Forest-Climate Working Group’s policy platform for the 117th Congress

Smokey Wire folks, I’m interested in what you think of the Forest-Climate Working Group’s policy platform for the 117th Congress, especially the legislative proposals. The group doesn’t mention an amount for boosting FIA, but they’re working on a recommended amount.

Background:

The Forest-Climate Working Group (FCWG), formed in 2007, has 58 members, including forest products companies Weyerhaeuser, Hancock Natural Resource Group and others), associations (such as the Society of American Foresters and the National Association of State Foresters), conservation organizations (the Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy), forest carbon project managers (Finite Carbon, the Climate Trust), and other organizations. Recreational Equipment Inc. (REI), the outdoor gear and clothing retailer, is a member.

The FCWG is guided by four key principles:

  • Climate change is real, and forests must be part of our nation’s response.
  • Keeping forests as forests is the foundation to all forest-climate solutions.
  • Forests can do even more to slow climate change if we provide the right science and financial incentives to help private forest owners and public land managers plant and re-plant forests, and manage with an eye to carbon.
  • Protecting forests from climate change is equally as important as trapping more carbon in forests. Many forest resources could be lost to the stresses of climate change, and cutting edge-science has showed that US forests will lose their capacity to store carbon, and release lots of carbon already stored, if we don’t help forests adapt.

The policy platform outlines four main goals:

  1. Maintain and expand forest cover
  2. Improve forest practices for carbon, adaptation, and resilience
  3. Advance markets for forest carbon, forest products, and skilled labor
  4. Enhance climate data and applied science

The platform also proposes five legislative actions to help accomplish the goals:

  1. Create a new Forest Conservation Easement Program (FCEP) with mandatory funding at $100 million annually that is in addition to funds for existing agriculture and forest easement programs.
  2. Pass the REPLANT Act, which would eliminate the cap on the Reforestation Trust Fund (RTF), currently $30 million per year, and require the US Forest Service to address the 1.3-million acre reforestation backlog within 10 years while ensuring the use of best forestry practices.
  3. Establish a transferrable tax credit to incentivize carbon sequestration in privately-owned forests, with credits provided for increased carbon sequestration.
  4. Create a new construction tax credit for building with materials with lower carbon footprint, with safeguards to ensure positive outcomes for forests and the climate.
  5. Strengthen the Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program by accelerating data collection on the base grid to a 5-year remeasurement cycle nationwide, fully funded with federal appropriations, and adding additional statistical research capacity

 

16 thoughts on “Forest-Climate Working Group’s policy platform for the 117th Congress”

  1. Can’t see any immediately obvious ecosystem problems here.

    Problem, as always, is going to be funding even if taxes get jacked up. Social needs including free healthcare and pay for not working are gonna grab it all. Oh, yea, then there is the New Green Deal and probably …

    Reply
    • The message that “Protecting forests from climate change is equally as important as trapping more carbon in forests” is crucial as a counterpoint to the folks who say we ought to reduce timber harvesting and increase rotations in the name of CO2 sequestration. I would add that protecting forests from climate change means protecting from fire, disease, etc.

      Reply
      • I hope someone is doing the math regarding the carbon effects of logging/thinning vs natural mortality (especially fire) (at an appropriate temporal scale). In fact, I hope national forest planning is addressing this question for ecosystems on each national forest.

        Reply
        • Jon, I agree: “I hope someone is doing the math regarding the carbon effects of logging/thinning vs natural mortality (especially fire) (at an appropriate temporal scale).” I would add that we need to do the math regarding unnatural fire, which is what we see today and what is likely to continue or worsen, and post-fire, landscape-scale vegetation type changes.

          Reply
  2. Thanks for the post. Like to see added a tax credit for single- and two-family houses built with non-combustible external materials and the other standard ignition-resistance measures. I’d include jurisdictions that already require that. No reason to penalize communities with more sense than mine. As Jack Cohen and many others have pointed out, wood-frame homes burn at least as hot as forests which is the reason wildfires spread so readily through recently built suburban communities – not very many large trees yet, but the houses are too tightly packed (and not sufficiently ignition-resistant). I’d guess that burning trees and other plant biomass still produces far more CO2 than burning houses but every bit helps. And, burning houses produces far more toxic chemicals than burning biomass (other than poison oak).

    Of interest, perhaps, is that Oregon now has a strict WUI building code but it isn’t being implemented because most counties lack a WUI map at the taxlot level. The current definition of WUI is also problematic.

    Reply
  3. “credits provided for increased carbon sequestration.”

    Can you fill in some details on what would count towards this (and relatively how much)?

    Reply
    • The FCWG is still ironing out the details, but the platform documents says:

      A transferrable tax credit could incentivize carbon sequestration in privately-owned forests,
      with credits provided for increased carbon sequestration. With transferable tax credits, if the
      value of the tax credit is higher than the taxpayer’s tax liability, he/she can sell or transfer the
      excess credits to any other taxpayer. Making the tax credit transferable creates many more
      opportunities for financial gain for the landowner, as they are not limited by their own tax
      liability. While the Federal Tax Code section 45Q incentivizes carbon capture and storage in the
      energy sector through a tax credit, it does not provide a similar incentive for the forest sector1.

      The proposed landowner tax credit outlined below includes two options for landowner
      participation, which gives the landowner choice and flexibility:

      • Practice based option: the tax credit is determined by approved practices the landowner
      implements (selected from approved USDA list). We recommend practices be determined
      on a regional basis.
      • Performance based option: tax credit is determined by carbon sequestration performance
      above a baseline.

      The practice-based approach can appeal to smaller landowners and is USDA’s comfort zone.
      The performance-based approach works better for large forest owners, offers opportunities at
      scale, invites innovation, and is USDA’s aspiration.

