Close Home
iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry
vol. 11, pp. 1-10
Copyright © 2018 by the Italian Society of Silviculture and Forest Ecology
doi: 10.3832/ifor2431-010

Research Articles

Voluntary carbon credits from improved forest management: policy guidelines and case study

Giorgio Vacchiano (1)Corresponding author, Roberta Berretti (2), Raoul Romano (2), Renzo Motta (1)

Introduction 

Forests contribute to climate change mitigation by absorbing about 12% of annual carbon emissions globally (net sink: +1.1 ± 0.8 Pg C year-1 - [34]), and 13% in Europe ([26]). Human activities have the potential to either reduce (e.g., by land use change, deforestation or forest degradation) or enhance (e.g., by sustainable forest and/or soil management) carbon sequestration by the world’s forests ([8], [16], [29]). Many international treaties and national plans for climate change mitigation mandate or recommend specific actions to increase forest sinks that apply to all member states or subscribing partners, e.g., the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol (KP), the Doha Amendment to the KP (2012-2020), the series of decisions by the Conference of the UNFCCC Parties (COP), the United Nations Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), the California Carbon Allowances (CCA) in the United States. Among the major existing climate mitigation programs, forestry is conspicuously absent only from the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU-ETS), the world’s largest cap-and-trade scheme.

In cap-and-trade schemes such as KP or CCA, pre-compliance carbon “credits” can be generated from activities that reduce CO2 emission or enhance carbon sequestration. Credits for reduced emissions or enhanced sequestration can be sold to partners wishing to offset their own emissions and to avoid topping the mandatory emission caps ([20]). One offset credit corresponds to an emission reduction of 1 Mg of CO2 equivalent.

On top or in the absence of binding government agreements (“compliance markets”), individual entities can commit to generate additional voluntary credits and sell them on a free (“over the counter”) or regulated market, e.g., the InterContinental Exchange (formerly the Chicago Climate Exchange). Such voluntary market of carbon credits ([3]) has grown to a cumulated volume of 990 Tg CO2e in emission reductions, worth US$ 4.6 billion as of 2015 ([14]).

In Europe, the EU-ETS is the main driver of the international carbon market and the main provider of clean energy investment in developing countries and economies in transition. However, following the expiration of the first commitment period of the KP, the exclusion of forest sinks from EU-ETS, and the uncertainty that still surrounds the implementation of the Paris Agreement, voluntary carbon trading is now the only option to pursue and reward carbon sequestration by forestry activities. Currently, such activities are free from the problem of “double accounting”, i.e., enlisting carbon credits under both the voluntary and the compliance carbon markets, at least where no other governmental binding cap-and-trade or carbon tax is in place.

In its national commitments to the Kyoto Protocol, Italy included 10 MgCO2e ha-1 year-1 from carbon sequestration by forestry activities, in public and private forests, out of a total of 50 MgCO2e ha-1 year-1 absorbed by Italian forests ([48]) - a commitment that will be possibly ramped up to comply with the Intended Nationally Determined Contribution of the EU to the Paris Agreement (INDC). The value of this ecosystem services can be considered equal to the sum of all avoided mitigation costs by other industrial sectors; however, none of this money was returned as compensation or investment in the forestry sector ([2]). Local voluntary carbon credits markets have the potential to compensate forest owners for this unequal appropriation of resources, and as an option to diversify revenue and support sustainable management.

Three types of forestry activities may generate carbon credits: (a) afforestation on non-forested lands or reforestation, where carbon is sequestered and offsets are generated through the creation or re-establishment of forest land use; (b) avoiding emissions from deforestation and degradation, i.e., retaining forest as forest; and (c) improved forest management (IFM), i.e., forest management that increases the carbon stocked in the forest (by better logging practices, longer rotation, or other means) and/or in wood products (by producing more durable assortments), relative to business as usual. IFM credits are the most promising for the regional forestry sector, because they can provide income to public and private forest owners, and increase the economic interest in carrying out sustainable forest management activities. Methodologies to facilitate the definition and transfer of carbon credits generated by IFM (chiefly by carbon stock enhancement) are of great interest worldwide, both in developed and developing countries, within the climate change mitigation framework. However, because voluntary carbon markets have an international size, credits can be purchased from sites far away from where the offset will eventually occur. A way to attain the simultaneous benefits of climate mitigation and promoting the forestry sector and jobs is to establish local voluntary carbon markets, i.e., where credits can be sold by forestry activities carried out within a given region ([7]).

This paper develops a set of guidelines that might be applied as a way for the generation of carbon credits for the voluntary market from IFM in the Piemonte region (northern Italy). Such guidelines were established by the regional administration in 2015-2017, and referenced in the new Regional Forest Plan ([44]), with the aims of: (a) suggesting forest management schedules that qualify for the generation of C credits; (b) suggesting the minimum content of Project Design Documents, i.e., the documentation that quantifies carbon benefits of the project using rigorous methodological approaches, to be independently validated, and later verified for issuance of certified carbon credits ([33]); (c) mandating a regional register of C credits from forestry activities. National guidelines for voluntary carbon credits already existed in Italy ([32]). These indicate which certification standards must be complied with, e.g., ISO 14064-2 ([54]), the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), or the Gold Standard ([13]), require a given temporal permanence of carbon sequestration activities (20 years), and fix the entity of buffering for unplanned natural disturbances and leakage, i.e., loss of carbon due to compensatory intensification of land use outside the area of the project.

