Improved Forest Management

This Protocol provides the requirements and procedures for the calculation of net carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) removal from the atmosphere via Improved Forest Management (IFM). IFM refers to activities that refine the management of existing forests to increase carbon stocks beyond business-as-usual practices, while maintaining the ecological integrity and productive capacity of the forest ecosystem. IFM encompasses a broad range of practices including extended or deferred rotation periods, reduced impact logging techniques that minimize soil disturbance and preserve forest structure, enhanced silvicultural techniques that promote faster growth, selection harvesting approaches, fire and pest management strategies to enhance existing carbon stocks and forest resilience, and transitioning portions of commercial forests towards long-term conservation.

Earth's forests store approximately 861 gigatonnes of carbon¹. Forests can act as a source or sink of carbon, and are estimated to absorb a net 7.6 gigatonnes of CO₂ per year² by converting atmospheric CO₂ into biomass through photosynthesis. Carbon is also steadily released from forest biomass through respiration and oxidation, or as a result of disturbances such as timber harvesting, fires, and deforestation. Forest soil contains on average 112.9 Mg C ha⁻¹ to a depth of 1 meter in the conterminous United States, compared to approximately 53.6 Mg C ha⁻¹ in above-ground biomass^3,4, highlighting the critical importance of comprehensive forest carbon management approaches as an additional benefit of improved forest management.

IFM focuses on enhancing how existing forests are managed to increase carbon storage over time, representing a nature-based solution that supports climate outcomes. The voluntary carbon market has experienced significant growth, with forestry projects representing 50% of all credits issued in the first quarter of 2022, with an expected value of almost USD 1 billion in 2022⁵. IFM has been identified as a mid-range cost climate solution for carbon sequestration while also supporting community livelihoods and environmental benefits when implemented with scientific rigor^6,7. However, despite the rapid expansion of IFM projects, comprehensive uptake in the voluntary carbon market has been lacking, with only 2 million acres of forestland enrolled across 24 states in registered IFM projects⁸.

Compared to baseline scenarios representing conventional forest management, IFM practices have demonstrated carbon storage improvements ranging from 9.91% to 78.66% across analyzed projects⁸. This substantial range reflects the diversity of forest types, management histories, and specific IFM strategies employed across different regions and ownership structures.

This Protocol accounts for the quantification of the gross amount of CO₂ removed via enhanced carbon storage in forest biomass and — subject to the IFM intervention strategy detailed in relevant and applicable Modules — optionally soil and harvested wood products, as well as all cradle-to-grave life-cycle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions associated with the IFM implementation process. This Protocol is developed to adhere to the requirements of ISO 14064-2: 2019 – Greenhouse Gasses – Part 2: Specification with guidance at the Project level for quantification, monitoring, and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements.

The Protocol ensures:

• Consistent, accurate procedures are used to measure and monitor all aspects of the IFM process required to enable accurate accounting of net CO₂e removals;
• Consistent system boundaries and calculations are utilized to quantify net CO₂e removal for IFM projects;
• All net CO₂e removal claims are verified by a third party;
• Forest management practices are scientifically sound, ecologically sustainable, and appropriate for the specific forest type and regional conditions;
• Removals are additional through the use of conservative baselines that reflect realistic business-as-usual management scenarios and other guardrails set forth in the Isometric Standard;
• Comprehensive guidance on project design and monitoring mechanisms to confirm Durability and protect against Reversals, ensuring transparent Certificate delivery; and
• Market leakage impacts are quantified and appropriately addressed.

Throughout this Protocol, the use of "must" indicates a requirement, whereas "should" indicates a recommendation.

This Protocol relies on and is intended to be compliant with the following standards and protocols:

• The Isometric Standard
• ISO 14064-2: 2019 Greenhouse Gases Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring, and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements

Additional reference standards that inform the requirements and overall practices incorporated in this Protocol include:

• ISO 14064-3: 2019 Greenhouse Gases Part 3: Specification with Guidance for the verification and validation of greenhouse gas statements
• ISO 14040: 2006 Environmental Management Lifecycle Assessment Principles & Framework
• ISO 14044: 2006 Environmental Management Lifecycle Assessment Requirements & Guidelines

Additional principles that were considered in the development of this Protocol and aligned with, where feasible, include:

• The Core Carbon Principles of The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, v1.1, ICVCM, 2024
• Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal⁹

This Protocol was developed based on the current state of the art, publicly available science regarding IFM activities and long-term monitoring of forest carbon projects. This Protocol aims to be scientifically stringent and robust. We recognize that some requirements may exceed the status quo in the market and that there are numerous opportunities to improve the rigor of this Protocol. Key future improvements to the Protocol are outlined in Appendix A.

Additionally, this Protocol will be reviewed when there is an update to published scientific literature, government policies, or legal requirements which would affect net CO₂e removal quantification or the monitoring guidelines outlined in this Protocol, or at a minimum of every 2 years.

This Protocol aims to guide Projects that enhance the management of existing forested lands to increase carbon storage beyond baseline conditions while maintaining the ecological integrity and productive capacity of forest ecosystems. Projects should emphasize sustainable forest management practices that optimize carbon sequestration, support biodiversity conservation, and provide social and economic benefits to local communities. Projects must not constitute business-as-usual commercial forestry operations, and forest management practices implemented in accordance with this Protocol should demonstrate measurable improvements in carbon storage that are additional to what would occur under conventional management scenarios.

This Protocol sets forth universal requirements for all IFM Projects. All Projects are also subject to additional requirements tailored to the implementation practice(s) of the Project Proponent's forest management, and all Project Proponents must therefore select one or more of the following IFM intervention Modules, and demonstrate their reasoning for and capability to carry out the selected implementation practice(s) in the Project Design Document (PDD).

The geographic Project Boundary must encompass all areas where the Project Proponent is conducting IFM activities for crediting purposes. This Protocol also applies across the temporal (see Section 5) and spatial scope (see Section 4.1) of the Project. For Projects with grouped sites, all sites must adhere to every requirement laid out in this Protocol and any applicable Module(s).

The Project Boundary must be set at the time of project initiation and cannot be modified beyond the addition of new areas to the Project or removal of areas which become ineligible during the course of the Crediting Period due to external factors outside the Project Proponents control.

In order to maintain ecological integrity and ecosystem function, demonstrate additionality, and ensure trust and transparency, it is incumbent upon Projects to adhere to the requirements below, which must be demonstrated in the PDD.

Physical and ecological conditions can create natural and regulatory limitations that would render forest interventions or their natural equivalent improbable under baseline conditions, and thus these areas within the Project Boundary cannot be claimed as additional. These constraints often reflect existing government regulations and established best management practices (BMPs) that govern forest operations independent of carbon market incentives. Isometric's guide to the BMPs Project Proponents should adhere to can be found in Appendix B.

Project activities must demonstrate additionality by accounting for site-specific constraints that limit harvesting feasibility under baseline conditions. Thus, Project Proponents must follow all requirements that establish the material assessment of harvest constraints and determine the eligible project area(s) within the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against.

Project Proponents must identify and exclude from crediting calculations any areas within the Project Boundary where physical or regulatory constraints make forest interventions or their natural equivalent highly unlikely under baseline management scenarios.

Projects should aim to improve ecosystem function and integrity — while also enhancing biodiversity — through actions including, but not limited to: facilitating wildlife corridors, avoiding negative impacts on existing ecological functions, and increasing habitat for native flora, fauna, and funga.

The Project must not harm Indigenous People and local, underserved, or marginalized communities, in compliance with relevant section of the Isometric Standard and Section 6 of this Protocol.

The Project may be subject to additional applicability and eligibility requirements set forth in the Applicability section(s) of the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against. The Project Proponent must demonstrate adherence to these additional requirements in the PDD.

Additionally, this Protocol applies to Projects and associated operations that meet all of the following project conditions:

• The Project must provide a net-negative CO₂e impact (net CO₂e removal) as calculated in the GHG Statement, in compliance with Section 9.
• The Project must be considered additional, in accordance with the requirements of Section 7.7.
• The Project should strive to limit soil inversion to 25 cm during project establishment.
• The Project must provide a minimum of 40 years of CO₂ storage in the project area, as defined by the length of the Crediting Period (see Section 5.1).
• The Project Proponent must provide evidence that the project area can be maintained throughout the Crediting Period. Failure to maintain land tenure of or access to perform IFM activities on the project location may result in the cancellation of Certificates. Requirements to demonstrate this evidence are provided in Section 5.1, and if applicable, in the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against.
• The Project must meet the transparency requirements of this Protocol, outlined in Section 7.10.
• Projects must not displace production of commodities, other than timber or other products derived from wood (see Section 8.3).
• Projects must demonstrate that Direct Actors will not displace or transfer their activities to alternative locations as a consequence of The Project. For the purposes of this requirement, Direct Actors are defined as site owners, tenants, or other parties who, prior to and during the implementation of the Project, utilized the project site for the production of commodities. Full requirements to demonstrate that there is no activity-shifting leakage are outlined in Section 8.3.

