

plet

e ac

coun

ting,

it

is a

ssum

ed th

at lo

sses

will

be

doc

umen

ted;

how

ever

, no

met

hod

for

addr

essi

ng th

e re

vers

als

is p

rovi

ded.

Perm

anen

t co

nser

vatio

n ea

sem

ent t

hat:

(i) m

aint

ains

land

in

fore

sted

con

ditio

n in

to

perp

etui

ty

(ii) m

aint

ains

car

bon

dens

ity a

t lon

g te

rm

leve

ls a

t or

abov

e th

ose

achi

eved

at e

nd

of c

redi

ting

peri

ods

(iii)

requ

ires

land

to

be m

anag

ed u

sing

en

viro

nmen

tally

su

stai

nabl

e fo

rest

pr

actic

es.

Als

o, 1

0 pe

rcen

t di

scou

nt to

acc

ount

for

decr

ease

s in

car

bon,

un

less

insu

ranc

e is

he

ld th

at g

uara

ntee

s th

at c

redi

ts w

ill b

e re

plac

ed.

Reve

rsal

m

itiga

tion

20%

Res

erve

poo

lBu

ffer

pool

Buffe

r po

olN

/A10

% d

isco

unt o

n m

easu

red

chan

ges

in

carb

on s

tock

s or

get

in

sura

nce

on o

ffset

s is

sued


Page 31

PER

MA

NEN

CE

Prog

ram

/ El

emen

t or

Issu

eM

aine

For

est

Serv

ice

RGG

I re

com

men

dati

ons

Sam

pson

et a

l. 20

07. M

akin

g Fo

rest

Car

bon

Cred

its

Feas

ible

: A

Pol

icy

Pape

r.

Clim

ate

Lead

ers

Fore

st S

ecto

r W

orkg

roup

on

Clim

ate

Chan

ge M

itiga

tion

Fin

al

Repo

rt (W

ashi

ngto

n St

ate)

Mai

nten

ance

of

carb

on s

tock

s99

-yea

r ob

ligati

on

to m

aint

ain

carb

on

stoc

ks; e

ncum

bran

ce

mus

t be

carr

ied

on to

su

bseq

uent

ow

ners

Mar

ket m

echa

nism

s sh

ould

be

impl

emen

ted

to in

sure

the

effica

cy o

f offs

ets:

(i)

saf

e ha

rbor

pro

visi

ons

(Ii) i

nsur

ance

(Ii

i) po

olin

g of

ris

k (iv

) lik

e-ki

nd p

ools

(v

) phy

sica

l ris

k m

anag

emen

t.

Shor

t ter

m c

ontr

acts

are

pr

efer

red

(5 to

15

year

s is

sp

ecifi

ed).

Mar

ket v

alua

tion

will

det

erm

ine

the

valu

e of

off

sets

vis

-a-v

is p

erm

anen

t re

ducti

ons.

Reco

gniz

es th

at p

roje

cts

mus

t be

repo

rted

into

per

petu

ity in

or

der

to b

e pe

rman

ent b

ut th

at

is n

ot fe

asib

le. S

teps

mus

t be

in

plac

e to

ens

ure

that

sto

cks

are

not r

ever

sed.

100-

year

con

trac

tual

obl

igati

on

with

regu

lato

ry o

r co

ntra

ctua

l m

echa

nism

s fo

r gu

aran

teei

ng

agai

nst r

ever

sals

; mea

sure

s in

stal

led

for

finan

cial

ass

uran

ce

of c

redi

t int

egri

ty, a

nd th

e st

ate

shou

ld h

ave

regu

lato

ry a

utho

rity

to

enf

orce

pay

back

pro

visi

ons

Reve

rsal

m

itiga

tion

No

spec

ific

met

hods

pr

ovid

edPr

ovis

ions

det

aile

d ab

ove

No

spec

ific

met

hods

pro

vide

dN

atur

al re

vers

als

shou

ld b

e m

itiga

ted

thro

ugh

stat

e-he

ld

rese

rve

pool

or

priv

ate

insu

ranc

e


Page 32

LEA

KAG

E

Prog

ram

/ El

emen

t or

Issu

eCh

icag

o Cl

imat

e Ex

chan

ge (C

CX)

Volu

ntar

y Ca

rbon

Sta

ndar

d (V

CS)

Calif

orni

a Cl

imat

e A

ction

Re

gist

ry (C

CAR)

Will

ey, Z

. Cha

mei

des,

B.,

ed.

