Monthly: Methodology Updates (August)

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

This is the sustainacraft Inc. newsletter. This edition, a Monthly Methodology Update, primarily covers news related to VCS Methodologies published in July-August 2023, and recent discussions regarding Plan Vivo's biodiversity Credit Methodologies.

Monthly Methodology Update

This month, we cover the following:

• Verra's article on the necessity of Carbon Credits (Verra)
• Verra's response to the revision of the ICVCM Core Carbon Principles (Verra)
• Revisions to REDD project Methodologies including wetlands (Verra)
• Report on criticisms of REDD+ by Rainforest Foundation UK (RFUK, Verra)
• Proposed revisions to biodiversity Credit Methodologies (Plan Vivo)

(1) Verra's Article on the Necessity of Carbon Credits (Verra)

(link)

Large-scale forest fires causing extensive damage in British Columbia, Canada, have been reported daily. In the linked article, Verra, citing this news, reaffirms its views on the role of Nature-based Carbon Credits in climate change mitigation. Key points are introduced below.

One important aspect when discussing the effectiveness of Carbon Credits is Permanence. Critics of forest conservation-based Carbon Credits argue that forests are not suitable for carbon sequestration due to the risk of loss from fires and other events, posing a problem for Permanence. In response to such criticisms, Verra counters from the following two perspectives:

1. Risk control is managed with a 100-year outlook through the use of Buffer Pools.
2. Companies that use Carbon Credits for Offset are decarbonizing approximately twice as fast as those that do not.

The first point is a direct rebuttal to the criticism regarding Permanence. The rationale of critics of forest conservation-based Carbon Credits is that artificially emitted Carbon Dioxide remains in the atmosphere for 300-1000 years, but considering the risks of various natural disasters, it is unlikely that forests will continue to exist for such a period, therefore, Credit Issuance is deemed inappropriate.

In response, Verra claims that these risks can be controlled through a Buffer Pool (non-permanence buffer pool). All projects under Verra's VCS (Verified Carbon Standard) are required to consider all anticipated risks within 100 years from the project start and contribute a portion of the Credits generated by the project to the Buffer Pool. If a disaster occurs after the project begins, leading to carbon emissions, a corresponding amount of Emissions is deducted from the Buffer Pool, and if the Emissions exceed the Buffer Pool, the deficit must be compensated from the Credits generated by the project. So far, the only VCS project where a large-scale fire actually occurred was the BigCoast Forest Climate Initiative project (ID: 3018), and even that covered only 0.25% (=100/40,000 Ha) of the project area, which Verra states is sufficiently small compared to the current forest fire Emissions in Canada, estimated at 6 million tCO2.