Reforestation
Loading...
This Protocol (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.) provides the requirements and procedures for the calculation of net carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e (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.)) removal (The term used to represent the CO₂ taken out of the atmosphere as a result of a CDR process.) from the atmosphere via reforestation. Reforestation refers to activities (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.) that lead to an increase in forest cover on land that was previously covered by forest, restoring the native forest ecosystem1.
Earth’s forests store approximately 861 gigatonnes of carbon2. Forests can act as a source (Any process or activity that releases a greenhouse gas, an aerosol, or a precursor of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.) or sink (Any process, activity, or mechanism that removes a greenhouse gas, a precursor to a greenhouse gas, or an aerosol from the atmosphere.) of carbon, and are estimated to absorb a net 7.6 gigatonnes of CO2 per year3 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.
Reforestation activities include, but are not limited to, planting tree seedlings, facilitating natural regeneration, and/or ongoing management of the forest to maximize and preserve the carbon removed from the atmosphere that is stored in tree biomass. Restoration of forested lands globally could represent an additional storage (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”.) of 200 gigatonnes of carbon at forest maturity4, making it a useful tool in reaching the projected IPCC Carbon Dioxide Removal (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.) (CDR) storage needs of the mid-century. In addition to carbon sequestration potential, reforestation has several co-benefits such as restoration of forest habitat, creation of wildlife corridors, and enhancement of biodiversity (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.) on previously degraded lands.
This Protocol accounts for the quantification of the gross amount of CO2 removed via growth and regeneration of forest vegetation, as well as all cradle-to-grave (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.) life-cycle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) (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).)emissions (The term used to describe greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere as a result of Project activities.) associated with the process. This Protocol is developed to adhere to the requirements of ISO (A worldwide federation (NGO) of national standards bodies from more than 160 countries, one from each member country.) 14064-2: 2019 – Greenhouse Gasses – Part 2: Specification with guidance at the Project (An activity or process or group of activities or processes that alter the condition of a Baseline and leads to Removals or Reductions.) level for quantification, monitoring, and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions (Lowering future GHG releases from a specific entity.) or removal enhancements.
The Protocol ensures:
This Protocol and all standardized approaches therein — including but not limited to the dynamic baseline (Section 9.4) — are informed by the best available scientific knowledge and undergo external review by subject matter experts and relevant stakeholders (Any person or entity who can potentially affect or be affected by Isometric or an individual Project activity.). All comments received during consultation are publicly addressed, with revisions incorporated as appropriate, to ensure the certified version of the Protocol will yield high quality Carbon Credits via rigorous, conservative (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.), and appropriate methodologies.
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:
Additional reference standards that inform the requirements and overall practices incorporated in this Protocol include:
Additional principles that were considered in the development of this Protocol and aligned with, where feasible, include:
Protocols and Methodologies that were assessed as part of a literature review during the development of this Protocol include:
This Protocol was developed based on the current state of the art, publicly available science regarding reforestation 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 D.
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 restore inland forests to a state of ecological integrity (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.)5 in areas where they have historically existed and are resilient to future climate scenarios. Projects should emphasize protection and restoration of ecosystem function (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.), biodiversity, and social livelihoods. Projects should not resemble commercial forestry, and the fate of forests restored in accordance with this Protocol should not be clear-cutting for timber sale, even beyond the Ongoing Monitoring Period.
[/G-K2QR-0]The geographic Project Boundary (The defined temporal and geographical boundary of a Project.) must encompass all geographic areas where the Project Proponent (The organization that develops and/or has overall legal ownership or control of a Removal or Reduction Project.) is conducting reforestation activities for crediting purposes. This can consist of a single continuous area, or a collection of discrete planting areas. In the context of this Protocol, a discrete planting area is considered to be the largest contiguous land area which is subject to the same Project and management activities (e.g., a smallholder farm, land parcel) and can be no smaller than 0.5 ha. This Protocol applies across the temporal (See Section 5) and spatial scope 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 once the crediting period (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.) begins.
Any adjacent planting activities or land management by the Project Proponent must be disclosed with justification and evidence that they do not pose any risks to the reforestation activities within the Project Boundary.
