ncx-gitbot
commented
1 year ago NCX response: Leakage is poorly studied across existing IFM projects, especially short-term harvest deferral projects. We agree that leakage is a possible outcome of purposefully delaying a harvest. Based on comments received, we have updated the methodological approach to include a more conservative deduction. We look forward to working with other developers and academic researchers to explore methods of measuring leakage directly in the future.
Commenter Organization: Forest Carbon Alliance Inc.
Commenter: Etienne Green
2021 Deferred Harvest Methodology Section: 8.3 Leakage
Comment: Not being intimately familiar with mill wood supply mechanism in the US, I cannot comment on this assumption with confidence. However, it seems that since a program area is represented in a model, its unlikely that the mill sources all its annual supply from one landowner, in all cases. Consequently, one landowner’s decision to participate for a one-year short term deferral will cause the mill to source material elsewhere within the program area. The risk of harvest quantified by the model and discussed in this methodology is inherently an acknowledgement that mills have some wood supply flexibility, possibly to absorb short term deferrals of harvest, otherwise harvest risk would always be 100%.
Proposed Change: Provide additional context/criteria that would allow project developers to assume zero activity leakage consistently across program areas. Some context regarding the project areas supply relative to the total available supply within the program area would help assess this.