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, selective 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 Q1 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 analysis of their status in the voluntary market has been lacking, with nearly 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 Credit 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 implementation practice 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. For Projects with grouped sites, all sites must adhere to every requirement laid out in this Protocol and applicable Modules.

This Protocol applies across the temporal (see Section 5) and spatial scope (see Section 4.1) of the Project. 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. Any adjacent forest management activities or land use practices by the Project Proponent must be disclosed with justification and evidence that they do not pose any risks to the IFM activities within the Project Boundary or create opportunities for leakage that would undermine the additionality of the Project.

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.

Project activities must demonstrate additionality by accounting for site-specific constraints that limit harvesting feasibility under baseline conditions. 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 C.

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. Project Proponents must follow all requirements that establish the material assessment of harvest constraints and determine eligible project areas within the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project Proponent is crediting against.

Project Proponents must conduct a comprehensive assessment of the cumulative impact of all project area constraints identified in both this Protocol and the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project Proponent is crediting against to determine the total eligible project area for crediting purposes. The Project Proponent must report all areas within the Project Boundary that are thus excluded from enrollment within the Project for crediting purposes. The Project Proponent must report these exclusions in the PDD, which must include detailed mapping and quantification of all excluded areas, with clear justification for constraint identification and application of required thresholds.

The Project must not disproportionately harm Indigenous People and local, underserved, or marginalized communities, in compliance with Section 3.7 of the Isometric Standard and Section 6 of this Protocol. Projects should aim to improve ecosystem function and integrity — while also enhancing biodiversity — through facilitating wildlife corridors, avoiding negative impacts on existing ecological functions, and increasing habitat for native flora, fauna, and funga.

The Project may be subject to additional applicability and eligibility requirements set forth in the Applicability section of the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project Proponent is crediting against. The Project Proponent must demonstrate adherence to any of 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 7.4.
• The Project should strive to limit soil inversion to 25 cm during project establishment.
• The Project must provide a minimum of 20 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 Credits. Requirements to demonstrate this evidence are provided in Section 5.1, and if applicable, in the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project Proponent 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 8.2).
• Projects must demonstrate that Direct Actors will not displace or transfer their activities to alternative locations as a consequence of the Project. Such assurance must be substantiated by legally binding agreements entered into with the Direct Actors. For the purposes of this requirement, “Direct Actors” is 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.

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 (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. Projects must provide the following to evidence the length of the Crediting Period (see Section 11).

• Land tenure and contractual obligation. To ensure the Project Proponent has proper authorization from the true property ownership, this Protocol explicitly prohibits lessees or concessionaires from enrolling land for Credits without the landowner's signatory consent, which must be provided in the PDD. Thus, the Project Proponent must have legal, documented land tenure for the duration of the Crediting Period; or, if the Project Proponent is contracting on land owned by another part, the landowners must have legal, documented land tenure for the duration of the Crediting Period and the Project Proponent must have contractual access to the land to perform all requirements set forth by this Protocol and the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project Proponent is crediting against.
  • The Project Proponent and/or landowner(s) must provide three documents to verify their tenure: a property tax record, government ID, and signed contract.
    • In cases where all land is held by the government or in commons, the Project Proponent must provide legal documents attesting to such landownership structure and a legal agreement from the relevant authorities that IFM activities can be carried out for the length of the Crediting Period.
  • For land held in trust, the governing body must provide signatory consent for carbon credit enrollment.
  • For land with multiple owners, all parties must give their signatory consent.
  • In the event of land ownership transfer, including inheritance, sale, or other forms of succession, the Project Proponent should — subject to local, national, and regional laws — ensure that the new owner(s) or heir(s) uphold the commitments outlined in the PDD. This includes maintaining forest carbon stocks in accordance with the requirements of this Protocol and applicable Modules, and upholding any other project requirements for the duration of the Crediting Period. Such obligations should be legally binding and must be detailed in the PDD to mitigate risks of tenure disputes or non-compliance.
• Financial plan. To evidence continued financial viability of the Project over the full Crediting Period, Project Proponents must provide a financial model and cash flow statement which demonstrates a clear payment structure for the duration of the Crediting Period. Certain IFM intervention practices may require additional evidence — as set forth in the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project Proponent is crediting against — to demonstrate that the Project can remain financially viable after initial project activities and credit issuance.
• Ex-ante duration estimate. The duration of the Crediting Period is determined by an ex-ante estimate of forest growth rates to reach forest maturity. Due to the variability of forest growth factors and tree biology, the Crediting Period may vary by Project. Project Proponents must determine the length of the Crediting Period according to the guidance and requirements of the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project Proponent is crediting against.

Credit issuances occur throughout the Crediting Period. Credits are issued upon Verification of a Reporting Period. Abandonment or failure to perform project activities at any point in the Crediting Period will result in project failure. All Credits issued under the Project will be canceled.

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 Proponent is crediting against.

The Reporting Period is the interval of time over which removals are calculated. The first Reporting Period starts at project Validation. 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). Project Proponents must indicate the last Reporting Period to be submitted for Verification. 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 be implemented to identify and eliminate potential risks to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity. 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 Section 3.7 of the Isometric Standard for further guidelines on environmental and social impacts.

Following the Isometric Standard, Credits 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 Section 3.7 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 Proponent is crediting against.

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.

Project Proponents must document activities that trigger environmental permitting requirements.

Adaptive management incorporates learnings and takeaways from project monitoring into project development¹⁰. Regular data collection and sharing is necessary to implement adaptive management. Results from data collection at the end of each Reporting Period must be shared with local stakeholders, as described in Section 6.6.1 of this Protocol, and be used to inform future iterations of project management and development.

Project Proponents are required to predict and plan for potential unintended outcomes of project activities and construct mitigation plans for such instances. Foreseeable risks identified during the preparation of the environmental and social risk assessment must be included in the PDD and the following must be detailed for each potential risk:

• A region specific mitigation plan
• The measured or observed outcome that will trigger the mitigation plan
• Plan for information sharing
• Emergency response plan, if applicable

The Project should not hinder the ability of the community or local ecosystem to adapt to climate change as a result of the Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) activity.

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, selective 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. 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.

The Project Proponent must list the species planted and/or maintained in the Project area via project activities in the PDD. These species may include native, naturalized, or non-native range-expanding species.

Project Proponents must not introduce or maintain species invasive to the region or similar climates, geographies, or ecosystems of the Project area^{11, 12}. 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 threaten[s] biological diversity"¹³. Projects that plant or maintain invasive species will not be eligible for crediting under this Protocol.

Additionally, Project Proponents must not introduce or maintain any species that harm rare, threatened, or endangered species as defined in Section 6.4.2. 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.

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 biome¹⁴ 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.

In such instances, 90% of species planted must be native and/or naturalized, and the plurality must be native species. Additionally, the following due diligence must be taken when planting non-native range-expanding species for a Project to be eligible for crediting. The Project Proponent must demonstrate:

• Project activities with native and/or naturalized species will hinder the Project Proponent’s ability to meet project objectives:
  • Introduction or maintenance of native and/or naturalized species will lead to negative ecosystem impacts.
  • Native and/or naturalized species will fail to thrive and contribute significantly to the carbon stock over the course of the Reporting Period. This may occur if the species lack climate resilience, marked by increased vulnerability to temperature fluctuations, changes in water availability, competition from invasive species, disease, etc.
• Project activities with non-native range-expanding species will bring net positive ecosystem or community impacts that could not otherwise be achieved.
• Non-native range-expanding species are expected to serve as pioneer species for any required planting of native species, as demonstrated in scientific, peer-reviewed literature and/or in other reforestation projects in the same or similar regions.