Methods for carbon accounting in forests are well-established ([53]). Currently, most scientific studies on the impact of alternative forest management on carbon stocked by the forest rely on explicit modeling of forest or ecosystem dynamics ([6], [22], [18], [4], [46]). However, empirical or process-based forest dynamics models calibrated to Italian forests are still lacking ([49]). Therefore, we opted herein for a simpler approach based on differences in aboveground carbon stocks resulting from the management alternatives being compared at the end of the carbon project validity period.

Moreover, one of the most important requirements for carbon projects is additionality, i.e., greenhouse gas removals must be greater after the implementation of the project than those resulting from a “baseline” scenario ([23]). The methodological approach presented here focuses on the definition of a baseline to demonstrate additionality in carbon credits that are generated. Application of the guidelines will be demonstrated by running a full analysis of potential C credits from improved forest management in a mountain watershed dominated by broadleaves as a case study. Although local, the framework used for the definition of applicable guidelines and the practical steps for their implementation can be seamlessly adopted in other regions or countries.

Material and methods 

Study area

The forestry sector currently accounts for only 0.3% of the regional GDP ([45]). The pilot carbon credit assessment was carried out in three municipalities of Alta Valle Tanaro and Val Maudania, two mountain watersheds in southern Piemonte (Fig. 1). The study area has a total area of 22 059 ha, of which 11 548 ha are forested. Forests are dominated by beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) coppices (28% of total forest cover each), the two most widespread tree species in the Piemonte region (NW Italy) (Tab. 1). Forest ownership is 43% public (municipalities) and 57% private. Protected areas cover 5 035 ha ([40]) of which 1 774 covered by forests; another 5 305 ha is classified as direct protection forests (IPLA, unpublished data).

Fig. 1 - Case study area.
Tab. 1 - Forest cover types of Piemonte, Italy (source: [12]) and species codes used in this study.

Eligible activities for improved forest management

The requirement of additionality means that eligible IFM activities may include lengthening rotations, increasing minimum harvestable tree size, improving forest or soil productivity, or giving up part of the woody increment that would be harvested by ordinary forest management.

To promote a sustainable and proactive silviculture, the regional guidelines ([44]) set two preliminary requirements for the eligibility of C credits: (i) that a forest management plan exists or is designed; and (ii) that active management is carried out, i.e., silvicultural abandonment is discouraged.

On top of these, additionality can be assessed relative to one or more of several possible baselines, including law requirements (legal additionality), common practice in the sector and region (technical additionality), and whether the project would have been financially attractive without the revenue from carbon reduction credits (financial additionality - [23]). Disregarding the latter, which presents issues of subjectivity and confidentiality, and is being phased out by many international standards, the problem rests on how to determine legal and technical additionality, and whether they might coincide (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 - Baselines and additionality for the generation of Carbon credits from IFM.

Legal baseline and its units of measurements

The first way to define a baseline is by referring to the maximum allowable cut for actively managed forests in the study area, as defined by extant law restrictions. These are the Forest Management Act (FMA - [38]) or, for protected areas, by the Best Conservation Practices for Natura 2000 areas ([39]). Such regulatory frameworks provide minimum retention requirements for each type of silvicultural entry and forest cover type, expressed in units of percent canopy cover retained after harvest (Tab. 2). This unit of measurement is ecologically meaningful ([21]), but had to be transformed into units of biomass, such as basal area or volume, to be used for carbon estimation.

Tab. 2 - Minimum post-harvest canopy cover or volume to be retained after harvest for each management type according to the regional Forest Management Act ([38]), legal and technical baseline. (a): Shelterwood does not generate carbon credits because it relies on the complete removal of the overstory. Moreover, no cases were available to define the technical baseline. (b): Thinning from below does not generate carbon credits because harvest rates lower than the technical baseline are not recommended under an economic and ecological point of view.

Even between units of measurements with the same allometric properties, such as basal area and crown projection area (both scaling with the second power of stem diameter), the relationship at the stand level is highly variable, due to crown plasticity, site index, differences in tree dominance, and species-specific leaf and crown architecture traits ([24]). However, we hypothesized that a robust cross-species relationship could exist when those variables are expressed in relative terms, i.e., between retained canopy cover R and relative harvested volume Vh. As new could find no template for such relationship in the available literature, we suggest a fully parameterized negative-exponential relationship expressed as follows (eqn. 1):

\begin{equation} V_h = a (b - e^{cR}) \end{equation}

derived from the assumption that the harvest rate calculated on volume is logarithmically proportional to canopy removed (eqn. 2):

