Forests increasingly will be used for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as a natural climate solution, and the implementation of forest-based CDR presents a complex public policy challenge. In this paper, our goal is to review a range of policy tools in place to support use of forests for CDR and demonstrate how concepts from the policy design literature can inform our understanding of this domain. We explore how the utilization of different policy tools shapes our ability to use forests to mitigate and adapt to climate change and consider the challenges of policy mixes and integration, taking a close look at three areas of international forest policy, including the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) and voluntary carbon offset markets. As it is our expertise, we then examine in detail the case of the USA as a country that lacks aggressive implementation of national climate policies but has potential to increase CDR through reforestation and existing forest management on both public and private land. For forest-based CDR to succeed, a wide array of policy tools will have to be implemented in a variety of contexts with an eye towards overcoming the challenges of policy design with regard to uncertainty in policy outcomes, policy coherence around managing forests for carbon simultaneously with other goals and integration across governance contexts and levels.

Footnotes

One contribution of 8 to a theme issue ‘Going negative: An interdisciplinary, holistic approach to carbon dioxide removal’.

References

1.
Harmon ME, Marks B. 2002Effects of silvicultural practices on carbon stores in Douglas-fir—Western hemlock forests in the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A.: results from a simulation model. Can. J. For. Res. 32, 863-877. (doi:10.1139/x01-216) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
2.
IPCC. 2014Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Core Writing Team, RK Pachauri, LA Meyer). Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. Google Scholar
3.
Pan Yet al..2011A large and persistent carbon sink in the world's forests. Science 333, 988-993. (doi:10.1126/science.1201609) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar
4.
Wear DN, Coulston JW. 2015From sink to source: regional variation in U.S. forest carbon futures. Sci. Rep. 5, 1-11. (doi:10.1038/srep16518) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
5.
Fargione JEet al.. 2018Natural climate solutions for the United States. Sci. Adv. 4, 1-15. (doi:10.1126/sciadv.aat1869) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
6.
Bastin J-F, Finegold Y, Garcia C, Mollicone D, Rezende M, Routh D, Zohner CM, Crowther TW. 2019The global tree restoration potential. Science 365, 76-79. (doi:10.1126/science.aax0848) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar
7.
Friedlingstein P, Allen M, Canadell JG, Peters GP, Seneviratne SI. 2019Comment on ‘The global tree restoration potential’. Science 366, eaay8060. (doi:10.1126/science.aay8060) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar
8.
Veldman JWet al..2019Comment on ‘The global tree restoration potential’. Science 366, eaay7976. (doi:10.1126/science.aay7976) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar
9.
Skidmore AK, Wang T, de Bie K, Pilesjo P.2019Comment on ‘The global tree restoration potential’. Science 366, eaaz0111. (doi:10.1126/science.aaz0111) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar
10.
Howlett M, Rayner J. 2007Design principles for policy mixes: cohesion and coherence in ‘new governance arrangements'. Policy Soc. 26, 1-18. (doi:10.1016/s1449-4035(07)70118-2) Google Scholar
11.
McGlynn E, Galik C, Tepper D, Myers J, DeMeester J. 2016Building carbon in America's farms, forests, and grasslands: foundations for a policy roadmap. See https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/doc_5128.pdf. Google Scholar
12.
Catanzaro P, D'Amato A. 2019Forest carbon: an essential natural solution for climate change. See https://masswoods.org/sites/masswoods.org/files/Forest-Carbon-web_1.pdf. Google Scholar
13.
Fahey TJ, Woodbury PB, Battles JJ, Goodale CL, Hamburg SP, Ollinger SV, Woodall CW. 2010Forest carbon storage: ecology, management, and policy. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8, 245-252. (doi:10.1890/080169) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
14.
Ryan MGet al.. 2010A synthesis of the science on forests and carbon for U.S. forests. See https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2010_ryan_m002.pdf. Google Scholar
15.
McKinley DCet al.. 2011A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United States. Ecol. Appl. 21, 1902-1924. Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar
16.
