📘 Read the full study in Forest Policy and Economics at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2026.103784 or contact Dr. Bruno da Silva for more information.
Dr. Bruno Kanieski Da Silva and collaborators from institutions across the U.S. South explored an important question for the forest sector: Can short-term, one-year harvest deferral programs create meaningful carbon benefits without causing unintended disruptions in timber markets? Using a simulation model built around southern plantation forestry, the research, published in Forest Policy and Economics, shows that the answer is not simply yes or no. One-year harvest deferrals can increase carbon storage, but the results depend heavily on carbon price, carbon demand, and how landowners and mills respond over time.
How the Study Worked
The study focuses on plantation forests in the southeastern United States and models interactions among private landowners, a wood-consuming mill, and a carbon program aggregator. In the model, landowners decide whether to harvest timber or defer harvest for one year in exchange for a carbon payment. The research then tracks how those decisions affect stand age, timber procurement patterns, prices, and carbon outcomes over a 100-year period.
Additionality and “Rolling Permanence”
One of the most important findings is that short-term harvest deferrals can produce additional carbon sequestration at the landscape level through what the authors describe as “rolling permanence.” Because a one-year deferral does not guarantee that any one stand will remain unharvested over the long term, permanence is less clear at the individual project level. However, the authors suggest that, at the landscape scale, carbon storage can remain elevated over time because contracts move from one landowner to another across the basin, creating a form of “rolling” permanence.
Across modeled scenarios, carbon stocks remained higher than the baseline without a carbon program, indicating that these programs can generate measurable additionality. The study also finds a form of landscape-level permanence in the sense that aggregate carbon remains higher over time even though any individual contract is temporary.
Carbon Gains and Market Trade-Offs
At the same time, the paper shows that carbon programs do not operate in isolation. When landowners defer harvest, mills must look elsewhere for wood supply. That creates what the authors identify as leakage effects: mills travel farther to procure fiber, stumpage prices rise, and stand age structure changes across the basin. In other words, carbon incentives can alter the economics of timber procurement and reshape how forest resources are distributed and used over time.
Why Carbon Price Matters
The research suggests that moderate carbon prices may be the most effective design point. Under the modeled scenarios, carbon prices of $5 to $10 per tonne CO2e often generated stronger carbon outcomes than the lowest price and, in some cases, better long-term results than the highest price. At $20 per tonne CO2e, the model shows that mills become less competitive, transportation emissions increase, and the cost of securing additional carbon rises sharply without providing proportionate long-term sequestration gains.
Some Cautions
A key limitation is that the model represents a simplified market setting centered on a single mill. In reality, timber markets are more complex, involving multiple mills, landowners, procurement strategies, competing product markets, and regional supply-chain interactions occurring simultaneously. In addition, the analysis does not consider broader external impacts beyond the modeled system, meaning the results should be interpreted as an important but partial representation of real-world market dynamics. Even so, we would expect the direction and general conclusions of the results to remain similar in a more complete modeling framework. Dr. Silva looks forward to advancing this work by developing more comprehensive tools that better capture the complexity of timber markets and their broader economic and environmental impacts.
Why This Matters for Forestry Professionals
For forestry professionals, this research is especially relevant because it highlights that carbon market participation is not just a landowner decision—it is also a market structure issue. Carbon programs can affect stumpage prices, procurement distances, mill competitiveness, and long-run basin dynamics. For practitioners, investors, and policymakers, the study underscores the importance of designing carbon programs that balance landowner incentives with the continued viability of working forest supply chains.
What the Public Should Know
For the general public, the takeaway is equally important. Forest carbon programs can help store more carbon, but climate benefits are strongest when those programs are designed carefully and evaluated in the context of real-world markets. This study shows that short-term forest carbon contracts may have value, but their success depends on how well they account for economic trade-offs, transportation effects, and the realities of the forest products sector.
A More Informed Path for Nature-Based Climate Solutions
Overall, Dr. da Silva’s research adds an important perspective to current discussions about nature-based climate solutions. The paper shows that forest carbon programs can support sequestration in the U.S. South, but it also makes clear that good intentions alone are not enough. Durable, credible climate benefits will depend on carbon market designs that work with—rather than against—the broader forest economy.
Funding Acknowledgement
This project was funded by USDA Forest Service, through the Joint Venture Agreement 22‑JV‑11330180‑031.
