ncx-gitbot
commented
1 year ago NCX response: We note the confusion around this line in the methodology and have reworded this section to clarify the intent which is that the owner of the exercisable option may generate carbon credits
Commenter Organization: Carbon Direct, Inc.
Commenter: Bodie Cabiyo, Van Butsic, John Dees
2021 Deferred Harvest Methodology Section: 6
Comment: Line: “In the event there is an existing exercisable option for timber purchase on the land in question, the likelihood of harvest may be appropriately set at 100%” A 100% probability of harvest is a misunderstanding of a timber option. An option, in and of itself, is not equivalent to a 100% chance of timber being harvested in any given year. Indeed, in the timber industry it is common for options to not be exercised or for option terms to be for many years. Certainly, the percent of options exercised in a given year is not 100%. Therefore setting the baseline at 100% for any land with an option is overstating the probability of harvest. We suggest that the existence of an exercisable option may increase the probability of harvest, but it does not make it 100%.
Proposed Change: When a parcel has an exercisable option, (1) ten percentage points should be added to the likelihood of harvest or (2) in the event the underlying baseline model includes existing timber harvest in its set of estimated coefficients, the likelihood of harvest is estimated directly inducing this coefficient.