Clark NA, Saunders BP. 2009The role of longleaf pine in the conservation framework of the Southeast United States. In A Multidisciplinary Approach to Conservation: Proc. of the 31st Southern Conservation Agricultural Systems Conf., Melfa, VA, 20–23 July 2009, pp. 49-57. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication 2910-1417. See https://www.pubs.ext.vt.edu/content/dam/pubs_ext_vt_edu/2910/2910-1417/2910-1417_pdf.pdf. Google Scholar
17.
Kush JS, Meldahl RS, Mcmahon CK, Boyer WD. 2004Longleaf pine: a sustainable approach for increasing terrestrial carbon in the Southern United States. Environ. Manage. 33, 5139-5147. (doi:10.1007/s00267-003-9124-3) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
18.
Hurteau MD, North MP, Koch GW, Hungate BA. 2019Managing for disturbance stabilizes forest carbon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 10 193-10 195. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1905146116) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
19.
Hurteau M, North M. 2009Fuel treatment effects on tree-based forest carbon storage and emissions under modeled wildfire scenarios. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 409-414. (doi:10.1890/080049) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
20.
North M, Hurteau M, Innes J. 2009Fire suppression and fuels treatment effects on mixed-conifer carbon stocks and emissions. Ecol. Appl. 19, 1385-1396. (doi:10.1890/08-1173.1) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar
21.
Profft I, Mund M, Weber GE, Weller E, Schulze ED. 2009Forest management and carbon sequestration in wood products. Eur. J. For. Res. 128, 399-413. (doi:10.1007/s10342-009-0283-5) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
22.
Gustavsson L, Pingoud K, Sathre R. 2006Carbon dioxide balance of wood substitution: comparing concrete- and wood-framed buildings. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 11, 667-691. (doi:10.1007/s11027-006-7207-1) Crossref, Google Scholar
23.
Ontl TAet al.. 2019Forest management for carbon sequestration and climate adaptation. J. For. 118, 86-106. (doi:10.1093/jofore/fvz062) ISI, Google Scholar
24.
D'Amato AW, Bradford JB, Fraver S, Palik BJ. 2011Forest management for mitigation and adaptation to climate change: insights from long-term silviculture experiments. For. Ecol. Manage. 262, 803-816. (doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.014) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
25.
Williamson TB, Nelson HW. 2017Barriers to enhanced and integrated climate change adaptation and mitigation in Canadian forest management. Can. J. For. Res. 47, 1567-1576. (doi:10.1139/cjfr-2017-0252) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
26.
Schultz CA, Timberlake TJ, Wurtzebach Z, McIntyre K, Moseley C, Huber-Stearns HR. 2019Policy tools to address scale mismatches: insights from US forest governance. Ecol. Soc. 24, 21. (doi:10.5751/es-10703-240121) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
27.
Millar CI, Stephenson NL. 2015Temperate forest health in an era of emerging megadisturbance. Science 349, 823-826. (doi:10.1126/science.aaa9933) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar
28.
Seidl R, Spies TA, Peterson DL, Stephens SL, Hicke JA. 2016Searching for resilience: addressing the impacts of changing disturbance regimes on forest ecosystem services. J. Appl. Ecol. 53, 120-129. (doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12511) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar
29.
Forest Climate Action Team. 2018California forest carbon plan: managing our forest landscapes in a changing climate. See https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/California-Forest-Carbon-Plan-Final-Draft-for-Public-Release-May-2018.pdf. Google Scholar
30.
Spies TAet al..2017Using an agent-based model to examine forest management outcomes in a fire-prone landscape in Oregon, USA. Ecol. Soc. 22, 25. (doi:10.5751/ES-08841-220125) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
31.
Hurteau MD, Brooks ML. 2011Short- and long-term effects of fire on carbon in US dry temperate forest systems. Bioscience 61, 139-146. (doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.2.9) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
32.
Howlett M. 2009Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: a multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sci. 42, 73-89. (doi:10.1007/s11077-009-9079-1) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
33.
Schneider A, Ingram H. 1990Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. J. Polit. 52, 510-529. (doi:10.2307/2131904) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
34.
McElwee P, Nguyen VHT, Nguyen DV, Tran NH, Le HVT, Nghiem TP, Vu HDT. 2017Using REDD+ policy to facilitate climate adaptation at the local level: synergies and challenges in Vietnam. Forests 8, 1-24. (doi:10.3390/f8010011) ISI, Google Scholar
35.