[/G-501K-0]In order to restore ecological integrity and ecosystem function, demonstrate additionality, and ensure trust and transparency, it is incumbent upon Projects to adhere to the following requirements, which must be demonstrated in the Project Design Document (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”).):
[/G-C9RX-0][R-5Y86-0, Projects must provide evidence that the Project activities occur in lands that have historically supported and can ecologically support forests. ]Project activities must reforest lands that have historically supported forest ecosystems, and where reforestation would restore landscape-level ecological integrity.[/R-5Y86-0][G-ZYMJ-0, Projects must use one or more of the following types of evidence: (1) land cover classification, (2) historical documentation or imagery, (3) scientific analyses of ecological indicators, (4) established scientific consensus, and/or (5) traditional ecological knowledge. ] This historical forest presence and ecological suitability must be robustly evidenced by data of the following types:
[/G-ZYMJ-0][R-SK3V-0, Projects must demonstrate the Project area does not include any areas that have experienced deforestation within the 10 years prior to Project initiation. ]Project activities must not reforest lands where deforestation occurred within the 10 years prior to project initiation[/R-SK3V-0] (see Section 4.1.1).
[R-D7ZG-0, Projects must demonstrate that no Project activities will occur in wetlands (e.g. peatlands, marshes, mangroves). ]Project activities must not occur on terrestrial or tidal wetlands (e.g., peatlands, marshes, mangroves), evidenced by soil maps or land cover classification[/R-D7ZG-0] (see Section 4.1.1).
[R-0WV5-0, Projects must demonstrate that the Project will not reforest any areas where reforestation is projected to have a negative net climate impact, inclusive of biome-specific uncertainty. ]Projects must not be located in regions where albedo changes lead to a net warming effect. Thus, Projects must not include planting in any areas where a net warming effect is indicated by the data from Hasler et al., 20249, with the threshold being inclusive of biome-specific 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.) in the data (see Appendix B).
[/R-0WV5-0]Land cover data sources derived from remote sensing and used for land cover classification in Section 4.1 should meet the following criteria:
Projects must not occur in regions where significant reforestation activities are driven by market demand, local and/or national incentives, or forestry policies that would lead to forest restoration without Carbon Finance.
[/R-VVE4-0]Projects should not resemble commercial plantation forestry.
[/R-86JF-0]Additionally, this Protocol applies to projects and associated operations that meet all of the following project conditions:
Land tenure and contractual obligation. [R-FG9S-0, Projects must demonstrate that they have proper authorization which covers the length of the Project Commitment Period from the true property ownership by providing evidence of the landowner's signatory consent. ]To ensure the Project Proponent has proper authorization from the true property ownership, this Protocol explicitly prohibits Project Proponents from enrolling land for Credits without the landowner's signatory consent, which must be provided in the PDD (The document that clearly outlines how a Project will generate rigorously quantifiable Additional high-quality Removals or Reductions.). [/R-FG9S-0][G-EJ36-0, If the Project will have direct tenure, the Project Proponent must have legal, documented land tenure for the duration of the Crediting Period and access to the project area throughout the Ongoing Monitoring Period]Thus, the Project Proponent must have legal, documented land tenure for the duration of the Crediting Period and access to the project area throughout the Ongoing Monitoring Period for the purposes of meeting the Reversal reporting requirements under Section 10.5.2[/G-EJ36-0]; [G-26YV-0, If the Project will contract with land owned by another party, the landowners must have legal, documented land tenure for the duration of the Crediting Period and the Project Proponent must have access to the land throughout the Ongoing Monitoring Period.]or, if the Project Proponent is contracting on land owned by another party, the landowners must have legal, documented land tenure for the duration of the Crediting Period and the Project Proponent must have access to the land throughout the Ongoing Monitoring Period to perform all requirements set forth by this Protocol and Module(s) the Project Proponent is crediting against.[/G-26YV-0]
Financial plan. Credit issuances (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.) will decrease over time, and continued financial payments are needed to incentivize maintenance of carbon stocks. [R-355E-0, Projects must provide a financial model and cash flow statement to demonstrate continued financial viability of the Project for the full Project Commitment Period. ]To evidence the continued financial viability of the Project over the full Project Commitment Period, Project Proponents must provide a financial model and cash flow statement which demonstrates a clear payment structure for the duration of the Ongoing Monitoring Period.[/R-355E-0] Methods to maintain continued financial incentives may include, but are not limited to:
[G-R44S-0, If operational, legal, or regulatory constraints preclude the development of a financial model or negate its efficacy, Projects must provide justification for the absence of a financial plan and describe what alternative mechanisms will be in place to support maintenance of carbon stocks. ] If operational, legal, or regulatory constraints preclude the development of a financial model or negate its efficacy for supporting long-term maintenance, the Project Proponent must provide justification for the absence of a financially-based plan for long-term maintenance, as well as details of what alternative mechanisms will be in place to support maintenance of the Project carbon stocks over the full Project Commitment Period. Such mechanisms may include, but are not limited to, conservation easements, governmental protections, or land trusts.[/G-R44S-0]
[Image: **Figure 1** Project timelines]
Figure 1 Summary of project periods. Colors represent actions owned by different stakeholders. Blue = Project Proponent. Green = VVB. Pink = Isometric.