Finally, IFM is not reforestation, in purpose or substance. Thus, planting of new trees is limited under many IFM interventions, and the Project must adhere to all planting requirements established in the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against.

The Crediting Period is the interval between project initiation (e.g., first activity on site associated with the Project) and the end of the last Reporting Period. The Crediting Period is made up of successive Reporting Periods. Project Proponents must provide the following to evidence the length of the Crediting Period as detailed in Sections 5.1.1, 5.1.2, and 5.1.3.

Certificate issuances occur throughout the Crediting Period. Certificates are issued upon Verification of a Reporting Period.

Abandonment or failure to perform project activities at any point in the Crediting Period and any required Monitoring Period, where not remedied by the Project Proponent or a successor within a reasonable period, may result in project failure. Project failure is treated as a Reversal of all Certificates issued under the Project.

The Project may be subject to additional terms that set the Crediting Period as set forth in the Crediting Period section of the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against.

The duration of the Crediting Period is determined by the operational and ecological impact of the IFM intervention practice and ex-ante estimates of forest growth rates. Due to the variability of intervention practices coupled with forest growth factors and tree biology, the Crediting Period may vary by Project.

To ensure the Project Proponent has proper authorization from the true property ownership, this Protocol explicitly prohibits lessees or concessionaires from enrolling land for Certificates without the landowner's signatory consent, which must be provided in the PDD.

The Reporting Period is the interval of time over which removals are calculated. The first Reporting Period starts at the beginning of the Crediting Period. Subsequent Reporting Periods begin at the end of the previous Reporting Period.

The minimum duration of a Reporting Period is one year. The maximum duration of a Reporting Period is five years. Project Proponents may request an extension for a longer Reporting Period provided they submit suitable justification for the delay (e.g., slower forest growth than expected).

Verification of project activities by a third-party Verification and Validation Body (VVB) is conducted for each Reporting Period (see Section 7.2).

Failure to initiate a Verification within 5 years of the previous Reporting Period or request an extension will conclude the Crediting Period.

The Project must consider environmental and social impacts at all project locations. Appropriate measures must also be implemented to identify and eliminate potential risks to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity (see Section 6.4). Where risks cannot be eliminated, the Project Proponent must identify measures to monitor ecosystem health and mitigate adverse effects through a site-specific mitigation plan. Mitigation plans must be prepared by subject matter experts, in consultation with Isometric, the VVB, and relevant local authorities, if applicable. Refer to relevant section of the Isometric Standard for further guidelines on environmental and social impacts.

Following the Isometric Standard, Certificates issued under this Protocol are contingent on the implementation, transparent reporting, and independent Verification of comprehensive safeguards. These safeguards encompass a wide range of considerations, including environmental protection, social equity, community engagement, and respect for cultural values. The process mandates that safeguard plans be incorporated into all major project phases, with detailed reports made accessible to stakeholders. Adherence to and verification of environmental and social safeguards is a condition for all Crediting Projects.

An environmental and social risk assessment in compliance with relevant section of the Isometric Standard must be completed to identify potential risks, followed by the development of tailored mitigation plans. These plans must encompass specific actions to avoid, minimize or rectify identified impacts. Effective implementation of these measures must also be accompanied by a robust monitoring plan to detect adverse effects and pause project activities if necessary, using the principles of adaptive management described below.

Environmental and social risk identification, assessment, avoidance, and mitigation planning will be unique to the technical, environmental, and social contexts of the Project. To accommodate this variation, the requirements outlined in this section serve as a minimum to which the Project Proponent and Isometric can add risks on a case by case basis, to be included in the PDD, if applicable. Projects may be subject to additional environmental and social safeguard requirements set forth in the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against.

As detailed in relevant section of the Isometric Standard, Project Proponents must comply with all national and local laws, regulations and policies, and receive any necessary permits for project activities, if applicable. Where relevant, projects must comply with international conventions and standards governing human rights and uses of the environment (e.g., UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), ILO Convention 169).

Adaptive management incorporates learnings and takeaways from project monitoring into project development¹⁰. Regular data collection and sharing is necessary to implement adaptive management.

IFM practices must maintain and should enhance the biodiversity of existing forest ecosystems while optimizing carbon storage outcomes. Unlike land use conversion activities — such as Reforestation — IFM projects often operate within established forest systems where existing species assemblages, habitat structures, and ecological processes are already present. The primary biodiversity objective for IFM projects is to ensure that management practices designed to enhance carbon sequestration and storage do not compromise the ecological integrity of these established forest communities, and where possible, enhance biodiversity through improved forest structure, age class diversity, and habitat complexity.

IFM practices such as extended rotation or deferred harvest, selection harvesting, and reduced impact logging can provide significant opportunities to enhance biodiversity by creating more diverse forest structures, preserving old-growth characteristics, and maintaining continuous forest cover. However, these same practices must be carefully designed to avoid unintended consequences such as species composition shifts, habitat degradation, or disruption of ecological processes that support native wildlife populations.

Additionally, Project Proponents must demonstrate that proposed management changes will maintain existing biodiversity while contributing to measurable improvements in forest ecosystem function and resilience by following the requirements set out in Section 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 below.

Any species that does not meet the requirements of this section (i.e., native, naturalized, or non-native range expanding) must be removed from the project area within the first three years of the Project or by the end of the first Reporting Period, whichever comes first, to ensure that the carbon sequestered by these species is not counted in the generation of Certificates. Project emissions associated with clearance of these species must be reported according to the requirements in Section 8.

The definition of 'invasive species' in this Protocol is consistent with the Convention on Biological Diversity's definition of Invasive Alien Species, being a "species whose introduction and/or spread threatens biological diversity"¹⁴. Projects that plant or maintain invasive species will not be eligible for crediting under this Protocol.

Project Proponents are highly encouraged to consult with Isometric, the VVB, and/or external subject matter experts to ensure that species included in the PDD meet these requirements and the criteria described below.

For the purposes of this Protocol, native species are defined as:

• Species indigenous to the project area that would be found naturally (not planted or introduced anthropogenically via assisted migration) in the project area prior to deforestation or degradation, and/or species that are indigenous to and found naturally in land adjacent to the project area; or
• Species indigenous to the region that have not grown in the project region for the past 100+ years due to displacement via anthropogenic factors or competition from invasive species, but are still well suited to the climate of the project area, as demonstrated by scientific literature, presence of these species in similar climates, and/or evidence of displacement via one of these two forces.
  • Indigenous species that have not existed in the project region for the past 100+ years due to failure to adapt to changing climatic conditions may not be suitable for reintroduction for the purposes of GHG removal, but may be suitable for other ecosystem benefits. Reintroduction of such species should be done in consultation with Isometric prior to planting and must be justified in the PDD.

Naturalized species are defined as:

• Species which occur in the project region at the time of project initiation, have existed in the project region for 100+ years, and have not threatened biodiversity in the region during that time frame, regardless of indigeneity.

Planting and maintenance of native species should be the first course of action. If project activities with only native and naturalized species is not feasible, non-native range-expanding species may be included in the Project. Any non-native species not considered range-expanding for the purposes of this Protocol must not be planted or maintained for Crediting.

Non-native range-expanding species are defined as:

• Species whose natural boundaries are expected to overlap with the project area by the end of the project lifetime and would naturally migrate to and occur within the project boundaries without human-intervention; or
• Species that currently exists in the same RESOLVE terrestrial biome¹⁵ as the project area, and where peer-reviewed literature or government agency documentation supports the species assisted migration as an adaptation response to climate change, and where such migration is projected to occur naturally over time due to climate change.

The use of genetically-modified species for project activities will be reviewed by Isometric on a case by case basis. Genetically-modified species are defined as:

• Any species, native, naturalized, or non-native range-expanding, that has had its genetic material changed or altered using technology in a laboratory setting

If either of these adverse impacts do occur, the Project Proponent must work with Isometric and the VVB to identify sources and explanations for these impacts in order to rule out project activities as the primary cause.

