Isometric's New IFM Methodology

This article is an automatically translated version of the original Japanese article. Please refer to the Japanese version for the most accurate information.

sustainacraft Inc. Newsletter.

Methodology Updates is a series that covers methodologies for carbon and biodiversity credits. This article introduces Isometric's new Improved Forest Management (IFM) Methodology, which was recently published and went through public consultation.

*This article was written by: Nick Lau (Applied Scientist)

1. Introduction

In our newsletter earlier this month, we provided an overview of Isometric's newly proposed agroforestry Methodology. This time, we will cover its counterpart framework, the Isometric Improved Forest Management (I-IFM) Protocol. Similar to other IFM Methodologies, this Methodology aims to measure and verify additional Carbon Sequestration resulting from activities such as extending harvest rotations, reducing logging intensity, and minimizing soil disturbance.

What characterizes the I-IFM approach is its two-tiered structure: a **universal protocol** defining core quantification and integrity requirements, and a series of **independent modules**, each focusing on specific management practices. This design allows the Methodology's components to evolve independently while maintaining consistency in quantification principles across all Methodologies in the IFM sector. This approach is similar to that adopted by Gold Standard for its Soil Organic Carbon Framework Methodology (Reference).

At the universal protocol level, the I-IFM Protocol is closely aligned with Isometric's broader suite of forest-based Methodologies (including afforestation and agroforestry protocols). Specifically, common features include the Baseline being dynamically modeled by Isometric itself, rather than by the Project Developer, and MRV being conducted by integrating Remote Sensing, field measurements, and global Biomass datasets. These characteristics reflect Isometric's attempt to balance integrity and transparency in Carbon Credit Issuance with user convenience.

On the other hand, at the independent module level, the content is innovative compared to other IFM Methodologies. Each module can define its own operational logic regarding Leakage calculation, Permanence, etc., according to the reality of its management practices. In this article, we introduce the first module, "Deferred Harvest on Smallholder Lands (DHSL)". This module is based on the recognition that small, fragmented forest holdings require tailored treatment that conventional, one-size-fits-all Methodologies cannot address. To solve this, unique approaches such as setting deferral periods per farmer and using models for Leakage calculation have been introduced.

In this article, we will first unpack the common requirements of I-IFM to understand its overall structure. Next, we will examine the unique features within the "Deferred Harvest on Smallholder Lands" module to see how this module design actually functions. Finally, we will compare the characteristics of I-IFM with the comparable Verra VM0045 and ACR Non-federal Forested Land IFM Methodologies.

2. Universal IFM Protocol

First, let's look at the content of the universal IFM Protocol used across all independent modules.

2.1 Applicability

The I-IFM Protocol applies to existing forest lands that can demonstrate a measurable increase in carbon stock through improved management compared to a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario. Eligible forests include both natural and managed forests, provided that Additionality is demonstrated and legal rights to manage and monitor are clearly documented. Projects must meet the following three core eligibility conditions:

• Additionality: Management practices exceed legal or standard commercial obligations.
• Ecological Viability: Forest conditions allow for sustained Biomass accumulation.
• Legal Compliance: Ownership and harvesting rights are secured and verifiable throughout the Crediting Period.

Furthermore, areas where logging under BAU is not realistically possible due to regulations, Protected Area status, or physical inaccessibility must be identified, mapped, and excluded from Carbon Credit Issuance. Environmental and social safeguards ensure that project activities maintain Biodiversity, protect water and soil resources, and do not adversely affect the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. Projects must demonstrate equitable Benefit Sharing mechanisms with all landowners and stakeholders.

2.2 Net CDR Calculation and Dynamic Baseline

Under the I-IFM quantification framework, the Net Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) achieved by a project is determined from the measured carbon stock within each reporting period, verified Baseline modeling, and quantified Emissions:

Net CDR = Project Removals – Baseline Removals – Project Emissions – Leakage

This structure is similar to the calculation approach used in other IFM Methodologies, such as Verra and ACR Methodologies.

Where Isometric differs is in how the Baseline component of this equation is generated. Instead of allowing Project Developers to construct their own BAU models, the Baseline is generated by the registry using an approach called "dynamic pixel-matching ensemble." Each project pixel is statistically paired with multiple Control Plots from comparable forest landscapes, matched by similarity in bioclimatic, topographic, and management history. An ensemble is created from this matching, and the variability within it is considered to assess Uncertainty. At Validation, Isometric also generates an ex-ante Baseline from historical data of Control Plots to assess Additionality. Then, the same dynamic Baseline procedure is reapplied at each Verification to update the Baseline trajectory.

The minimum Permanence under I-IFM is 20 years. All Removal Carbon Credits are Issued ex-post, meaning they are only Issued after CO₂ has been demonstrably removed and Verified.