Open Collections

Díaz, Joaquín Gutiérrez

Forest carbon offset programs are widely used for climate change mitigation globally. With about 9% of the world’s forests, Canada retains a significant potential for forest carbon sequestration as a nature-based solution to climate change. Since much of this forestland is contained within British Columbia (BC), forest carbon offset programs have become particularly relevant for BC’s carbon neutrality. However, the efficacy of these programs in offsetting emissions depends on three constructs: (i) the long‐term stability of carbon storage (permanence) (ii) whether offset emissions are shifted elsewhere (leakage), and (iii) whether additional emissions are truly reduced relative to a counterfactual baseline (additionality). A thoughtful accounting protocol that mitigates the challenges posed by these constructs is necessary to accurately quantify carbon removals in any offset project. Research to date has assessed the design and feasibility of previous versions of BC's Forest Carbon Offset Program (FCOP) and other North American protocols but it has not directly addressed the most recent FCOP version, nor compared it to the previous version. This study examines the effectiveness of BC´s carbon offset protocols using a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the first (FCOP 1) and the latest version of FCOP (FCOP 2). To accomplish this, I conducted a structured comparison of the two protocols in how they approach the key ideas of permanence, leakage and additionality. Quantitatively, I developed a spreadsheet model to implement FCOP guidelines, and calculated credits across the two protocol versions, for a hypothetical Improved Forest Management (IFM) project, modeled after BC's Great Bear North and Central Carbon Sequestration Project. Qualitatively, the most impactful changes were then discussed with reference to scholarly literature. Results included a 17.8% decrease in offset credit totals in FCOP 2, compared to FCOP 1, for the hypothetical project, mostly due to changes in the protocols’ guidelines addressing carbon and methane quantification from Harvested Wood Products (HWPs) and changes in external land-shifting and harvest-shifting leakage calculations. The decrease in credit totals suggests that FCOP 2 is more conservative at estimating carbon sequestration in IFM projects, compared to its earlier version. Further, credit totals in FCOP2 were highly sensitive to key leakage-related assumptions. This variability in total offset credits should be considered when utilizing offsets as a key climate change mitigation solution.

Text

University of British Columbia. ENVR 449

Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library

10.14288/1.0442327

Science, Faculty of; Resources, Environment and Sustainability (IRES), Institute for

Undergraduate

DSpace