Alternative burdens of proof may be sufficient, in consultation with Isometric.

The following due diligence must be conducted and included in the PDD if non-native range-expanding species are to be planted or maintained during project activities. The Project Proponent must demonstrate:

• The species are able to adapt to climate-induced changes expected to take place in the region over the Project lifetime.
• The species will serve similar ecological niches as native and/or naturalized species present in the region at the time of project initiation (e.g., as a suitable food source for local fauna).
• The species do not have the potential to be invasive. This must be demonstrated through recent peer-reviewed literature and observational studies of the species in the same region and/or other regions with similar climates, geographies, and ecologies.

The use of genetically-modified species for planting 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 genetically-modified species are included in the Project, Project Proponents must submit a justification explaining their use. This should cover why alternative non-genetically-modified species are not used and how biodiversity is safeguarded from the use of genetically-modified species.

The Project Proponent must provide due diligence to ensure that the population density of rare, threatened, and endangered species in the Project area does not decrease, nor are new species added to this list, as a result of project activities. 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. Project Proponents must consult local authorities for further regulations on these or similar groups. If national, state/province, or local regulations exist, the Project Proponent must state them in the PDD.

The Project Proponent must consult reputable and current sources on rare, threatened, and endangered species to develop a list of these species, in the following order of priority:

• Local and/or regional registries;
• National registries;
• Peer-reviewed publications; and
• The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species¹⁵.

For the purposes of this Protocol, the IUCN Red List designation of Vulnerable (VU) shall be considered Threatened, and Near Threatened (NT) shall be considered Rare.

The results of the rare, threatened, and endangered species list review must be included and referenced in the PDD.

For each rare, threatened, or endangered species identified, the Project Proponent must list the following in the PDD:

• Ecosystem services vital to the ecology and population stability of the rare, threatened, or endangered species found in the Project area.
• How the Project will maintain or enhance these ecosystem services so as to promote the survival of the rare, threatened, or endangered species.
• A population monitoring plan. We encourage Project Proponents to consult Isometric, external subject matter experts, and/or authoritative resources in developing their plan.

The Project Proponent must handle data and information related to rare, threatened, and endangered species with discretion for the protection of these species, especially regarding species and/or regions that have histories of poaching, over-harvesting, or other elevated threats to population density and livelihoods.

While new planting of 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.

Project Proponents must procure and maintain their seedling and germplasm pipeline in alignment with the environmental and social safeguards outlined in Section 6 of this Protocol and Section 3.7 of the Isometric Standard.

The pipeline must be described in the PDD and the Project Proponent should:

• Procure genetically diverse seedlings and germplasms, sourced from within or near the Project region. This conserves locally adapted traits and strengthens resilience to climate change, pests, and diseases.
• Prioritize sourcing from nurseries that employ local community members and align with the requirements and suggestions of Section 6.6, thereby generating equitable economic opportunities and fostering long-term community investment in the Project's success.
• Stock and maintain sufficient germplasm resources to support not only forest regeneration, but also essential non-reproductive ecological functions such as nutrient cycling and faunal sustenance.

Forest management activities under this Protocol must adhere to regulations and best management practices (BMPs), following the guidance in Appendix C. Project Proponents — and if applicable, enrolled landowners — must follow all local and national laws regarding forest management activities and maintain responsibility for any activities conducted by contracted third parties.

Project Proponents — and if applicable, each individual enrolled landowner — are afforded a three-cord-per-year harvesting allowance (e.g., firewood) within the Project area. To ensure proper forest management, removal of trees exceeding this allowance should be conducted under the supervision of either a third-party certified logger or government-certified forester.

Additionally, the Project Proponent — and if applicable, all enrolled landowners — must agree to conform to government-level BMPs. Project Proponents must identify the BMPs and describe how they will conform in the PDD.

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

Project Proponents should not use synthetic herbicides or fertilizers for forest management during the Crediting Period. Any use of synthetic herbicides or fertilizers must be reported to Isometric and adhere to BMPs as well as all local, state/provincial, and national laws and regulations regarding their use. Any planned use for project establishment at project initiation must be reported in the PDD.

Projects should not use synthetic pesticides except for the control of non-native pests and/or invasive insect outbreaks. Any such use of synthetic pesticides must be targeted and limited in scope towards the targeted pest(s) or insect(s), and be thoroughly justified and reported immediately to Isometric. Further, any such use must adhere to BMPs as well as all local, state/provincial, and national laws and regulations regarding their use. Any planned use for project establishment at project initiation must be reported in the PDD. Additionally, Project Proponents must adhere to the Forest Stewardship Council’s Pesticides Policy.

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 Section 3.5 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 action¹⁶. 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^{17, 18}.

The Project Proponent must develop a Stakeholder Engagement Plan in accordance with the requirements outlined in Section 3.5 of the Isometric Standard. The plan and supporting documentation, including evidence of meetings or other forms of engagement, must be submitted in the PDD.

Prior to the commencement of project activities, Project Proponents must consult a reputable third party or subject matter expert to assess if Indigenous Peoples will be impacted by project activities. Impacts may include, but are not limited to:

• Project activities that occur on land or territories that is owned, occupied, or utilized by Indigenous Peoples, regardless of whether or not this claim is recognized by the local governing body or held by rights to self-determination, as recognized by the United Nations;
• Project activities that will affect natural resources necessary for the livelihoods or cultural rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The results of this report must be included in the PDD. If the report identifies potential impacts to Indigenous Peoples, the Project Proponent must enact a Stakeholder Engagement Plan consistent with the principles of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) as outlined by the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007 and expanded upon by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in 2016.

• Free: Stakeholders are not subject to intimidation, coercion or manipulation during the decision making process.
• Prior: Engagement is sought in the early stages of project development before commencement of project activities. Consent must be sought as part of project development, regardless of local requirements. The timeline for the decision making and deliberation periods is set in consultation with all stakeholder groups and is informed by customary, local, and/or traditional practices.
• Informed: Information is presented in a manner that is accessible to all stakeholder groups. Accessible content may differ across stakeholder groups. The Project Proponent must consider in the information sharing process the language and medium of communication. For example, if information is presented electronically, stakeholders must have access to and familiarity with the necessary technology to review the information. If information is presented during in-person meetings, the meetings must be held at a time and in a location that is conducive to stakeholder attendance. Information presented to stakeholders must be objective and present trade-offs fairly and accurately. Finally, information must be provided on an ongoing basis. The following due diligence is strongly recommended to ensure stakeholder groups are well informed of project development and outcomes:
  • Stakeholders should be made aware of the value of the Credits, and anticipated revenue of the Project at-large. The Project’s anticipated growth and issuance should be modeled, and simulations describing the value of Credits at current market prices should be made clear to proponents.
  • Stakeholders should have full access to the Project’s finances, budget, and forecasted returns.
  • Stakeholders should be aware of alternative land-use scenarios.
  • Stakeholders should be aware of the value of the timber on the Project once the Crediting Period nears an end, so that they can better commit to conservation and upholding the contract.
  • Stakeholders should have a clear understanding of the breakdowns in project income expenditure, and a clear understanding of the precise percentage of revenue that they are entitled to.
• Consent: Must be freely given and may be withdrawn. Consent may be conditional upon milestones in project development or the emergence of new information. Stakeholder consent is not guaranteed as a result of the Stakeholder Input Process. Consent should be reached by 75% of adults belonging to the stakeholder group.

