Small-scale Forestry

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 445–462 | Cite as

Mitigating Climate Change Through Small-Scale Forestry in the USA: Opportunities and Challenges



Forest management for carbon sequestration is a low-cost, low-technology, relatively easy way to help mitigate global climate change that can be adopted now while additional long-term solutions are developed. Carbon-oriented management of forests also offers forest owners an opportunity to obtain a new source of income, and commonly has environmental co-benefits. The USA is developing climate change policy that recognizes forestry as a source of offsets in carbon markets, and the emissions trading programs and standards that have developed to date offer opportunities for afforestation, reforestation, reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and improved forest management projects. Private forest owners are key players in carbon markets because they own over half of the forest land in the USA and carbon offsetting from public forest land is rare. However, a number of environmental, economic, and social constraints currently limit carbon market participation by forest owners. Key issues include: the low price of carbon and high cost of market entry; whether small landowners can gain market access; how to meet requirements such as management plans and certification; and whether managing for carbon is consistent with other forest management goals. This paper provides an overview of current and emerging opportunities for family forest owners to contribute to climate change mitigation in the USA, and explores ways of overcoming some of the challenges so that they can take advantage of these opportunities.


Family forest owners Forest carbon offsets Carbon markets 


  1. Alig RJ (2003) US landowner behavior, land use and land cover changes, and climate change mitigation. Silva Fennica 37(4):511–527Google Scholar
  2. Beach RH, Pattanayak SK, Yang JC, Murray BC, Abt RC (2005) Econometric studies of non-industrial private forest management: a review and synthesis. For Policy Econ 7(3):261–281. doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00065-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beddoe R, Danks C (2009) Carbon trading: a joint effort between the Delta Institute, Illinois, and Michigan. Case study, Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont (
  4. Bliss JC, Kelly EC (2008) Comparative advantages of small-scale forestry among emerging forest tenures. J Small-scale For 7(1):95–104. doi:10.1007/s11842-008-9043-5 Google Scholar
  5. Breshears DB, Cobb NS, Rich PM, et al. (2005) Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102(42):15144–15148. doi:10.1073/pnas.0505734102 Google Scholar
  6. Butler BJ (2008) Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station GTR-NRS-27, Newtown SquareGoogle Scholar
  7. Capoor K, Ambrosi P (2009) State and trends of the carbon market 2009. The World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen W, Chen JM, Price DT, Cihlar J, Liu J (2000) Carbon offset potentials of four alternative forest management strategies in Canada: a simulation study. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 5(2):143–169. doi:10.1023/A:1009671422344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cortner HJ (2008) Introduction. In: Martin WE, Raish C, Kent B (eds) Wildfire risk: human perceptions and management implications. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  10. Daigneault F, Fawcett A (2009) Memorandum on updated forestry and agriculture marginal abatement cost curves, March 31, 2009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Diaz D, Charnley S, Gosnell H (2009) Engaging western landowners in climate change mitigation: A guide to carbon-oriented forest and range management and carbon market opportunities. General technical report PNW-GTR-801. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  12. Dixon RK, Krankina ON (1993) Forest fires in Russia: carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. Can J For Res 23(4):700–705. doi:10.1139/x93-091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischer AP, Bliss JC (2006) Mental and biophysical terrains of biodiversity: conservation of oak woodland on family forests. Soc Nat Resour 19(7):635–643. doi:10.1080/08941920600742393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer AP, Bliss JC (2008) Behavioral assumptions of conservation policy: conserving oak habitat on family-forest land in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Conserv Biol 22(2):275–283. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00873.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fletcher LS, Kittredge D, Stevens T (2009) Forest landowners’ willingness to sell carbon credits: a pilot study. North J Appl For 26(1):35–37Google Scholar
  16. Gray G (2009) Personal communication. Vice president of forest policy, American Forests, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenpeace (2009) CARBON SCAM: new Greenpeace report exposes how coal and oil companies are trying to use forest offset projects to cheat the climate.