      If crafted well, a landowner tax incentive for forest carbon sequestration could increase the
      return on investment to private forest owners for carbon sequestration and catalyze further
      efforts by private forest owners in being a solution at scale on climate.

      Reply
      • I wonder if there is an analysis of the pros and cons of the tax credit idea versus the idea of helping landowners access private carbon markets. This way the costs of managing the program and the costs of paying landowners are both borne by taxpayers or it seems like that. If the landowners use private carbon markets, then the management, certification and all that are borne by the folks who want to invest in the markets.

        Reply
      • So the main answer to my question is the “approved USDA list.” That would be an interesting exercise. I would also be interested in what would be considered the “baseline.”

        Reply
  4. Here are my thoughts on the summary.

    “Create a new Forest Conservation Easement Program (FCEP) with mandatory funding at $100 million annually that is in addition to funds for existing agriculture and forest easement programs.”

    I’d explore what kind of easements the USG are already funding and see if there really is a need. Maybe they could be tuned to more climate considerations. However biodiversity is also a goal for easements. Or perhaps the new GAOA LWCF $ could have carbon as a criterion? It just seems easier to me, management wise, to add to existing programs than to start a new one that sounds the same.

    “Pass the REPLANT Act, which would eliminate the cap on the Reforestation Trust Fund (RTF), currently $30 million per year, and require the US Forest Service to address the 1.3-million acre reforestation backlog within 10 years while ensuring the use of best forestry practices.”

    This seems like a no-brainer.

    “Establish a transferrable tax credit to incentivize carbon sequestration in privately-owned forests, with credits provided for increased carbon sequestration.”
    This seems rife with the same problems as offsets.

    “Create a new construction tax credit for building with materials with lower carbon footprint, with safeguards to ensure positive outcomes for forests and the climate.”

    This seems like it might get mired in the same discussions that we have on TSW. Also perhaps it includes US only wood products, or would that run into WTO issues? And shouldn’t that credit also cover energy efficiency and other desirable goals?

    “Strengthen the Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program by accelerating data collection on the base grid to a 5-year remeasurement cycle nationwide, fully funded with federal appropriations, and adding additional statistical research capacity.”

    This also seems like a no-brainer.

    Reply
    • On the new Forest Conservation Easement Program, might some of the FCWG partners pony up matching funds? TNC, The Trust for Public Land, etc.

      Reply
  5. Large timberland investment companies would love to get carbon credit for their forest plantations. It would be another way for them increase their profits from their lands. I doubt if it would increase their planned harvesting timeframe much.
    I am more of a believer in actually reducing emissions from fossil fuels.
    The FS could certainly use more funds for tree planting.(and harvesting). Maybe they could even start some nurseries for native local trees. Seems like there is going to a shortage of trees to plant with all the fires.

    Reply
    • The problem is probably even bigger than you think. The mortality in the southern Sierra Nevada is so mind-boggling and sad. The USFS has probably used a huge amount of its seed banks, especially for that southern Sierra Nevada region. Pines are difficult, with good cone years being very unpredictable. Some areas might be better off to allow to burn again, (or burn up the massive accumulation of bug kill), so that the planted trees have a better chance at surviving the next inevitable wildfire. It’s much too expensive and controversial to go back to doing large site prep blocks, like back in the 70’s and 80’s.

      Acquiring new seed sources in specific locales and at specific elevations might be hard to find. When a wildfire in timber burns over 200,000 acres, that might cover dozens of unique biomes, making mitigation difficult. Cone collecting seems to have become problematic.

      Reply
  6. Expect anything from this group to have a solid timber industry bias, as indicated by their goal to expand markets for wood products, when sound climate policy would indicate a need to reduce demand for wood.

    — FCWG Member Organizations —
    ACRE Investment Management, LLC
    Adelante Consulting, Inc.
    American Bird Conservancy
    American Carbon Registry
    American Forest Foundation
    American Forests
    Binational Softwood Lumber Council
    Boise Cascade
    California Forestry Assn.
    The Climate Trust
    The Conservation Fund
    Deschutes Land Trust
    EFM
    Environmental Defense Fund
    Enviva
    Finite Carbon
    The Forestland Group
    Forest Landowners Association
    Forest Stewards Guild
    Green Diamond Resource Company
    Hancock Natural Resource Group
    Hardwood Federation
    L&C Carbon
    Land Trust Alliance
    Lyme Timber
    MI State University, Dept. of Forestry
    Molpus Woodlands Group
    National Alliance of Forest Owners
    National Assn. of Conservation Districts
    National Assn. of Forest Service Retirees
    National Association of State Foresters
    Nat. Assn. of Univ. Forest Resources Prog.
    National Wildlife Federation
    The Nature Conservancy
    New England Forestry Foundation
    Northern Forest Center
    Open Space Institute
    Pinchot Institute for Conservation
    Port Blakely
    PotlatchDeltic
    Rayonier
    Resources for the Future
    REI
    RenewWest
    Society of American Foresters
    Sonen Capital
    Spatial Informatics Group Nat. Assets Lab
    Sustainable Forestry and Land Retention Network
    Sustainable Forestry Initiative
    Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Project
    The Trust for Public Land
    University of KY, Dept. of Forestry
    Western Landowners Alliance
    Western Pennsylvania Conservancy
    The Westervelt Company
    Weyerhaeuser
    Winrock
    Woodworks Wood Products Council

    Reply
    • 2nd… I get that you see many of us as timber-biased, but TRCP? TPL? EDF? Univ of Kentucky and Michigan Forestry Departments? Question.. when are universities telling us science, and when are they biased?

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Steve Wilent Cancel reply