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

If required, the stakeholder engagement process must be enacted early in the Project development process, prior to the initiation of project activities. The stakeholder engagement schedule must be circulated prior to project initiation, and with enough notice to engage stakeholders in the planning processes. In some instances, Project Proponents that initiated project activities prior to engaging with Isometric and did not engage Indigenous Peoples stakeholders under the principles of FPIC may still be eligible for crediting under this Protocol, in consultation with Isometric, by demonstrating how stakeholder engagement will be incorporated into future project planning.

The following may serve as burdens of proof that the Stakeholder Input Process conforms with the principles of FPIC. The Project Proponent must indicate how these steps in the stakeholder engagement process were or will be carried out during the Project lifetime. Multiple rounds of stakeholder engagement may take place during a project lifetime, as needed. The Project Proponent may identify other burdens of proof demonstrating that the principles of FPIC have been observed and submit them in the PDD in addition to, or instead of, those below, in consultation with Isometric.

• Measures taken to effectively reach (i.e., identify and locate) all stakeholder groups. If the Project Proponent is not able to reach all adult community members, the percentage of adults in the community reached must be included in the PDD, as well as proof of the attempt to reach the remaining community members. The majority of adult community members must be successfully reached to be eligible for crediting under this Protocol.
• The manner in which information was presented to stakeholders, including the medium and language.
• How stakeholder input was obtained, including the medium and language.
• How stakeholder input was incorporated into the Project design.

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

Project Proponents that do not identify Indigenous Peoples that will be affected by project activities are encouraged to consider if other relevant stakeholders rely on land or resources located within the Project area, and engage them following the principles of FPIC described above. All stakeholder groups and local communities have valuable and unique perspectives on developments in the Project area, which can contribute to project success.

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 Proponent is crediting against.

The following information from the stakeholder engagement process must be made publicly available, with personal information anonymized or redacted to protect stakeholders, project personnel, and project outcomes. This may include:

• Due diligence that the FPIC processes were carried out (e.g., meeting recordings or copies of information shared with stakeholders)
• Budget reports, including revenue sharing agreements

The Project Proponent must identify and develop processes for the protection and promotion of community well-being in the PDD, as follows:

• Protection of human rights:
  • Policies and practices upholding anti-discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, etc.
• Grievances, feedback, and complaints:
  • The process by which the Project Proponent accepts grievances, feedback, and complaints. Project Proponents must consult a third party to address grievances. The grievance redress process must be outlined in the PDD.
  • Mediation and resolution process for grievances and complaints.
• Employment Opportunities:
  • Hiring practices and policies, including the number of short-, medium-, and long-term employment opportunities that were recruited for in the local community relative to total new jobs created.

Community buy-in is critical to the success of IFM projects, as the impact goes beyond the Project Proponent or enrolled landowners^{19, 20}. 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 Proponent 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 Proponent 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 the local communities and ecosystems to establish region specific mitigation strategies to adapt to changing climates.

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.

Project Proponents must report in the PDD all national, state/province, and local water regulations that impact or are affected by project activities, including but not limited to water usage and harvesting near water bodies.

Project Proponents must assess whether the Project is occurring in an area that already has existing risks to its water supply as a result of the combination of water supply and demand. Within this Protocol, we define these areas of elevated water risk to be basins which have been categorized as “High” or “Extremely High” Baseline Annual Physical Risk for Water Quantity by the Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas.

If the Project is occurring in an area with existing elevated water risk per the above criteria, the Project Proponent must assess whether project activities in the Project area are projected to have a negative impact on water supply.

If the Project is occurring in an area with elevated water risk, Project Proponents must describe in the PDD how their project implementation and management plans are designed to limit hydrological impacts and include provisions for monitoring any adverse effects on local water resources. These plans should include, but are not limited to:

• Selective management of lower water intensity species (e.g., native species with high water use efficiency)
• Staggered re-planting schedules to create age-diverse stands
• Reduced management intensity (e.g., limited use of fertilizers and pesticides)
• Minimal or no use of irrigation
• Plans for monitoring 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 Section 3.2 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 Section 4 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 Section 4.3 of the Isometric Standard.

Verifiers should also verify the documentation of uncertainty of the GHG Statement as required by Section 2.5.7 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 documented 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 to the Project site during Validation and initial Verification. Validators should, whenever possible, observe project operations to ensure full documentation of process inputs and outputs through visual observation (see Section 4 of the Isometric Standard).

Additional site visits may be required if there are substantial changes to field operations over the course of Validation, 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.

Verifiers and Validators must comply with the requirements defined in Section 4 of the Isometric Standard. In addition, verification teams must maintain and demonstrate expertise associated with the specific technologies of reforestation and forest management, including both forest field measurements and Earth System 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 Credits 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 Section 3.1 of the Isometric Standard.

The Project Proponent must demonstrate additionality through compliance with Section 2.5.3 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 Proponent 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 Section 2.5.3 of the Isometric Standard. Additionality is assessed each Reporting Period using dynamic baselining as outlined in Section 9.7.

Additionality determinations should be reviewed and completed at every Verification at a minimum, or whenever project operating conditions change significantly, such as the following:

• Regulatory requirements or other legal obligations for project implementation change or new requirements are implemented;
• Project financials indicate Carbon Finance is no longer required to operate the Project, potentially due to, for example:
  • sale of non-timber co-products that make the business viable without Carbon Finance; or
  • reduced rates for capital access.

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

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 credit revenue.

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. Project Proponents must demonstrate in the PDD that Project activities do not occur within a conservation easement nor due to governmental regulations, and must disclose project areas subject to these requirements and exclude these areas from the Project.

• Conservation easements signed in conjunction with the start of the Project are considered valid means of sustaining income to implement project activities, and do not need to be excluded from the Project. When claiming this exception, Project Proponents must provide evidence of the conservation easement contract and attest to the date of its signature.

Pre-existing fiduciary or civil requirements include organizational bi-laws, organizational governance mechanisms, or other contractual requirements that require project activities to occur within the Project Boundary. 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.

The following steps must be taken to demonstrate that without Carbon Finance the Project activity is not Common Practice, in accordance with the requirements defined in Section 2.5.3.1 of the Isometric Standard.

1. Define the Project activity (e.g., tree harvesting).
2. Identify the applicable geographic area, as described in Section 2.5.3.1 of the Isometric Standard.
3. Identify a similar class of adopters or landowners (e.g., smallholder farmers, community-held land, private concessions).
4. Identify and explain any essential distinctions between the proposed Project and similar activities, as described in Section 2.5.3.1 of the Isometric Standard.
5. Assess the market penetration rate using either a) a survey-based approach, or b) using relevant data from existing literature, as follows:
6. Survey-based approach:
   1. Survey a representative sample of similar landowners from within the relevant geographic domain within five years of the Project start date.
   2. Calculate the cumulative market penetration rate (as a percentage) of the Project activity by landowners who have not received Carbon Finance revenue (e.g., are neither part of a registered Isometric Project, nor registered under other GHG programs) in the sample of adopters.
7. Data from existing literature: Statistics on IFM activities derived from data collected within five years of the Project start date may be used for this demonstration, provided they are relevant to the Project area, do not distinguish between activities incentivized by and not incentivized by Carbon Finance (thus are conservative), and are publicly available as:
   1. agricultural census, survey or other government data;
   2. peer-reviewed scientific literature; or
   3. independent research or reports, with full and transparent methods and documentation of results.