\begin{equation} \text{ ln }V_{h} \varpropto 1-R \end{equation}

where R and Vh are both constrained between 0 and 100%. If validated, such relationship would allow us to convert all provisions from FMA into maximum percent volume that can legally be removed at each silvicultural entry from any forest. To calculate the baseline for a wide variety of forest cover types and harvest regimes, and due to a lack of long-term monitoring plots where the temporal dynamics of canopy cover were measured, we calibrated eqn. 1 by simulating silvicultural treatments in 12 intensively measured forest plots with different species composition and structure. Plots were chosen in pure or nearly pure stands dominated by the main species of conifers and broadleaves in the region, and ranged in size between 0.27 and 1 ha (Tab. 3). In each plot and for all living trees, we measured tree species, diameter at 130 cm height (dbh, diameter at breast height), total height, crown radii in the four cardinal directions, and tree position relative to the plot origin. Individual tree crowns were delineated by bidimensional splines fitted to the four crown projection endpoints, and total canopy cover was computed as the fraction of plot covered by projected crowns (without overlap). Total tree volume was computed by means of local and national volume equations ([30], [31], [47]). For each plot, we simulated a silvicultural treatment compatible with species traits and forest structure (i.e., thinning in early-seral even-aged high forest, shelterwood in late-seral even-aged high forests, conversion to high forest in coppices, single tree selection in late-seral uneven-aged forest, group selection in early-seral uneven-aged forest). For each treatment, we simulated two harvest intensities, whereby the relative volume to be harvested (low intensity: 20-50%, high: 50-85%) and the number of trees to remove for each dbh class were defined on a case by case basis after consulting with local forest managers. To account for random selection of trees to remove within each dbh class, we simulated 20 iterations of each cut; once decided how many trees to remove from each dbh class, in each iteration we let a random algorithm decide which specific trees to remove from that class. For each group of 20 simulations, we computed the average post-harvest canopy cover as the cumulative area of individual crown polygons without overlap (Fig. 3), checked its compliance to FMA prescriptions (Tab. 2), and used it as a calibration point for eqn. 1.

Tab. 3 - Description of case studies for the computation of the legal baseline (low/high intensity harvest).
Fig. 3 - Dissolved crown polygons from an even-aged (above - plot size: 0.49 ha) and an uneven-aged forest (below - plot size: 0.51 ha). (a) before treatment; (b) after one random realization of the high intensity treatment; and (c) after one random realization of the low intensity treatment.

The model was finally validated against measurements of relative harvested volume and retained canopy cover in an independent set of six beech-dominated forests where experimental silvicultural treatments were carried out in years 2015-16 (details and plot description in [28]). This was the only readily available data set where canopy cover and growing stock were carefully measured with consistent methods before and after silvicultural interventions. R2 and root mean square error (RMSE) of predicted vs. observed retained canopy cover were computed as validation metrics. Harvest simulations and model evaluation were carried out within the R statistical framework ([37]).

Technical baseline

We defined the technical baseline starting from business-as-usual silviculture carried out in each of the management systems existing in the region. Since 2010, every forest management entry larger than 0.5 ha must be authorized by the regional administration, following a request that must include a description of the intervention and a measure of its intensity. We collected 403 requests filed in the years 2010-2013 and summing up to a harvest of 2373 ha (23.1% of total harvested area in the same period) in most forest cover types and by all common management types in the region (coppice, coppice conversion to high forest, thinning, and regeneration cut in high forest - [5]). After filtering out unclear documents (e.g., volume removed unreported, unreasonably low, or inconsistent with the management system declared), we computed the technical baseline as the average relative harvested volume for each of the management systems described by FMA (Tab. 2). The notifications covered most of the regional territory and most regional forest cover types. Forests in protected areas and forests managed for protection from natural hazards (avalanches, rockfall) were attributed a technical baseline of zero.

Forest management scenarios

In order to demonstrate the implementation of the guidelines, we computed carbon credits generated by IFM in the pilot study area, according to the following steps (Fig. 4): (i) calculate current aboveground stand volume; (ii) quantify the area available for wood supply (AWS); (iii) compute current baseline volume removals for each forest cover type and management system; (iv) define IFM schedules above the baseline for each forest management system in the area; (v) compute volume removals under IFM; and (vi) calculate differences between post-harvest growing stock (baseline minus IFM) and convert them to carbon units ([35]).

Fig. 4 - Steps followed by this study for the quantification of voluntary carbon credits from IFM (rectangles: input data, ellipses: output data, parallelograms: processes).

Current tree volume was computed using tree-level measurements recorded in all regional forest inventory plots included in the study area (N =163). Base grid size of the inventory was 500 m; sample plots were circular, with a radius between 8 and 15 m depending on overstory density. Most plots were included in beech or larch (Larix decidua Mill.) forests (27 and 26%, respectively), chestnut coppices (17%), plantations (7%) and secondary woodlands (birch, hazel, aspen - 7%). In each plot, we computed the total aboveground tree volume as a function of species, dbh, and height of each tree (dbh >7.5 cm) using national allometric equations ([47]). To update plot volumes from the inventory year (2000-2004) to current year (2017), we added to inventory volumes the mean annual increment reported for Piemonte (range: 1.6 m3 ha-1 year-1 for oak-hornbeam high forest to 6.1 m3 ha-1 year-1 for chestnut coppices) by the last national forest inventory ([11]) for each forest cover type, multiplied by the number of years occurring between the year of field survey and 2017. Plot volumes were extrapolated to the whole study area by assigning to each management unit the average volume of all plots included within its borders; management units that did not include any plot were assigned the average volume of all plots belonging to the same forest cover type across the study area.