A project starting in 2025 has a Project Commitment Period of 100 years composed of a 40 year Crediting Period followed by 60 year Ongoing Monitoring Period. Credits issued have a 60+ year durability. Monitoring for quantification is conducted by the Project Proponent through the Crediting Period, and the reported activities are verified by a Validation and Verification Body (VVB) for each Reporting Period. At the end of the Crediting Period, maintenance of carbon stocks and monitoring for Reversals occurs for the remaining 60 years of the Project Commitment 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.
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 development13. 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 6.5.1 of this Protocol, and be used to inform future iterations of project management and development.
[/G-7DM9-0]Project Proponents are required to predict and plan for potential unintended outcomes of project activities and construct mitigation plans for such instances.
[/R-9Y49-0]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:
[/G-KRRM-0]The Project should not hinder the ability of the community or local ecosystem to adapt to climate change as a result of the CDR activity.
[/G-V2FY-0]The High Conservation Values (HCV) Approach, developed by the HCV Network, identifies regionally specific facets of local communities and ecologies that must be considered during project developments resulting in land use change. The HCV Network has identified six values that may be at risk as a result of land use change projects. The values, along with corresponding requirements for Project Proponents to uphold them, are listed below:
Species Diversity: Rare, threatened, endangered, or endemic species, at populations significant to regional, national, or global levels.
Landscape-level ecosystems, ecosystem mosaics and intact forest landscapes: Broad-scale regions of interacting ecosystems which contain species in their natural patterns or distributions at populations significant on regional, national, or global scales.
Ecosystems and habitats: Rare, threatened, or endangered ecosystems or habitats.
Ecosystem services: Fundamental ecosystem functions critical to ecological integrity and life, e.g., oxygen production, water filtration and protection of catchments, soil formation and erosion prevention, temperature regulation, nutrient cycling, habitat formation, provisioning of food and forage for fauna, etc.
Community needs: Commodities (A product that has been cultivated, raised or harvested primarily for food, shelter, or natural fiber.), resources, and community functions that are necessary for the livelihoods of local communities and Indigenous Peoples. This may include food, water, and infrastructure sources.
Cultural values: Sites, landscapes, and habitats of significant cultural, historical, religious, economic, or archaeological value to local communities, Indigenous Peoples, or other groups identified to engage in those locations.
For each value above, the Project Proponent must identify in the PDD if the value is present or absent in the project area. This list must be constructed in consultation with relevant stakeholder groups, as identified in Section 6.5.1 and carried out in accordance with Section 3.5 of the Isometric Standard . The Stakeholder Engagement Plan for HCV identification must also be included in the PDD.
If a value is absent from the project area, the Project Proponent must provide an explanation or justification such as survey results or recent publications. If a value is present in the project area, the Project Proponent must include a plan to monitor and protect it throughout the Project Commitment Period in the PDD. We encourage Project Proponents to review the Common Guidance for the Management and Monitoring of HCV in developing this plan.
[/G-DGJ8-0]If protection is not feasible during the project activities and an HCV is damaged as a result of project activities, the Project Proponent must provide a restoration plan to return the area to its prior condition and quality.
[/G-15DX-0]If an HCV is threatened or damaged by forces or parties outside of the Project Proponent’s jurisdiction and not as a result of or response to project activities, the Project Proponent must report such instances to Isometric, but may not be responsible for enacting a restoration plan. Failure to properly identify, monitor, and protect an HCV may result in the cessation of Credits.
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.