Project Proponents should strive to increase the population of rare, threatened, and endangered species. Endangered species are defined as species under threat of extinction from all or a significant amount of their natural habitat. Threatened species are defined as those that are at risk of becoming endangered. Rare species are defined as those uncommon and found in isolated geographical locations.

While planting of new trees is limited under this Protocol (see Section 4.3), Project Proponents may need to procure seedlings throughout the Crediting Period. A robust seedling and germplasm pipeline is central to the ecological, socioeconomic, and cultural success of any forestry project. A diverse, local, and sustainable pipeline ensures that project activities contribute to the maintenance and/or restoration of ecosystem function and integrity, restore and protect biodiversity, safeguard community livelihoods, and uphold cultural values.

Forest management activities under this Protocol must adhere to government regulations and best management practices (BMPs), following the guidance in Appendix B to meet these requirements.

Projects may be subject to additional forest management requirements set forth in the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against.

Project Proponents should not use synthetic herbicides or fertilizers for forest management during the Crediting Period. Exceptions include, but are not limited to, the control of non-native and/or invasive species.

Project Proponents should not use synthetic pesticides except for the control of non-native pests and/or invasive insect outbreaks.

The emissions associated with any use of synthetic herbicides, fertilizers, and pesticides must be accounted for in line with the emissions accounting requirements of Section 9.5.

The impacts of IFM extends beyond the Project Proponents and the landowners enrolled in or implementing the forest management program. Ensuring the protection and enhancement of community livelihoods not only increases the likelihood of success in carbon sequestration, but also in transforming livelihoods equitably and justly.

In accordance with relevant section of the Isometric Standard, Project Proponents must demonstrate active stakeholder engagement throughout project planning and operation, ensuring that all risk mitigation strategies contribute to sustainable project outcomes. Local stakeholders may contribute an in-depth understanding of the project area and operations, and provide invaluable insights and recommendations on potential risks, necessary safeguards and specific monitoring needs. Engaging local stakeholders in IFM projects creates community buy-in, providing long term commitment and investment in the success of carbon projects, especially in regions that have historically resisted or been weary of climate action¹⁷. Furthermore, lack of community support, stakeholder engagement, and perceived community benefits has been identified as a contributing source of project failure in previous forestry management projects^18,19.

The Project Proponent is encouraged to prepare alternatives for the withdrawal or denial of consent to project activities by stakeholder groups.

The VVB may conduct random surveys or interviews with stakeholder groups, and/or witness some or all of the processes described above.

Project Proponents may additionally be required to undergo the FPIC process with additional stakeholder groups, as identified in and defined by the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against.

Community buy-in is critical to the success of IFM projects, as the impact goes beyond the Project Proponent or enrolled landowners^20,21. Community buy-in may be established when stakeholders are properly informed about the benefits — and transparently provided the potential downsides — they can expect from project activities. Equally important in maintaining buy-in is for the positive impacts resulting from the Project to match the perception of potential benefits presented to community stakeholders at the project onset. A mismatch in benefits expected and benefits realized may similarly hinder project success.

While this Protocol will not prescribe requirements for community impacts, the Project Proponent may be subject to additional requirements in the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against, and is strongly encouraged to consider establishing the following programs and activities:

• Employment opportunity programs favoring local community members, especially in the creation of long-term jobs;
• Establishment of community benefit-sharing arrangements;
• Construction of infrastructure, such as roads, that are accessible to the community;
• Development of site specific mitigation plans for potential negative community impacts.
• Positive impacts should be felt by all stakeholder groups identified in Section 6.6.1 and in the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against. Project Proponents should consider which groups may face the brunt of negative community impacts, and how positive community benefits may be shared equitably with these and other marginalized groups.

It is recommended that the Project Proponent provide support to local communities and ecosystems in establishing region specific mitigation strategies to adapt to the changing climate.

The Project must not harm the quantity or quality of local water resources. Even in forest ecosystems, alterations for forest management practices can alter the hydrological balance in ways that can be detrimental to surrounding communities if there are pre-existing strains on water resources.

The following topics are covered briefly in this Protocol due to their inclusion in the Isometric Standard, which governs all Isometric Protocols. See in-text references to the Isometric Standard for further guidance.

For each specific Project to be evaluated under this Protocol, the Project Proponent must document project characteristics in a PDD as outlined in the relevant section of the Isometric Standard. The PDD will form the basis for project Validation and evaluation in accordance with this Protocol.

Projects must be validated and net CO₂e removals verified by an independent third party, consistent with the requirements described in this Protocol, as well as in the relevant section of the Isometric Standard.

The VVB must consider the following requisite components:

• Verify that the Project meets the Applicability conditions described in Section 4
• Verify that the Environmental & Social Safeguards outlined in Section 6 are met
• Verify that the System Boundary & Leakage assessment adheres to the requirements of Section 8
• Verify that the quantification approach and monitoring plan adheres to requirements of Section 9
• Verify that the conditions for ensuring durability and monitoring for Reversals in Section 10 are met
• Verify that the Project is compliant with requirements outlined in the Isometric Standard

As part of this evaluation, the VVB must also review the characterization and quantification of all individual uncertainty sources within the listed components that contribute to the calculation of net CO₂e removal.

The threshold for Materiality, considering the totality of all omissions, errors and misstatements, is 5%, in accordance with the relevant section of the Isometric Standard.

Verifiers should also verify the documentation of uncertainty of the GHG Statement as required by the relevant section of the Isometric Standard. Qualitative Materiality issues may also be identified and documented, such as:

• Control issues that erode the verifier's confidence in the reported data;
• Poor management information;
• Difficulty in locating requested information; and
• Noncompliance with regulations indirectly related to GHG emissions, removals or storage.

Project Validation and Verification must incorporate site visits to project facilities, namely in situ field plots, in accordance with the requirements of ISO 14064-3, 6.1.4.2. This is to include, at a minimum, site visits during the first Validation or Verification of a Project, to the project site(s). Validators should, whenever possible, observe project operation to ensure full documentation of process inputs and outputs through visual observation and validation of instrumentation, measurements, and required data quality measures.

A site visit must occur at least once during each Project Validation. Additional site visits may be required if there are substantial changes to field operations over the course of a Project's Validation period, or if deemed necessary by Isometric or the VVB. Site visit plans are to be determined according to the VVB's internal assessment, in consultation with Isometric.

Validators and Verifiers must comply with the requirements defined in the relevant section of the Isometric Standard. In addition, verification teams must maintain and demonstrate expertise associated with the specific technologies of forest management, including both forest field measurements and Earth observation remote sensing data processing and analysis.

CDR via IFM is a result of a multi-step, multi-stakeholder process (e.g., re-planting, forest maintenance, monitoring, harvesting), with activities in each step potentially managed by a different operator, company, enrolled landowner, or owner. A single Project Proponent must be specified contractually as the sole owner of the Certificates when there are multiple parties involved in the process, and to avoid Double Counting of net CO₂e removals. Contracts must comply with all requirements defined in the relevant section of the Isometric Standard.

The Project Proponent must demonstrate additionality through compliance with the relevant section of the Isometric Standard and any additional subsequent requirements listed in this Section. Project Proponents may be subject to additional additionality requirements as set forth by the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against. The baseline scenario and Counterfactual utilized to assess additionality must be project-specific and comply with Section 9.4 of this Protocol.

Government subsidies or civil contractual obligations for IFM, such as organization bylaws, inhibit additionality and fall under the Regulatory criteria in the relevant section of the Isometric Standard. Environmental additionality is assessed each Reporting Period using dynamic baselining as outlined in Section 9.4.

Financial Additionality must be reconsidered at Crediting Period renewal, in accordance with the requirements in this section. Projects must select one of the following options to meet ongoing Financial Additionality:

1. Continued validity of existing Financial Additionality demonstration
2. Reassessment of Financial Additionality

If a review indicates the Project has become non-additional, the Project will be ineligible for future Certificates. Current or past Crediting Periods will not be affected.

Where a Project's existing Financial Additionality demonstration was conducted over a defined investment horizon, the existing Financial Additionality determination remains valid up to the end of that investment horizon, provided the Project can demonstrate that key economic and operational assumptions used in the original demonstration remain materially unchanged. Projects which continue under an existing Financial Additionality determination in this way may only do so until the end of the investment horizon considered in the original determination, and must reassess Financial Additionality at the first verification event following the end of the existing investment horizon period.

Reassessment of Financial Additionality is required if any of the following conditions apply:

1. The renewal date occurs after the originally defined investment horizon;
2. A new investment or continuation decision is necessary to continue project crediting activities; and/or
3. Material changes to market conditions, regulatory requirements or project operations have occurred such that the original assumptions are no longer valid.

