Forest carbon management and offsets: Are private forest landowners interested?

Background/Question/Methods

Forests have been touted as one of the largest volume and lowest cost means of sequestering carbon dioxide and generating carbon offsets in the short-term.  Forty percent of forestlands in the US are owned by family forest landowners.  As such, this group of landowners has the potential to have a significant impact on the production of forest carbon offsets, as well as the provision of other forest-based ecosystem goods and services.  However, little is known about how these landowners view programs that enable them to sell carbon credits generated from the growth and management of their forests, and whether they are interested in managing for carbon storage.  To address this question, we conducted a mail survey to identify interest by family forest landowners in the Lake States (Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin) to participate in a voluntary carbon market trading program.  The questionnaire sought information on landowner awareness of carbon management and markets, ownership objectives, management practices, attitudes towards carbon offset program requirements, perspectives on carbon offset compensation levels, and attitudes towards climate change.  A random utility model was developed to estimate the likelihood of a forest landowner participating in a carbon offset project and to identify factors that may influence participation.

Results/Conclusions

Lake States family forest landowners are very unfamiliar with carbon offset programs, but show some interest in participating under certain conditions. Higher payment amounts are positively related to willingness to sell offsets while longer contract lengths are a deterrent.  Results of our analysis suggest an offset payment of approximately $18/acre/year would be required to generate a 50% participation rate; a payment amount much higher than currently being offered through the voluntary carbon market.  Our results also reveal that some landowners would participate within the range of current offset payments, and further, that some would be willing to commit to carbon management without receiving any compensation.  Thus, for those landowners primarily interested in financial gains associated with carbon management, current offset payment amounts aren’t likely to be high enough to entice many to participate.  However, it is possible that for a certain segment of family forest landowners, the value derived from making a positive contribution to an issue they are concerned about (climate change) alongside the ability to improve other forest amenities (wildlife habitat) may provide enough incentive to manage for carbon, whether or not they sell carbon credits.  Methods of identifying and assisting these landowners should be further investigated.