AWS was computed by excluding all forests with harvest restrictions, i.e., private forests, areas subject by wildfire or harvest in the last 15 years ([41]), forests classified as non-harvestable due to site or fertility limitations ([42]), and forests inaccessible to logging equipment. After interviews with local logging enterprises, we used the following maximum distances to assess harvesting accessibility: 60 m upslope and 100 m downslope from any road for logging by tractor, 300 m upslope and downslope from any road for cable logging. All distances were computed using a vector map of existing public and forest roads ([43]). The pilot area was divided into existing management units, for which area and dominant forest cover type were available from a regional forest inventory ([42]). For each unit, the choice between tractor and cable logging was made according to the main harvestable assortment (sawlogs by cable, energy wood by tractor) and applying a minimum threshold of 100 m3 ha-1 harvestable volume for cable logging (established by the interviewees).

Baseline harvest rates were defined using the maximum allowable rates (max of legal and technical baselines), and applied to current volume estimates. After consultation with local experts, management scenarios for the next 20 years in the pilot area were designed based on current forest structure, baseline constraints, and criteria of ecological and economic sustainability (Tab. 2), as follows:

  1. Conifer forests (mostly mature, even-aged pine and larch stands): group selection, 30% volume removed, cable logging;
  2. Beech coppices: conversion to high forest (mandatory for all coppices >40 years old), 40% volume removed, cable logging if harvestable volume >100 m3 ha-1, tractor logging if <100 m3 ha-1;
  3. Beech high forests: high thinning, 30% volume removed, cable logging if harvestable volume >100 m3 ha-1, tractor logging if <100 m3 ha-1;
  4. Other broadleaves (mostly chestnut): coppice with standards, 70% volume removed, cable logging.

Carbon accounting

The difference in post-harvest volume between the IFM and baseline scenarios for each forest management system was scaled on a per-hectare (AWS only) and converted to tons of CO2 greenhouse gas-equivalent (MgCO2e - eqn. 3). Increment and mortality ([35]) were assumed to compensate each other across the permanence period and therefore not included in eqn. 3. Litter and soil carbon can contribute about half of total ecosystem carbon ([53], [10]), but were considered constant over the permanence period (20 years) and therefore left out from the calculations (eqn. 3):

\begin{equation} MgCO_2 e = k \sum_{i} \left [(1-b) \cdot (V_{i,IFM}-V_{i,baseline}) \cdot BCEF_{i} \rho_{i} (1+RS_{i})AWS_{i} \right ] \end{equation}

where i are forest cover types and management systems in the pilot area, V is the post-harvest volume in m3 per hectare, ρ is the species-specific wood density, RS is the species-specific root/shoot ratio, BCEF is the species-specific biomass expansion factor (Tab. 4), k = 0.5·(44/12) is the biomass-to-CO2 conversion factor, and b is relative carbon lost from emissions due to unplanned natural disturbances ([25]), which we estimated at b=9.8% over 20 years using data on carbon lost to forest fires in Italy for the period 1990-2005 ([53]). Finally, to obtain net credits we subtracted emissions due to harvesting and hauling, estimated using a fixed rate of 16 KgC per MgC in harvested raw material, and 7.0 KgC per 100 km of transport by truck ([51]).

Tab. 4 - Species-specific coefficient for carbon accounting in Italian forests ([53]).

Results and discussion 

Baseline for eligible forest activities

Harvest simulations for the determination of legal baselines (N = 24) produced a good fit (R2 = 0.86) of percent volume removed as an exponential function of retained canopy cover; the parameters in eqn. 1 were a = 38.99, b = 3.57, c = -0.0123. When iterating the same treatment allowing for stochastic tree selection, retained canopy cover (mean over 20 simulations) was less variable at higher harvesting intensities and in stands dominated by shade-tolerant species, such as beech or fir. Validation of the cross-species model from eqn. 1 against independent data from beech forests produced a RMSE of 13.7 percent cover and R2 = 0.663. We used such cross-species model to convert all FMA prescriptions into maximum relative volume removed, which was assumed as the legal baseline (Tab. 2). These figures were almost always higher than the technical baseline (mean percent volume removed from 180 harvest notifications, stratified by dominant species and forest management system - Tab. 2).

Carbon accounting

Mean volume across the study area was 222 m3 ha-1. Conifer forests had the highest stocks (251 to 275 m3 ha-1); broadleaves stocks ranged from 77 m3 ha-1 (riparian woodlands) to 239 m3 ha-1 (beech - Tab. 5).

Tab. 5 - Current mean stock, total, and harvestable area for each forest cover type in the study site. (a): Excluding areas subject to wildfire or harvest in the last 15 years, site or fertility limitations, or special protection.

After filtering out forests with property (6515 ha), productivity (1027), disturbance (148), and accessibility restrictions (too far from roads - 2237), AWS was 1607 ha, i.e., 14% of total forested area (Tab. 5). This figure is significantly lower than large-scale estimates of AWS in Europe (e.g., 44-96% in [1]), mostly due to the high incidence of protected areas, privately owned forests - particularly in chestnut (98%) and oak (72%) forests, and high distance from roads, mostly in pine (94%) and larch (60%) forests. It is not unlikely that both private owners and protected areas could be included in a forest carbon management project, if obstacles posed by property fragmentation and by allowed harvest in protected areas could be overcome.

