The Problem with the Baseline
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defines Baseline in the context of the carbon market as “the sum of the changes in carbon stocks in the carbon pools within the project boundary that would have occurred as a result of forest management project activity” and defined in a Conservation Plan. Baseline is more often referred to as a point that represents a “business as usual” or a “common practice” paradigm. In a broader sense, a baseline is a reference state or the values against which we measure change. To put it succinctly, Baseline is what would happen in the project without the appropriate policies and treatments. And a project is considered Additional if the output is different from what would happen without the treatments and policies. It is easy to talk in theoretical circles when discussing additionality and baseline. To clarify, we must refer back to the purpose of an offset program. Primarily, it is to "capture" certain public benefits, such as GHG emissions in a way that is more cost-effective than would be possible using other policy mechanisms (e.g. a carbon tax). Offset programs often achieve increased cost-effectiveness utilizing the appropriate Baseline. Determining the appropriate baseline scenario involves considering various alternative scenarios that could be the baseline. These alternatives should be based on silviculture investment strategies and long-term goals and objectives. There are in practice two baselines: one without investment and one with investment.
For a forest carbon project to be credible, it must be verifiable and demonstrate that it meets or exceeds the “common practice” management of similar forests.
But what is a ‘common practice’? Which one of these photos depict a ‘common practice? What does an actual written silvicultural prescription for a “common practice” look like?
Figure 1. A Figure 1. B
Figure 2. A Figure 2. B
Is it the first two ( 1.A & 1.B)? Where it is questionable whether a viable forest remains. There was no investment in ‘silviculture’ in these two logging projects. And no investment in growing stock, fuels management, seedlings, or planting the next crop. Yet the Baseline is typically derived from USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA data) in the background forest of 1.B.
Or the next two (2.A & 2.B? These two have written silviculture prescriptions and growth and yield modelling data completed for timber and carbon resources incorporated in a Conservation Plan. These two photos reflect an investment in growing stock, fuels management, short- and long-term risk management, cone collection and cache management, site preparation, silviculture and the construct of sustainable forest management. These two units have a series of treatments scheduled over the length of a carbon contract (e.g. 100 years) including regeneration in small groups 1-3 acres in size when they begin their natural process of decline.
Credible Carbon Registries obligate landowners to a minimum of a 100-year commitment. Landowners typically place their forestlands in a Trust to facilitate a smooth transfer from one generation to the next. All Registries require a Conservation Plan and a commitment to a sustainable forest. Sustainable forests require three attributes to function: stand structure (diversity within a forest unit), forest structure (diversity across the landscape), and age class distribution. Over the course of a 100-year commitment to a forest carbon project, trees that are saplings and seedlings now will be [somewhat] mature at the end of a 100-year rotation and available for harvest and regeneration. Maintaining standing dead (snags) and snag recruitment is an essential component of a sustainable forest. Also, a typical cutting cycle may be 20 years. Nearly every acre will be harvested within this specified rotation period of 100 years and regenerated with the appropriate species for the site over the course of these five cutting cycles. This active forest management (2.A & 2.B) done in compliance with a Conservation Plan renders the notion of an arbitrary Baseline obsolete. The concept of a Baseline needs to be based on applied silviculture. The potential of sustainable forest management must be the foundation of any viable forest carbon offset program.
The following chart shows a flux and flow of carbon assets in a managed forest. Periodic harvesting from a scheduled cutting cycle regenerates as much as 20% of the forest and commercial treatments may thin a portion of the remaining matrix. These treatments make a forest and carbon assets sustainable.
In conclusion, credible Forest Carbon Registries must be linked to a Conservation Plan and what in practice becomes a Conservation Easement. It must reference the application of silviculture and the potential of management defined in the Conservation Plan.
Edward Mann / Global Forest Carbon / 3/15/2025
