ABSTRACT

In forest carbon accounting at the micro level, inconsistencies and even confusion abound regarding how timber and carbon are treated as joint products, whether the Paris Agreement principles of additionality and permanence are followed, and if the varied composition and duration of harvested wood products (HWPs) are captured. This chapter addresses these issues using two alternative frameworks. The first features a Hartman modification of the Faustmann model for forest growth and harvest without incorporating the accounting principles and HWPs. The second builds from a profit function of forest production incorporating the accounting principles and measures of HWPs. Based on the pine plantations of the US south, it is found that the carbon outcomes of the two frameworks vary greatly. The Hartman-Faustmann framework exaggerates carbon credits for a landowner by a factor of ≥2.76. Furthermore, while adding carbon to the valuation has limited effect on the optimal harvest age, it increases net revenue by a substantial margin. These distinctions are of broad importance as policymakers and foresters in all regions of the world look for appropriately integrated assessments of forest sector solutions to the climate crisis.