Overview of forest carbon inclusion in certification schemes and need for improvement

Improved forest management (IFM) can help mitigate climate change by increasing carbon sequestration in forests and wood products while ensuring the highest possible sustainable level of forest carbon stocks, taking into account natural disturbances. In Europe, these practices could be encouraged, especially to counterbalance the decline in forest sinks in some countries. There is an opportunity to incentivize these projects under the European Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) regulation. Forest features and improved forest management strategies need to be properly integrated within this new scheme. This work identified 16 IFM methodologies that are relevant in our context. The work builds on the analysis carried out by Haya et al (2023) of 8 methods from standards based in North America, which we have supplemented with 8 other methods, 2 of which are validated by European standards. For each of these methods, we looked at which carbon pools were considered, we assessed various criteria such as non-permanence tools, additionality and the baseline scenario. Sustainability criteria were also assessed as well as the methods used to quantify the carbon stocks of harvested wood products. The study identifies four main challenges related to IFM project certification: 1. Diversification of management practices under carbon certification Improving forest management can mean many different things, but most international methodologies focus on reduced harvesting. We need to develop additional methodologies that encompass a wider range of practices, backed by science, to demonstrate carbon impact and risk reduction. 2. Baselines: the main risk of carbon certification projects The primary risk linked to carbon certification standards lies in the establishment of the baseline, which can lead to over-crediting. We recommend: o Limiting the choices available to project developers for defining their baseline, in order to reduce information asymmetry and bias. o Exploring the use of dynamic baselines. o Choosing baselines that are close to initial carbon stocks. o Measuring and verifying carbon stock increments. 3. Carbon certification tools need to better integrate the future impact of climate change to ensure carbon permanence The future impact of climate change on forests is likely underestimated in current non-permanence management tools. Larger buffer pool deductions, along with regular updates to protocols based on the latest science, would help address this issue. Methodologies that reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires and increase long-term resilience should also be considered. 4. Increase visibility and robustness of sustainability criteria In practice, there is significant heterogeneity between IFM methodologies in how they integrate sustainability impacts. Each methodology sets its own rules, leading to a lack of clarity for project financiers. Guidelines for integrating and measuring sustainability issues should be developed to ensure greater consistency between methodologies and greater transparency for projects.