Where reassessment is required in accordance with the above requirements, the Project Proponent must demonstrate that continued Carbon Finance remains necessary to continue project crediting activities, by conducting a full Financial Additionality assessment against the updated Project and baseline scenarios.

To ensure additionality, IFM activities must occur as a direct result of carbon market incentives rather than fulfillment of pre-existing legal, civil, or fiduciary obligations. Project Proponents must demonstrate that project activities represent voluntary management decisions that exceed baseline requirements and would not occur absent Carbon Finance.

Areas subject to the below pre-existing requirements that mandate project activities are ineligible and must be excluded from the Project.

Pre-existing legal requirements include conservation easements requiring project activities that date to more than one year prior to the start of the Project and/or governmental regulations requiring project activities.

Pre-existing fiduciary or civil requirements include organizational bylaws, organizational governance mechanisms, or other contractual requirements that require project activities to occur within the Project Boundary under the baseline scenario(s). Conservation organizations with a pre-existing claim to the project area are ineligible to enroll in this Protocol due to their pre-existing mandate to conserve forest carbon stocks.

• For the purposes of the Protocol, a mandate to conserve is defined as a legal, contractual, or organizational charter/mission obligation that requires maintaining or enhancing forest carbon storage, forest cover, or ecological services that would prevent commercial timber harvest or result in forest management practices substantively similar to those proposed in the Project, thereby rendering the Project non-additional.

In accordance with the relevant section of the Isometric Standard, the proposed Project activity is considered to demonstrate Common Practice additionality where the market penetration rate is $\leq$ 20%.

The uncertainty in the overall estimate of the net CO₂e removal as a result of the Project must be accounted for. The total net CO₂e removed for a specific Reporting Period (RP), $CO_2e_{removal, RP}$, must be conservatively determined in accordance with the requirements outlined in the relevant section of the Isometric Standard.

More detailed uncertainty information should be provided if available, as outlined in the relevant section of the Isometric Standard.

All variables must be included in the uncertainty analysis, unless it can be demonstrated that they have a negligible contribution to the final net CO₂e uncertainty. This must be demonstrated via the sensitivity analysis required by the relevant section of the Isometric Standard, which demonstrates the impact of each input parameter's uncertainty on the final net CO₂e uncertainty. Details of the sensitivity analysis method must be provided such that a third party can reproduce the results. Input variables may be omitted from an uncertainty analysis if they contribute to a 1% change in the net CO₂e removal. For all other parameters, information about uncertainty must be specified and included as part of the overall assessment of Removal uncertainty.

The resulting uncertainty in the calculated Removal as a result of the individual contributing sources must be quantified using one of the approved approaches in the relevant section of the Isometric Standard.

From the resulting simulated distribution of Removal values, a conservative estimate of the Removal value must be used — at least 1 standard deviation (square-root of the variance) below the mean, equivalent to the ≤16th percentile — in line with the relevant section of the Isometric Standard.

In accordance with the Isometric Standard, all evidence and data related to the underlying quantification of CO₂e removal and environmental and social safeguards monitoring will be available to the public through the Isometric platform. That includes:

• Project Design Document
  • See Section 11 for a list of pre-deployment requirements that must be included in the PDD
• GHG Statement
• Measurements taken, with supporting documentation (e.g., calibration certificates)
• Emission factors used
• Scientific literature used
• Proof of approval for necessary permits
• Remote sensing and field plot data collected by the Project
• All maps generated for calculating carbon stocks in the project area
• All maps generated for calculating carbon stocks in control areas (geospatial reference data can be removed for privacy reasons)
• All data and methodological details used for the baseline calculation
• Model specifications and output

The Project Proponent may be required to disclose additional public evidence and data related to the underlying quantification of CO₂e removal and environmental and social safeguards monitoring as required by the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against.

The Project Proponent can request certain information to be restricted (only available to authorized Buyers, the Registry, and VVB) where it is subject to confidentiality. This includes emission factors, specific data, and/or proprietary models from licensed databases. However, all other numerical data produced or used as part of the quantification of net CO₂e removal will be made available.

The scope of this Protocol includes GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs (SSRs) associated with an IFM project.

A cradle-to-grave GHG Statement must be prepared encompassing the GHG emissions relating to the activities outlined within the system boundary.

GHG emissions and removals associated with the Project may be direct emissions from a process, or indirect emissions from combustion of fuels, electricity generation, or other sources. Emissions must include all GHG SSRs within the system boundary, from the construction or manufacturing of each physical site and associated equipment, closure and disposal of each site and associated equipment, and operation of each process, including embodied emissions of equipment and consumables used in the project. The Project Proponent is responsible for identifying all sources of emissions directly or indirectly related to project activities.

Any emissions from sub-processes or process changes that would not have taken place without the CDR Project must be fully considered in the system boundary. Any activity that ultimately leads to the issuance of Certificates should be included in the system boundary.

The system boundary must include all relevant GHG SSRs controlled by, related to and affected by the Project, including but not limited to the SSRs set out in Table 1. If any GHG SSRs within Table 1 are deemed not appropriate to include in the system boundary, they may be excluded provided that robust justification and appropriate evidence is provided in the PDD.

Table 1. Scope of activities and GHG SSRs to be included in the system boundary.

Miscellaneous GHG emissions are those that cannot be categorized by the GHG SSR categories provided in Table 1. The Project Proponent is responsible for identifying all sources of emissions directly or indirectly related to project activities and must report any outside of the SSR categories identified as miscellaneous emissions.

Emissions associated with The Project's impact on activities that fall outside of the system boundary of The Project must also be considered. This is covered under Leakage in Section 8.3.

In line with the GHG Accounting Module v1.1, the Project must:

• Consider all GHGs associated with SSRs, in alignment with the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s definition of GHGs which includes: carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20) and fluorinated gasses such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). For CO2 stored, only CO2 shall be included as part of the quantification. For all other activities all GHGs must be considered. For example, the release of CO2, CH4, and N2O is expected during diesel consumption;
• Quantify emissions in tonnes CO₂ equivalent (t CO₂e) using the 100-year Global Warming Potential (GWP) for the GHG of interest, based on the most recent volume of the IPCC Assessment Report (currently the Sixth Assessment Report); and
• Consider materiality of SSRs in line with Isometric requirements.

The baseline scenario for improved forest management assumes that the activities associated with the Project do not take place and that any infrastructure associated with the Project is not built.

The Counterfactual is the CO₂ stored that would have occurred due to natural regeneration over the Crediting Period in the absence of the Project. This Protocol uses a dynamic baseline approach to quantify the Counterfactual, detailed in Section 9.4. In this approach, the counterfactual is determined by observing changes in forest carbon stocks for a collection of areas outside of and/or excluded from forest management interventions within the project area (e.g., control pixels or plots) that are representative of the project area, except for the project activity.

Through this approach of using observations of matched controls, dynamic baselines are able to reflect changes in market trends, policies, environmental changes, etc., that can affect counterfactual carbon storage and which would be difficult to capture in static approaches. As such, the use of real-time remote sensing and robust matching procedures in the dynamic baseline procedure leads to the most plausible baseline scenario that can be clearly quantified and compared to the project activities. Further, in the dynamic baseline approach, the pixel or plot matching procedure matches project pixels or plots to multiple pixels or plots in the control area. Through this procedure, an ensemble of samples is generated which captures multiple baseline scenarios. This ensemble approach inherently generates probabilistic uncertainty through the variation in control pixels or plots. This uncertainty is then included in carbon calculations. Because of this, the use of dynamic baseline approaches that leverage remote sensing to compare project activities to matched controls has been noted as a rigorous and conservative approach in the scientific literature^{23,24,25,26,27}.

Dynamic baselines will be independently determined and transparently reported by Isometric at each Verification to determine any deduction in Certificate issuance based on the baseline scenario. Certificate issuance will only occur for carbon removal that is determined to be additional via the procedure(s) within the IFM Intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against, inclusive of uncertainty. Although dynamic baseline approaches are reliant on the suitability of the matched areas to act as controls, the standardized approach includes provisions for using several criteria for the matching, matching to multiple pixels or plots, assessing match quality, expanding the number of potential matches, and regularly reassessing control pixel or plot suitability to minimize the associated uncertainty.

In order to provide insight into the most realistic baseline scenario, it is imperative that Project Proponents detail all planned stand improvement activities and harvests in line with Section 6.5 and related sections of the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against, as well as disclose all pre-existing forest management plans as required by the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against.

