Improved Forest Management

6.5 Forest Management Activities

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

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

6.5.1 Chemical Amendments

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

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

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

6.6 Safeguarding of Community Livelihoods

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.

6.6.1 Stakeholder Engagement

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 action¹⁷. Furthermore, lack of community support, stakeholder engagement, and perceived community benefits has been identified as a contributing source of project failure in previous forestry management projects^{18, 19}.

• 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 sustainable forest management.
  • 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 any multi-stakeholder group.

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

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

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

6.6.2 Community Impacts and Well-being

6.6.2.1 Community Well-being

6.6.2.2 Community Impacts

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

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

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

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

6.7 Safeguarding of Water Resources

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.

6.7.1 Compliance with Water Regulations

6.7.2 Risk to Water Supply

7.0 Relation to Isometric Standard

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.

7.1 Project Design Document

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.

7.2 Validation and Verification

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 (A lack of knowledge of the exact amount of CO₂ removed by a particular process, Uncertainty may be quantified using probability distributions, confidence intervals, or variance estimates.) sources within the listed components that contribute to the calculation of net CO₂e removal.

7.3 Verification Materiality

The threshold for Materiality (An acceptable difference between reported Removals/emissions or Reductions/emissions and what an auditor determines is the actual Removal/emissions or Reduction/emissions.), 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 information;
• Difficulty in locating requested information; and
• Noncompliance with regulations indirectly related to GHG emissions, removals or storage.

7.4 Site Visits

Project Validation and Verification must incorporate site visits to project facilities, namely in situ field plots, in accordance with the requirements of ISO 14064-3, 6.1.4.2. This is to include, at a minimum, site visits during the first Validation or Verification of a Project, to the project site during Validation and initial Verification(s). Validators should, whenever possible, observe project operationsoperation to ensure full documentation of process inputs and outputs through visual observation (seeand Section 4validation of theinstrumentation, Isometricmeasurements, Standard)and required data quality measures.

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

7.5 Verifier Qualifications & Requirements

Validators and Verifiers 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 forest management, including both forest field measurements and Earth observation remote sensing (The use of satellite, aircraft and terrestrial deployed sensors to detect and measure characteristics of the Earth's surface, as well as the spectral, spatial and temporal analysis of this data to estimate biomass and biomass change.) data processing and analysis.

7.6 Ownership

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 (Improperly allocating the same Removal or Reduction from a Project Proponent more than once to multiple Buyers.) of net CO₂e removals. Contracts must comply with all requirements defined in Section 3.1 of the Isometric Standard.

7.7 Additionality

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 is crediting against. The baseline scenario and Counterfactual (An assessment of what would have happened in the absence of a particular intervention – i.e., assuming the Baseline scenario.) 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. Environmental additionality (An evaluation of the likelihood that an intervention causes a climate benefit above and beyond what would have happened in a no-intervention Baseline scenario.) is assessed each Reporting Period using dynamic baselining (A method for establishing and regularly updating the reference carbon stock levels in a reforestation project area, based on ongoing analysis of comparable non-project plots, to account for natural fluctuations and improve the accuracy of carbon credit calculations over the project lifetime.) as outlined in Section 9.4.

7.7.1 Financial Additionality

Financial Additionality (An evaluation of the likelihood that an intervention that causes a climate benefit above and beyond what would have happened in a no-intervention Baseline scenario was the result of revenues from carbon finance.) must be reconsidered at Crediting Period renewal, in accordance with the requirements in this section. Projects must select one of the following options to meet ongoing Financial Additionality:

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

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

7.7.1.1 Continued Validity of Previous Financial Additionality

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

7.7.1.2 Reassessment of Financial Additionality

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

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

Where reassessment is required in accordance with the above requirements, the Project Proponent must demonstrate that continued Carbon Finance (Resources provided to projects that are generating, or are expected to generate, greenhouse gas (GHG) Emission Reductions or Removals.) remains necessary to continue project crediting activities, by conducting a full Financial Additionality assessment against the updated Project and baseline scenarios.

7.7.2 Pre-existing Obligations

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

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

7.7.2.1 Pre-existing Legal Requirements

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.

7.7.2.2 Pre-existing Civil or Fiduciary Requirements

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

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

7.8 Common Practice

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 [math: \leq] 20%.