Candel JJL, Biesbroek R. 2016Toward a processual understanding of policy integration. Policy Sci. 49, 211-231. (doi:10.1007/s11077-016-9248-y) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
36.
Winkel G, Sotirov M. 2016Whose integration is this? European forest policy between the gospel of coordination, institutional competition, and a new spirit of integration. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 34, 496-514. (doi:10.1068/c1356j) Crossref, Google Scholar
37.
Chindarkar N, Howlett M, Ramesh M. 2017Introduction to the special issue: ‘conceptualizing effective social policy design: design spaces and capacity challenges'. Public Adm. Dev. 37, 3-14. (doi:10.1002/pad.1789) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
38.
Boyd Eet al.. 2009Reforming the CDM for sustainable development: lessons learned and policy futures. Environ. Sci. Policy 12, 820-831. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
39.
van der Gaast W, Sikkema R, Vohrer M.2018The contribution of forest carbon credit projects to addressing the climate change challenge. Clim. Policy 18, 42-48. (doi:10.1080/14693062.2016.1242056) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
40.
Salinas Z, Baroudy E. 2011BioCarbon fund experience: insights from afforestation and reforestation clean development mechanism projects. See https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/27108. Google Scholar
41.
Gong Y, Bull G, Baylis K. 2010Participation in the world's first clean development mechanism forest project: the role of property rights, social capital and contractual rules. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1292-1302. (doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.017) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
42.
Brown K, Adger WN, Boyd E, Corbera-Elizalde E, Shackley S. 2004How do CDM projects contribute to sustainable development? See https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/wp-content/uploads/archive/documents/Doc_345.pdf. Google Scholar
43.
Angelsen A. 2017REDD+ as result-based aid: general lessons and bilateral agreements of Norway. Rev. Dev. Econ. 21, 237-264. (doi:10.1111/rode.12271) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
44.
Turnhout E, Gupta A, Weatherley-Singh J, Vijge MJ, de Koning J, Visseren-Hamakers IJ, Herold M, Lederer M.2017Envisioning REDD+ in a post-Paris era: between evolving expectations and current practice. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 8, 1-13. (doi:10.1002/wcc.425) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
45.
den Besten JW, Arts B, Verkooijen P. 2014The evolution of REDD+: an analysis of discursive-institutional dynamics. Environ. Sci. Policy 35, 40-48. (doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2013.03.009) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
46.
Norman M, Nakhooda S. 2014The state of REDD+ finance. See https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/CGD-Norman-Nakhooda-Climate-Forests-5-REDD-Finance.pdf. Google Scholar
47.
Duchelle AE, Seymour F, Brockhaus M, Angelsen A, Larson AM, Moeliono M, Wong GY, Pham TT, Martius C. 2018REDD+: lessons from national and subnational implementation. See https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/ending-tropical-deforestation-redd-lessons-implementation.pdf. Google Scholar
48.
Nielsen TD. 2016From REDD+ forests to green landscapes? Analyzing the emerging integrated landscape approach discourse in the UNFCCC. For. Policy Econ. 73, 177-184. (doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.09.006) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
49.
Duchelle AE, de Sassi C, Jagger P, Cromberg M, Larson AM, Sunderlin WD, Atmadja SS, Resosudarmo IAP, Pratama CD.2017Balancing carrots and sticks in REDD+: implications for social safeguards. Ecol. Soc. 22, 2. (doi:10.5751/ES-09334-220302) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
50.
Ravikumar A, Larson AM, Duchelle AE, Myers R, Tovar JG. 2015Multilevel governance challenges in transitioning towards a national approach for REDD+: evidence from 23 subnational REDD+ initiatives. Int. J. Commons 9, 909-931. (doi:10.18352/ijc.593) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
51.
Duchelle AE, Simonet G, Sunderlin WD, Wunder S. 2018What is REDD+ achieving on the ground?Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 32, 134-140. (doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.07.001) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
52.
Milne S, Mahanty S, To P, Dressler W, Kanowski P, Thavat M. 2019Learning from ‘actually existing’ REDD+: a synthesis of ethnographic findings. Conserv. Soc. 17, 84-95. (doi:10.4103/cs.cs_18_13) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
53.
