New Paper Compares Protocols for Managing Forests for Carbon Offsets

October 22, 2008

Contact: Christopher S. Galik, 919-681-7193, christopher.galik@duke.edu

DURHAM, N.C. – A new paper by the Climate Change Policy Partnership (CCPP) at Duke University addresses a critical question facing forest managers and policymakers hoping to employ forests to help capture carbon: What are the real differences among the different approaches to forest carbon accounting?

“We conducted side-by-side virtual field trials of seven existing forest management offset protocols and identified significant differences among them,” says Christopher S. Galik, research coordinator at CCPP and lead author on the paper. “In particular, our findings allow us to highlight  potential ‘best practices,’ providing an example of how lessons learned in state, regional and voluntary markets can be drawn upon in the creation of a single, optimal standard.”

The paper is online at http://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/ecosystem/ccppoffsets.

Offsets are a key component of various climate policy initiatives now under consideration, and there are many different approaches to account for the mitigation achieved by offset activities. This diversity makes the early carbon market a valuable source of innovation and a test bed for carbon accounting concepts and methodologies, Galik explains.

“A standardized methodology is needed to provide the confidence necessary for the political acceptance of forest offsets in new mandatory policies and the continued acceptance of offsets by buyers,” he says. “An analysis of the lessons offered by existing forest management protocols is a key first step in standardizing carbon accounting methods.” 

The new paper draws upon sequestration data from the Calhoun Experimental Forest in South Carolina, one of the world’s longest-running forest-ecosystem studies including above ground and below ground observations. Using the data, Galik’s team examined the net amount of carbon sequestration reported under each of the seven protocols, and conducted in-depth analysis of the influence of specific accounting components such as baseline, leakage, and buffers or set-asides.

Depending on the approach used and the carbon pools included, total creditable carbon after 100 years of project implementation varied by almost a full order of magnitude. Variations stemmed from differences in the scope and stringency of carbon accounting techniques. As the feasibility of forest offset projects will hinge on costs of implementation and value of sequestered carbon, subsequent research by the CCPP will consider transaction costs in more detail. “Through this ongoing work,” Galik says, “we hope to identify ideal solution sets that provide greatest accuracy at the lowest cost.”

CCPP is an industry-university collaboration that pools the expertise of Duke’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Nicholas School of the Environment and Center on Global Change with partners in the corporate and academic worlds to develop policies to address the problems of global climate change. Corporate partners in CCPP are Duke Energy, ConocoPhillips and MeadWestvaco Corp.

Galik’s co-authors on the paper are Daniel D. Richter, professor of soils and forest ecology at the Nicholas School; Meg Mobley, a PhD student at the School; Lydia P. Olander, senior associate director for ecosystem services at the Nicholas Institute; and Brian C. Murray, director for economic analysis at the Institute.

###