This section provides the framework for quantifying and deducting carbon emitted through forestry activities displaced by improved forest management projects, e.g. leakage.

Leakage emissions, $CO_2e_{leakage}$, occur when project activities lead to emissions that occur outside the system boundary of improved forest management projects. They include increases in GHG emissions as a result of IFM projects displacing emissions or causing a secondary effect that increases emissions elsewhere. Three key types of leakage can occur for IFM projects:

• Activity-shifting leakage occurs when Direct Actors, as a result of project activities, shift their timber harvesting or forest management activities to areas outside of the project boundary, such as non-enrolled parcels of land under management, resulting in emissions or reduced sequestration that would not have occurred in the absence of the Project. This type of leakage is known as "Direct" leakage as the relevant stakeholders can be identified and the activity-shifting is traceable.
• Market leakage occurs when project activities reduce the supply of timber commodities, causing market prices to increase and incentivizing increased production elsewhere, potentially leading to deforestation or intensified harvesting on other lands. This type of leakage is known as "Indirect" leakage because its effects cannot be isolated and measured directly. Quantifying the likelihood and potential magnitude of market leakage is complex and relies heavily on modeling and available literature.
• Ecological leakage may occur when project activities lead to emissions in areas outside of the project site as a result of ecological interactions, such as unintended hydrological impacts, introduction of disease, or secondary impacts of faunal influx.

Assessing ecological leakage impacts from IFM activities is complex. Project activities that adversely alter the water table, harming ecological integrity within the project area and surrounding landscape and watershed, are not permitted under this Protocol. For IFM activities, ecological interventions are limited to silvicultural practices on existing forested land. Therefore, it is unlikely that surrounding landscapes would be sensitive to hydrological dynamics as a result of IFM activities alone. For this version of the Protocol ecological leakage is assumed to be zero. This will be revisited in future updates to the Protocol.

Projects that displace production of any commodity that is not timber, or other products derived from wood, are not eligible under this Protocol (See Section 4.3). Therefore there is no risk of market or activity-shifting leakage associated with commodities other than timber or other wood products.

Furthermore, eligible projects are required to demonstrate that Direct Actors will not displace or transfer timber or wood-derived commodity production activities to alternative locations as a consequence of the Project. Projects must adhere to all activity-shifting requirements set forth in the IFM Intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against.

Therefore, the risk of activity-shifting leakage is assumed to be zero.

Market leakage associated with timber or wood-product displacement are addressed in this Protocol and in the relevant IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against.

This Protocol acknowledges that carbon leakage from IFM projects implementing various forest management practices is only indirectly correlated to the potential volume reduction in timber. This discrepancy occurs because different forests and economies produce different wood products with variable efficiencies and market dynamics. Thus, the approach to and quantification of leakage — following the most recent best practices in the scientific literature — will vary by intervention type and forest management practice.

Project Proponents must quantify any leakage emissions according to the requirements set forth in the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against.

The Reporting Period for IFM projects represents an interval of time over which removals are calculated and reported for Verification. The minimum duration of a Reporting Period is one year and the maximum duration of a Reporting Period is five years (see Section 5.2).

Total net CO₂e removal is calculated for each Reporting Period and is written hereafter as $CO_2e_{Removal, RP}$. The net CO₂e removal quantification must be conservatively determined, giving high confidence that at a minimum, the credited amount of CO₂e was removed and stored.

GHG emission calculations must include all emissions related to project activities that occur within the Reporting Period (see Table 1). This includes:

• any emissions associated with project establishment allocated to the Reporting Period (See Section 9.5.1);
• any operations emissions that occur within the Reporting Period (See Section 9.5.2);
• any end-of-life emissions that would occur after the Reporting Period that have been allocated to the Reporting Period (see Section 9.5.3); and
• market leakage emissions that occur outside of the system boundary that are associated with the Reporting Period (Section 8.3) .

In line with the Isometric Standard, this Protocol requires that Removal Certificates are issued ex-post. Certificates may be issued once CO₂ has been removed from the atmosphere and is stored in living trees, soil, and/or harvested wood products.

Net CO₂e removal for an improved forest management project for each Reporting Period (RP), is calculated with the following equation:

$$CO_2e_{Removal, RP} = CO_2e_{Stored, RP} - CO_2e_{Counterfactual, RP} - CO_2e_{Emissions, RP}$$

(Equation 1)

Where:

• $CO_2e_{Removal, RP}$ is the total net CO₂e removal for the RP, in tonnes of CO₂e.
• $CO_2e_{Stored, RP}$ is the total CO₂ removed from the atmosphere and stored as organic carbon in living trees, soil, and/or harvested wood products for the RP, in tonnes of CO₂e.
• $CO_2e_{Counterfactual, RP}$ is the total counterfactual CO₂ removed from the atmosphere and stored as organic carbon in living trees, soil, and/or harvested wood products in the absence of Project activities for the RP, in tonnes of CO₂e.
• $CO_2e_{Emissions, RP}$ is the total GHG emissions for the RP, in tonnes of CO₂e.

$$CO_2e_{Stored, RP} = CO_2e_{AGB, RP} + CO_2e_{BGB, RP} + CO_2e_{HWP, RP} + CO_2e_{Soil, RP}$$

(Equation 2)

Where:

• $CO_2e_{Stored, RP}$ is the total CO₂ removed from the atmosphere and stored as organic carbon in living trees for the RP, in tonnes of CO₂e.
• $CO_2e_{AGB, RP}$ is the total carbon stored in living aboveground woody biomass (AGB) over the RP, in tonnes CO₂e.
• $CO_2e_{BGB, RP}$ is the total carbon stored in living belowground woody biomass (BGB) over the RP, in tonnes CO₂e.
• $CO_2e_{HWP, RP}$ is the total carbon stored in harvested wood products (HWPs) over the RP, in tonnes CO₂e. This carbon pool is optional and its inclusion subject to the guidance and requirements of the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against. For the IFM intervention Module(s) and/or Projects where carbon stored in HWPs is not an eligible pool, Project Proponents must set this value to 0.
• $CO_2e_{Soil, RP}$ is the total carbon stored in soil over the RP, in tonnes CO₂e. This carbon pool is optional and its inclusion subject to the guidance and requirements of the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against. For the IFM intervention Module(s) where soil carbon is not an eligible pool, Project Proponents must set this value to 0.

The mandatory carbon pools within the scope of this Protocol are aboveground and belowground woody biomass (see Table 1), since they can be quantified with the highest level of accuracy and are able to be effectively monitored over time. Deadwood and litter carbon pools are excluded from the calculation of $CO_2e_{Stored, RP}$ due to large uncertainties in quantification approaches and/or relatively small contributions to the total forest carbon pool. The inclusion of both HWPs and soil carbon as pools for Projects crediting under this Protocol is subject to the guidance and requirements of the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against, and the details of how to calculate $CO_2e_{HWP, RP}$ and $CO_2e_{Soil, RP}$ are described in the applicable IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against.

For the remainder of the Protocol, the use of AGB and BGB refers to only the living aboveground and belowground woody biomass, respectively, unless otherwise noted. Details of how to calculate $CO_2e_{AGB, RP}$ and $CO_2e_{BGB, RP}$ are described below.

In certain distributed Projects where site(s) have varying contract lengths — such as in deferred harvest — $CO_2e_{Stored, RP}$ may need to be equilibrated across the Project to ensure additionality and establish durability.

Project Proponents must follow any additional guidance and requirements set forth in the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against for final determination of $CO_2e_{Stored, RP}$.

In cases where the intervention and forest management practices do not require adjustments to $CO_2e_{Stored, RP}$, Projects must use the values as determined under this Protocol in Equation 2 for final determination of $CO_2e_{Stored, RP}$.

The total carbon stored in aboveground biomass over a Reporting Period is calculated by taking the difference between the start and end of the Reporting Period:

$$CO_2e_{AGB, RP} = CO_2e_{AGB}(t_2) - CO_2e_{AGB}(t_1)$$

(Equation 3)

Where:

• $CO_2e_{AGB}(t_1)$ and $CO_2e_{AGB}(t_2)$ are the total aboveground biomass carbon stock in the project area at times $t_1$ and $t_2$.
• $t_1$ and $t_2$ denote the start and end of the RP, respectively.

Reporting Periods are consecutive, so that $t_2$ then becomes the start of the next RP.