2008

. Har

ness

ing

Farm

s an

d Fo

rest

s in

the

Low

-Car

bon

Econ

omy.

Duk

e U

nive

rsit

y Pr

ess.

Regi

onal

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Initi

ative

(RG

GI)

Inte

rnal

leak

age

Sust

aina

bilit

y ce

rtific

ation

for

all

man

aged

land

s un

der

the

owne

rshi

p

Proj

ect m

ust d

emon

stra

te

that

inte

rnal

leak

age

is n

ot

occu

rrin

g

Mon

itori

ng o

f car

bon

stoc

ks o

n no

n-pr

ojec

t lan

dsN

ot s

peci

fical

ly a

ddre

ssed

Leak

age

is n

ot

spec

ifica

lly a

ddre

ssed

in

mod

el r

ule

Exte

rnal

leak

age

Not

add

ress

edM

arke

t lea

kage

is d

epen

dent

up

on th

e ty

pe o

f im

prov

ed

fore

st m

anag

emen

t. P

roje

ct

mus

t tak

e a

disc

ount

to

acco

unt f

or h

ighe

r le

akag

e ri

sk. S

igni

fican

t dec

reas

e in

pr

oduc

ts h

arve

sted

resu

lt in

hi

gher

ris

k, fo

r ex

ampl

e.

Dis

coun

ts a

pplie

d to

aff

ores

tatio

n ba

sed

upon

re

gion

al a

vera

ges

deri

ved

by

epa.

For

est m

anag

emen

t doe

s no

t hav

e m

arke

t lea

kage

if it

co

ntinu

es to

pro

duce

woo

d pr

oduc

ts a

t rel

ative

ly s

ame

rate

(les

s th

an 2

5% d

ecre

ase

in

harv

est r

ate)

.

Mar

ket l

eaka

ge is

pri

mar

y fo

cus;

su

pply

ela

stici

ty is

use

d to

es

timat

e

Leak

age

is n

ot

spec

ifica

lly a

ddre

ssed

in

mod

el r

ule

Prog

ram

/ El

emen

t or

Issu

eM

aine

For

est

Serv

ice

RGG

I re

com

men

dati

ons

Sam

pson

et a

l. 20

07. M

akin

g Fo

rest

Car

bon

Cred

its

Feas

ible

: A

Pol

icy

Pape

r.

Clim

ate

Lead

ers

Fore

st S

ecto

r W

orkg

roup

on

Clim

ate

Chan

ge M

itiga

tion

Fin

al

Repo

rt (W

ashi

ngto

n St

ate)

Inte

rnal

leak

age

Entit

y w

ide

repo

rting

is

ass

umed

Fore

st w

ide

repo

rting

sho

uld

be u

sed

Entit

y w

ide

repo

rting

impl

icit

Exte

rnal

leak

age

Fore

st m

anag

emen

t pr

ojec

ts m

ust b

e m

anag

ed fo

r fo

rest

pr

oduc

ts (m

arke

t le

akag

e)

Exte

rnal

leak

age

shou

ld b

e ig

nore

dA

ctivi

ty s

hift

ing

leak

age

and

mar

ket l

eaka

ge a

re a

ccou

nted

fo

r us

ing

RAPC

OE

mod

el

Exte

rnal

leak

age

can

be ig

nore

d be

caus

e:

(i) a

ssum

e th

at ti

mbe

r ha

rves

t is

part

of p

roje

ct

(ii) w

ood

prod

ucts

mar

ket

is fl

exib

le e

noug

h to

abs

orb

incr

emen

tal e

ffect

s on

car

bon

proj

ects

(ii

i) in

dire

ct m

arke

t effe

cts

that

in

crea

se o

r re

duce

dem

and

for

fore

st p

rodu

cts

else

whe

re, i

f the

y do

occ

ur, m

ay n

ot h

ave

sign

ifica

nt

net c

arbo

n st

orag

e eff

ects

, w

hen

cons

ider

ing

the

mul

tiple

in

fluen

ces

on fo

rest

man

agem

ent

sust

aina

bilit

y an

d in

fore

st c

arbo

n st

orag

e


Page 33

VER

IFIC

ATIO

N

Prog

ram

/ El

emen

t or

Issu

e

Chic

ago

Clim

ate

Exch

ange

(CCX

)Vo

lunt

ary

Carb

on S

tand

ard

(VCS

)Ca

lifor

nia

Clim

ate

Acti

on

Regi

stry

(CCA

R)W

illey

, Z. C

ham

eide

s, B

., ed

. 20

08. H

arne

ssin

g Fa

rms

and

Fore

sts

in th

e Lo

w-C

arbo

n Ec

onom

y. D

uke

Uni

vers

ity

Pres

s.