  18. Grossman G (2009) Accessing the US carbon market through sustainable forest management. In: Proceedings of the annual payments for ecosystem services meeting, Northwest Environmental Business Council, Portland, Oregon, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Guo LB, Gifford RM (2002) Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Glob Chang Biol 8(4):345–360. doi:10.1046/j.1354-1013.2002.00486.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamilton K, Sjardin M, Shapiro A, Marcello T (2009) Fortifying the foundation: state of the voluntary carbon markets 2009. Ecosystem Marketplace, New Carbon Finance, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamilton K, Chokkalingam U, Bendana M (2010a) State of the forest carbon markets 2009: taking root and branching out. Ecosystem Marketplace, New Carbon Finance, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamilton K, Peters-Stanley M, Marcello T (2010b) Building bridges: state of the voluntary carbon markets 2010. Ecosystem Marketplace, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Harmon ME, Marks B (2002) Effects of silvicultural practices on carbon stores in Douglas-fir-western hemlock forests in the Pacific Northwest, USA: results from a simulation model. Can J For Res 32(5):863–877. doi:10.1139/x01-216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harmon ME, Garman SL, Ferrell WK (1996) Modeling historical patterns of tree utilization in the Pacific Northwest: carbon sequestration implications. Ecol Appl 6(2):641–652. doi:10.2307/2269398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harmon M, Moreno A, Domingo J (2009) Effects of partial harvest on the carbon stores in Douglas-fir/western hemlock forests: a simulation study. Ecosystem 12(5):777–791. doi:10.1007/s10021-009-9256-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hurteau M, North M (2009) Fuel treatment effects on tree-based forest carbon storage and emissions under modeled wildfire scenarios. Front Ecol Environ 7(8):409–414. doi:10.1890/080049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Janisch JE, Harmon ME (2002) Successional changes in live and dead wood carbon stores: implications for net ecosystem productivity. Tree Physiol 22(2–3):77–89. doi:10.1093/treephys/22.2-3.77 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Jarrett A, Gan J, Johnson C, Munn IA (2009) Landowner awareness and adoption of wildfire programs in the southern United States. J For 107(3):113–118Google Scholar
  29. Kollmus A, Zink H, Polycarp C (2008) Making sense of the voluntary carbon market: a comparison of carbon offset standards. World Wildlife Fund, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  30. Leahy JE, Kilgore MA, Hibbard CM, Donnay JS (2008) Family forest landowners’ interest in and perceptions of forest certification: focus group findings from Minnesota. North J Appl For 25(2):73–81Google Scholar
  31. Malmsheimer RW, Heffernan P, Brink S et al (2008) Preventing GHG emissions through biomass substitution. J For 106(3):136–140Google Scholar
  32. McCaffrey S (2004) Thinking of wildfire as a natural hazard. Soc Nat Resour 17(6):509–516. doi:10.l080/08941920490452445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Merger E (2008) Forestry carbon standards 2008: a comparison of the leading standards in the voluntary carbon market. In: Carbon positive. Carbon Positive Net. Available via DIALOG. Accessed 20 Aug 2009
  34. Murray BC, Sohngen B, Sommer AJ et al (2005) Greenhouse gas mitigation potential in U.S. forestry and agriculture, EPA 430-R-05–006. US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Nabuurs GJ, Masera O, Andrasko K et al (2007) Forestry. In: Metz ORDB, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Climate change 2007: mitigation of climate change. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 541–585Google Scholar
  36. Pierce E (2009) States release results of third auction for RGGI CO2 allowances. In: RGGI, Inc. News Releases. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Accessed 29 Oct 2009
  37. Post WM, Kwon KC (2000) Soil carbon sequestration and land-use change: processes and potential. Glob Chang Biol 6(3):317–327. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00308.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pregitzer KS, Burton AJ, Zak DR, Talhelm AF (2008) Simulated chronic nitrogen deposition increases carbon storage in Northern Temperate forests. Glob Chang Biol 14(1):142–153. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01465.x Google Scholar
  39. Rickenbach MG (2002) Forest certification of small ownerships: some practical challenges. J For 100(6):43–47Google Scholar
  40. 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 Northern Research Station, Newton Square, PAGoogle Scholar
  41. Snyder S (2009) Personal communication. Operations research analyst, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Northern Research Station, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  42. Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group 1 to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Stainback GA, Alavalapati JR (2002) Economic analysis of slash pine forest carbon sequestration in the southern US. J For Econ 8(2):105–117Google Scholar
  44. Stanfield BJ, Bliss JC, Spies TA (2002) Land ownership and landscape structure: a spatial analysis of sixty-six Oregon (USA) coast range watersheds. Landsc Ecol 17(8):685–697. doi:10.1023/A:1022977614403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2009) Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2007, EPA 430-R-09–004. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  46. Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW (2006) Warming and earlier spring increase Western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313(5789):940–943. doi:10.1126/science.1128834 Google Scholar
  47. Winter G, Fried J (2000) Homeowner perspectives on fire hazard, responsibility, and management strategies at the wildland-urban interface. Soc and Nat Resour 13(1):33–49. doi:10.1080/089419200279225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Woodbury PB, Smith JE, Heath LS (2007) Carbon sequestration in the US forest sector from 1990 to 2010. For Ecol Manag 241(1–3):14–27. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.12.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wright JL, Beddoe R, Danks C (2009) Oregon’s forest resource trust forest establishment program. Case Study, Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont (

Copyright information

© US Government employee 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest ServicePacific Northwest Research StationPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Forest Trends, Ecosystem MarketplaceWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of GeosciencesOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations