Comprehensive review of carbon quantification by improved forest management offset protocols

Frontiers in Forests and Global Change

Forests and Global Change

Jacob Bukoski¹  Daniel L. Sanchez²  Van Butsic²  Samuel Evans²  Matthew Potts²  Letty Brown³  Amber Kerr⁴  Bodie Cabiyo⁴  Rory Jacobson⁵  Barbara K. Haya⁶ 

[1] Carbon Direct Inc., Science Advisory Team, New York, NY, United States;Conservation International, Arlington, VA, United States;Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States;Carbon Direct Inc., Science Advisory Team, New York, NY, United States;Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States;Carbon Direct Inc., Science Advisory Team, New York, NY, United States;Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States;Carbon Direct Inc., Science Advisory Team, New York, NY, United States;Energy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States;Carbon Direct Inc., Science Advisory Team, New York, NY, United States;Yale School of the Environment, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States;Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States;Carbon Direct Inc., Science Advisory Team, New York, NY, United States;

关键词: improved forest management;    IFM;    offsets;    offset protocols;    offset methodologies;    forest carbon accounting;    offset quality criteria;   

DOI  :  10.3389/ffgc.2023.958879

 received in 2022-06-01, accepted in 2023-01-16,  发布年份 2023

来源: Frontiers

【 摘 要 】

Improved forest management (IFM) has the potential to remove and store large quantities of carbon from the atmosphere. Around the world, 293 IFM offset projects have produced 11% of offset credits by voluntary offset registries to date, channeling substantial climate mitigation funds into forest management projects. This paper summarizes the state of the scientific literature for key carbon offset quality criteria—additionality, baselines, leakage, durability, and forest carbon accounting—and discusses how well currently used IFM protocols align with this literature. Our analysis identifies important areas where the protocols deviate from scientific understanding related to baselines, leakage, risk of reversal, and the accounting of carbon in forests and harvested wood products, risking significant over-estimation of carbon offset credits. We recommend specific improvements to the protocols that would likely result in more accurate estimates of program impact, and identify areas in need of more research. Most importantly, more conservative baselines can substantially reduce, but not resolve, over-crediting risk from multiple factors.

【 授权许可】

Unknown   
Copyright © 2023 Haya, Evans, Brown, Bukoski, Butsic, Cabiyo, Jacobson, Kerr, Potts and Sanchez.