In accordance with Section 2.5.3.1 of the Isometric Standard, the proposed Project activity is considered to demonstrate Common Practice additionality where the market penetration rate is below or equal to 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 Section 2.5.7 of the Isometric Standard.

Projects must report a list of all key variables used in the net CO₂e removal calculation and their individual uncertainties, as well as a description of the uncertainty analysis approach, including:

• field measurements used for the net CO₂e removal calculation
• parameters that impact the estimation of the total aboveground woody biomass, such as allometric equation parameters, canopy height, etc.
• parameters used for calculating carbon stocks, including root-to-shoot ratios and carbon fractions
• quantification of aboveground biomass (AGB) model strength through comparison with independent datasets
• emission factors utilized, as published in public and other databases used

The uncertainty information should at least include the minimum and maximum values of each individual variable. More detailed uncertainty information should be provided if available, as outlined in Section 2.5.7 of the Isometric Standard.

In addition, a sensitivity analysis that demonstrates the impact of each input parameter’s uncertainty on the final net CO₂e uncertainty must be provided. 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.

In accordance with the Isometric Standard, all 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 Proponent 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 Credits should be included in the system boundary.

The system boundary must include all relevant GHG SSRs controlled, related 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[^100].

The Project Proponent 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 (N₂O) and fluorinated gasses such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF₃). For CO₂ stored, only CO₂ will be included as part of the quantification and for Fertilizer use (Direct), only N₂O 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 combustion.

All GHGs must be quantified and converted to CO₂e in the GHG Statement 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).

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 8.2.

GHG accounting must be undertaken in line with the GHG Accounting Module v1.0, including considerations for data quality and Materiality.

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 9.7. 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 (control pixels) 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 matching procedure matches every pixel within the Project area to multiple pixels 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. 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^{21, 22, 23, 24, 25}.

Dynamic baselines will be independently determined and transparently reported by Isometric at each Verification to determine any deduction in Credit issuance based on the Baseline scenario. Credit issuance will only occur for carbon removal that is determined to be additional via the following procedure, 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, assessing match quality, expanding the number of potential matches, and regularly reassessing control pixel suitability to minimize the associated uncertainty.

In order to provide insight into the most realistic Baseline scenario, Project Proponents must disclose all pre-existing forest management plans in the PDD.

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 reforestation projects. They include increases in GHG emissions as a result of reforestation 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 the 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 local or regional 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 their activities to alternative locations as a consequence of the Project (See Section 4.3). 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 Proponent 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 Proponent 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 the Project activities that occur within the Reporting Period (see Table 1). This includes:

• any emissions associated with project establishment allocated to the Reporting Period;
• any operations emissions that occur within the Reporting Period;
• any end-of-life emissions that would occur after the Reporting Period that have been allocated to the Reporting Period; and
• market and activity-shifting leakage emissions that occur outside of the system boundary that are associated with the Reporting Period.

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

Net CO₂e removal for a reforestation 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 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 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 Proponent is crediting against. For 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 carbon 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 Proponent is crediting against. For IFM intervention Module(s) where soil carbon is not an eligible pool, Project Proponents must set this value to 0.

The 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. Both Harvested Wood Product (HWPs) and soil carbon are optional pools, subject to applicability by IFM intervention. 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 Proponent 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 Proponent 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 Proponent 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.

The carbon fraction, $CF$, must be chosen from the following hierarchy:

1. A regional and species-specific factor that is justified based on scientific literature (e.g., Doraisami et al., 2022²⁶). This is the preferred approach to have the most accurate estimate and minimize the likelihood of overestimation;
2. If the above is not available, then a genus-specific or national average factor that is justified based on scientific literature can be used;
3. If it is demonstrated that the above two factors are not available, then a default factor of 47%, which is a mean across species, can be used^{27, 28}.

This Protocol currently supports the following three Capture and Conversion Modules for quantifying the total AGB 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 Capture & Conversion Module Options 2 and 3 and, if applicable, the alternative quantification approach in the FM 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 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 9.4, in tonnes of CO₂e.
• $RS$ is the root-to-shoot ratio, which is a dimensionless belowground biomass to aboveground biomass ratio.

Appropriate root-to-shoot ratios should be selected by regional and species-specific factors that are justified based on scientific literature (e.g., USFS's Component Ratio Method or similar national-level species-specific ratios). This is the preferred approach to have the most accurate estimate and minimize the likelihood of overestimation. If sufficient evidence is provided to demonstrate that no suitable project-specific factor can be obtained, matching to the ecological zone and continent of the Project area, based on the IPCC 2019 Table 4.4²⁷, must be used. In this case, sufficient evidence documenting the unsuccessful search for project specific factors must also be supplied. Acceptable evidence must show (1) a list of search terms used within a research database (e.g., Web of Science, Google Scholar) that encapsulate the region and species relevant to the Project, and (2) the relevant species are not included in the list of species for which root-to-shoot ratio data are available on the TRY Plant Trait Database²⁹.

The uncertainty in selected $RS$ factors must be reported from the same source dataset. For example, the IPCC 2019 Chapter on Forest Land²⁷ provides an uncertainty in the root-to-shoot 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 Proponent is crediting against — to determine any deduction in Credit issuance based on the Baseline scenario. Credit 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 Proponent is crediting against.

At Validation, Isometric will use the historical data across the control pixels used in the matching procedure — defined in the IFM Intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against — to produce an ex-ante projection of counterfactual biomass. This baseline will be used to evaluate additionality. To be considered additional, the carbon removal in the Project area must be statistically significantly greater than this ex-ante baseline. The dynamic baselining procedure described in Section 9.4, and the applicable IFM Intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against, will be used for all ex-post issuance of Credits.

To compute the baseline, Isometric will use historical data points over the matched control pixels to calculate the slope of the linear regression representing the expected change in carbon storage over time for the counterfactual scenario. This slope will be assumed to be constant and used to create projections of future counterfactual carbon storage to which the ex-ante carbon curve can be assessed against.

$CO_2e_{Emissions, RP}$ is the total GHG emissions associated with a Reporting Period, $RP$. 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:

• $CO_2e_{Emissions, RP}$ represents the total GHG emissions for a Reporting Period, in tonnes of CO₂e.
• $CO_2e_{Establishment, RP}$ 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 planting and site preparation.

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.

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. Furthermore, if there are unexpected $CO_2e_{End-of-Life, RP}$ emissions that occur after the Project has ended, then the Reversal process described in Section 5.6 of the Isometric Standard will be triggered to compensate for any emissions not accounted for.

$CO_2e_{Leakage, RP}$ 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 full in Section 8.2.2 and is not repeated here.

Project Proponents must use the most representative, accurate and plausible data that is available at the time of assessment in the GHG Statement. Activity data used to inform GHG accounting may be primary data or secondary data. Project Proponents must strive to use primary data in GHG accounting, but secondary data may be used where primary data is either not available or not practical. More detailed on data requirements, including data quality hierarchy and data quality principles, can be found in Section 3 of the GHG Accounting Module.