The aboveground biomass carbon stock at a point in time, $t$, is further calculated as:

$$CO_2e_{AGB}(t) = \frac{44}{12} \times CF \times M_{AGB}(t)$$

Where:

• $\frac{44}{12}$ is the ratio of mass of CO₂ to mass of C, used to convert to tonnes CO₂e.
• $CF$ is the average fraction of carbon content for the tree species in the project area, in tonnes C per tonne dry biomass.
• $M_{AGB}(t)$ is the total aboveground woody biomass over the project area at time $t$, in tonnes of dry biomass.

This Protocol currently supports the following three Capture and Conversion Modules for quantifying the total aboveground woody biomass over the project area at a point in time, $M_{AGB}(t)$:

For certain forest management interventions, subject to meeting all the requirements set forth in the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against, Projects may elect to quantify $M_{AGB}(t)$ through alternative approaches.

Requirements for each approach are described either in the corresponding Capture & Conversion Modules or in the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against. Project Proponents must describe in the PDD which option is used, and adhere to the requirements of that approach. Note that both the LiDAR and Earth Observation Capture & Conversion Modules and, if applicable, the alternative quantification approach in the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against, still require field plots as the source of truth for benchmarking the maps.

This list of acceptable approaches may be expanded upon in future versions of the Protocol.

The total carbon stored in belowground biomass over a Reporting Period, $CO_2e_{BGB, RP}$, is calculated as:

$$CO_2e_{BGB, RP} = RS \times CO_2e_{AGB, RP}$$

(Equation 4)

Where:

• $CO_2e_{AGB, RP}$ is the total carbon stored in aboveground biomass over a Reporting Period, RP, as calculated in Section 9.3.2, in tonnes of CO₂e.
• $RS$ is the root-to-shoot ratio, which is a dimensionless belowground biomass to aboveground biomass ratio.

This Protocol uses a dynamic baseline approach to quantify the counterfactual impact on forest carbon stocks if the project activity had not occurred. Dynamic baselines will be independently determined and transparently reported by Isometric at each Verification — according to the procedures described in the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against — to determine any deduction in Certificate issuance based on the baseline scenario. Certificate issuance will only occur for carbon removal that is determined to be additional via the procedures described in the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against.

$CO_2e_{Emissions, RP}$ is the total GHG emissions associated with a Reporting Period, $RP$, in tonnes of CO₂e. This can be calculated as:

$$CO_2e_{Emissions, RP} = CO_2e_{Establishment, RP} + CO_2e_{Operations, RP} + CO_2e_{End-of-Life, RP} + CO_2e_{Leakage, RP}$$

(Equation 5)

Where:

• $CO_2e_{Establishment, RP}$ represents the GHG emissions associated with project establishment, represented for the RP, in tonnes of CO₂e (see Section 9.5.1).
• $CO_2e_{Operations, RP}$ represents the GHG emissions associated with operational processes, represented for the RP, in tonnes of CO₂e (see Section 9.5.2).
• $CO_2e_{End-of-Life, RP}$ represents the GHG emissions associated with emissions that occur after the RP and are allocated to a RP, in tonnes of CO₂e (see Section 9.5.3).
• $CO_2e_{Leakage, RP}$ represents GHG emissions associated with the impact of the Project on activities that fall outside of the system boundary of the Project, over a given RP, in tonnes of CO₂e (see Section 9.5.4).

The following sections set out specific quantification requirements for each term in Equation 5.

GHG emissions associated with project establishment should include all historic emissions incurred as a result of project establishment, including but not limited to the SSRs set out in Table 1, such as biomass burning for site preparation, temporary structures, and fertilizer and/or herbicide application. An inventory of pre-project vegetation is required to quantify vegetation removed during project establishment.

Project establishment emissions occur from the point of project inception to the moment before the first removal activity takes place. GHG emissions associated with project establishment may be amortized over the anticipated project lifetime, or per output of product. Rules on amortization are outlined in Section 7 of the GHG Accounting Module v1.1.

GHG emissions associated with $CO_2e_{Operations, RP}$ should include all emissions associated with operational activities, including but not limited to the SSRs set out in Table 1.

For IFM projects, the Reporting Period covers a set period of time (e.g., one year), during which the forest was growing and increasing its woody biomass. $CO_2e_{Operations, RP}$ emissions must be attributed to the Reporting Period in which they occur. Allocation outside of the current Reporting Period may be permitted in certain instances, on a case by case basis in agreement with Isometric.

$CO_2e_{End-of-Life, RP}$ includes all emissions associated with activities that are anticipated to occur at the end of the Crediting Period.

$CO_2e_{End-of-Life, RP}$ must be estimated upfront and allocated in the same way as set out for calculation of $CO_2e_{Establishment}$.

Given the uncertain nature of $CO_2e_{End-of-Life, RP}$ emissions, assumptions must be revisited at each Reporting Period and any necessary adjustments made.

$CO_2e_{Leakage, RP}$ includes emissions associated with a Project's impact on activities that fall outside of the system boundary of the Project. It includes increases in GHG emissions as a result of the Project displacing emissions or causing a secondary effect that increases emissions elsewhere.

The $CO_2e_{Leakage, RP}$ calculation approach is set out in Section 8.3 and is not repeated here.

GHG emissions accounting must be undertaken in alignment with the GHG Accounting Module v1.1, which ensures a consistently rigorous standard in how GHG emissions are quantified and reported between different CDR Projects and approaches. This includes:

• Requirements for data quality, including a detailed data quality hierarchy for activity data and emission factors;
• Consideration of materiality in emissions accounting;
• Emissions amortization requirements;
• Co-product allocation requirements;
• By-product accounting relating to inputs to the process that are by-products; and
• Waste input accounting relating to inputs to the process that are wastes.

The Energy Use Accounting Module v1.3 provides requirements on how energy-related emissions must be calculated for The Project so that they can be subtracted in the net CO₂e removal calculation. It sets out the calculation approach to be followed for intensive facilities and non-intensive facilities and acceptable emission factors.

Energy emissions are those related to electricity or fuel usage. They may include, but are not limited to:

• Electricity usage in harvest material sheds or other temporary structures;
• Fuel usage for forest management machinery and groundworks; and/or
• Electricity consumption for instrumentation used for monitoring.

The GHG Accounting Module v1.1 provides requirements on how transportation and embodied emissions must be calculated for The Project so that they can be subtracted in the net CO₂e removal calculation.

Embodied emissions are those related to the life cycle impact of equipment and consumables. They may include, but are not limited to:

• Process inputs or consumables
• Water use
• Fertilizers
• Pesticides
• Equipment
• Temporary structures or fencing used
• Infrastructure such as new access roads
• Machinery used for site clearing, preparation, and fertilizer application
• Instrumentation used for measuring carbon stocks

Transportation emissions are those related to transportation of products and equipment. They may include, but are not limited to:

• Transportation of new seedlings from nurseries to the project site;
• Transportation of fertilizer to the project site; and/or
• Transportation of staff and/or equipment to the project site.

Any models used to fill requirements under this Protocol must be well-validated and skillful for the purpose that they were used for. Proof of model validation can be achieved through either:

• A track record of use in science, industry, or government applications, which is demonstrated through multiple peer-reviewed papers, or proof of usage in a number of previous applications. Furthermore, the model must be relevant to the project area and tree species (e.g., covers similar ecoregions); or
• Newly developed models without a track record of usage must be validated against reputable data sources, which include quality-controlled in situ measurements and public datasets adhering to FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) principles³³. Sufficient model validation data must be provided with the PDD.

Projects may be subject to additional model validation requirements as set forth in the Capture and Conversion Module(s) and/or the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against.

The storage reservoir of the CO₂ removed through IFM is live aboveground and belowground woody biomass and, if applicable, soil carbon or harvested wood products. The durability of a CDR process refers to the length of time for which CO₂ is removed from the Earth's atmosphere and cannot contribute to further climate change. This section details the durability, risks of Reversals and requirements for storage of removed atmospheric CO₂ as live woody biomass and, if applicable, soil carbon or harvested wood products.

The durability of the Certificate is informed by the intervention and forest management practice. Thus, Projects must claim durability according to the guidance and requirements as set forth in the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against. The minimum durability of Certificates issued under this Protocol is 40 years.

Reversals are defined as reductions in forest biomass that may result in emissions of CO₂ to the atmosphere. Reversal risk is quantified by assessing the likelihood of a disturbance event occurring over a period of time and estimating the severity of the disturbance in terms of biomass loss. Disturbance events may be natural or anthropogenic, such as fire, drought/heat, insect and disease, illegal deforestation, and windfall events. A disturbance event which results in a reduction in forest biomass is considered a loss event. The duration of disturbance events may be over multiple years (e.g., drought) or for a very limited duration (e.g., windstorm).

