Carbon offset as another driver of timberland investment returns in the United States
Main Article Content
Keywords
alternative asset, climate change, forest carbon, return forecasting, uncertainty
Abstract
Timberland investment has three return drivers: biological growth, timber price change and land value appreciation. The interaction of the three drivers determines the total timberland investment returns. Recent public attention to climate change resulting from excessive greenhouse gas emissions, nonetheless, has led to more discussion of forests as a natural carbon sink. With carbon sequestration, landowners should be compensated for keeping trees alive. The cash flows associated with forest carbon present an opportunity for timberland investors to potentially generate extra returns. For an afforestation investment and at the current carbon price of about $20 per metric ton in the voluntary market, forest carbon has a moderate contribution of about 21% to the total timberland investment return with a return premium is about 115 basis points. However, for a regeneration investment in which only additional carbon sequestration beyond the baseline is credited, the impact of forest carbon on total timberland investment return is minor yet positive. Overall, the return contribution of forest carbon is positively related to carbon price, interest rate, and investment horizon. As the pressure from global warming tightens, demand for nature-based carbon storage tends to increase, leading to higher carbon prices. Meanwhile, concerns about additionality often result in longer-term carbon contracts. All these would boost the influence of forest carbon on total timberland investment returns in the future.
References
Buongiorno J, Zhou M. 2020. Consequences of discount rate selection for financial and ecological expectation and risk in forest management. J. For. Econ. 35(1):1-17. https://doi.org/10.1561/112.00000515
Busby G, Macpherson S. 2022. An introduction to carbon markets for land-based investments. Nuveen Natural Capital. 1-10.
Carbon Offset Guide. 2022. Mandatory & voluntary offset markets. https://www.offsetguide.org/understanding-carbon-offsets/carbon-offset-programs/mandatory-voluntary-offset-markets/. Last accessed September 7, 2022.
Cascio AJ, Clutter ML. 2008. Risk and required return assessments of equity timberland investments in the United States. For. Prod. J. 58(10):61-70.
Caulfield JP. 1998. Timberland return drivers and investing styles for an asset that has come of age. Real Estate Finance 14(4):65-78.
Creedy J, Wurzbacher AD. 2001. The economic value of a forested catchment with timber, water and carbon sequestration benefits. Ecol. Econ. 38(1):71-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00148-3
Cubbage FW, Kanieski B, Rubilar R. Bussoni A, Olmos VM, Balmelli G, Donagh PM, Lord R, Hernández C, Zhang P, Huang J, Korhonen J, Yao R, Hall P, Del La Torre R, Diaz-Balteiro L, Carrero O, Monges E, Thu HTT, Frey G, Howard M, Chavet M, Mochan S, Hoeflich VA, Chudy R, Maass D, Chizmar S, Abt R. 2020. Global timber investments, 2005 to 2017. For. Policy Econ. 112:102082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102082
Dang Phan TH, Brouwer R, Davidson M. 2014. The economic costs of avoided deforestation in the developing world: A meta-analysis. J. For. Econ. 20(1):1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2013.06.004
Donofrio S, Maguire P, Myers K, Daley C, Lin K. 2021. State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2021. Forest Trends & Ecosystem Marketplace. 40.
Ecosystem Marketplace. 2022. Voluntary carbon markets top $1 billion in 2021 with newly reported trades, a special ecosystem marketplace COP26 bulletin. https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/voluntary-carbon-markets-top-1-billion-in-2021-with-newly-reported-trades-special-ecosystem-marketplace-cop26-bulletin/. Last accessed September 7, 2022.