Baseline harvest in AWS averaged 102 m3 ha-1 (46% of the growing stock) while IFM harvest averaged 78 m3 ha-1 (35%). Application of IFM resulted in an avoided harvest of 39.362 m3, of which beech forests had the greatest share (Tab. 6), for a net total of 64 014 MgCO2e after subtracting harvest emissions, or 1.99 MgCO2e ha-1 year-1 along the permanence period. Relative to the average growing stock of 222 m3 ha-1, carbon-oriented retention represents only 11%, i.e., a retention that should not be generate dramatic income losses if practiced, and that on the other hand will generate other environmental co-benefits (e.g., improved natural hazard protection and increased biodiversity habitat) beyond the monetary income from carbon credits. Also, it looks that under such scenarios the unrealized timber sales should be at least equally compensated by the carbon credit value over the 20-years maintenance time prescribed by carbon credit guidelines. In a similar study based on modelling carbon fluxes, Lasch et al. ([18]) suggested that reducing thinning intensity from 80% to 60% of basal area could result in a 5 to 20% increase in aboveground carbon after 50 years in a Scots pine forest in central Germany.

Tab. 6 - Total stock, harvest scenarios, avoided harvest (baseline-IFM), and net carbon credits (after discounting harvest and hauling emissions) in MgCO2e generated in the study area (AWS only) for each forest cover type.

More detailed computation can be attained by calibrating and applying individual-, stand- or landscape-scale simulators of forest dynamics ([6], [22], [18], [4]), which can be sensitive to management, climate change, and stochastic natural disturbances, and are able to take into account all aboveground and belowground carbon pools, including trade-offs with carbon stocked in wood products ([19]), ecosystem feedbacks ([29]), and uncertainties, eventually replacing the stock difference approach by a process-based flux computation. In particular, soil carbon typically represents about 50% of total ecosystem stored carbon ([50]), and its changes may become relevant when more than one rotation, or alternatives such as deforestation or clear-cutting, are included into the baseline or alternative management scenarios ([15]). The most promising approach for operational forest management and planning is represented by stand-scale empirical and semi-empirical simulators, which are still capable of tracking all carbon pools but rely on simple assumptions and do not require extensive calibration or parameterization by local forest managers ([17]).

Conclusions 

Retention forestry has a long-standing tradition in Italy, with the main purpose to prevent soil erosion and degradation ([52]). As a country where harvest is less than 15% of its annual increment ([9]), forest management regulations must pursue the uncertain trade-off between ensuring soil stability and ecosystem integrity, allowing a certain amount of productive silviculture, and managing forests for natural hazard protection and mitigation of climate change. Specific provisions for other ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration, are still lacking from regulatory and planning documents. The present study demonstrates that the current retention prescriptions in Piemonte are quite modest (Tab. 2): 10% retained canopy cover in coppices, corresponding to 90% volume removed, and 50% retained cover after thinning in high forest and conversion of overmature coppices, corresponding to 60-80% volume removed in a single entry (Fig. 5). The average volume of living trees in all forests of the region is 151 m3 ha-1 ([11]), ranging from 100 (oak forests) to 180-200 (beech, larch, Scots pine, chestnut) to 350-360 m3 ha-1 (fir and spruce). Therefore, most legally allowed harvest treatments (except group selection) currently produce large timber removals. This leaves room for additional retention, aimed at generating voluntary carbon credits, while still maintaining treatment efficiency and, presumably, economic viability. In the pilot case study, most carbon credits were generated in beech forests, where avoided harvest under IFM relative to the baseline was higher (40% volume removed, as opposed to 60% allowed by FMA for conversion of overmature coppices to high forest).

Fig. 5 - Relationship between retained canopy cover and percent volume in 12 plots after simulated harvest (filled circles: high intensity, crosses: low intensity, empty circle: validation set). Dashed line: exponential fit. Solid line: 1-to-1 relationship.

When planning a silvicultural intervention aiming at additional carbon retention, forest managers in Piemonte currently work with two different units of measurements: (i) retained canopy cover, to comply to FMA prescriptions; and (ii) volume removed, to calculate carbon credits relative to the baselines. We demonstrated that the two variables are related by a decreasing exponential function that, albeit heterogeneous, can be applied as a general reference at a regional level. Since the use of a single cover-volume curve may lead to significant over- or underestimation due to the plastic response of tree crowns to local competition, calibration of local and species-specific curves is advisable, especially for light-demanding broadleaves ([36]).

Application of baselines and IFM scenarios to public forests of three municipalities in southern Piemonte, dominated by beech and chestnut coppices, showed potential for IFM to generate voluntary carbon credits. Provided that a local voluntary carbon market is established, the baselines published in the guidelines may help forest managers in evaluating the feasibility and economic return of managing forests for carbon. The forestry sector currently accounts for only 0.3% of the GDP in Piemonte region ([45]); especially in areas with poor accessibility and high harvesting costs, even a relatively small income from voluntary carbon credits could make a difference for forest owners. Moreover, managing for carbon might improve the provision of other forest ecosystem services, creating more microhabitats for woodland species ([27]) and enhancing the protective effects of forests against rockfall or snow movements ([50]). The certification of carbon credits could well be extended to privately owned forests, which are the greatest share of chestnut and oak stands; these were left out from this study because no incentive currently exists for active management in (mostly abandoned) private mountain forests, but such limitation could eventually be alleviated by adequate policies. At any rate, the certification of carbon credits ex ante, i.e., before IFM is applied, is considered more reliable in public forests, where compliance to the planned management schedule for the entirety of the permanence period (20 years) is more certain.