Regi

onal

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Initi

ative

(RG

GI)

Gen

eral

re

quire

men

tsVe

rific

ation

follo

ws

sche

dule

of fi

eld

and

desk

aud

its b

ased

up

on s

ize

of p

roje

ct

pool

; sch

edul

e of

fiel

d ve

rific

ation

and

des

k au

dits

; pro

porti

on o

f po

ol th

at is

sub

ject

to

ver

ifica

tion

on

an a

nnua

l bas

is is

ba

sed

upon

poo

l siz

e.

Veri

ficati

on e

lem

ents

in

clud

e: o

wne

rshi

p,

fore

st e

xist

ence

, ce

rtific

ation

, con

trac

t,

acre

age,

spe

cies

mix

, ca

rbon

met

hodo

logy

.

New

met

hodo

logi

es, r

isk

asse

ssm

ent a

nd m

arke

t le

akag

e as

sess

men

t are

sub

ject

to

dou

ble

veri

ficati

on:

Step

1: s

ubm

it pr

ojec

t de

scri

ption

, mon

itori

ng p

lan,

pr

oof o

f title

and

val

idati

on

repo

rt to

the

accr

edite

d va

lidati

on/v

erifi

catio

n bo

dySt

ep 2

: val

idati

on re

port

for

addi

tiona

lity

Step

3: v

erifi

catio

n re

port

that

pr

ovid

es e

x po

st c

alcu

latio

ns o

f G

HG

redu

ction

s an

d em

issi

ons.

Veri

ficati

on is

requ

ired

for

both

fo

rest

enti

ty o

ffset

pro

ject

s as

w

ell a

s fo

rest

enti

ty e

mis

sion

s.

Stat

ed g

oals

of c

ertifi

catio

n:

(i) p

rope

r id

entifi

catio

n of

re

quire

d ca

rbon

poo

ls

(Ii) p

rope

r im

plem

enta

tion

of

man

agem

ent a

nd in

vent

ory

met

hodo

logi

es

(Iii)

carb

on c

alcu

latio

ns c

arri

ed

out a

ccur

atel

y (iv

) “ce

rtify

” an

y em

issi

ons

redu

ction

s th

at h

ave

occu

rred

Prov

ides

gui

danc

e on

the

role

of a

ver

ifier

and

pro

vide

s re

com

men

datio

ns fo

r de

velo

ping

m

onito

ring

pla

ns; n

o sp

ecifi

c re

quire

men

ts a

re p

rovi

ded

Mon

itori

ng re

port

s (c

arbo

n ca

lcul

ation

s)

mus

t be

subm

itted

at

leas

t eve

ry fi

ve y

ears

; ve

rific

ation

repo

rts

mus

t be

subm

itted

w

ith e

ach

mon

itori

ng

repo

rt


Page 34

VER

IFIC

ATIO

N

Prog

ram

/ El

emen

t or

Issu

eCh

icag

o Cl

imat

e Ex

chan

ge (C

CX)

Volu

ntar

y Ca

rbon

Sta

ndar

d (V

CS)

Calif

orni

a Cl

imat

e A

ction

Re

gist

ry (C

CAR)

Will

ey, Z

. Cha

mei

des,

B.

, ed.

200

8. H

arne

ssin

g Fa

rms

and

Fore

sts

in th

e Lo

w-C

arbo

n Ec

onom

y.

Duk

e U

nive

rsit

y Pr

ess.