The likelihood and severity of disturbances are influenced by external and project-related factors.

• External factors:
  • Climate change effects
  • Changes in areas adjacent to the project area(s) (e.g., land ownership, land use, farming practices, industrial activities, upstream water stress, ecosystem change)
  • Regulatory changes
  • Illegal logging activity
  • Historic disturbances in and around the project area(s)
• Project-related factors:
  • Forest management plan (e.g., climate resilience of species, biodiverse species)
  • Project governance (e.g., operations and financial structure, community ownership, local training)
  • Risk mitigation safeguards
  • Changes in land use, management, or ownership of the project area(s)

Furthermore, the risk profile of the Project may change over the project lifetime due to:

• Temporal variation in the risk profile of forest due to age or characteristics
• Temporal variation in the risk profile of natural risks (e.g., wildfires, drought) and anthropogenic risks (e.g., illegal deforestation)
• Length of the Crediting Period

Projects must complete the Risk Assessment(s) of the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against, the results of which are independently evaluated by a third-party VVB.

The Risk Assessment is used to determine the risk profile of the Project, including risks to Certificate delivery and storage. Aspects of the Project which have higher risk exposure should be accompanied by an appropriate risk mitigation plan. To safeguard against high risk projects, the Project must score below the indicated thresholds to be eligible for crediting under this Protocol.

The Risk Assessment(s) must be updated each Reporting Period by the Project Proponent and increased risk scores will result in additional mitigation activities.

The following safeguards are required for all IFM projects and must be in place at the start of the Project and maintained throughout the Crediting Period. The Project Proponent must comply with each of the following.

For Projects with project areas categorized as "High" or "Extremely High" according to the Baseline Annual Physical Risk for Water Quantity (see Section 6.7.2), Project Proponents must reduce risk of drought through a water management plan (e.g., securing water supply, water infrastructure, ensuring water resources are not strained for neighboring areas).

The Project Proponent must include the results of its mandatory safeguard evaluation, mitigation, and design in the PDD.

As outlined in the relevant section of the Isometric Standard, the Buffer Pool is a mechanism used to insure against risks of Reversals that may be observable and attributable to the Project through monitoring.

Currently, there is insufficient published scientific evidence to quantitatively account for climate change, management activities, or forest age and translate this into a highly accurate Buffer Pool contribution. As a result, Isometric applies either a flat contribution requirement on the Project or a model to translate the Module Risk Assessment(s) into a Buffer Pool contribution. As actuarial data improve and more research is published, the Protocol requirements will be updated accordingly.

The Buffer Pool contribution will be held in a Forestry Buffer Pool managed by Isometric. Pooling of a diversified portfolio of improved forest management projects across geographic regions, spatial scales and temporal scales can reduce the exposure to systemic risks stemming from IFM projects constrained to a geographic area or ecological type^23,38,39. The IFM-wide Buffer Pool composition will be transparently reported on the Isometric Registry.

The Buffer Pool Compensation Process is governed by the Isometric Standard. The following procedures apply upon detection and quantification of a loss event.

• Within the Crediting Period. For Reversals that occur during the Crediting Period (e.g., widespread tree mortality), loss of forest biomass is incorporated into the quantification at each Verification. If the net CO₂e removal term (Equation 1) in a Reporting Period is found to be negative (forest carbon stock at $t$ less than forest carbon stock at $t-1$), Buffer Pool Certificates are canceled equal to the net emissions from the Reporting Period.
• After the Crediting Period. Reversals that occur after the Crediting Period must be quantified (see Section 10.5.3) and fully compensated by the Buffer Pool within one year of the loss event.
• Procedure for Avoidable Reversals. Isometric cancels Certificates in the Buffer Pool equal to the Reversal.
  • During the Crediting Period: Project Proponents must replenish the canceled Certificates in the Buffer Pool using Certificates generated in the next Reporting Period before additional Certificates are issued.
  • At the end of the Crediting Period: Project Proponents must replenish the canceled Certificates in the Buffer Pool using Certificates generated from other projects under operation by the Project Proponent, or using Certificates generated from another project, deemed of equivalent quality by Isometric, at the Project Proponent's expense.
• Procedure for Unavoidable Reversals. Isometric cancels Certificates in the Buffer Pool equal to the Reversal.
• Buffer Pool Depletion. If the Reversal has depleted the Project's share of the Buffer Pool, the Project will be in a deficit, and must make up the loss within the next Reporting Period, or within one year of the loss event if the loss occurs at the end of the Crediting Period. If the Project Proponent does not replenish the canceled Certificates in the Buffer Pool in the amount equal to the Reversal, then the Project fails and is ineligible for future crediting. All Certificates are canceled.

For more details on Reversals, refer to the relevant sections on reversal risk and reversals of the Isometric Standard.

Reversals represent a loss of carbon stock to the forest since the Project's last verification — i.e., carbon losses exceed gains for that Reporting Period. Yet, in many IFM practices, these losses may be due to planned harvest or stand improvement activity.

Isometric will evaluate forest carbon loss against any planned activities of the Project for determination of reversals and the liability of Project Proponents for the compensation of any such reversals. Thus, it is imperative that Project Proponents detail all planned stand improvement activities and harvests in line with Section 6.5 and applicable sections of the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against.

Isometric will independently conduct continuous monitoring for Reversals for the full length of the Crediting Period. Monitoring will consist of:

• Global tree cover and disturbance alert systems (e.g., GLAD forest watch, VIIRS)
• Regional or national tree cover and disturbance alert systems (e.g., DETER, GWIS)
• Annual review of changes in forest area cover (e.g., GFC)
• Annual review of changes in vegetation indices (e.g. EVI, NDVI)

Upon detection of a Reversal, Project Proponents must thoroughly investigate, initiate adaptive management to minimize losses, and implement mitigation actions to reduce future risks of Reversal.

Unplanned loss events representing a reduction of carbon stored in live woody biomass greater than 1% of the cumulative tonnes of CO₂e removed by the Project (based on total number of Certificates issued) or exceeding 15% of the project area must be reported, investigated, and compensated for.

Upon detection of a loss event by Isometric or other third party, the following procedures will commence:

1. Within one month: Project Proponent is notified. Project Proponents must investigate and confirm if the Reversal event is finished. If the Reversal event has not finished, Project Proponents must determine and implement immediate actions that can be taken to stop or slow the progress of the Reversal. In addition, Project Proponents must report on near-term adaptive management and risk mitigation actions taken or to be taken in the next year.
2. Within one year: Project Proponents must submit a Reversal report which includes a description of the adaptive management and risk mitigation actions implemented after the loss event. Isometric compiles a Reversal report which includes the date, description, shapefile of the location and loss extent, nature of loss event (avoidable or unavoidable), calculation of the loss in live woody biomass, and impacts on project activities and ecosystem(s). Following the Reversal report, Isometric will initiate the Buffer Pool compensation process (see Section 10.4.3).

Quantification of Reversals are calculated through two approaches. To be eligible under this Protocol, the Project must either:

• Option 1: Quantify a new carbon stock for the Project through field sampling or LiDAR in accordance with requirements set out in the applicable quantification Modules, or
  • Project Proponents opting for a field survey must follow the guidance and requirements in Area-based Quantification of Above-ground Biomass.
  • Project Proponents opting for a LiDAR survey must follow the guidance and requirements in LiDAR Based Quantification of Above-ground Biomass.
• Option 2: Determine the relative change in the same proxy aboveground biomass parameter used for the dynamic baseline of the Project in the Reporting Period prior to the reversal event.

Since only carbon stored in live woody biomass is considered for all IFM Projects in the quantification of carbon removal, this Protocol conservatively assumes that all carbon stored in live woody biomass is immediately released to the atmosphere upon mortality as a result of a disturbance event. Belowground biomass is conservatively assumed to be lost proportionally to aboveground biomass. For Projects where HWPs or soil carbon are applicable and eligible pools according to the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is Crediting against, those IFM intervention Module(s) will dictate reversal quantification for those pools.

Projects which experience a Reversal on the scale of 20% of the cumulative tonnes of CO₂e removed by the Project (based on total number of Certificates issued) must conduct Option 1 — field sampling or LiDAR surveys — to quantify the remaining stocks of forest carbon stored in live woody biomass according to the guidance and requirements in Area-based Quantification of Aboveground Biomass and LiDAR Based Quantification of Aboveground Biomass, respectively.

