Forest carbon offset protocols in compliance carbon markets

IF 4 2区农林科学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Forest Policy and Economics Pub Date : 2024-05-29 DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103253

Lili Li, Daowei Zhang

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The forestry sector plays a significant role in nature-based climate solutions. This paper is a comparative review and analysis of forest carbon offset protocols in compliance carbon markets in Australia, California, China, New Zealand, and U.S. Northeast. Our results show variations in protocol designs, particularly in relation to additionality, permanence, non-leakage, and monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV), as well as regarding the fungibility between industrial carbon reduction and forest-based carbon offset. These results may have implications for national or subnational entities to build credible forest carbon offset protocols and programs.

查看原文本刊更多论文

履约碳市场中的森林碳补偿协议

林业部门在基于自然的气候解决方案中发挥着重要作用。本文对澳大利亚、加利福尼亚州、中国、新西兰和美国东北部履约碳市场中的森林碳补偿协议进行了比较回顾和分析。我们的研究结果显示了协议设计的差异，特别是在额外性、永久性、不泄漏、监测、报告和验证（MRV）方面，以及工业碳减排和森林碳抵消之间的可替代性方面。这些结果可能会对国家或次国家实体建立可信的森林碳补偿协议和项目产生影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Forest Policy and Economics 农林科学-林学

CiteScore

9.00

自引率

7.50%

发文量

148

审稿时长

21.9 weeks

期刊介绍： Forest Policy and Economics is a leading scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed policy and economics research relating to forests, forested landscapes, forest-related industries, and other forest-relevant land uses. It also welcomes contributions from other social sciences and humanities perspectives that make clear theoretical, conceptual and methodological contributions to the existing state-of-the-art literature on forests and related land use systems. These disciplines include, but are not limited to, sociology, anthropology, human geography, history, jurisprudence, planning, development studies, and psychology research on forests. Forest Policy and Economics is global in scope and publishes multiple article types of high scientific standard. Acceptance for publication is subject to a double-blind peer-review process.