Regi

onal

Gre

enho

use

Gas

In

itiati

ve (R

GG

I)

Freq

uenc

y of

ac

tiviti

esA

fter

pro

ject

app

rova

l, ea

ch y

ear

and

at e

nd

of th

e pr

ojec

t; fi

eld

veri

ficati

on ta

kes

plac

e at

app

rova

l and

end

of

com

plia

nce

peri

od

Veri

ficati

on m

ust b

e m

ade

ever

y tim

e cr

edits

are

to b

e de

posi

ted;

min

imum

inte

rval

se

ems

to b

e fiv

e ye

ars;

aft

er

five

year

s, a

pen

alty

is a

ssig

ned

and

50%

of b

uffer

acc

ount

is

canc

eled

Biol

ogic

al in

vent

ory

mus

t be

“cer

tified

” in

yea

rs o

ne a

nd s

ix

of a

six

-yea

r re

porti

ng c

ycle

. In

year

s tw

o th

roug

h fiv

e, c

ertifi

ers

veri

fy th

e an

nual

mon

itori

ng

repo

rt.

Prov

ides

gui

danc

e on

th

e ro

le o

f a v

erifi

er a

nd

prov

ides

reco

mm

enda

tions

fo

r de

velo

ping

mon

itori

ng

plan

s. N

o re

quire

men

ts a

re

spec

ified

.

Proj

ect d

evel

oper

mus

t de

velo

p a

mon

itori

ng a

nd

veri

ficati

on p

lan

that

is

certi

fied

by th

e re

gula

tory

ag

ency

. Mon

itori

ng/

veri

ficati

on re

port

s m

ust

incl

ude:

(i) d

ata

from

dire

ct m

easu

re

for

all p

lots

(ii

) dire

ct m

easu

rem

ent

proc

edur

es

(iii)

desi

gnati

on o

f su

b-po

pula

tions

and

de

term

inati

on o

f min

imum

nu

mbe

r of

plo

ts

(iv) a

sses

smen

t of

man

agem

ent p

racti

ces

if ha

rves

ting

take

s pl

ace.

Prac

tices

mus

t be

cons

iste

nt

with

SFI

, FSC

or

ATFS

, but

no

certi

ficati

on is

requ

ired.

Valid

ation

App

rova

l by

CCX

Fore

stry

Com

mitt

eeVa

lidati

on re

quire

d to

eva

luat

e ad

ditio

nalit

y an

d ad

here

nce

to

VCS

guid

elin

es

No

valid

ation

requ

ired,

but

op

tiona

l pre

-app

rova

l pro

cess

is

avai

labl

e

Prov

ides

gui

danc

e on

th

e ro

le o

f a v

erifi

er a

nd

prov

ides

reco

mm

enda

tions

fo

r de

velo

ping

mon

itori

ng

plan

s. N

o sp

ecifi

c re

quire

men

ts a

re p

rovi

ded.

No

valid

ation

requ

ired

Veri

ficati

onRe

quire

dRe

quire

dRe

quire

d; v

erifi

catio

n re

ferr

ed

to a

s ce

rtific

ation

in p

roto

cols

Prov

ides

gui

danc

e on

th

e ro

le o

f a v

erifi

er a

nd

prov

ides

reco

mm

enda

tions

fo

r de

velo

ping

mon

itori

ng

plan

s; n

o re

quire

men

ts a

re

spec

ified

.

Requ

ired


Page 35

VER

IFIC

ATIO

N

Prog

ram

/ El

emen

t or

Issu

eM

aine

For

est

Serv

ice

RGG

I Re

com

men

dati

ons

Sam

pson

et a

l. 20

07. M

akin

g Fo

rest

Car

bon

Cred

its

Feas

ible

: A

Pol

icy

Pape

r.

Clim

ate

Lead

ers

Fore

st S

ecto

r W

orkg

roup

on

Clim

ate

Chan

ge

Miti

gati

on F

inal

Rep

ort

(Was

hing

ton

Stat

e)

Gen

eral

re

quire

men

tsN

o in

form

ation

pr

ovid

ed, a

ssum

e it

adhe

res

to R

GG

I’s

mod

el r

ule

Reco

gniz

es th

at th

ird-p

arty

ve

rific

ation

will

be

nece

ssar

y;

sugg

estio

ns fo

r co

st s

avin

gs,

incl

udin

g pr

ojec

t ow

ner

upda

te re

port

s in

bet

wee

n ve

rific

ation

s, u

tiliz

ing

Tree

Fa

rm to

cut

ver

ifica

tion

cost

s

Veri

ficati

on is

reco

mm

ende

d,

but n

o sp

ecifi

c gu

idan

ce fo

r fo

rest

ry p

roje

cts;