[/R-HRM2-0]It is recommended that Project Proponents 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 local regulations exist, the Project Proponent must state them in the PDD.
The Project Proponent must consult reputable (A source that would be widely considered trustworthy based on the process undertaken (e.g., peer review) or origin of the information (e.g., government body).) and current sources on rare, threatened, and endangered species to develop a list of these species, in the following order of priority:
[/G-6QKD-0]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:
[/G-TCF2-0]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.
As stated in Section 4.1, reforestation projects must occur on degraded lands or lands that were historically classified as forests where forest cover was lost to be eligible for crediting under this Protocol.
Because of this applicability requirement and the nature of reforestation projects to plant and maintain species in the project area, reforestation projects are well placed to increase biodiversity in the region. To benchmark increased biodiversity, Project Proponents must include at least five species from two or more genera in their planting plan.
[/R-H7VK-0]Projects should prioritize the planting of endemic, rare, threatened, and endangered native species.
[/G-2C78-0]Species should be planted at ecologically appropriate richness and evenness17. There may be some regions that naturally support a limited number of species that fulfill ecosystem services and other functions or indicators of healthy ecosystems. Project Proponents in these regions may deviate from the minimum required species and genera included in planting plans, in consultation with Isometric. Such deviations must be accompanied by appropriate documentation, based in scientific literature and/or ongoing field studies, in the PDD. For projects where activities include facilitation of natural regeneration and/or ongoing management for enhanced sequestration in lieu of or in addition to direct planting, the above provisions regarding species composition are also applicable to the species which will be the subject of the regeneration and/or management activities.
[/G-THQF-0]The tree species used for reforestation must follow the principles outlined 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 species invasive (A species whose introduction, spread, and/or growth threatens biological diversity.) to the region or similar climates, geographies, or ecosystems of the project area18, 19. The definition of 'invasive species (A species whose introduction, spread, and/or growth threatens biological diversity.)' 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"20. Projects that plant invasive species will not be eligible for crediting under this Protocol.
Additionally, Project Proponents must not introduce any species that harm rare, threatened, or endangered species as defined in Section 6.3.1 or adversely impact the integrity of rare, threatened, or endangered ecosystems and habitats (see Section 6.3). Project Proponents are highly encouraged to consult with Isometric, the VVB, and/or external subject matter experts to ensure that species included in the reforestation plan meet these requirements and the criteria described below.
[/G-9NYJ-0]For the purposes of this Protocol, native species are defined as:
Naturalized species are defined as:
Reforestation with native species should be the first course of action. If reforestation with only native and naturalized species is not feasible, non-native range-expanding species may be included in the reforestation planting plan. Any non-native species not considered range-expanding for the purposes of this Protocol must not be planted. Non-native range-expanding species are defined as:
In such instances, the majority of species planted must be native and/or naturalized, and the plurality must be native species.
[/G-XAT7-0]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:
[/G-GZNW-0]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 during project activities. The Project Proponent must demonstrate:
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:
If genetically-modified species are included in the reforestation planting plan, 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.
[/G-R9D6-0]A robust seedling and germplasm pipeline is central to the ecological, socioeconomic, and cultural success of a reforestation project. A diverse, local, and sustainable pipeline ensures that project activities contribute to the 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:
[/R-4WQ8-0]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 reforestation projects creates community buy-in, providing long term commitment and investment in the success of reforestation projects21, 13. Furthermore, lack of community support, stakeholder engagement, and perceived community benefits has been identified as a primary source of project failure in previous forestry projects22.
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 are required to assess if Indigenous Peoples will be impacted by project activities. Impacts may include, but are not limited to:
[/R-7NT0-0]Project Proponents must consult a reputable third party or subject matter expert to assess if Indigenous Peoples will be impacted by project activities.
[/G-MT9J-0]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 Peoples23 in 2007 and expanded upon by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in 201624.
[/G-FRWH-0]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.
[/G-5P2F-0]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.
[/G-CZSS-0]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:
[/G-SAY4-0]The Project Proponent must identify and develop processes for the protection and promotion of community well-being in the PDD, as follows:
[/R-VANN-0]As previously mentioned, community buy-in is critical to the success of a reforestation project 21, 13, 22. Community buy-in may be established when stakeholders are properly informed about the benefits they can expect from the reforestation project. 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 is strongly encouraged to consider establishing the following programs and activities:
[/G-VK8D-0]Positive impacts should be felt by all stakeholder groups identified in Section 6.5.1. 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.
