BEMIDJI — The
were presented with a unique option to diversify county revenue during Tuesday’s board work session: a carbon credit marketing opportunity.
National Resource Management Director Shane Foley detailed the opportunity for the board, as a follow-up to his initial presentation to the board during a Feb. 4 work session.
The program would enter Beltrami County into a 40-year land commitment to develop and market carbon credits that are created by forest management decisions on county-administered land.
Credits are derived from the difference between forest productivity and actual harvest. These credits are purchased to offset the carbon impact produced by the timber industry.
A consultant would develop the credits and oversee land incorporated in the first 20 years. Then, the NRM department would monitor the program to ensure promises are delivered in the final 20 years.
The program would cost an estimated $200,000 to start but credits should earn that money back. Foley estimates the program would see a 30% increase in NRM revenue and a 50% increase in NRM profit. This new stream of revenue could somewhat alleviate the burden of taxpayers as it flows into county funds.
And the time may be ripe to enter such a program.
“There isn’t a county in Minnesota that has done it yet,” Foley said during the Feb. 4 meeting. “I think to get in on the leading edge for Minnesota companies that want to purchase these credits and to get into their pool of clients that are looking for these types of credits is a better opportunity today than it is two years from now.”
Foley did note a number of Wisconsin counties and some private Minnesota companies have entered such agreements with mostly positive outcomes — competition as a key negative listed.
Thus, the timing seems right. But the program, when implemented alongside current land management plans, would make future land decisions and transactions even more challenging.
The program would not negatively affect timber harvest, however.
He said Beltrami County is an ideal location for such a program because of its diversity and size which only sees an estimated 35% of available carbon harvested.
“The biggest question for me was why would anyone give us carbon credits for doing the stuff we are already doing,” Foley questioned. “Well, we have unutilized carbon that we have no way of harvesting. We have many low-productivity areas; isolated parcels; a bunch of riparian areas around wetlands; a lot of lakes; (and) a lot of low-value timber products (like) oak — everyone thinks of oak as being a very valuable tree but for us, it’s one of the least valuable trees but it has a long rotation and stores carbon for a long period of time.
“Beltrami County is a really good fit for this program because of those reasons.”
Foley detailed other benefits and risks before hearing from the board during the March 18 work session.
The main benefit is revenue. The program would also align with the county’s value of sustainable forest management and would monetize currently unused forest products like the oak tree.
“The risk is low and we hear every year from the public that property taxes are going up, we need to diversify revenue sources,” said District 2 Commissioner Joe Gould, “and for us to just not pursue this because it’s different and new, I think, would be doing a disservice to the taxpayers when this could bring in $1 million or $2 million over the next 20 years.
“I would certainly be interested in the numbers, a proposal, contract language and such.”
The main risk is the 40-year timetable.
A changing economic climate and timber market alongside unpredictable natural disasters could make the project obsolete over time.
Finally, Foley worries the local timber industry could have a negative view of the program. He did note that the timber harvest would not be affected.
The commissioners, though somewhat skeptical, expressed they were not ready to dismiss the opportunity.
“There’s just a lot of questions in my mind still,” District 5 Commissioner John Carlson said. “Anytime something sounds too good to be true it usually is so I’m a little bit skeptical.”
“I’m pretty leery of tying up our land for 40 years and future boards being hamstrung by (our board) gives me pause,” said District 1 Commissioner Craig Gaasvig. “Is there going to be a demand for these carbon credits like there used to be or not and with the other counties in Wisconsin already being there, what’s the likelihood that we would actually sell any? I’d have to see more information to even consider it.”
Additionally, the commissioners wanted to know how difficult working around the land commitment for future land decisions, developments and transactions would be. Finally, they wanted a more detailed look at the numbers.
Thus, Foley will gather more information and report back at a later meeting. The topic will resurface at a future work session before the commissioners make any decision.
The commissioner’s next meeting is set for 5 p.m. on Tuesday, April 1, in the County Board Room, preceded by a work session at 3 p.m. All meetings can be viewed on the county’s
