Comment: Recommend removing 100% probability of harvest in any scenario: It seems not-conservative to allow for 100% probability of harvest, even where “exercisable option” for harvest exists. There are a variety of risks that exist even when a signed contract exists that a harvest will occur that prevent the harvest from occurring at the fully expected volume or occurring at all (weather events, contract falls through, etc.).
Proposed Change: We propose a more conservative maximum of 90% probability of harvest be used in these cases, as that matches the other uncertainty thresholds used throughout the methodology and VCS, as well as matches the minimum risk score set out in the VCS non-permanence risk tool, which seems like a relevant precedent in which even a signed agreement takes on a 10% risk deduction.
Commenter Organization: American Forest Foundation
Commenter: Lynn Riley
2021 Deferred Harvest Methodology Section: 6
Comment: Recommend removing 100% probability of harvest in any scenario: It seems not-conservative to allow for 100% probability of harvest, even where “exercisable option” for harvest exists. There are a variety of risks that exist even when a signed contract exists that a harvest will occur that prevent the harvest from occurring at the fully expected volume or occurring at all (weather events, contract falls through, etc.).
Proposed Change: We propose a more conservative maximum of 90% probability of harvest be used in these cases, as that matches the other uncertainty thresholds used throughout the methodology and VCS, as well as matches the minimum risk score set out in the VCS non-permanence risk tool, which seems like a relevant precedent in which even a signed agreement takes on a 10% risk deduction.