[/G-F842-0]The Project must not harm the quantity or quality of local water resources. Even in ecosystems that previously held forest cover, restoration of forest ecosystems 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 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.
[/G-2WZQ-0]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.
[/G-PHVC-0]If the Project is occurring in an area with existing elevated water risk per the above criteria, the Project Proponent must assess whether reforestation in the project area is projected to have a negative impact on water supply. The Project Proponent must identify if the project area lies in areas at risk of >1% decrease in water availability due to reforestation as described by Hoek van Diejke et al. (2022)25. In regards to these analyses and for the purposes of this Protocol, reforestation presents a risk to water supplies if it is projected to decrease annual water yield by more than 1%, inclusive of any evaporative recycling effects.
[/G-A6Q1-0]If the Project is occurring in an area with both elevated water risk and where reforestation is anticipated to decrease local water yields per the above definitions, 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.
[/G-XVJP-0]These plans could include, but are not limited to:
[/G-HGEB-0]Project Proponents should not use synthetic herbicides or fertilizers for forest management during the Crediting Period.
[/R-2MCZ-0]Any use of synthetic herbicides or fertilizers must be reported to Isometric and adhere to best management practices (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 or project operations must be reported in the PDD.
[/G-55A0-0]Projects should not use synthetic pesticides except for the control of non-native pests and/or invasive insect outbreaks.
[/R-P98M-0]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.
[/G-RT5N-0]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.
[/G-CF1A-0]Additionally, Project Proponents must adhere to the Forest Stewardship Council’s Pesticides Policy.
[/G-03WZ-0]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 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 Project Design Document (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 Validation and Verification Body (VVB) must consider the following requisite components:
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 (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:
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 reforestation is a result of a multi-step process (e.g., seed planting, forest maintenance, monitoring), with activities in each step potentially managed by a different operator, company, 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.
The Project Proponent must be able to demonstrate additionality through compliance with Section 2.5.3 of the Isometric Standard. The Baseline (A set of data describing pre-intervention or control conditions to be used as a reference scenario for comparison.) 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 reforestation, 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 9.4.
Additionality determinations should be reviewed and completed at every Verification at a minimum, or whenever project operating conditions change significantly, such as the following:
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.
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 Common Practice Analysis of the Isometric Standard.
In accordance with Section 2.5.3.1 Common Practice Analysis 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, [math: RP], [math: {CO}_{2}^{}e_{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:
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 (An analysis of how much different components in a Model contribute to the overall Uncertainty.) 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 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:
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.
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 a reforestation 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 Project, and any activity that ultimately leads to the issuance of Credits, must be considered in the system boundary. This allows for accurate consideration of additional, incremental emissions induced by the Project.
The system boundary must include all SSRs controlled by, and related to, the Project, including but not limited to the SSRs 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 included in the PDD. Materiality considerations for exclusions are set out in Section 8.1.1.1.
Table 1. Scope of activities and GHG SSRs to be included in the system boundary.
Activity | GHG Source, sink or Reservoir | GHG | Scope | Timescale of emissions and accounting allocation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Project Establishment | Equipment and materials | All GHGs | Embodied emissions associated with equipment and materials manufacture related to project establishment (lifecycle Modules A1-326). This must include product manufacture emissions for:
| Before project operations start - must be accounted for in the first Reporting Period or amortized in line with allocation rules (see |
Equipment and materials transport to site | All GHGs | Transport emissions associated with transporting materials, equipment and seedlings to the Project site(s) (lifecycle Module A426). | ||
Planting and installation | All GHGs | Emissions related to construction and installation of the Project site(s) (lifecycle module A526). This must include, as appropriate:
| ||
Misc. | All GHGs | Any SSRs not captured by categories above (e.g., staff travel). | ||
Operations | Fertilizer use (Direct) | N2O | Direct emissions | Over each Reporting Period - must be accounted for in the relevant Reporting Period (see |
Forest management | All GHGs | Emissions related to forest management activities (e.g., pruning, weeding, pest control, biomass burning and watering). This must include embodied emissions of equipment, as well as consumables such as water, fertilizers and pesticides. | ||
Maintenance | All GHGs | Maintenance of the project area, including any repair or replacement of equipment, vehicles, buildings and infrastructure. | ||
All GHGs | Emissions related to MRV activities (e.g., measurements, sampling, or commissioning LiDAR flights). | |||
CO2 | CO2 | The gross amount of CO2 | ||
Misc. | All GHGs | Any SSRs not captured by categories above (e.g., staff travel). | ||
End-of-Life | Ongoing Monitoring | All GHGs | Emissions relating to monitoring activities over the Project Commitment Period. | After Reporting Period - must be estimated and accounted for in the first Reporting Period or amortized in line with allocation rules (see |
Ongoing Forest management | All GHGs | Emissions relating to ongoing project management activities over the Project Commitment Period. | ||
Misc. | All GHGs | Any SSRs not captured by categories above (e.g., ongoing staff travel). |
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 (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 Report27).