Gopalakrishnan R, Kauffman JS, Fagan ME, Coulston JW, Thomas VA, Wynne RH, Fox TR, Quirino VF. 2019. Creating landscape-scale site index maps for the southeastern US is possible with airborne LiDAR and landsat imagery. Forests 10(3):234. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10030234
Grassi G, House J, Dentener F, Federici S, den Elzen M, Penman J. 2017. The key role of forests in meeting climate targets requires science for credible mitigation. Nature Climate Change 7(3):220-226. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3227
Harris NL, Gibbs DA, Baccini A, Birdsey, de Bruin S, Farina M, Fatoyinbo L, Hansen MC, Herold M, Houghton RA, Potapov PV, Suarez DR, Roman-Cuesta RM, Saatchi SS, Slay CM, Turubanova SA, Tyukavina A. 2021. Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nature Climate Change 11(3):234-240. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00976-6
Hou G, Delang CO, Lu X, Olschewski R. 2020. Optimizing rotation periods of forest plantations: The effects of carbon accounting regimes. For. Policy Econ. 118:102263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102263
Kerchner CD, Keeton WS. 2015. California's regulatory forest carbon market: Viability for northeast landowners. For. Policy Econ. 50:70-81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.09.005
Landsberg JJ, Gower ST. 1997. Applications of Physiological Ecology to Forest Management. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 354 p.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012435955-0/50010-8
Li R, Sohngen B, Tian X. 2022. Efficiency of forest carbon policies at intensive and extensive margins. Am. J. Agri. Econ. 104(4):1243-1267.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12281
Lin B, Ge J. 2019. Valued forest carbon sinks: How much emissions abatement costs could be reduced in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 224:455-464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.221
Mei B, Clutter ML. 2022. Benefit-cost analysis of forest carbon for landowners: An illustration based on a southern pine plantation. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 5:931504. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.931504
Mei B, Clutter ML, Harris TG. 2010. Modeling and forecasting pine sawtimber stumpage prices in the US South by various time series models. Can. J. For. Res. 40(8):1506-1516. https://doi.org/10.1139/X10-087
Mei B, Clutter ML, Harris TG. 2013. Timberland return drivers and timberland returns and risks: A simulation approach. South. J. Appl. For. 37(1):18-25. https://doi.org/10.5849/sjaf.11-022
Nepal P, Ince PJ, Skog KE, Chang SJ. 2013. Forest carbon benefits, costs and leakage effects of carbon reserve scenarios in the United States. J. For. Econ. 19(3):286-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2013.06.001
Ning Z, Sun C. 2017. Forest management with wildfire risk, prescribed burning and diverse carbon policies. For. Policy Econ. 75:95-102.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.004
Ning Z, Sun C. 2019. Carbon sequestration and biofuel production on forestland under three stochastic prices. For. Policy Econ. 109:102018.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102018
PMRC. 2022. Plantation Management Research Cooperative. https://https://pmrc.uga.edu/simulator. Last accessed August 24, 2022.
Sedjo R, Sohngen B. 2012. Carbon sequestration in forests and soils. Annual Review of Resource Economics 4(1):127-144.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-083110-115941
Sedjo RA. 2001. Forest carbon sequestration: some issues for forest investments. Resources for the Future. 23.
Smith JE, Heath LS, Skog KE, Birdsey RA. 2006. Methods for Calculating Forest Ecosystem and Harvested Carbon with Standard Estimates for Forest Types of the United States. USDA Forest Service. GTR NE-343. 222. https://doi.org/10.2737/NE-GTR-343
Sohngen B, Mendelsohn R. 2003. An optimal control model of forest carbon sequestration. Am. J. Agri. Econ. 85(2):448-457.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8276.00133
Sun C, Mei B, Li Y. 2022. Optimal contract arrangements for conservation on working forests. Natural Res. Model. 35(4):e12351.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nrm.12351
TMS. 2023. TimberMart-South. https://http://www.timbermart-south.com/. Last accessed August 24, 2022.
van der Gaast W, Sikkema R, Vohrer M. 2018. The contribution of forest carbon credit projects to addressing the climate change challenge. Climate Policy 18(1):42-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1242056
Wan Y, Mei B, Clutter ML, Siry JP. 2013. Assessing the inflation hedging ability of timberland assets in the United States. For. Sci. 59(1):93-104.
https://doi.org/10.5849/forsci.11-029
Washburn CL, Binkley CS. 1993. Do forest assets hedge inflation? Land Econ. 69(3):215-224. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146588
Wenzel S, Cox PM, Eyring V, Friedlingstein P. 2016. Projected land photosynthesis constrained by changes in the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2. Nature 538(7626):499-501. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19772
Yuan N, Yang L. 2020. Asymmetric risk spillover between financial market uncertainty and the carbon market: A GAS-DCS-copula approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 259:120750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120750
Zhao D, Kane M, Teskey R, Fox TR, Albaugh TJ, Allen HL, Rubilar R. 2016a. Maximum response of loblolly pine plantations to silvicultural management in the southern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 375:105-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.05.035
Zhao D, Kane M, Teskey R, Markewitz D. 2016b. Modeling aboveground biomass components and volume-to-weight conversion ratios for loblolly pine trees. For. Sci. 62(5):463-473. https://doi.org/10.5849/forsci.15-129
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in the journal. The journal retains no copyright.