The steps adopted in this study (Fig. 4) can be replicated in other mountain regions where there is interest in promoting carbon stocking as an alternative or an addition to production-oriented forest management. Provided that the demand side of the voluntary carbon market can be supported, more and larger-scale studies are needed to demonstrate whether voluntary carbon credits offer a form of payment for ecosystem services that integrates forest owners’ income and promotes forest management in the increasingly abandoned and marginalized areas of the southern Alps.

Acknowledgements 

The authors wish to acknowledge Regione Piemonte and IPLA S.p.A for provision of regional forest inventory data, and Marco Allocco, Guido Blanchard, Alberto Dotta, Franco Molteni, Fabio Petrella, and Pier Giorgio Terzuolo for the opportunity to collaborate to the preparation of regional guidelines for carbon credit generations. The authors support the campaign #ricercaprecaria for the full implementation of the European Charter for Researchers and the acknowledgement of all researchers as workers, and the Change.org petition “Salviamo la ricerca italiana” (⇒ http:/­/­www.­change.­org/­p/­salviamo-la-ricerca-italiana) for the increase of research funding in Italy to levels requested by the EU Lisbon strategy.

References

(1)
Alberdi I, Michalak R, Fischer C, Gasparini P, Brändli UB, Tomter SM, Kuliesis A, Snorrason A, Redmond J, Hernández L, Lanz A (2016). Towards harmonized assessment of European forest availability for wood supply in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics 30: 20-29.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(2)
Alisciani F, Carbone F, Perugini L (2011). Critical issues and challenges in the post-2012 perspective for the possible participation of the forestry sector market for carbon credits. Forest@ 8 (5): 149-161. [in Italian with English summary]
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(3)
Bayon R, Hawn A, Hamilton K (2007). Voluntary carbon markets: an international business guide to what they are and how they work. Routledge, London, UK, pp. 184.
::Google Scholar::
(4)
Bravo F, Bravo-Oviedo A, Diaz-Balteiro L (2008). Carbon sequestration in Spanish Mediterranean forests under two management alternatives: a modeling approach. European Journal of Forest Research 127 (3): 225-234.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(5)
Brun F, Mosso A, Blanc S (2014). Analisi delle istanze di taglio presentate in Piemonte nelle ultime stagioni silvane [Analysis of harvest request filed in Piedmont in the recent years]. Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali e Alimentari, Università di Torino, Torino, Italy, pp. 86. [in Italian]
::Google Scholar::
(6)
Chen W, Chen JM, Price DT, Cihlar J, Liu J (2000). Carbon offset potentials of four alternative forest management strategies in Canada: a simulation study. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 5 (2): 143-169.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(7)
Ciccarese L, Elsasser P, Horattas A, Pettenella D, Valatin G, Weiss G, Ollonqvist P, Slee B (2011). Innovative market opportunities related to carbon sequestration in European forests. In: “Innovation in Forestry - Territorial and Value Chain Relationships” (Weiss G, Pettenella D, Ollonqvist P, Slee B eds). CABI, Wallingford, UK, pp. 131-153.
::Online::Google Scholar::
(8)
Eriksson E, Gillespie AR, Gustavsson L, Langvall O, Olsson M, Sathre R, Stendahl J (2007). Integrated carbon analysis of forest management practices and wood substitution. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37 (3): 671-681.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(9)
FAO (2015). Italy - Global forest resources assessment 2015. Country report, web site.
::Online::Google Scholar::
(10)
Garlato A, Obber S, Vinci I, Sartori G, Manni G (2009). Stock attuale di carbonio organico nei suoli di montagna del Veneto [The actual stock of organic carbon in the mountain soil profiles of Veneto Region]. Studi Trentini di Scienze Naturali 85: 69-81. [in Italian]
::Google Scholar::
(11)
Gasparini P, Tabacchi G (2011). L’Inventario Nazionale delle Foreste e dei serbatoi forestali di Carbonio INFC 2005. Secondo inventario forestale nazionale italiano. Metodi e risultati [National inventory of forests and forest carbon sinks INFC 2005. Second Italian national forest inventory. Methods and results]. Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali, Corpo Forestale dello Stato, Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in Agricoltura, Unità di ricerca per il Monitoraggio e la Pianificazione Forestale, Edagricole, Bologna, Italy, pp. 653. [in Italian]
::Google Scholar::
(12)
Gottero F, Ebone A, Terzuolo P, Camerano P (2007). I boschi del Piemonte: conoscenza e indirizzi gestionali [Forests in Piedmont: knowledge base and management options]. Regione Piemonte e Blu Edizioni, Torino, Italy, pp. 240. [in Italian]
::Google Scholar::
(13)
Green JF (2013). Order out of chaos: public and private rules for managing carbon. Global Environmental Politics 13 (2): 1-25.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(14)
Hamrick K, Goldstein A (2016). Raising ambition: state of the voluntary carbon markets 2016. Ecosystem Marketplace Forest Trends, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 50.
::Google Scholar::
(15)
