Presented by Charles Kerchner and Rachael Beddoe,

1. Photos from Hinesburg Town Forest, Burlington Free Press, 2007 The role of states in promoting equitable & effective market-based approaches to forest carbon sequestration Presented by Charles Kerchner and Rachael Beddoe, on behalf of the UVM Graduate class “Forests Carbon and Communities”

2. Introduction • Problem statement & background • Objectives of research • Methods & assessment framework • Results • Implications

3. Problem Statement IPCC concluded with 90-99% certainty that warming is attributable to increases in anthropogenic GHG Graph: Increases in GHG emission from 1750-2010 Graph - Marland et al., 2007.

4. Background: U.S. and GHG Emissions • Currently, no federal cap and trade programs • States are taking the lead on climate change policy: • CAFE standards – fuel efficiency • Carbon sequestration • Voluntary markets provide valuable experience: • Lessons learned are important to inform development of future programs

5. Background: Forest and Sequestration • Emissions from deforestation and land degradation • 17.4% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions (IPCC synthesis report, 2004) • U.S. forest related carbon sink is increasing annually (.4 percent) • However, sequesters only 10% of industrial emissions in U.S.

6. Carbon sinks: standing forest, wood products, and enhanced storage capacity from sustainable management Background: Forest and Sequestration Ingerson, 2007; Wilson, 2006; data from Perez-Garcia et al. 2005

7. The Role of Community Based Forestry • Ecological • Community forest stewardship • Biodiversity conservation, watershed & ecosystems services • Economic • Community development; supporting small-scale business and landowners • Connecting to markets • Social • Participatory decision-making • Equitable processes and access to benefits

8. Small-scale Forestry & Carbon Markets • 49% of U.S. forestland is under private, non-industrial ownership (Smith et al., 2001) • Investing in small-scale forestry is critical to sustainability of U.S. forests However… • Difficulty in accessing carbon markets • History of states assisting small-scale forest landowners in sustainable forestry

9. Objectives of Research 1) To examine the status of state programs in assisting small-scale and community-based forestry to access carbon markets 2) To assess whether these programs address carbon sequestration quality and community oriented forestry criteria

10. Methods Part 1: 50 state program presence/absence Part 2: Assessment of states with program present Part 3: In depth case study evaluation of 3 states

11. Assessment Framework Incorporated: • Existing standards • CCB Standards • Gold Standard • Voluntary Standards • Criteria from community based forestry literature (e.g., Charnley and Poe 2007) • Criteria from carbon sequestration literature (e.g., King 2004)

14. Results States with Existing Programs (8): CA, GA, IL, MI, OK, OR, TX, WY States with Statewide Programs Under Development (12): CO, DE, MN, MS, MT, NJ, OK, RI, VA, VT, WA, WY States with Regional Programs Under Development (25): AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, IA, IL, KS, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, UT, VT, WA, WI States Selected for Case Studies (3): GA, MI, OR

15. Results

16. Results: Community Based Forestry Criteria

17. Results: Community Based Forestry Criteria cont’d

18. Results: Carbon Sequestration Criteria

19. Results: Case Studies • Each program had shortcomings and exemplary elements • Each continues to adapt and evolve • Program highlights • Georgia’s program offers flexibility to potential participants. • Michigan’s program has closer ties to existing market platforms • Oregon’s program was designed with emphasis on ecological elements

20. Conclusions • Features of state programs • Designed to help small-scale landowners access carbon markets • Aggregators of credits • Cost share and property tax incentives • Dissemination of information and technical advice • Forest practice regulations • Not targeting ”community” forestry efforts specifically, but overlaps with goals of Community Based Forestry • In the absence of federal programs to guide states, each state must chart its own course. Result is a “patchwork.”

21. Implications • Effectiveness and inclusiveness may serve to strengthen the programs themselves • Inform other state policy development efforts and help integrate patchwork into a federal program. • Inform the national debate regarding forests and climate change policy. • Lieberman-Warner bill - nation-wide cap and trade system that would return GHG emissions to 2005 levels by 2012, and to reduce that by 30% by 2030.

22. Contact Information Charles Kerchner & Rachael Beddoe University of Vermont Rubenstein School of Environment & Natural Resources Charles.Kerchner@uvm.edu Rachael.Beddoe@uvm.edu