An example is emissions related to harvesting. The Project Proponent should strive to obtain activity data such as electricity use and consumable use of the harvesting machinery. If such data is not available, it is acceptable to use an industry average emission factor for the type of machinery and use case. Suitable emission factor sources are described in relevant Modules, as set out below.

This section sets out specific requirements relating to quantification of energy use as part of the GHG Statement. Emissions associated with energy usage result from the consumption of electricity or fuel.

Examples of activities that may require electricity or fuel usage 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 Energy Use Accounting Module 1.2 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.

This section sets out specific requirements relating to quantification of transportation emissions as part of the GHG Statement.

Emissions associated with transportation include transportation of products and equipment as part of project activities. Examples 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.

The Transportation Emissions Accounting Module 1.1 provides requirements on how transportation-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 and acceptable emission factors.

This section sets out specific requirements relating to quantification of embodied emissions as part of the GHG Statement. Embodied emissions are those related to energy use or other emissions during the manufacture of equipment and materials used in a process.

Examples of project-specific materials and equipment that must be considered as part of the embodied emission calculation 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

The Embodied Emissions Accounting Module 1.0 sets out the calculation approach to be followed including allocation of embodied emissions, life cycle stages to be considered, data sources and emission factors.

Any models used 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) principles³⁰. Sufficient model validation data must be provided with the PDD.

Projects may be subject to additional model validation requirements as set forth in the carbon quantification Module or the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project Proponent 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 Credit 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 carbon quantification Module or the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project Proponent is crediting against. The minimum durability of Credits issued under this Protocol is 20 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 Commitment Period 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 Proponent 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 Credit delivery and storage. Aspects of the Project which have higher risk exposure must 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:

• Within reason and feasibility, select appropriate project siting to reduce disturbance risk from neighboring activities.
• Identify and reduce risk of unintended fires through a fire management plan (e.g., removing fuel, fire breaks or fire towers, fire-fighting equipment and training).
  • For Projects with a Mean daily Global Fire Weather Index (over the preceding two years) greater than 10, Project Proponents must document the Project area's fire regime and natural fire return interval, determine the Project area’s wildfire hazard category, and analyze historical fire occurrence within 50 kilometers of the Project area over the preceding 50 years.
  • As part of its fire management plan, Project Proponents must report the presence or absence of fire breaks, and fire management infrastructure must also be documented.
    • Prescribed fire may be considered eligible under a fire management plan in consultation with Isometric when it can be demonstrated by the Project Proponent that such action is required for ecological management and the fire only burns those biomass stocks ineligible under this Protocol: deadwood, litter, and soil organic carbon.
• 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).
• For Projects which occur in Zones ≥ 3 for Tropical or Extratropical Cyclones and/or Zone 4 for Tornadoes according to the NATHAN world map of natural hazards, Project Proponents must identify the risk of windfall events through analysis of historical storm events and topography.
  • Project Proponents must document the Project area's basic wind speed zone and calculate the percentage of the Project area in high-exposure topographic positions.
  • Project Proponents must identify historical storm tracks (hurricanes and tornadoes) within 100 km of the Project area over the past 50 years, and stand characteristics that influence wind firmness (including age, height, and species composition) must be included in the PDD.
• Identify and reduce the risk of pests and disease through a management plan.
  • Project Proponents must identify the presence of host species for major regional pests and pathogens, calculate the percentage of the project area at risk from specific pest threats, and analyze historical pest outbreaks within 50 km of the Project area.
  • Existing pest monitoring and management practices must be documented in the PDD to demonstrate project risk awareness and preparedness.
• Evaluate the risk of ice storms.
  • Project Proponents must report the Project area's ice storm frequency zone, and determine whether the Project area is in a high-risk topographic position.
  • For Projects deemed at high-risk for Ice Storms according to FEMA’s National Ice Storm Risk Index, or an equivalent product for Projects occurring outside the United States, Project Proponents must document stand characteristics that influence ice damage susceptibility, and identify historical ice storm occurrences within 50 kilometers of the Project area over the past 50 years.
• Identify and reduce risks unique to the Project.

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

As outlined in Section 5.6 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, we apply 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.

To be eligible under this Protocol, the Project must either:

• Contribute 20% of Credits generated in a Reporting Period to the Buffer Pool; or
• Opt-in to the method outlined in the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against. This project-specific method permits changes to the contribution for each Reporting Period as the risk profiles of the Project Proponent and forest change over time. The Buffer Pool contribution determined from this approach cannot be less than 8% of the Credits generated in any Reporting Period.

The Buffer Pool contribution will be held in a reforestation-wide Buffer Pool managed by Isometric. Pooling of a diversified portfolio of reforestation projects across geographic regions, spatial scales and temporal scales can reduce the exposure to systemic risks stemming from reforestation projects constrained to a geographic area or ecological type^{21, 31, 32}. The reforestation-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 \le forest carbon stock at $t-1$), Buffer Pool Credits 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 Credits in the Buffer Pool equal to the Reversal.
  • During the Crediting Period: Project Proponents must replenish the canceled Credits in the Buffer Pool using Credits generated in the next Reporting Period before additional Credits are issued.
  • At the end of the Crediting Period: Project Proponents must replenish the canceled Credits in the Buffer Pool using Credits generated from other projects under operation by the Project Proponent, or using Credit generated from another project, deemed of equivalent quality by Isometric, at the Project Proponent's expense.
• Procedure for Unavoidable Reversals. Isometric cancels Credits 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 Credits in the Buffer Pool in the amount equal to the Reversal, then the Project fails and is ineligible for future crediting. All Credits are canceled.

For more details on Reversals, refer to Sections 2.5.9 and 5.6 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 Proponent 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 Credits issued) or exceeding 15% of the Project’s 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 Proponent 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 a proxy aboveground biomass parameter such as forest area cover or vegetation indices.

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.

The method for quantifying Reversals under Option 2 is subject to the following limitations, and will be updated with developing science:

• Uncertainty in biomass loss:
  • Carbon pools: There are no satellite remote sensing products that cover all carbon pools or directly quantify forest biomass. Maps use proxy measurements to estimate live aboveground woody biomass.
  • Accuracy: A trade-off for continuous, scalable, low cost monitoring for Reversals requires shifting monitoring efforts from field and LIDAR-based to solely relying on satellite remote sensing.
  • Signal detection: The ability to detect small changes in carbon stock is limited due to the resolution and sensitivity of remotely sensed parameters.
  • Lack of in situ monitoring: While not required, in situ human forest monitoring (such as perimeter walks) is recommended to detect risks of Reversals imperceptible by satellite (i.e., pests or disease, logging activity).
  • Delayed mortality: Natural disturbances may lead to tree mortality that can occur several years after the disturbance event.
• Lack of baseline monitoring: Additionality is no longer assessed beyond the Crediting Period.
• Lack of forest recovery: Losses must be quantified and compensated within one year. Forest recovery after the loss event is not credited. There may be requirements for continued reporting on forest recovery after a loss event.