7.8.1 Survey-based Approach:

7.8.2 Exisiting Literature Approach

7.9 Uncertainty

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) (Reporting Period), [math: CO_2e_{removal, RP}], must be conservatively determined in accordance with the requirements outlined in Section 2.5.7 of the Isometric Standard.

7.9.1 Reporting of Uncertainty

More detailed uncertainty information should be provided if available, as outlined in Section 2.5.7 of the Isometric Standard.

All variables must be included in the uncertainty analysis, unless it can be demonstrated that they have a negligible contribution to the final net CO₂e uncertainty. This must be demonstrated via the sensitivity analysis (An analysis of how much different components in a Model contribute to the overall Uncertainty.) required by Section 2.5.7 of the Isometric Standard, which demonstrates the impact of each input parameter’s uncertainty on the final net CO₂e uncertainty. Details of the sensitivity analysis method must be provided such that a third party can reproduce the results. Input variables may be omitted from an uncertainty analysis if they contribute to a < 1% change in the net CO₂e removal. For all other parameters, information about uncertainty must be specified and included as part of the overall assessment of Removal uncertainty.

The resulting uncertainty in the calculated Removal as a result of the individual contributing sources must be quantified using one of the approved approaches in Section 2.5.7.1 of the Isometric Standard.

From the resulting simulated distribution of Removal values, a conservative estimate of the Removal value must be used — at least 1 standard deviation (square-root of the variance) below the mean, equivalent to the ≤16th percentile — in line with Section 2.5.7 of the Isometric Standard.

7.10 Data Sharing

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

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

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

The Project Proponent can request certain information to be restricted (only available to authorized Buyers (An entity that purchases Removals or Reductions, often with the purpose of Retiring Credits to make a Removal or Reduction claim.), the Registry (A database that holds information on Verified Removals and Reductions based on Protocols. Registries Issue Credits, and track their ownership and Retirement.), 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.

8.0 System Boundary, Project Baseline and Leakage

The scope of this Protocol includes GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs (A location where carbon is stored. This can be via physical barriers (such as geological formations) or through partitioning based on chemical or biological processes (such as mineralization or photosynthesis).) (SSRs (Sources, Sinks and Reservoirs)) 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 (Emissions that are produced by a specific CDR process and are directly controllable.) 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 (Life cycle GHG emissions associated with production of materials, transportation, and construction or other processes for goods or buildings.) 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 by, related to and affected by the Project, including but not limited to the SSRs set out in Table 1. If any GHG SSRs within Table 1 are deemed not appropriate to include in the system boundary, they may be excluded provided that robust justification and appropriate evidence is provided in the PDD.

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

The Project Proponent must consider all GHGs associated with SSRs, in alignment with the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (A United States Government agency that protects human health and the environment.) 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 (A measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 tonne of a GHG will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of CO₂.) (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.

8.1 Project Baseline

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

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

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

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

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

8.2 Leakage

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

8.2.1 Overview of Leakage Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.2.2 Leakage Quantification

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

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

9.0 Net CDR Quantification

9.1 Calculation Approach

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 [math: CO_2e_{Removal, RP}]. The net CO₂e removal quantification must be conservatively determined, giving high confidence that at a minimum, the credited amount of CO₂e was removed and stored.

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

• any emissions associated with project establishment allocated to the Reporting Period;
• 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 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, soil, and/or harvested wood products.

9.2 Calculation of CO₂e_{Removal, RP}

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

[math: CO_2e_{Removal, RP} = CO_2e_{Stored, RP} - CO_2e_{Counterfactual, RP} - CO_2e_{Emissions, RP} ]

(Equation 1)

Where:

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

9.3 Calculation of CO₂e_{Stored, RP}

[math: CO_2e_{Stored, RP} = CO_2e_{AGB, RP} + CO_2e_{BGB, RP} + CO_2e_{HWP, RP}+ CO_2e_{Soil, RP}]

(Equation 2)

Where:

• [math: 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.
• [math: CO_2e_{AGB, RP}] is the total carbon stored in living aboveground woody biomass (AGB) over the RP, in tonnes CO₂e.
• [math: CO_2e_{BGB, RP}] is the total carbon stored in living belowground woody biomass (BGB (The total mass of living woody biomass existing below the soil surface in a specified area.)) over the RP, in tonnes CO₂e.
• [math: CO_2e_{HWP, RP}] is the total carbon stored in harvested wood products (HWPs) over the RP, in tonnes CO₂e. This carbon pool is optional and its inclusion subject to the guidance and requirements of the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against. For the IFM intervention Module(s) and/or Projects where carbon stored in HWPs is not an eligible pool, Project Proponents must set this value to 0.
• [math: CO_2e_{Soil, RP}] is the total carbon stored in soil over the RP, in tonnes CO₂e. This carbon pool is optional and its inclusion subject to the guidance and requirements of the IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against. For the IFM intervention Module(s) where soil carbon is not an eligible pool, Project Proponents must set this value to 0.

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

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

9.3.1 Standardization of CO₂e_{Stored, RP}

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

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

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

9.3.2 Calculation of CO₂e_{AGB, 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:

[math: CO_2e_{AGB, RP} = CO_2e_{AGB}(t_2)- CO_2e_{AGB}(t_1)]

(Equation 3)

Where:

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

Reporting Periods are consecutive, so that [math: t_2] then becomes the start of the next RP.

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

[math: CO_2e_{AGB}(t)= \frac{44}{12}\times CF \times M_{AGB}(t)]

Where:

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

9.3.3 Calculation of M_AGB

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

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

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

9.3.4 Calculation of CO₂e_{BGB, RP}

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

[math: CO_2e_{BGB, RP} = RS \times CO_2e_{AGB, RP}  ]

(Equation 4)

Where:

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

9.4 Calculation of Baseline, CO₂e_{Counterfactual, RP}

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

9.5 Calculation of CO₂e_{Emissions, RP}

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

[math: 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:

• [math: 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).
• [math: 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).
• [math: 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).
• [math: 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.

9.5.1 Calculation of CO₂e_{Establishment, RP}

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

Project establishment emissions occur from the point of project inception to the moment before the first removal activity takes place. GHG emissions associated with project establishment may be amortized over the anticipated project lifetime, or per output of product. Rules on amortization (The term used to describe allocation of Project emissions to multiple Removals or Reductions.) are outlined in Section 7 of the GHG Accounting Module.

9.5.2 Calculation of CO₂e_{Operations, RP}

GHG emissions associated with [math: 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. [math: 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.

9.5.3 Calculation of CO₂e_{End-of-Life, RP}

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

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

Given the uncertain nature of [math: 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 [math: 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.

9.5.4 Calculation of CO₂e_{Leakage, RP}

[math: 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 emireporssions as a result of the Project displacing emissions or causing a secondary effect that increases emissions elsewhere.

The [math: CO_2e_{Leakage, RP}] calculation approach is set out in Section 8.2.2 and is not repeated here.

9.6 Emissions Accounting

9.6.1 Data Collection

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 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.

9.6.2 Energy Use Accounting

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 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.

9.6.3 Transport Emissions Accounting

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 GHG Accounting Module provides requirements on how transportation-related emissions must be calculated so that they can be subtracted in the net CO₂e removal calculation. It sets out the calculation scope, approach to be followed, and acceptable emissions factors.

9.6.4 Embodied Emissions Accounting

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

9.7 Model Validation Requirements

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

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

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

10.0 Storage and Durability of CO₂e Removals

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.

10.1 Durability

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 IFM intervention Module(s) the Project is crediting against. The minimum durability of Credits issued under this Protocol is 40 years.

10.2 Reversal Risk

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 (for open systems, biogeochemical and/or physical interactions which occur during the removal process that decrease the CO₂ removal .). Disturbance events may be natural or anthropogenic, such as fire, drought/heat, insect and disease, illegal deforestation, and windfall events. A disturbance event which results in a reduction in forest biomass is considered a loss event. The duration of disturbance events may be over multiple years (e.g., drought) or for a very limited duration (e.g., windstorm).

