UVM Theses and Dissertations
Format:
Print
Author:
Brown, Kenneth R.
Dept./Program:
Natural Resources
Year:
2014
Degree:
MS
Abstract:
Markets for forest-based carbon offsets promise both challenges and opportunities for land trusts in northern New England and New York. Situations that could involve a land trust in these markets include landowners with pre-existing easements entering the offset market, new conservation projects incorporating carbon finance, and land trusts entering carbon markets with land they own in fee. The outcomes of these situations depend in part on how easements have been written. We interviewed five conservation professionals, twenty-four land trusts (four with registered forest-carbon projects), and four state agencies from across northern New England and New York, in order to assess their knowledge, experience, and opinions regarding forest-carbon markets, and changes in practice made in response to the development of such markets.
Knowledge of carbon market opportunities and their challenges among land trusts is variable, though all interviewees were at least familiar with the concept. Land trust professionals are simultaneously skeptical of carbon offsets and optimistic about the potential for a new source of funding. Land trusts are concerned about conflicts with other easement goals and are wary of adding complexity to easement development and stewardship. Barriers to land trust participation in carbon offset markets include lack of assuranceofrevenue, lack of knowledge of market functions, and inability to effectively incorporate small properties. We analyzed twenty easements or easement templates for potential interactions with carbon offset markets. Most land trusts have done nothing to engage with these markets, but a few have altered their easement language to address market participation, and none report having delayed a project to maintain eligibility for carbon revenue.
We identified three approaches among land trusts to addressing carbon markets 1) do nothing (most common), 2) include language to encourage participation (one state agency), and 3) include language that ensures actions taken by the easement cannot be counted towards regulatory mitigation credits (several easements in ME). Regardless of the approach, easements being written now may impact the ability of conservation organizations and private landowners to access funding from forest carbon offset markets in the future.
Knowledge of carbon market opportunities and their challenges among land trusts is variable, though all interviewees were at least familiar with the concept. Land trust professionals are simultaneously skeptical of carbon offsets and optimistic about the potential for a new source of funding. Land trusts are concerned about conflicts with other easement goals and are wary of adding complexity to easement development and stewardship. Barriers to land trust participation in carbon offset markets include lack of assuranceofrevenue, lack of knowledge of market functions, and inability to effectively incorporate small properties. We analyzed twenty easements or easement templates for potential interactions with carbon offset markets. Most land trusts have done nothing to engage with these markets, but a few have altered their easement language to address market participation, and none report having delayed a project to maintain eligibility for carbon revenue.
We identified three approaches among land trusts to addressing carbon markets 1) do nothing (most common), 2) include language to encourage participation (one state agency), and 3) include language that ensures actions taken by the easement cannot be counted towards regulatory mitigation credits (several easements in ME). Regardless of the approach, easements being written now may impact the ability of conservation organizations and private landowners to access funding from forest carbon offset markets in the future.