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 theThe Project's impact on activities that fall outside of the system boundary of theThe Project must also be considered. This is covered under Leakage (The increase in GHG emissions outside the geographic or temporal boundary of a project that results from that project's activities.) in Section 8.3.
In System Boundary Considerations
Some studies28, 29 have identified reforestation projects to have high removal efficiency,line with lower emissions on average when compared to removal capacity, than other CDR pathways (A collection of Removal or Reduction processes that have mechanisms in common.). These studies also indicate that emissions associated with reforestation projects still make up a material fraction of net CDR for these projects. Studies30 also highlight that other existing methodologies vastly underestimate emissions associated with reforestation projects, therefore leading to a risk of over-crediting.
Project Proponents may exclude SSRs where the total emissions for that SSR, and all excluded SSRs collectively, are expected to be negligible. Negligible SSRs are those which fall below a Materiality threshold based on environmental significance of < 1% of net CO2e removals. Project Proponents must follow the Materiality assessment requirements set out in Section 5 of the GHG Accounting Module v1.01., the Project must:
AncillaryGHGs activitiesassociated arewith GHGSSRs, Sourcesin that do not have a direct relationshipalignment with the generationUnited States Environmental Protection Agency’s definition of CreditsGHGs which includes: carbon dioxide (CO₂), butmethane are instead required to keep the business operational(CH4), ornitrous foroxide research(N20) and developmentfluorinated purposes. These can include activitiesgasses such as researchhydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and developmentnitrogen trifluoride (NF3). For CO2 stored, oronly corporateCO2 shall be included as part of the quantification. For all other activities associatedall withGHGs organizational processes. It is recommended that Project Proponents track and manage these emissions, but they maymust be excluded from the system boundary.
Reforestation may have additional impacts on GHG emissions beyond the scope of this Protocolconsidered. For example, positivethe leakagerelease mayof occurCO2, whereCH4, reforestationand practicesN2O leadis toexpected positiveduring ecologicaldiesel impactsconsumption;
The Baseline scenario for reforestation 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. This is detailed in Section 9.4.4.
Leakage emissions, [math: 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 reforestation projects:
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. Section 6.6 requires assessment of whether the Project presents a risk to water resources, and requires mitigation and management plans be put in place if risks are present making adverse hydrological impacts unlikely. Furthermore, this Protocol limits reforestation to landscapes that were historically forests. Therefore, it is unlikely that surrounding landscapes sensitive to hydrological dynamics that were not present at the time the site was historically forested would have been established since deforestation. Assessing wider ecological leakage impacts is complex. For this version of the Protocol, ecological leakage is assumed to be zero. This will be revisited in future updates to the Protocol.
Activity-shifting and market leakage are addressed in this Protocol. The overall process for addressing activity-shifting and market leakage is set out in the flowchart in Figure 2.
[Image: **Figure 2** Leakage assessment flow chart]
Figure 2 Flowchart of process for addressing activity-shifting and market leakage.
The flowchart is based on the following principles:
Implementation of the flowchart in Figure 2 requires an understanding of Pre-Project Productivity, [math: PPP], including pre-project information about Direct Actors and how the commodity was used. Direct Actors are defined as site owners, tenants or other users that engaged with the Project site in a way that produced commodities before the project activities commenced.