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

• External factors:

  • Climate change effects
  • Changes in areas adjacent to the project area(s) (e.g., land ownership, land use, farming practices, industrial activities, upstream water stress, ecosystem change)
  • Regulatory changes
  • Illegal logging activity
  • Historic disturbances in and around the project area(s)

• Project-related factors:

  • Forest management plan (e.g., climate resilience of species, biodiverse species)
  • Project governance (e.g., operations and financial structure, community ownership, local training)
  • Risk mitigation safeguards
  • Changes in land use, management, or ownership of the project area(s)

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

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

10.3 Project Risk Assessment and Management

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

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

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

10.3.1 Mandatory Safeguards

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:

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

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

10.4 Buffer Pool

As outlined in Section 5.6 of the Isometric Standard, the Buffer Pool (A common and recognized insurance mechanism among Registries allowing Credits to be set aside (in this case by Isometric) to compensate for Reversals which may occur in the future.) is a mechanism used to insure against risks of Reversals that may be observable and attributable to the Project through monitoring.

10.4.1 Buffer Pool Size

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

10.4.2 Buffer Pool Composition

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

10.4.3 Buffer Pool Compensation Process

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 [math: t] < forest carbon stock at [math: 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 Credits 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.

10.5 Monitoring for Reversals

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

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

10.5.1 Reversal Detection

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.

10.5.2 Reversal Reporting

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 area must be reported, investigated, and compensated for.

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

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

10.5.3 Reversal Quantification

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

• Option 1: Quantify a new carbon stock for the Project through field sampling or LiDAR in accordance with requirements set out in the applicable quantification Modules, or
  • Project Proponents opting for a field survey must follow the guidance and requirements in Area-based Quantification of Above-ground Biomass.
  • Project Proponents opting for a LiDAR survey must follow the guidance and requirements in LiDAR Based Quantification of Above-ground Biomass.
• Option 2: Determine the relative change in the same proxy (A measurement which correlates with but is not a direct measurement of the variable of interest.) aboveground biomass parameter used for the dynamic baseline of the Project in the Reporting Period prior to the reversal event.

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

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

11.0 Pre-deployment Requirements

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

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

12.0 Monitoring Requirements

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.

12.1 Ownership of Monitoring Activities

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

• Isometric owns:

  • Selection and review of control pixels or plots matched to project pixels or plots (see Section 12.2.1);
  • (If applicable) Evaluation of eligibility of global AGB map layers;
  • (If applicable) Calculation of uncertainty from mapping products; and
  • Satellite-based monitoring, including:
    • Ongoing monitoring for Reversals.

• Project Proponent owns and provides in monitoring reports:

  • Selection of field plots;
  • In situ field plot measurements;
  • Records or evidence of forest thinning activities;
  • Emissions accounting;
  • (If applicable) Leakage mitigation activities; and
  • Environmental and social safeguarding records.

12.2 Monitoring Locations

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

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

Isometric will transparently disclose locations of control pixels or plots.

[Image: **Figure 1** Monitoring locations]

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

12.2.1 Project Area

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

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

12.2.2 Control Pixels or Plots

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

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

12.2.3 Laser Scanning Region

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

12.2.4 In Situ Field Plots

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

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

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

12.3 Summary of Monitoring Requirements

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

13.0 Appendix A: Future Improvements

Additionality

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

Approved Resources and Third-Party Datasets

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

Baseline

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

Buffer Pool Contribution

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

Insurance

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

Leakage

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

Leakage Mitigation

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

Stakeholder Engagement

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

14.0 Appendix B: Best Management Practices (BMPs)

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

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

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

15.0 Acknowledgements

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

16.0 Definitions and Acronyms

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

A document that describes how to quantitatively assess the net amount of CO₂ removed by a process. To Isometric, a Protocol is specific to a Project Proponent's process and comprised of Modules representing the Carbon Fluxes involved in the CDR process. A Protocol measures the full carbon impact of a process against the Baseline of it not occurring.

The amount of CO₂ emissions that would cause the same integrated radiative forcing or temperature change, over a given time horizon, as an emitted amount of GHG or a mixture of GHGs. One common metric of CO₂e is the 100-year Global Warming Potential.

The term used to represent the CO₂ taken out of the atmosphere as a result of a CDR process.

The steps of a Project Proponent’s Removal or Reduction process that result in carbon fluxes. The carbon flux associated with an activity is a component of the Project Proponent’s Protocol.

The ability of an ecosystem to support and maintain ecological processes and a diverse community of organisms. It is measured as the degree to which a diverse community of native organisms is maintained, and is used as a proxy for ecological resilience, intended as the capacity of an ecosystem to adapt in the face of stressors, while maintaining the functions of interest.