Harmon ME, Marks B (2002). Effects of silvicultural practices on carbon stores in Douglas-fir western hemlock forests in the Pacific Northwest, USA: results from a simulation model. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32 (5): 863-877.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(16)
Jandl R, Bauhus J, Bolte A, Schindlbacher A, Schüler S (2015). Effect of climate-adapted forest management on carbon pools and greenhouse gas emissions. Current Forestry Reports 1 (1): 1-7.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(17)
Kurz WA, Apps M, Banfield E, Stinson G (2002). Forest carbon accounting at the operational scale. The Forestry Chronicle 78 (5): 672-679.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(18)
Lasch P, Badeck FW, Suckow F, Lindner M, Mohr P (2005). Model-based analysis of management alternatives at stand and regional level in Brandenburg (Germany). Forest Ecology and Management 207 (1): 59-74.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(19)
Lippke B, Oneil E, Harrison R, Skog K, Gustavsson L, Sathre R (2011). Life cycle impacts of forest management and wood utilization on carbon mitigation: knowns and unknowns. Carbon Management 2 (3): 303-333.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(20)
Low KF, Lin J (2015). Carbon credits as EU like it: property, immunity, tragiCO2medy? Journal of Environmental Law 27: 377-404.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(21)
Lowman M, Rinker HB (2004). Forest canopies. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, MS, USA, pp. 517.
::Online::Google Scholar::
(22)
Masera OR, Garza-Caligaris JF, Kanninen M, Karjalainen T, Liski J, Nabuurs GJ, Pussinen A, De Jong BH, Mohren GM (2003). Modeling carbon sequestration in afforestation, agroforestry and forest management projects: the CO2FIX V. 2 approach. Ecological Modelling 164 (2): 177-199.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(23)
McFarland BJ (2012). Carbon reduction projects and the concept of additionality. Sustainable Development Law and Policy 11: 15-18.
::Google Scholar::
(24)
Mitchell JE, Popovich SJ (1997). Effectiveness of basal area for estimating canopy cover of ponderosa pine. Forest Ecology and Management 95: 5-51.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(25)
Murray BC, Olander LP (2008). Addressing impermanence risk and liability in agriculture, land use change, and forest carbon projects. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, Durham NC, USA, pp. 13.
::Google Scholar::
(26)
Nabuurs G-J, Delacote P, Ellison D, Hanewinkel M, Lindner M, Nesbit M, Ollikainen M, Savaresi A (2015). A new role for forests and the forest sector in the EU post-2020 climate targets. From Science to Policy 2. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland, pp. 32.
::Online::Google Scholar::
(27)
Negro M, Vacchiano G, Berretti R, Chamberlain DE, Palestrini C, Motta R, Rolando A (2015). Effects of forest management on ground beetle diversity in alpine beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) stands. Forest Ecology and Management 328: 300-309.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(28)
Negro M, Caprio E, Leo K, Maritano U, Roggero A, Vacchiano G, Palestrini C, Rolando A (2017). The effect of forest management on endangered insects assessed by radio-tracking: the case for the ground beetle Carabus olympiae in beech Fagus sylvatica stands. Forest Ecology and Management 406: 125-137.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(29)
Noormets A, Epron D, Domec JC, McNulty SG, Fox T, Sun G, King JS (2015). Effects of forest management on productivity and carbon sequestration: a review and hypothesis. Forest Ecology and Management 355: 124-140.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(30)
Nosenzo A (2005). Sistemi di tariffe per la cubatura delle principali conifere della Regione Valle d’Aosta [Volume table systems for the main softwood species in Valle d’Aosta region]. In: “Atti del IV Congresso Nazionale della Società Italiana di Selvicoltura e Ecologia Forestale” (Caivano F, Girardi T, Pierangeli D, Borghetti M eds). Potenza (Italy) 7-10 Oct 2003. Università degli Studi della Basilicata, Potenza, Italy, pp. 209-213. [in Italian]
::Google Scholar::
(31)
Nosenzo A (2008). Double-entry volume table for beech coppices in Piedmont. Forest@ 5: 227-232. [in Italian with English summary]
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(32)
Nucleo Monitoraggio Carbonio (2014). Codice forestale del Carbonio [Code of forest carbon]. Rivista Sherwood, Compagnia delle Foreste, Arezzo, Italy, pp. 23. [in Italian]
::Online::Google Scholar::
(33)
Olander J, Ebeling J (2011). Building forest carbon projects: step-by-step overview and guide. Forest Trends, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 66.
::Google Scholar::
(34)
Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Fang J, Houghton R, Kauppi PE, Kurz WA, Phillips OL, Shvidenko A, Lewis SL, Canadell JG, Ciais P (2011). A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333 (6045): 988-993.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(35)
Penman J, Gytarsky M, Hiraishi T, Krug T, Kruger D, Pipatti R, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, Wagner F (2003). Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. IPCC Technical Support Unit, Kanagawa, Japan, pp. 583.
::Online::Google Scholar::
(36)