Brockhaus Met al..2017REDD+, transformational change and the promise of performance-based payments: a qualitative comparative analysis. Clim. Policy 17, 708-730. (doi:10.1080/14693062.2016.1169392) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
54.
Wurtzebach Z, Casse T, Meilby H, Nielsen MR, Milhøj A. 2019REDD+ policy design and policy learning: the emergence of an integrated landscape approach in Vietnam. For. Policy Econ. 101, 129-139. (doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2018.10.003) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
55.
Bastos LMG, Kissinger G, Visseren-Hamakers IJ, Braña-Varela J, Gupta A. 2017The sustainable development goals and REDD+: assessing institutional interactions and the pursuit of synergies. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. 17, 589-606. (doi:10.1007/s10784-017-9366-9) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
56.
Rodriguez-Ward D, Larson AM, Ruesta HG. 2018Top-down, bottom-up and sideways: the multilayered complexities of multi-level actors shaping forest governance and REDD+ arrangements in Madre de Dios, Peru. Environ. Manage. 62, 98-116. (doi:10.1007/s00267-017-0982-5) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar
57.
den Besten JW, Arts B, Behagel J. 2019Spiders in the web: understanding the evolution of REDD+ in Southwest Ghana. Forests 10, 1-19. (doi:10.3390/f10020117) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
58.
Lee DH, Kim DH, Kim SL. 2018Characteristics of forest carbon credit transactions in the voluntary carbon market. Clim. Policy 18, 235-245. (doi:10.1080/14693062.2016.1277682) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
59.
Hamrick K, Gallant M. 2017Unlocking potential: state of the voluntary carbon markets 2017. See https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/doc_5591.pdf. Google Scholar
60.
Shapiro A. 2009Can US entice polluters into early reduction of greenhouse gas emissions?Ecosyst. Marketpl.See https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/can-us-entice-polluters-into-early-reduction-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ (accessed 17 April 2020). Google Scholar
61.
Oswalt SN, Smith WB, Miles PD, Pugh SA. 2019Forest resources of the United States, 2017: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2020 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-97.Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. Google Scholar
62.
Timberlake TJ, Schultz CA. 2017Policy, practice, and partnerships for climate change adaptation on US national forests. Clim. Change 144, 257-269. (doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2031-z) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
63.
USFS. 2011The Forest Service climate change performance scorecard. See https://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/advisor/scorecard/The-Forest-Service-Climate-Change-Performance-Scorecard.pdf. Google Scholar
64.
Birdsey R, Dugan A, Healey S, Dante-Wood K, Zhang F, Chen J, Hernandez A, Raymond C, McCarter J. 2019Assessment of the influence of disturbance, management activities, and environmental factors on carbon stocks of United States national forests. See https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_series/rmrs/gtr/rmrs_gtr402.pdf. Google Scholar
65.
Schultz CA, Sisk TD, Noon BR, Nie MA. 2013Wildlife conservation planning under the United States Forest Service's 2012 planning rule. J. Wildl. Manage. 77, 428-444. (doi:10.1002/jwmg.513) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
66.
Wurtzebach Z, Schultz C. 2016Measuring ecological integrity: history, practical applications, and research opportunities. Bioscience 66, 446-457. (doi:10.1093/biosci/biw037) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
67.
Schultz CA, Thompson MP, McCaffrey SM. 2019Forest service fire management and the elusiveness of change. Fire Ecol. 15, 13. (doi:10.1186/s42408-019-0028-x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
68.
Trump DJ. 2018Executive Order on Promoting Active Management of America's Forests, Rangelands, and other Federal Lands to Improve Conditions and Reduce Wildfire Risk. See https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/eo-promoting-active-management-americas-forests-rangelands-federal-lands-improve-conditions-reduce-wildfire-risk/ (accessed 17 April 2020). Google Scholar
69.
Biber E. 2009Too many things to do: how to deal with the dysfunctions of multiple-goal agencies. Harvard Environ. Law Rev. 33, 1-63. (doi:10.2139/ssrn.1090313) Google Scholar
70.
Butler BJ, Hewes JH, Dickinson BJ, Andrejczyk K, Butler SM, Markowski-Lindsay M. 2016Family forest ownerships of the United States, 2013: findings from the USDA Forest Service's National Woodland Owner Survey. J. For. 114, 638-647. (doi:10.5849/jof.15-099) ISI, Google Scholar
71.