Any process or activity that releases a greenhouse gas, an aerosol, or a precursor of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

Any process, activity, or mechanism that removes a greenhouse gas, a precursor to a greenhouse gas, or an aerosol from the atmosphere.

Describes the addition of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere to a reservoir, which serves as its ultimate destination. This is also referred to as “sequestration”.

An activity or process or group of activities or processes that alter the condition of a Baseline and leads to Removals or Reductions.

A publicly visible uniquely identifiable Credit Certificate Issued by a Registry that gives the owner of the Credit the right to account for one net metric tonne of Verified CO₂e Removal or Reduction. In the case of this Standard, the net tonne of CO₂e Removal or Reduction comes from a Project Validated against a Certified Protocol.

A set of data describing pre-intervention or control conditions to be used as a reference scenario for comparison.

Independent components of Isometric Certified Protocols which are transferable between and applicable to different Protocols.

​​Considering impacts at each stage of a product's life cycle, from the time natural resources are extracted from the ground and processed through each subsequent stage of manufacturing, transportation, product use, and ultimately, disposal.

Those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic (human-caused), that absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of terrestrial radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself, and by clouds. This property causes the greenhouse effect, whereby heat is trapped in Earth’s atmosphere (CDR Primer, 2022).

The term used to describe greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere as a result of Project activities.

A worldwide federation (NGO) of national standards bodies from more than 160 countries, one from each member country.

Lowering future GHG releases from a specific entity.

GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs (SSRs) associated with the project boundary and included in the GHG Statement.

Purposefully erring on the side of caution under conditions of Uncertainty by choosing input parameter values that will result in a lower net CO₂ Removal or GHG Reduction than if using the median input values. This is done to increase the likelihood that a given Removal or Reduction calculation is an underestimation rather than an overestimation.

The amount of time carbon removed from the atmosphere by an intervention – for example, a CDR project – is expected to reside in a given Reservoir, taking into account both physical risks and socioeconomic constructs (such as contracts) to protect the Reservoir in question.

The escape of CO₂ to the atmosphere after it has been stored, and after a Credit has been Issued. A Reversal is classified as avoidable if a Project Proponent has influence or control over it and it likely could have been averted through application of reasonable risk mitigation measures. Any other Reversals will be classified as unavoidable.

The increase in GHG emissions outside the geographic or temporal boundary of a project that results from that project's activities.

The diversity of life across taxonomic and spatial scales. Biodiversity can be measured within species (i.e. genetic diversity and variations in allele frequencies across populations), between species (i.e. the total number and abundance of species within and across defined regions), within ecosystems (i.e. the variation in functional diversity, such as guilds, life-history traits, and food-webs), and between ecosystems (variation in the services of abiotic and biotic communities across large, landscape-level scales) that support ecoregions and biomes.

The organization that develops and/or has overall legal ownership or control of a Removal or Reduction Project.

The document, written by a Project Proponent, which records key characteristics of a Project and which forms the basis for Project Validation and evaluation in accordance with the relevant Certified Protocol. (Also known as “PDD”).

The defined temporal and geographical boundary of a Project.

The period of time over which a Project Design Document is valid, and over which Removals or Reductions may be Verified, resulting in Issued Credits.

An evaluation of the likelihood that an intervention—for example, a CDR Project—causes a climate benefit above and beyond what would have happened in a no-intervention Baseline scenario.

The natural processes and interactions that occur within an ecosystem, including the flow of energy and materials through biotic and abiotic components, encompassing activities like nutrient cycling, primary production, and habitat provision, which collectively maintain the balance and stability of the ecosystem.

A document submitted alongside Claimed Removals and/or Reductions that details the calculations associated with a Removal or Reduction, including the Project's emissions, Removals, Reductions and Leakages, presented together in net metric tonnes of CO₂e per Removal or Reduction.

The permanent annulling of a Credit to compensate for erroneous over-issuance or a Reversal. Once Canceled, the credit will no longer be available for Delivery or Retirement.

A product that has been cultivated, raised or harvested primarily for food, shelter, or natural fiber.