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 Credits issued) must conduct 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;
  • Social context of the site, including neighboring activities to the site; and
  • A shapefile of potentially relevant control areas or the Donor Zone.
• 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 or 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;
  • (If applicable) Description of seedling and germplasm pipeline;
  • Surveys to detect and mitigate early tree mortality before the first Reporting Period; and
  • Site preparation, such as soil tilling, construction of roads, water infrastructure etc.
• Documentation of any pre-Validation activities, including:
  • Environmental and social risk assessment;
  • Stakeholder engagement;
  • Leakage mitigation;
  • Site preparation; and, if applicable,
  • Tree planting.
• Description of leakage assessment and, if applicable, leakage mitigation plan, including:
  • (If applicable) A shapefile indicating activity displacement areas;
  • (If applicable) A shapefile indicating potentially relevant hosting areas for displaced activities; and,
  • (If applicable) Supplementary evidence supporting leakage assessment.
• 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;
  • Supporting evidence for risk safeguards; and
  • (If applicable) Risk of Reversal analysis, including:
    • Disturbances included in the Risk of Reversal analysis
    • Methods, models, or data used to develop likelihood of disturbance and % biomass loss in the event of a Reversal
    • A description of assumptions used in the analysis

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 matched to project pixels;
• (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 reforestation activities take place, and is represented in green in Figure 1.
• Control pixels: Control pixels are used to establish a dynamic baseline. These pixels are outside of the Project area and are matched to pixels inside the Project area, they are 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.

Maps of monitoring locations that the Project Proponent is responsible for (i.e., everything inside the Project area) must be described and submitted with the PDD. Isometric will transparently disclose locations of control pixels.

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 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 (see Section 12.4).

Control pixels 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 are selected by matching each project area pixel to a number of pixels 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 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, at the end of each Reporting Period.

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.

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 a minimum of every 5 years for benchmarking purposes. At minimum, species identification and DBH must be measured for all trees with DBH > 10 cm.

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

It is recommended to make use of root-to-shoot ratios that are developed in tandem with the allometry used. Allometric equations and root-to-shoot ratios should be selected based on the following hierarchy:

1. Equations developed for national forest inventories
2. IPCC generalized equations for different forest types
3. Local peer-reviewed equations

For example in the United States, the National Scale Volume Biomass (NSVB) equations can be used, and these equations come with root allometry. The framework is explained in A national-scale tree volume, biomass, and carbon modeling system for the United States³³ and the coefficients are given in the supplementary materials.

Furthermore, Allometric is an R package that curates allometric equations and facilitates their usage.

• Copernicus Global Land Cover Layers: CGLS-LC100 Collection 3³⁴ gives 100 m estimates of land cover fraction derived from Proba-V multispectral imagery and supplemental covariates.
• The ESA WorldCover 10 m is a discrete, and not fractional, product developed using Sentinel-1 radar and Sentinel-2 multispectral data³⁵.
• Dynamic World is a 10 m, near-real time land use land cover layer produced by Google and distributed via Google Earth Engine. Note that this product is often best aggregated across a larger time-period for optimal accuracy³⁶.
• Impact Observatory offers a free 10 m annual land cover layer based on Sentinel-2 multispectral data³⁷.

Additionality

• Currently, this Protocol uses a project-specific performance benchmark against control pixels to determine 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 reforestation. 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. Presently, insurance cannot be used for the purpose of reducing Buffer Pool allocation size. This is due to limitations in the transparency in risk calculations, lack of data to substantiate risk models, and lack of supply of high quality Carbon Credits. As this area develops, insurance will be considered for inclusion in future versions of the Protocol. At minimum, insurance solutions must provide coverage for the entirety of the Crediting Period.

Quantification with ITC modeling

• Individual tree crown (ITC) modeling is an alternative quantification approach. Detailed requirements for ITC modeling, LiDAR data used for ITC and allowable errors, will be considered for future versions of this Protocol.

Leakage

• Future versions may involve more reliance on leakage mitigation and eligibility requirements and possible removal of the leakage discounting.
• Currently, the Protocol assumes ecological leakage is zero. This will be revisited in future updates and included, where appropriate, in leakage assessment and leakage mitigation, especially in relation to areas sensitive to disease.
• Future versions of this Protocol may consider other land use activity-shifting leakages beyond deforestation.
• Future revisions of this Protocol will consider appropriate requirements for remote sensing data used for determining productivity.

Leakage Mitigation

• ‘Within project’ mitigation, such as timber harvesting and agroforestry, 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.

Uncertainty

• Project Proponents are expected to quantify and justify the uncertainty associated with each parameter in the carbon removal calculation.
• Additional guidance on model validation metrics will be considered for future improvements.
• Isometric will consider providing a case study of uncertainty propagation for forest carbon stock quantification.

Emergency Response

• Isometric may develop further guidelines on emergency response planning for disease, illegal logging, and forest fires.

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.

Project Proponents must demonstrate in their Project Design Document (PDD) that they have conducted a thorough review of applicable BMP sources and have selected appropriate practices based on site-specific conditions, local regulations, and project objectives.

Project Proponents must consult BMP sources in the following order of priority, selecting the most stringent and site-appropriate requirements from each applicable source:

Tier 1: Regulatory Requirements

Legal requirements that must be followed regardless of other BMP recommendations.

Federal/National Level:

• National forest management guidelines and regulations
• Federal water quality standards and discharge permits
• Endangered species protection requirements
• Clean air and clean water act provisions

State/Provincial Level:

• State forest practices acts and regulations
• Water quality protection standards
• Silvicultural BMP manuals published by state forestry agencies
• State-specific threatened and endangered species protections

Local Level:

• County or municipal forest management ordinances
• Local watershed protection requirements
• Fire prevention and management regulations
• Cultural and historical resource protection measures

Tier 2: Governmental BMP Guidance

Non-regulatory but authoritative guidance from governmental agencies.

Federal Agencies:

• USDA Forest Service BMP guidance documents
• EPA nonpoint source pollution control recommendations
• NRCS conservation practice standards
• USFWS habitat management guidelines

State Agencies:

• State forestry department BMP manuals
• State environmental agency water quality guidance
• State wildlife agency habitat management recommendations
• State geological survey soil and slope stability guidance

Tier 3: Professional and Industry Standards

Standards developed by professional forestry organizations and industry groups.

Professional Organizations:

• Society of American Foresters (SAF) best practices
• Association of Consulting Foresters guidelines
• Regional forestry association recommendations
• Certified forestry program standards (FSC, SFI, PEFC)

Industry Standards:

• Sustainable forestry certification requirements
• Timber industry association guidelines
• Equipment manufacturer operational recommendations
• Forest products company sustainability standards

Tier 4: Research-Based Guidance

Scientifically-based recommendations from academic and research institutions.

Academic Sources:

• University extension service publications
• Peer-reviewed research publications
• Regional research station technical reports
• Graduate research thesis and dissertation findings

Research Organizations:

• National research institute publications
• Regional forestry research cooperative findings
• International forestry research organization guidance
• Non-governmental research organization reports

Step 1: Project Characterization

Before identifying relevant BMPs, Project Proponents should thoroughly characterize their project to determine which BMP categories are applicable.