Galik CS, Murray BC, Mercer DE. 2013Where is the carbon? Carbon sequestration potential from private forestland in the Southern United States. J. For. 111, 17-25. (doi:10.5849/jof.12-055) ISI, Google Scholar
72.
Im EH, Adams DM, Latta GS. 2007Potential impacts of carbon taxes on carbon flux in western Oregon private forests. For. Policy Econ. 9, 1006-1017. (doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2006.09.006) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
73.
Charnley S, Diaz D, Gosnell H. 2010Mitigating climate change through small-scale forestry in the USA: opportunities and challenges. Small-scale For. 9, 445-462. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
74.
Butler BJet al..2014Effectiveness of landowner assistance activities: an examination of the USDA Forest Service's Forest Stewardship Program. J. For. 112, 187-197. (doi:10.5849/jof.13-066) ISI, Google Scholar
75.
US Forest Service.In press.How the forest legacy program works. See https://www.fs.fed.us/managing-land/private-land/forest-legacy/program (accessed 17 April 2020). Google Scholar
76.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2019NRCS Conservation Programs: Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP). Farm Bill Report (fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2019). See https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/NRCS_RCA/reports/fb08_cp_hfrp.html (accessed 14 April 2020). Google Scholar
77.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), US Department of Agriculture. 2006Healthy forest reserve program interim final rule environmental assessment. See https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_006635.pdf. Google Scholar
78.
Charles D. 2019Europe is burning U.S. wood as climate-friendly fuel, but green groups protest. See https://www.npr.org/2019/12/04/783088774/europe-is-burning-u-s-wood-as-climate-friendly-fuel-but-green-groups-protest. Google Scholar
79.
Caputo J, Butler B. 2017Ecosystem service supply and capacity on U.S. family forestlands. Forests 8, 1-14. (doi:10.3390/f8100395) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
80.
Fletcher LS, Kittredge D, Stevens T. 2009Forest landowners' willingness to sell carbon credits: a pilot study. North. J. Appl. For. 26, 35-37. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
81.
Khanal PN, Grebner DL, Munn IA, Grado SC, Grala RK, Henderson JE. 2017Evaluating non-industrial private forest landowner willingness to manage for forest carbon sequestration in the southern United States. For. Policy Econ. 75, 112-119. (doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.07.004) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
82.
White AE, Lutz DA, Howarth RB, Soto JR. 2018Small-scale forestry and carbon offset markets: an empirical study of Vermont current use forest landowner willingness to accept carbon credit programs. PLoS ONE 13, 1-24. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0201967) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
83.
Markowski-Lindsay M, Stevens T, Kittredge DB, Butler BJ, Catanzaro P, Dickinson BJ. 2011Barriers to Massachusetts forest landowner participation in carbon markets. Ecol. Econ. 71, 180-190. (doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.08.027) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
84.
Dwivedi P, Alavalapati JRR, Susaeta A, Stainback A. 2009Impact of carbon value on the profitability of slash pine plantations in the southern United States: an integrated life cycle and Faustmann analysis. Can. J. For. Res. 39, 990-1000. (doi:10.1139/X09-023) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
85.
American Forest Foundation. 2020Family forest carbon program gets go-ahead on new carbon methodology concept. See https://www.forestfoundation.org/ffcp-methodology-approved (accessed on 17 April 2020). Google Scholar
86.
Caron J, Rausch S, Winchester N. 2015Leakage from sub-national climate policy: the case of California's Cap-and-Trade. Energy J. 36, 167-190. (doi:10.5547/01956574.36.2.8) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
87.
Kossoy A, Guigon P. 2012State and trends of the carbon market 2012. See http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/749521468179970954/pdf/768370AR0State00Box374391B00PUBLIC0.pdf. Google Scholar
88.
Kerchner CD, Keeton WS. 2015California's regulatory forest carbon market: viability for northeast landowners. For. Policy Econ. 50, 70-81. (doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2014.09.005) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
89.
Kelly EC, Gold GJ, Di Tommaso J.2017The willingness of non-industrial private forest owners to enter California's carbon offset market. Environ. Manage. 60, 882-895. (doi:10.1007/s00267-017-0918-0) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar
90.
