This article takes a closer look at two programs that allow landowners with as little as 40 acres of forested land to participate in carbon markets. In particular, we examine how differences in the goals and features of these programs make them attractive to different kinds of landowners.

The Nature Conservancy / American Forest Foundation Collab

The Nature Conservancy and the American Forest Foundation have partnered to develop the Family Forest Carbon Program (FFCP), which is currently being piloted in Pennsylvania. This program is designed to help landowners to adopt stand improvement practices that will improve the quality of their woods. Landowners get paid for: 

• Growing mature forest by limited harvesting over a 20-year contract period. Landowners are allowed to harvest some trees, but high-grading is prevented by setting limits on the size and quantity of trees allowed to be removed. 

• Enhancing future forests by reducing competing vegetation following or preceding a regeneration harvest.

The program uses parcel aggregation to reduce costs and make the program more attractive to landowners: 

• One of the biggest barriers to landowner participation in carbon programs is the long-term commitment. This program meets market permanence requirements at the landscape level through aggregation of landholdings across the region. Individual landowners commit to 10-to-20-year agreements, and get paid $100-$215 per acre over the life of the project.

• Audit costs are contained by paying landowners based on practices rather than auditing the amount of carbon that is sequestered on each property. Total carbon sequestered across holdings is estimated based on sampling studies.

• The cost of identifying and reaching qualified landowners is also reduced by using AFF’s online marketing tool: WoodsCamp. WoodsCamp matches landowners with forestry professionals, suitable practices, and funding opportunities by generating a free report on their land. The carbon credit program can simply be included as an option on the reports provided to eligible landowners.

Forest Carbon Works

Forest Carbon Works (FCW) is the first company to offer carbon payments nationwide, although it is currently focusing its marketing efforts in selected areas. The company acts as a mediator and consolidator to measure sequestered carbon, aggregate carbon credits, and sell them in California’s cap-and-trade carbon market. 

FCW’s offering addresses two important barriers that deter interested family landowners from participating in carbon markets—upfront costs and ongoing administrative burden. 

• The company has minimized the barriers to entry. Landowners can take a quiz on FCW’s website to determine their eligibility for the program and learn about program requirements. If interested, they can submit their land for a small fee of $75. FCW evaluates their land and makes them an offer, typically ranging from $20 to $100 per acre per year. 

• FCW’s (almost) free customized offer is made possible by a proprietary mobile app that allows a technician to evaluate a forest’s carbon sequestration potential relatively quickly and easily. Although the program requires a third-party audit, the initial quick evaluation is a good enough initial estimate to make an offer to the landowner. 

• FCW manages the entire transaction for the landowner. In fact, they make initial payments to landowners even before the project is accepted by the Air Resources Board. All transaction costs are deducted from the final payment to landowners and reported on an annual statement.

FCW has found a way to make a very complex program hassle-free for landowners. No specific management practices are required and landowners receive a payment each year. The main downside to this program is the time commitment of 125 years, during which time any timber harvest must be offset by new growth.

The designs of these two programs reflect different philosophies of stewardship and are likely to be appealing to somewhat different audiences. FCW’s no-hassle, minimal-requirements offer seems tailor-made for landowners who are inclined to leave their woods alone. The long-term time commitment is also less of a barrier for people who want their woods to be left in their natural state for posterity. 

On the other hand, the AFF/TNC partnership focuses on promoting active management of woods and more sustainable harvesting. This offer is more likely to appeal to forestry professionals, is more compatible with the interests of the forestry industry, and more likely to fit with the goals of woodland owners who are planning for future harvests. 

The options for family landowners are expected to grow. At least two more organizations (SilviaTerra and CoreCarbon) are working on this issue and their programs will add to the diversity of offerings available to landowners. Given the differences among these offerings, it makes sense to think of carbon programs as a whole new category of revenue options for landowners. As natural resource professionals, it will be important for you to understand these options so you can guide landowners towards the programs that best meet their needs and match their values.