Greg S. Latta

Potential impact of albedo incorporation in boreal forest sector climate change policy effectiveness

Forests have an important role to play in climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration and wood supply. However, the lower albedo of mature forests compared to bare land implies that focusing only on GHG accounting may lead to biased estimates of forestrys total climatic impacts. An economic model with a high degree of detail of the Norwegian forestry and forest industries is used to simulate GHG fluxes and albedo impacts for the next decades. Albedo is incorporated in a carbon tax/subsidy scheme in the Norwegian forest sector using a partial, spatial equilibrium model. While a price of EU€100/tCO2e that targets GHG fluxes only results in reduced harvests, the same price including albedo leads to harvest levels that are five times higher in the first five years, with 39% of the national productive forest land base being cleared. The results suggest that policies that only consider GHG fluxes and ignore changes in albedo will not lead to an optimal use of the forest sector for climate change mitigation. Policy relevance Bare land reflects a larger share of incoming solar energy than dense forest and thus has higher albedo. Earlier research has suggested that changes in albedo caused by management of boreal forest may be as important as carbon fluxes for the forests overall global warming impacts. The presented analysis is the first attempt to link albedo to national-scale forest climate policies. A policy with subsidies to forest owners that generate carbon sequestration and taxes levied on carbon emissions leads to a reduced forest harvest. However, including albedo in the policy alongside carbon fluxes yields very different results, causing initial harvest levels to increase substantially. The inclusion of albedo impacts will make harvests more beneficial for climate change mitigation as compared to a carbon-only policy. Hence, it is likely that carbon policies that ignore albedo will not lead to optimal forest management for climate change mitigation.

The Cost of Achieving Old-Growth Forest Structure

Dwindling area of old-growth forest is of concern in many regions of the world. Forest reserves provide one solution. But highly productive timberlands are typically excluded from reserves due to cost. In this study, old-growth forest is defined by structural attributes believed to be important for old-growth-dependent wildlife species. Management practices are allowed that accelerate the development of these attributes while permitting timber harvest. A minimum area of old-growth forest is protected at any time, but the spatial location of old-growth can shift over time. We demonstrate our approach using a case study on private land in western Oregon. (JEL Q23)

Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on boreal forest climate change mitigation

Abstract• ContextThe Kyoto Protocol allows the use of domestic forest carbon sequestration to offset emissions to a limited degree, while bioenergy as an unlimited emission reduction option receives substantial financial support in many countries.• AimThe primary objective of this study was to analyze (1) whether these limits on forest carbon sequestration would be binding, thereby leading to inefficient mitigation, and (2) the total potential effect of the protocol on the greenhouse gas (GHG) fluxes in the forest sector.• MethodsA partial equilibrium model of the Norwegian forest sector was used to quantify the GHG fluxes in a base scenario with no climate policy, a Kyoto Protocol policy (KP policy), and a policy with no cap on forest carbon sequestration (FC policy), assuming that the policies apply the rest of the century.• ResultsCarbon offsets are higher under the KP policy than in the base scenario and likewise higher than under the FC policy in the short run, but the KP policy fails to utilize the forest carbon sequestration potential in the long run as it provides considerably less incentives to invest in forestry than the FC policy.• ConclusionThe KP increases the Norwegian forest sector’s climate change mitigation compared to no climate policy but less in the long run than a carbon policy with no cap on forest carbon credits.

An assessment of forest sector modeling approaches: conceptual differences and quantitative comparison

Forest sector models are widely used for policy and economic analyses. Basic assumptions vary considerably between models, but little attention has been paid to the impacts these differences may have on model results. Norway provides a great opportunity to fill this void as it has two forest sector models currently in use based on different modeling assumptions, but sharing the same data source. In one model, agents are assumed to be myopic in the meaning that they rely only on the current market conditions. Harvest behavior is in this model based on econometric relations and exogenous forest growth rates. The second model approach employs extensive forest data and assumes that agents have perfect information over the model time horizon. We discuss the differences between the two modeling approaches and compare quantitatively the model results of two case studies. However, both types of models are rather sensitive to changes in assumptions and data. The strengths and weaknesses of the two model approaches and their appropriateness for responding to the study questions should be considered when choosing modeling methodology. Using both models in parallel removes the uncertainty caused by the foresight assumption/optimization routine and thus provides in total more information.

Combining backcasting with forest sector projection models to provide paths into the future bio-economy

ABSTRACT Backcasting is a widely used method that first envisions future desirable goals and thereafter identifies the necessary steps to reach that state. A recent report released by a large group of key stakeholders sets ambitious goals for the Norwegian forest sector in the decades to come, and recommends a set of actions for reaching these goals. As in many backcasting studies, the report provides no assessment of the effects of the identified actions. The objective of our study was to use a model that covers the main product flows in the Norwegian forest sector to evaluate the effectiveness of various recommendations in the report toward meeting the goal of increasing the national annual harvest level from the current level of about 11 million m3 to 15 million m3 in 2045. We simulated a set of scenarios across the sector, and found that to reach the harvest level goal, multiple and radical actions would be required. Interlinkages between segments are important features that impact the results. Simulating recommendations in a model that covers the main product flows and attributes in the sector aids in understanding where policies may have the greatest impact and thus may increase the policy relevance of backcasting.

Eligibility Criteria Affecting Landowner Participation in Greenhouse Gas Programs

Numerous studies have concluded that agriculture and forestry sectors could play an important role in minimizing the costs of achieving greenhouse gas mitigation targets, either through reduced emissions or increased carbon (C) sequestration in soils and forests. Here we assess landowner responsiveness to different carbon payment levels and provide sensitivity analysis over several eligibility criteria. Such criteria are used to limit mitigation efforts to management practices and sectors that are thought to provide GHG benefits that are additional, permanent, verifiable, and measurable. Simulation analysis indicates that facing a modest C payment of

Mitigating greenhouse gases: The importance of land base interactions between forests, agriculture, and residential development in the face of changes in bioenergy and carbon prices

5 per metric ton of GHG mitigation, agriculture and forest landowners could increase their incomes and reduce emissions in the United States on average by more than 100 megatonnes (Mt) per year over the next 40 years. Our analysis suggests that more restrictive mitigation criteria, such as limitation on bioenergy inclusion or land-use change, would lead to fewer emission reductions at any C price, while less restrictive activities, such as an increase in available cropland due to lower CRP enrollment, would lead to greater GHG mitigation.