Kelly EC, Schmitz MB. 2016Forest offsets and the California compliance market: bringing an abstract ecosystem good to market. Geoforum 75, 99-109. (doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.06.021) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
91.
Schatzki T, Stavins RN. 2018Key issues facing California's GHG cap-and-trade system for 2021-2030. See https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3216131. Google Scholar
92.
Rana R, Kumar C, Hamshaw B, Bezbarua R. 2017An impact analysis of AB398 on California's cap-and-trade market. See https://californiacarbon.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/AB398-_Impact_Analysis.pdf. Google Scholar
93.
Dilling L, Failey E. 2013Managing carbon in a multiple use world: the implications of land-use decision context for carbon management. Glob. Environ. Chang. 23, 291-300. (doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.012) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
94.
United States Department of Agriculture. 2016USDA building blocks for climate smart agriculture and forestry: implementation plan and progress report. See https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/building-blocks-implementation-plan-progress-report.pdf. Google Scholar
95.
Galik C, Murray B, Parish M. 2017Near-term pathways for achieving forest and agricultural greenhouse gas mitigation in the U.S. Climate 5, 69. (doi:10.3390/cli5030069) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
96.
Galik CS, Latta GS, Gambino C. 2019Piecemeal or combined? Assessing greenhouse gas mitigation spillovers in US forest and agriculture policy portfolios. Clim. Policy 19, 1270-1283. (doi:10.1080/14693062.2019.1663719) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
97.
Dickie IAet al..2014Conflicting values: ecosystem services and invasive tree management. Biol. Invasions 16, 705-719. (doi:10.1007/s10530-013-0609-6) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
98.
Lindenmayer DBet al..2012Avoiding bio-perversity from carbon sequestration solutions. Conserv. Lett. 5, 28-36. (doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00213.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
99.
Ausseil A-GE, Dymond JR, Kirschbaum MUF, Andrew RM, Parfitt RL. 2013Assessment of multiple ecosystem services in New Zealand at the catchment scale. Environ. Model. Softw. 43, 37-48. (doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.01.006) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
100.
Carlson KM, Curran LM, Ponette-González AG, Ratnasari D, Ruspita LN, Purwanto Y, Brauman KA, Raymond PA. 2014Influence of watershed-climate interactions on stream temperature, sediment yield, and metabolism along a land use intensity gradient in Indonesian Borneo. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 199, 1110-1128. (doi:10.1002/2013JG002516) Crossref, Google Scholar
101.
Dymond JR, Ausseil A-GE, Ekanayake JC, Kirschbaum MUF. 2012Tradeoffs between soil, water, and carbon—a national scale analysis from New Zealand. J. Environ. Manage. 95, 124-131. (doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.09.019) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar
102.
Edwards DP, Fisher B, Boyd E. 2010Protecting degraded rainforests: enhancement of forest carbon stocks under REDD+. Conserv. Lett. 3, 313-316. (doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00143.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
103.
Vihervaara P, Kamppinen M, Kumpula T, Walls M. 2013Biodiversity trade-offs and globalizing forestry. For. Policy Econ. 26, 147-148. (doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2012.10.003) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
104.
Kline JDet al..2016Evaluating carbon storage, timber harvest, and habitat possibilities for a Western Cascades (USA) forest landscape. Ecol. Appl. 26, 2044-2059. (doi:10.1002/eap.1358) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar
105.
Ellison D, Futter MN, Bishop K. 2012Hydrology, forests and precipitation recycling: a reply to van der Ent et al. Glob. Chang. Biol. 18, 3272-3274. (doi:10.1111/gcb.12000) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
106.
Jackson RBet al.. 2005Trading water for carbon with biological carbon sequestration. Science 310, 1944-1947. (doi:10.1126/science.1119282) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar
107.
Farley KA, Jobbágy EG, Jackson RB. 2005Effects of afforestation on water yield: a global synthesis with implications for policy. Glob. Chang. Biol. 11, 1565-1576. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01011.x) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
108.
van der Ent RJ, Coenders-Gerrits AMJ, Nikoli R, Savenije HHG. 2012The importance of proper hydrology in the forest cover-water yield debate: Commentary on Ellison et al. (2012) Global Change Biology, 18, 806–820. Glob. Chang. Biol. 18, 2677-2680. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02703.x) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar
109.
