A pair of experts have voiced concerns over three forest carbon credit (REDD) methodologies that were recently approved by the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Market (ICVCM) and have left the expert panel that is tasked with ensuring their robustness.
The ICVCM represents a broad cross-section of the voluntary carbon market (VCM) ecosystem with representatives from NGOs, carbon market technology, UN policy experts, sustainability professional, corporates, scientists and local communities.
The organization has developed the Core Carbon Principles (CCPs) in an attempt to raise the bar for carbon credits and set up a global benchmark that generates trust in buyers across the VCM and reignites demand.
The ICVCM counts organizations like the Bezos Earth Fund, Google.org and Bloomberg Philanthropies among its funding partners and recently approved three specific methodologies that address a significant portion of the existing carbon credit market and will likely be used for a substantial percentage going forward:
(ART) The REDD+ Environmental Excellence Standard (TREES) v2.0, TREES Crediting Level
(VCS) VM0048 Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation v1.0
(VCS) Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ (JNR) Framework v4.1
The Governing Board was satisfied with the integrity of the trio with one of the key issues – that of project developers setting their own baselines – being addressed (in VM0048) after a series of journalistic investigations over the last several years brought public scrutiny to the VCM and more importantly undermining the trust the market is based on.
Difference of opinion
The level of progress seems to not have been enough for a final sign-off from some of the experts charged with reviewing all its aspects.
Jürg Füssler (Managing Partner at sustainability consulting company INFRAS) and Dr. Lambert Schneider (Research Coordinator for International Climate Policy at Oeko-Institut) have left the panel and penned a blog post, along with two other experts, expressing their view that the methodologies make incorrect assumptions that can lead to either overestimation of baseline emissions or their underestimation, as well as having issues with additionality and permanence.
Schneider’s move follows the withdrawal of the Oeko-Institut from the ICVCM in September and in a statement he said: “In my view, these three methods do not meet the requirements of ICVCM’s Assessment Framework. The ICVCM could play a crucial role in addressing the integrity issues in the voluntary carbon market. However, the decision that has now been taken calls this into question.”
Füssler echoed the opinion in a statement of his own by saying “In my assessment, these methodologies, in their current form, do not meet the Core Carbon Principles (CCP), as operationalized in the requirements of the Assessment Framework with regards to additionality, robust quantification and permanence.”
Following the decision of the four experts to voice their difference of opinion ICVCM has doubled down on its decision to approve the methodologies and addressed the reshuffling of the expert panel by publishing a post of its own which says: “Disagreement is fundamental to an inclusive process and a natural consequence of choosing to include a wide range of perspectives in the assessment process. The ICVCM fully respects the independence of our 26 Expert Panel and Subject Matter Experts members and the depth of engagement that they have brought to the assessment processes. This includes respecting the right of these four individuals to disagree with this assessment decision.”
Global carbon market in the works
The departures come at a defining period for the VCM. Last month the UN reached an agreement on launching a carbon market at COP29, providing fresh impetus to the space. The approval is expected to allow for a formal alignment with standards like the ICVCM which are already in sync with Article 6.4.
If the market manages to lift-off then it could potentially reach $27 billion in revenue by 2035, according to a forecast from AlliedOffsets in July this year.
The last two years have however seen a decline in the VCM’s size with REDD+ credits falling to $436 million in 2023 revenue, compared to $599 million in 2022 according to MSCI Carbon Markets.