Site Characteristics:

• Geographic location (coordinates, political boundaries)
• Ecoregion, forest type, and dominant species
• Topography, slope, aspect, and elevation
• Soil types, depth, drainage, and stability
• Hydrology, including streams, wetlands, and groundwater
• Climate conditions and precipitation patterns

Management Context:

• Ownership type (public, private, industrial, non-industrial)
• Current forest condition and management history
• Planned management activities and intensity
• Project duration and implementation timeline
• Adjacent land uses and potential conflicts

Regulatory Environment:

• Applicable federal, state, and local regulations
• Required permits and environmental assessments
• Consultation requirements with regulatory agencies
• Existing conservation agreements or easements

Step 2: Literature Review Methodology

Project Proponents must conduct a systematic review of relevant BMP literature using the source hierarchy above.

Search Strategy:

• Begin with regulatory requirements in Tier 1 sources
• Identify governmental BMP manuals specific to project region and forest type
• Review professional standards applicable to planned management activities
• Supplement with recent research findings on emerging BMP issues

Documentation Requirements:

• Maintain a bibliography of all sources consulted
• Note the publication date and version of each source
• Record the specific sections or recommendations relevant to the Project
• Document any conflicts or inconsistencies between sources

Geographic Prioritization:

• Prioritize sources from the same ecoregion or forest type
• Consider sources from similar climatic and topographic conditions
• Evaluate applicability of practices developed in different regions
• Adapt recommendations to local conditions as necessary

Step 3: BMP Category Identification

Based on project characterization and literature review, Projects should then identify which BMP categories are relevant to the specific project.

Water Quality Protection:

• Riparian area management and buffer zones
• Stream crossing design and maintenance
• Road construction and maintenance standards
• Erosion and sedimentation control measures

Soil Conservation:

• Harvest planning and layout design
• Equipment operation restrictions and timing
• Soil compaction prevention and mitigation
• Organic matter retention requirements

Biodiversity Conservation:

• Wildlife habitat protection and enhancement
• Rare, threatened, and endangered species considerations
• Forest structure and composition management
• Connectivity and landscape-level planning

Air Quality Protection:

• Smoke management for prescribed burning
• Dust control during operations
• Equipment emission standards
• Timing restrictions for air quality protection

Cultural Resource Protection:

• Archaeological site identification and protection
• Traditional use area considerations
• Historical resource preservation
• Consultation with indigenous communities

Step 4: Site-Specific Adaptation

Finally, any generic BMP recommendations should be adapted to site-specific conditions and project objectives.

Environmental Sensitivity Analysis:

• Map environmentally sensitive areas requiring special protection
• Identify areas with high erosion or sedimentation risk
• Locate critical wildlife habitats or migration corridors
• Assess water quality sensitivity and downstream uses

Operational Feasibility Assessment:

• Evaluate technical feasibility of recommended practices
• Consider equipment availability and operator training requirements
• Assess economic implications of different BMP options
• Determine monitoring and maintenance requirements

Performance Standards Development:

• Establish measurable performance criteria for each BMP
• Define acceptable levels of environmental impact
• Specify monitoring protocols and success metrics
• Identify adaptive management triggers and responses

United States

National Resources:

• USDA Forest Service National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management
• EPA Nonpoint Source Program guidance documents
• National Association of State Foresters BMP resources

Regional Associations:

• Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters
• Southern Group of State Foresters
• Western States Fire Chiefs Association
• Regional university extension services

State-Specific Resources: Project Proponents should consult state forestry agencies for current BMP manuals, which typically include:

• Silvicultural BMP guidelines
• Water quality protection standards
• Wildlife habitat management recommendations
• Fire prevention and suppression protocols

Canada

Federal Resources:

• Natural Resources Canada sustainable forest management guidance
• Environment and Climate Change Canada water quality guidelines
• Canadian Forest Service research publications

Provincial Resources:

• Provincial forest practices codes and regulations
• Crown forest management guidelines
• Provincial environmental assessment requirements
• Regional conservation authority guidance

International

Global Organizations:

• Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) forest management guidelines
• International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) publications
• Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) principles and criteria
• Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) standards

When evaluating BMP sources, Project Proponents should assess the following quality indicators:

Scientific Credibility

• Peer review process and editorial standards
• Author qualifications and institutional affiliation
• Citation of supporting scientific literature
• Consistency with established scientific principles

Practical Applicability

• Relevance to project site conditions and management objectives
• Consideration of economic and technical feasibility
• Inclusion of implementation guidance and specifications
• Availability of case studies or demonstration projects

Currency and Relevance

• Publication or revision date
• Incorporation of recent research findings
• Adaptation to current regulatory requirements
• Recognition of emerging environmental challenges

Geographic Transferability

• Similarity of environmental conditions
• Comparable forest types and management systems
• Consideration of regional variations in climate and topography
• Cultural and economic context compatibility

Conflicting Recommendations

When different sources provide conflicting BMP recommendations, Project Proponents should:

• Prioritize regulatory requirements over voluntary guidance
• Select the most protective environmental standard when multiple options exist
• Consult with technical experts to resolve conflicts
• Document the rationale for selecting specific practices

Gap Analysis

If existing BMP sources do not adequately address project-specific conditions, Project Proponents may:

• Extrapolate from similar conditions in other regions
• Consult with technical experts and researchers
• Develop site-specific practices based on scientific principles
• Implement adaptive management approaches with enhanced monitoring

Performance Monitoring

Project Proponents should establish monitoring protocols to evaluate BMP effectiveness:

• Define measurable environmental outcomes
• Establish baseline conditions before implementation
• Monitor during operations and post-implementation
• Adapt practices based on monitoring results

The identification and implementation of appropriate BMPs is essential for ensuring that IFM projects achieve their carbon sequestration objectives while maintaining environmental quality and ecosystem integrity. This systematic approach to BMP identification ensures that Project Proponents leverage the best available knowledge and practices while adapting to site-specific conditions and project requirements.

Project Proponents should view BMP identification as an ongoing process that continues throughout the Project lifecycle, with regular updates based on new research findings, regulatory changes, and project monitoring results. Success depends on thorough planning, careful implementation, and continuous improvement based on performance monitoring and adaptive management.

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

1. Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P. E., Kurz, W. A., ... & Hayes, D. (2011). A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science, 333(6045), 988-993. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201609 ↩

2. Harris, N. L., Gibbs, D. A., Baccini, A., Birdsey, R. A., De Bruin, S., Farina, M., ... & Tyukavina, A. (2021). Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nature Climate Change, 11(3), 234-240. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00976-6 ↩

3. EPA. (2020). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2018. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ↩

4. Kaarakka, L., Cornett, M., Domke, G., Ontl, T., & Dee, L. E. (2021). Improved forest management as a natural climate solution: A review. Ecological Solutions and Evidence, 2(3), e12090. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12090 ↩

5. Fastmarkets. (2024). Forest carbon markets: The role of the forest in climate change and the emergence of forest carbon credits. Retrieved from https://www.fastmarkets.com/insights/forest-carbon-markets-the-role-of-the-forest-in-climate-change-and-the-emergence-of-forest-carbon-credits/ ↩

6. Carbon Direct. (2024). The role of improved forest management for carbon dioxide removal. Retrieved from https://www.carbon-direct.com/insights/the-role-of-improved-forest-management-for-carbon-dioxide-removal ↩

7. McKinsey & Company. (2007). A cost curve for greenhouse gas reduction. The McKinsey Quarterly, 1, 34-45. ↩

8. Baral, S., Lamichhane, S., & Koirala, A. (2025). Current status of improved forest management carbon offset projects in the US voluntary market. Forest Policy and Economics, 178, 103567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103567 ↩ ↩²