A site owner, tenant or other user that engaged with the project site in a way that produced commodities before the project activities commenced.

Credits are issued to the Credit Account of a Project Proponent with whom Isometric has a Validated Protocol after an Order for Verification and Credit Issuance services from a Buyer and once a Verified Removal or Reduction has taken place.

A calculation, series of calculations or simulations that use input variables in order to generate values for variables of interest that are not directly measured.

A process for evaluating and confirming the net Removals and Reductions for a Project, using data and information collected from the Project and assessing conformity with the criteria set forth in the Isometric Standard and the Protocol by which it is governed. Verification must be completed by an Isometric approved third-party (VVB).

Third-party auditing organizations that are experts in their sector and used to determine if a project conforms to the rules, regulations, and standards set out by a governing body. A VVB must be approved by Isometric prior to conducting validation and verification.

Any person or entity who can potentially affect or be affected by Isometric or an individual Project activity.

A systematic and independent process for evaluating the reasonableness of the assumptions, limitations and methods that support a Project and assessing whether the Project conforms to the criteria set forth in the Isometric Standard and the Protocol by which the Project is governed. Validation must be completed by an Isometric approved third-party (VVB).

Activities that remove carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere and store it in products or geological, terrestrial, and oceanic Reservoirs. CDR includes the enhancement of biological or geochemical sinks and direct air capture (DAC) and storage, but excludes natural CO₂ uptake not directly caused by human intervention.

A species whose introduction, spread, and/or growth threatens biological diversity.

A lack of knowledge of the exact amount of CO₂ removed by a particular process, Uncertainty may be quantified using probability distributions, confidence intervals, or variance estimates.

An acceptable difference between reported Removals/emissions or Reductions/emissions and what an auditor determines is the actual Removal/emissions or Reduction/emissions.

The use of satellite, aircraft and terrestrial deployed sensors to detect and measure characteristics of the Earth's surface, as well as the spectral, spatial and temporal analysis of this data to estimate biomass and biomass change.

Improperly allocating the same Removal or Reduction from a Project Proponent more than once to multiple Buyers.

An assessment of what would have happened in the absence of a particular intervention – i.e., assuming the Baseline scenario.

An evaluation of the likelihood that an intervention causes a climate benefit above and beyond what would have happened in a no-intervention Baseline scenario.

A method for establishing and regularly updating the reference carbon stock levels in a reforestation project area, based on ongoing analysis of comparable non-project plots, to account for natural fluctuations and improve the accuracy of carbon credit calculations over the project lifetime.

An evaluation of the likelihood that an intervention that causes a climate benefit above and beyond what would have happened in a no-intervention Baseline scenario was the result of revenues from carbon finance.

Resources provided to projects that are generating, or are expected to generate, greenhouse gas (GHG) Emission Reductions or Removals.

Reporting Period

The total mass of living woody biomass existing above the soil surface in a specified area.

An estimate of the emissions intensity per unit of an activity.

An analysis of how much different components in a Model contribute to the overall Uncertainty.

A mathematical approach for estimating the possible outcomes of an uncertain event through repeated random sampling. It can also be referred to as a "multiple probability simulation".

An entity that purchases Removals or Reductions, often with the purpose of Retiring Credits to make a Removal or Reduction claim.

A database that holds information on Verified Removals and Reductions based on Protocols. Registries Issue Credits, and track their ownership and Retirement.

A location where carbon is stored. This can be via physical barriers (such as geological formations) or through partitioning based on chemical or biological processes (such as mineralization or photosynthesis).

Sources, Sinks and Reservoirs

Emissions that are produced by a specific CDR process and are directly controllable.

Life cycle GHG emissions associated with production of materials, transportation, and construction or other processes for goods or buildings.

A United States Government agency that protects human health and the environment.

A measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 tonne of a GHG will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of CO₂.

The total mass of living woody biomass existing below the soil surface in a specified area.

The term used to describe allocation of Project emissions to multiple Removals or Reductions.

for open systems, biogeochemical and/or physical interactions which occur during the removal process that decrease the CO₂ removal .

A common and recognized insurance mechanism among Registries allowing Credits to be set aside (in this case by Isometric) to compensate for Reversals which may occur in the future.

A measurement which correlates with but is not a direct measurement of the variable of interest.

17.0 References