Wang S, Fu B. 2013Trade-offs between forest ecosystem services. For. Policy Econ. 26, 145-146. (doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2012.07.014) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
110.
Heath LS, Smith JE. 2000An assessment of uncertainty in forest carbon budget projections. Environ. Sci. Policy 3, 73-82. (doi:10.1016/S1462-9011(00)00075-7) Crossref, Google Scholar
111.
Foley TG, Richter DB, Galik CS. 2009Extending rotation age for carbon sequestration: a cross-protocol comparison of North American forest offsets. For. Ecol. Manage. 259, 201-209. (doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.10.014) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
112.
McElwee P. 2017The metrics of making ecosystem services. Environ. Soc. 8, 96-124. (doi:10.3167/ares.2017.080105) Crossref, Google Scholar
113.
Corbera E, Brown K. 2010Offsetting benefits? Analyzing access to forest carbon. Environ. Plan. A 42, 1739-1761. (doi:10.1068/a42437) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
114.
Foster BC, Wang D, Auld G, Cuesta RMR. 2017Assessing audit impact and thoroughness of VCS forest carbon offset projects. Environ. Sci. Policy 78, 121-141. (doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.09.010) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
115.
Ferraro P. 2011The future of payments for environmental services. Conserv. Biol. 25, 1134-1138. (doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01791.x) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar
116.
Pattanayak S, Wunder S, Ferraro P. 2010Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries?Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 4, 254-274. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
117.
Lovell H, MacKenzie D. 2015Allometric equations and timber markets: an important forerunner of REDD+? In The politics of carbon markets (eds Stephan B, Lane R), pp. 69-90. London, UK: Routledge. Google Scholar
118.
Agrawal A, Nepstad D, Chhatre A. 2011Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 36, 373-396. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
119.
Galik CS, Jackson RB. 2009Risks to forest carbon offset projects in a changing climate. For. Ecol. Manage. 257, 2209-2216. (doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.03.017) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
120.
Forsell N, Turkovska O, Gusti M, Obersteiner M, Elzen MD, Havlik P. 2016Assessing the INDCs' land use, land use change, and forest emission projections. Carbon Balance Manag. 11, 26. (doi:10.1186/s13021-016-0068-3) Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar
121.
Rogelj Jet al.. 2018Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development. In Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (eds V Masson-Delmotte et al.). See https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_Chapter2_Low_Res.pdf. Google Scholar
122.
Osborne T. 2011Carbon forestry and agrarian change: access and land control in a Mexican rainforest. J. Peasant Stud. 38, 859-883. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
123.
Wittman H, Caron C. 2009Carbon offsets and inequality: social costs and co-benefits in Guatemala and Sri Lanka. Soc. Nat. Resour. 22, 710-726. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
124.
Bachram H. 2004Climate fraud and carbon colonialism: the new trade in greenhouse gases. Capital. Nat. Social. 15, 5-20. Crossref, Google Scholar
125.
Bumpus A, Liverman D. 2011Carbon colonialism? Offsets, greenhouse gas reductions and sustainable development. In Global political ecology (eds Peet R, Robbins P, Watts M). London, UK: Routledge. Google Scholar
126.
McAfee K. 1999Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and green developmentalism. Environ. Plan. D Soc. Sp. 17, 133-154. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
127.
Osborne T. 2013Fixing carbon, losing ground: payments for environmental services and land (in)security in Mexico. Hum. Geogr. 6, 119-133. Crossref, Google Scholar
128.
Grieg-Gran M, Porras I, Wunder S. 2005How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America. World Dev. 33, 1511-1527. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
129.
Bailis R. 2006Climate change mitigation and sustainable development through carbon sequestration: experiences in Latin America. Energy Sustain. Dev. 10, 74-87. Crossref, Google Scholar
130.
Corbera E, Kosoy N, Martínez Tuna M. 2007Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: case studies from Meso-America. Glob. Environ. Chang. 17, 365-380. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
131.
Abrams J. 2019The emergence of network governance in U.S. National Forest Administration: causal factors and propositions for future research. For. Policy Econ. 106, 101977. (doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2019.101977) Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar