In a recently published , New England forest researchers respond to a challenge raised by authors of a that called for a more science-informed approach to calculating carbon reduction.
Along with a growing recognition of the value of forest ecosystems as a natural climate solution, especially in states like Vermont and Maine, there has been explosive interest in forest carbon offset markets and associated private capital in recent years, which has raised some . As a result, there is a real need to improve carbon accounting methods associated with forest landowner enrollment in these markets. This would lead to more credible estimates of the potential to mitigate carbon and the appropriate cost to reach reduction goals.
Researchers, led by Anthony D’Amato of ̽̽ (̽̽), argue that the design of current carbon offset programs relies on absolute and simplistic ecological metrics to provide incentives that do not reflect real climate benefits, as . These metrics can ignore differences in a forest's stage of development, biological potential to sequester carbon, and risk of emitting carbon in the event of natural disturbances that can be compounded by climate change, such as severe fires.
“Carbon markets currently support the idea of improved forest management, but recent research suggests that they may not always improve forest conditions in the short term and, by promoting vulnerable conditions, are often not supporting climate change mitigation over the long term,” said D’Amato, a professor of forestry in the ̽̽ .
The research team proposes an alternative approach using biophysically relevant forest measures such as of trees. This approach can help guide forest management towards optimizing carbon sequestration, while allowing the forest to adapt to changing conditions. In the commentary, the authors compare their proposed approach with the absolute metrics carbon accounting methods that are predominantly used in offset markets.
They conclude that using absolute metrics only rewards current conditions and historic carbon sequestration but does not factor in future forest vulnerability to climate change. For example, forests that currently exceed carbon baseline standards in density of trees have experienced much greater annual mortality rates in the last ten years than those below the standards, which limits reliability of baseline accounting. These greater levels of mortality reflect the high levels of competition for resources in dense forests, as well as greater susceptibility to fires and pests in forests with these conditions.
Instead, the researchers contend, using the optimum relative density as a guide allows for multiple management strategies to be used more effectively. Additional objectives like production of long-lived forest products or provision of wildlife habitat can be achieved. This strategy may help ensure policies meant to mitigate climate change do not over-credit or incentivize forest carbon offsets that do not represent true, long-term greenhouse gas removal from the atmosphere.