Pretzsch H, Dieler J (2012). Evidence of variant intra- and interspecific scaling of tree crown structure and relevance for allometric theory. Oecologia 169: 637-649.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(37)
R Core Team (2016). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
::Online::Google Scholar::
(38)
Regione Piemonte (2011). Regolamento forestale di attuazione dell’articolo 13 della legge regionale 10 febbraio 2009, n. 4 [Forest management act after article 13 of regional law no. 4, 10th February 2009]. DPGR 8/R/2011, Regione Piemonte, Torino, Italy, pp. 62. [in Italian]
::Online::Google Scholar::
(39)
Regione Piemonte (2014). Misure di conservazione per la tutela dei siti della Rete Natura 2000 del Piemonte [Measures for conservation in Natura 2000 sites in Piedmont]. DGR 54-7409/2014, Regione Piemonte, Torino, Italy, pp. 88. [in Italian]
::Online::Google Scholar::
(40)
Regione Piemonte (2016a). Sistema informativo territoriale ambientale diffuso. Aree Protette e Rete Natura 2000 - Mapservice [Land and environment web information system. Protected areas and Natura 2000 sites]. Web site. [in Italian]
::Online::Google Scholar::
(41)
Regione Piemonte (2016b). Sistema informativo territoriale ambientale diffuso. Incendi boschivi [Land and environment web information system. Forest fires]. Web site. [in Italian]
::Online::Google Scholar::
(42)
Regione Piemonte (2016c). Sistema informativo territoriale ambientale diffuso. Piani Forestali Territoriali. [Land and environment web information system. Territorial forest management plans]. Web site. [in Italian]
::Online::Google Scholar::
(43)
Regione Piemonte (2016d). Sistema informativo territoriale ambientale diffuso. Viabilità di interesse silvo-pastorale esistente. [Land and environment web information system. Silvo-pastoral road network]. Web site. [in Italian] [on-line] URL:
::Online::Google Scholar::
(44)
Regione Piemonte (2017). Approvazione del Piano Forestale Regionale 2017-2027. [Regional forest plan 2017-2027]. DGR 8-4545/2017, Giunta Regionale Piemonte, Torino, Italy, pp. 6. [in Italian]
::Online::Google Scholar::
(45)
Schulz T, Krumm F, Bücking W, Frank G, Kraus D, Lier M, Lovri M, Van Der Maaten-Theunissen M, Paillet Y, Parviainen J, Vacchiano G (2014). Comparison of integrative nature conservation in forest policy in Europe: a qualitative pilot study of institutional determinants. Biodiversity and Conservation 23 (14): 3425-3450.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(46)
Swanson ME (2009). Modeling the effects of alternative management strategies on forest carbon in the Nothofagus forests of Tierra del Fuego, Chile. Forest Ecology and Management 257 (8): 1740-1750.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(47)
Tabacchi G, Di Cosmo L, Gasparini P, Morelli S (2012). Stima del volume e della fitomassa delle principali specie forestali italiane. Equazioni di previsione, tavole del volume e tavole della fitomassa arborea epigea. [Assessment of volume and biomass of the main tree species in Italy. Model equations, volume tables, and aboveground biomass tables]. Consiglio per la Ricerca e la sperimentazione in Agricoltura, Unità di Ricerca per il Monitoraggio e la Pianificazione Forestale, Trento, Italy, pp. 411. [in Italian]
::Google Scholar::
(48)
Tomao A, Carbone F, Marchetti M, Santopuoli G, Angelaccio C, Agrimi M (2013). Forest, trees, externalities and ecosystem services. Italian Journal of Forest and Mountain Environments 68 (2): 57-73.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(49)
Vacchiano G, Magnani F, Collalti A (2012). Modeling Italian forests: state of the art and future challenges. iForest 5: 113-120.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(50)
Vacchiano G, Perseghin G, Maggioni M, Motta R (2015). Effect of avalanche frequency on forest ecosystem services in a spruce-fir mountain forest. Cold Regions Science and Technology 115: 9-21.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(51)
Van Kooten GC, Bogle TN, De Vries FP (2015). Forest carbon offsets revisited: shedding light on Darkwoods. Forest Science 61: 370-380.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(52)
Venzi L (2008). Outlines of forest policy in Italy: past experiences and recent developments. In: “The multifunctional role of forests - Policies, methods and case-studies” (Cesaro L, Gatto P, Pettenella D eds). European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland, pp. 39-46.
::Online::Google Scholar::
(53)
Vitullo M, De Lauretis R, Federici S (2007). La contabilità del carbonio contenuto nelle foreste italiane [Accounting for carbon in Italian forests]. Silvae 3: 91-104. [in Italian]
::Google Scholar::
(54)
Weng CK, Boehmer K (2006). Launching of ISO 14064 for greenhouse gas accounting and verification. ISO Management Systems 15: 14-16.
::Online::Google Scholar::

Download

Paper Contents

Paper Sections

Paper Figures

Paper Tables

 
 
Close

 

Vacchiano G, Berretti R, Romano R, Motta R (2018).
Voluntary carbon credits from improved forest management: policy guidelines and case study
iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry 11: 1-10. - doi: 10.3832/ifor2431-010
Close
First Previous Next Last
 
Close
© iForest

Download Reference

Paper ID# ifor2431-010
Title Voluntary carbon credits from improved forest management: policy guidelines and case study
Authors Vacchiano G, Berretti R, Romano R, Motta R
Format
Close Download