9. Carbon Direct & Microsoft. (2025). Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal: 2025 Edition. ↩

10. Di Sacco, A., Hardwick, K. A., Blakesley, D., Brancalion, P. H., Breman, E., Cecilio Rebola, L., ... & Antonelli, A. (2021). Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits. Global Change Biology, 27(7), 1328-1348. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15498 ↩

11. Pagad, S., Bisset, S., Genovesi, P., Groom, Q., Hirsch, T., Jetz, W., ... & McGeoch, M. A. (2022). Country compendium of the global register of introduced and invasive species. Scientific Data, 9(1), 391. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01514-z ↩

12. Van Kleunen, M., Pyšek, P., Dawson, W., Essl, F., Kreft, H., Pergl, J., ... & Winter, M. (2019). The global naturalized alien Flora (Glo NAF) database. Ecology, 100(1), e02542. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2542 ↩

13. COP 6 Decision VI/23. https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop?id=7197 ↩

14. Dinerstein, E., Olson, D., Joshi, A., Vynne, C., Burgess, N. D., Wikramanayake, E., ... & Saleem, M. (2017). An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. BioScience, 67(6), 534-545. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix014 ↩

15. IUCN. 2025. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2025-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed on [15 Sep. 2025]. ↩

16. Eastman, B., Brzostek, E., Cifelli, D., Gazal, K., Kannenberg, S. A., Keck, M., ... & Schwartzman, G. (2025). Building trust and efficacy in forest carbon programs: lessons from stakeholder engagement in Central Appalachia. BioScience, biaf098. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaf098 ↩

17. Aganyira, K., Kabumbuli, R., Muwanika, V. B., Nampanzira, D., Tabuti, J. R. S., & Sheil, D. (2019). Learning from failure: Lessons from a forest based carbon and charcoal project. International Forestry Review, 21(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554819825863744 ↩

18. Pan, C., Shrestha, A., Innes, J. L., Zhou, G., Li, N., Li, J., ... & Wang, G. (2022). Key challenges and approaches to addressing barriers in forest carbon offset projects. Journal of Forestry Research, 33(4), 1109-1122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-022-01488-z ↩

19. Pagdee, A., Kim, Y. S., & Daugherty, P. J. (2006). What makes community forest management successful: a meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Society and Natural resources, 19(1), 33-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920500323260 ↩

20. Rasolofoson, R. A., Ferraro, P. J., Ruta, G., Rasamoelina, M. S., Randriankolona, P. L., Larsen, H. O., & Jones, J. P. (2017). Impacts of community forest management on human economic well‐being across Madagascar. Conservation Letters, 10(3), 346-353. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12272 ↩

21. Haya, B. K., Evans, S., Brown, L., Bukoski, J., Butsic, V., Cabiyo, B., ... & Sanchez, D. L. (2023). Comprehensive review of carbon quantification by improved forest management offset protocols. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 6, 958879. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2023.958879 ↩ ↩²

22. Sanders‐DeMott, R., Hutyra, L. R., Hurteau, M. D., Keeton, W. S., Fallon, K. S., Anderegg, W. R. L., ... & Walker, W. S. (2025). Ground‐Truth: Can Forest Carbon Protocols Ensure High‐Quality Credits?. Earth's Future, 13(5), e2024EF005414. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024EF005414 ↩

23. Coffield, S. R., Vo, C. D., Wang, J. A., Badgley, G., Goulden, M. L., Cullenward, D., ... & Randerson, J. T. (2022). Using remote sensing to quantify the additional climate benefits of California forest carbon offset projects. Global Change Biology, 28(22), 6789-6806. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16380 ↩

24. Andam, K. S., Ferraro, P. J., Pfaff, A., Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. A., & Robalino, J. A. (2008). Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(42), 16089-16094. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0800437105 ↩

25. Ferraro, P. J., & Hanauer, M. M. (2014). Advances in measuring the environmental and social impacts of environmental programs. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 39, 495-517. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101813-013230 ↩

26. Doraisami, M., Kish, R., Paroshy, N. J., Domke, G. M., Thomas, S. C., & Martin, A. R. (2022). A global database of woody tissue carbon concentrations. Scientific Data, 9(1), 284. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01396-1 ↩

27. Eggleston, H. S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., & Tanabe, K. (2006). 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/20880391 ↩ ↩² ↩³

28. McGroddy, M. E., Daufresne, T., & Hedin, L. O. (2004). Scaling of C: N: P stoichiometry in forests worldwide: Implications of terrestrial redfield‐type ratios. Ecology, 85(9), 2390-2401. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-0351 ↩

29. Kattge, J., Bönisch, G., Díaz, S., Lavorel, S., Prentice, I. C., Leadley, P., ... & Cuntz, M. (2020). TRY plant trait database–enhanced coverage and open access. Global Change Biology, 26(1), 119-188. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14904 ↩

30. Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., ... & Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 ↩

31. Schwartzman, S., Lubowski, R. N., Pacala, S. W., Keohane, N. O., Kerr, S., Oppenheimer, M., & Hamburg, S. P. (2021). Environmental integrity of emissions reductions depends on scale and systemic changes, not sector of origin. Environmental Research Letters, 16(9), 091001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac18e8 ↩

32. Galik, C.S., Murray, B.C., Mitchell, S. et al. Alternative approaches for addressing non-permanence in carbon projects: an application to afforestation and reforestation under the Clean Development Mechanism. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 21, 101–118 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9573-4 ↩

33. Westfall, J. A., Coulston, J. W., Gray, A. N., Shaw, J. D., Radtke, P. J., Walker, D. M., Weiskittel, A. R., MacFarlane, D. W., Affleck, D. L., Zhao, D., Temesgen, H., Poudel, K. P., Frank, J. M., Prisley, S. P., Wang, Y., Meador, A. J. S., Auty, D., & Domke, G. M. (2023). A national-scale tree volume, biomass, and carbon modeling system for the United States. https://doi.org/10.2737/wo-gtr-104 ↩

34. Masiliūnas, D., Tsendbazar, N. E., Herold, M., Lesiv, M., Buchhorn, M., & Verbesselt, J. (2021). Global land characterisation using land cover fractions at 100 m resolution. Remote Sensing of Environment, 259, 112409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2021.112409. ↩

35. Captain, N., Xu, P., Herold, M., Lesiv, M., Duerauer, M., Ruben Van De Kerchove, VITO, & Olivier Arino. (2022). Product Validation report. https://worldcover2021.esa.int/data/docs/WorldCover_PVR_V2.0.pdf ↩

36. Brown, C. F., Brumby, S. P., Guzder-Williams, B., Birch, T., Hyde, S. B., Mazzariello, J., Czerwinski, W., Pasquarella, V. J., Haertel, R., Ilyushchenko, S., Schwehr, K., Weisse, M., Stolle, F., Hanson, C., Guinan, O., Moore, R., & Tait, A. M. (2022). Dynamic World, Near real-time global 10 m land use land cover mapping. Scientific Data, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01307-4 ↩

37. Venter, Z. S., Barton, D. N., Chakraborty, T., Simensen, T., & Singh, G. (2022). Global 10 m land use land cover datasets: A comparison of dynamic world, world cover and esri land cover. Remote Sensing, 14(16), 4101. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14164101 ↩