All pre-deployment requirements must be described in the PDD, as outlined in Section 7.1. The requirements are as follows:

• Description of the project site, including:
  • A shapefile of the project boundaries;
  • Rationale for the selection of the project site;
  • Environmental context of the site, including heterogeneities of environmental factors across the full project area (e.g., climate, geography, ecology);
  • Social context of the site, including neighboring activities to the site; and
• Description of project timeline, including:
  • Duration of Crediting Period;
  • Land tenure and/or contracts obliging maintenance of forest carbon stocks;
  • Ex-ante estimates of forest growth and expected time to forest maturity, including all requirements set forth in the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against, with a description of ex-ante model calculations and uncertainty bands.
• Description of forest management activities, including:
  • Planned harvests;
  • Forest stand improvements;
  • Stand and/or planting design, such as species mix, fertilizer use, animal interventions;
  • Description of seedling and germplasm pipeline; and
  • Site preparation — e.g., soil tilling, construction of roads, water infrastructure etc.
• Documentation of any pre-validation activities, including:
  • Environmental and social risk assessment;
  • Stakeholder Engagement Process;
  • Leakage mitigation;
  • Site preparation; and, if applicable,
  • Tree planting.
• Demonstration of zero-leakage of non-timber commodities, and
  • Adherence to prevention of timber activity-shifting leakage
• Description of monitoring activities, including:
  • Ecological and social safeguarding plan;
  • Frequency of monitored parameters; and
  • Quantification plan, including:
    • Methods for quantification of forest biomass
    • Sampling and upscaling plan
    • Allometric equations
• Risk of Reversal plan, including:
  • Risk Assessment(s);
  • Risk mitigation plan;
  • Adaptive management plan; and
  • Supporting evidence for risk safeguards.

This Protocol requires a combination of in situ and remotely-sensed monitoring for the following purposes:

• Establishing confidence in estimates of aboveground biomass;
• Ensuring additionality through dynamic baseline monitoring throughout the Crediting Period; and
• Ongoing monitoring for Reversals during and at the end of the Crediting Period.

This section summarizes the Monitoring requirements that are discussed throughout this Protocol.

Project monitoring responsibilities are split between the Project Proponent and Isometric as follows:

• Isometric owns:
  • Selection and review of control pixels or plots matched to project pixels or plots (see Section 12.2.1);
  • (If applicable) Evaluation of eligibility of global AGB map layers;
  • (If applicable) Calculation of uncertainty from mapping products; and
  • Satellite-based monitoring, including:
    • Ongoing monitoring for Reversals.
• Project Proponent owns and provides in monitoring reports:
  • Selection of field plots;
  • In situ field plot measurements;
  • Records or evidence of forest thinning activities;
  • Emissions accounting;
  • (If applicable) Leakage mitigation activities; and
  • Environmental and social safeguarding records.

This Protocol refers to monitoring at multiple different locations, which are illustrated in an example in Figure 1.

• Project area: Project area refers to the entire region where improved forest management activities take place, and is represented in green in Figure 1.
• Control pixels: Control pixels (or plots) are used to establish a dynamic baseline. These pixels (or plots) are outside of the project area and are matched to pixels or plots inside the project area, represented in yellow in Figure 1.
• Laser scanning region: This location may not be applicable to the Project, as it is only required for IFM projects quantifying AGB using regional LiDAR models (see LiDAR Based Quantification of Above-ground Biomass). In the example in Figure 1, wall-to-wall LiDAR is shown, where the laser scanning region encompasses the entire project area. Alternatively, Project Proponents may have subplots where laser scanning measurements are taken.
• In situ field plots: The circles in Figure 1 represent areas where in situ field measurements such as tree diameter are taken. Note that Figure 1 is for illustration, and the number of field plots shown is not representative of the required number of plots in reality.

Isometric will transparently disclose locations of control pixels or plots.

Figure 1. Schematic of the various monitoring locations referred to throughout this Protocol.

The entire project area in Figure 1 must be monitored for the duration of the Crediting Period.

During the Crediting Period, monitored parameters from an AGB proxy map (e.g., canopy height) in the project area is used in conjunction with control pixels or plots to establish a dynamic baseline for determining the additionality of carbon storage in the project area. Isometric or another independent third party will be responsible for project area monitoring for establishing relative change compared to control pixels or plots (see Section 12.2.2).

Control pixels or plots are used to assess forest outcomes in similar land areas outside the project area to determine the additional carbon storage of an IFM project beyond the counterfactual scenario. Control pixels or plots are selected by matching each project area pixel or plots to a number of pixels or plots outside the project area that historically behaved similarly (see Section 9.4).

An AGB proxy map (e.g., canopy height) is used to determine the relative difference in forest carbon between the Project and Counterfactual scenario for each Reporting Period. Isometric is responsible for the selection of control pixels or plots and the calculation of the dynamic baseline (see Section 9.4).

Airborne laser scanning measurements are only applicable for projects that wish to use regional LiDAR models to estimate AGB (see LiDAR Based Quantification of Above-ground Biomass). LiDAR data collection should occur throughout the Crediting Period. The minimum frequency is set by the IFM Intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against.

In situ field measurements are required for all projects throughout the Crediting Period. Field plots may be used as the primary method for calculating aboveground biomass (see Area-based Quantification of Above-ground Biomass), or used for benchmarking LiDAR-derived AGB maps, as well as regional or global third-party AGB maps. Details of the application of these methodologies for AGB quantification are described in the corresponding Modules.

• At minimum, species identification and DBH must be measured for all trees with DBH > 10 cm, but can be measured for all trees with DBH > 2 cm.

For projects selecting the quantification approach where AGB is derived directly from field measurements, then in situ field plots must be sampled at the beginning and end of each Reporting Period. Otherwise, for both LiDAR approaches and global AGB maps, field measurements must be taken at the minimum frequency set by the IFM Intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against for benchmarking purposes.

Table 2. Summary of the required and recommended monitoring parameters.

Isometric would like to thank Renoster, for their extensive feedback during this Protocol's development.

Several of the terms provided here are discussed in more thorough detail in specific sections within the Protocol. Please refer to these sections for more detail for how these terms relate to eligibility and crediting procedures.

Additionality

• Future versions of the Protocol may explore using remote sensing data to further create performance benchmarks to assess financial and regulatory additionality of the Project.

Approved Resources and Third-Party Datasets

• Isometric will develop and maintain a list of approved resources and third-party datasets for various parameters (e.g., carbon fractions, land cover classification maps, risk assessment) for different regions and biomes. Isometric will use this list for all relevant in-house monitoring processes, and Project Proponents must choose resources from this list unless they provide reasonable justification for a deviation (e.g., a new peer-reviewed publication that advances local knowledge).

Baseline

• Prior research on dynamic baselines have mostly been in the context of REDD+ and not improved forest management. Pixel matching routines, statistical criteria and uncertainty will be revisited regularly to stay up to date with latest scientific developments, as well as to reflect any developments in relevant government policies or legal requirements. At a minimum, reviews will occur every two years.

Buffer Pool Contribution

• Isometric will review and adapt third-party tools and datasets, such as buffer pool density maps, as they become publicly available to enable project- and site-specific determination. Buffer Pools will be reassessed and scaled as appropriate to account for risk amplification or mitigation due to management activities and climate change.

Insurance

• Insurance providers can provide a third party risk assessment, are financially incentivized to correctly price risk, and have a fiduciary responsibility to pay out in the event of a Reversal. As this area develops, insurance will be considered for inclusion in future versions of the Protocol.

Leakage

• Currently, the Protocol assumes ecological leakage is zero. This will be revisited in future updates and included, where appropriate, in leakage assessment and mitigation.

Leakage Mitigation

• 'Within project' and/or cross-commodity leakage mitigation may be included in future Modules.

Stakeholder Engagement

• More detailed guidance on stakeholder identification and differentiation will be considered for future versions of the Protocol.
• Additional guidance on due diligence required to demonstrate that stakeholder rights are upheld will be considered for future versions of the Protocol.

This appendix provides Project Proponents with a systematic approach to identify, evaluate, and apply existing Best Management Practices (BMPs) relevant to their specific Improved Forest Management (IFM) projects. Rather than prescribing specific practices, this guide establishes a framework for leveraging the extensive body of BMP literature and guidance developed by governmental agencies, research institutions, and forest management organizations.

BMP identification and implementation is an ongoing process throughout the project lifecycle, with regular updates based on new research findings, regulatory changes, and monitoring results. Success depends on thorough planning, careful implementation, and continuous improvement through adaptive management.

Table B1. BMP Source Hierarchy and Regional Resources. This table provides a structured framework for identifying Best Management Practices organized by tier and region, with specific resource examples for each combination.