ver

ifica

tion

docu

men

tatio

n fo

cuse

s on

em

issi

ons

veri

ficati

on

Aud

iting

thro

ugh

third

pa

rty

or s

tate

regu

lato

ry

agen

cy. V

erifi

catio

n sh

ould

fo

cus

on

(i) m

etho

d of

est

ablis

hing

BA

U b

asel

ine,

(ii

) met

hods

of d

esig

ning

an

d es

timati

ng th

e eff

ects

of

car

bon

offse

t pro

ject

s on

al

l sto

rage

poo

ls

(iii)

actu

al a

chie

vem

ent o

f ad

ditio

nal c

arbo

n st

orag

e ab

ove

base

line

in a

ll po

ols.

Co

sts

shou

ld b

e ke

pt a

s lo

w a

s po

ssib

le th

roug

h ag

greg

ation

of m

icro

pr

ojec

ts.

Freq

uenc

y of

ac

tiviti

esN

o in

form

ation

pr

ovid

ed, a

ssum

e it

adhe

res

to R

GG

I’s

mod

el r

ule

Not

spe

cifie

d, b

ut te

nds

to

supp

ort l

ess

freq

uent

and

in

tens

ive

veri

ficati

on a

ctivi

ties

Not

spe

cifie

dN

ot s

peci

fied

Valid

ation

No

info

rmati

on

prov

ided

, ass

ume

it ad

here

s to

RG

GI’s

m

odel

rul

e

Not

spe

cifie

dN

ot s

peci

fied

Not

spe

cifie

d

Veri

ficati

onN

o in

form

ation

pr

ovid

ed, a

ssum

e it

adhe

res

to R

GG

I’s

mod

el r

ule

Supp

orts

ver

ifica

tion

Not

spe

cifie

dN

ot s

peci

fied


Page 36

SUST

AIN

AB

ILIT

Y

Prog

ram

/ El

emen

t or

Issu

eCh

icag

o Cl

imat

e Ex

chan

ge (C

CX)

Volu

ntar

y Ca

rbon

Sta

ndar

d (V

CS)

Calif

orni

a Cl

imat

e A

ction

Re

gist

ry (C

CAR)

Will

ey, Z

. Cha

mei

des,

B.,

ed.

2008

. Har

ness

ing

Farm

s an

d Fo

rest

s in

the

Low

-Car

bon

Econ

omy.

Duk

e U

nive

rsit

y Pr

ess.

Regi

onal

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Initi

ative

(RG

GI)

Sust

aina

bilit

yTh

ird-p

arty

ce

rtific

ation

requ

ired

for

man

aged

land

s

Reco

mm

ends

that

bes

t pr

actic

es b

e fo

llow

ed,

spec

ifica

lly m

entio

ns F

SC, b

ut

no s

peci

fic la

ngua

ge re

quir

ing

third

par

ty c

ertifi

catio

n.

If ha

rves

ting

take

s pl

ace,

ATF

S,

SFI o

r FS

C m

ust b

e in

pla

ceRe

com

men

ds c

ertifi

catio

nFS

C, S

FI o

r AT

FS

enro

llmen

t req

uire

d pr

ior

to h

arve

st

activ

ities

Prog

ram

/ El

emen

t or

Issu

eM

aine

For

est

Serv

ice

RGG

I Re

com

men

dati

ons

Sam

pson

et a

l. 20

07. M

akin

g Fo

rest

Car

bon

Cred

its

Feas

ible

: A

Pol

icy

Pape

r.

Clim

ate

Lead

ers

Fore

st S

ecto

r W

orkg

roup

on

Clim

ate

Chan

ge M

itiga

tion

Fin

al

Repo

rt (W

ashi

ngto

n St

ate)

Sust

aina

bilit

ySF

I, FS

C or

ATF

S en

rollm

ent o

r ve

rify

th

at h

arve

sting

is

done

at a

rate

that

ap

prox

imat

es b

usin

ess

as u

sual

har

vest

ra

te fo

r ap

prop

riat

e ge

ogra

phic

al a

rea

No

man

date

d re

quire

men

ts,

but c

once

des

that

ATF

S, S

FI,

etc.

pro

vide

val

ue in

offs

et

proj

ects

Not

spe

cifie

d in

affo

rest

ation

pr

otoc

olN

ot s

peci

fied

Documents

Guiding Principles For A Practical and Sustainable