The information required is set out below:
[math: PPP] is defined as the annual productivity of a commodity type at the Project site in relevant units (e.g., tonnes/ yr). This should be an average of the three years prior to the project activities starting. For crops, this should be reflective of the last three complete annual crop cycles. For livestock, this should be reflective of the maximum cattle inventory over the last three years of production. For all other commodities, this should be reflective of production over the last three years of production.
The data hierarchy for obtaining information for [math: PPP] is set out below:
The hierarchy must be followed and data choices evidenced. For example, if land registry data is used, sufficient evidence of no available farm records will be required. Sufficient evidence may include, but is not limited to, official government statements, reports, or affidavits and/or written sworn statements or affidavits by Direct Actors regarding the lack of records.
[/G-WT1R-0]As part of determination of [math: PPP], the Project Proponent must confirm the following:
[/R-KG5W-0]The following considerations and assumptions should be made when determining the type of commodity, [math: c]:
[/G-GEXD-0]Productivity must be reflective of an average of the three years prior to the project activities starting.
[/G-6C3B-0]The following considerations and assumptions should be made when determining productivity:
The Project Proponent must determine the previous use of the commodity and whether it was:
[/G-W999-0]The Project Proponent must determine this using the following information:
If it is not possible to determine whether the commodity was for subsistence or commercial use, then the Project Proponent must assume it was subsistence.
If the Project determines that [math: PPP] is zero, this must be evidenced appropriately. This includes:
Evidence must be provided for three years preceding the Project Proponent’s purchase of the site for reforestation, or the Project start date, whichever is earlier.
[/G-3K0K-0]In addition, Isometric will undertake remote sensing analysis on project sites which claim that [math: PPP] is zero. Remote sensing mapping will be transparently displayed on the registry. Only where remote sensing analysis indicates there are no signs of agricultural production, pasture, or timber harvesting will the Project be eligible for claiming zero [math: PPP].
[math: CO_2e_{Leakage}] is part of the calculation of [math: CO_2e_{Emissions}], as set out in Equation 20 in Section 9.5.
[/R-TSX6-0][math: CO_2e_{Leakage}] is quantified with the following equation:
[math: CO_2e_{Leakage}\; =\; CO_2e_{Market\; Leakage}\; +\; CO_2e_{Activity-shifting\;Leakage\:Adjustment}\; +\; CO_2e_{Leakage\; Mitigation\; Emissions}]
(Equation 1)
Where:
[math: CO_2e_{Leakage}] is quantified for every Reporting Period, however the following should be noted:
The aim of leakage mitigation activities is to reduce the amount of leakage by increasing production of the commodity elsewhere. Leakage mitigation must take place in areas called Leakage Mitigation Sites (The site(s) where leakage mitigation activities take place.). These must be separate to the Project site, but may be directly adjacent.
[/G-Q7W8-0]Leakage mitigation activities should be equal to or greater than the expected displacement of production. The efficacy of mitigation will be assessed and appropriate deductions applied in the event that mitigation activities do not match the level of displacement (see Equation 2).
[/G-AWQX-0]The following equation is used to calculate the effectiveness of leakage mitigation:
[math: uPPP_c = PPP_c - MAP_c]
(Equation 2)
Where:
When [math: PPP] is 0, the Project had zero productivity.
When [math: PPP] is > 0 and [math: uPPP] is 0, the Project has achieved full leakage mitigation and does not take a market leakage emissions deduction.
When [math: PPP] is > 0 and [math: uPPP] is > 0, the Project takes a market leakage emissions deduction.
Leakage mitigation requirements are different depending on whether mitigation is to address market leakage (see Section 8.3.3.2) or activity-shifting leakage (see Section 8.3.3.1). Activity-shifting leakage will also by nature address market leakage, however market leakage alone will not address activity-shifting leakage.
In addition to the leakage type specific requirements, all leakage mitigation activities must meet the following requirements:
For mitigation of activity-shifting leakage, the Project Proponent must have a full understanding of the information set out in Section 8.3.2.1: Determining Pre-Project Productivity.
The mitigation must be informed by the Direct Actors and be undertaken in agreement with Direct Actors.
[/G-D526-0]Mitigation activities must lead to new productivity or productivity increases that directly benefit the Direct Actors.
[/G-0SXV-0]This likely means that the increase in production should be limited to the same commodity type, but this decision should be informed by the Direct Actors.
[/G-MESG-0]This also likely means that the Leakage Mitigation Site should be in the same locality, but again, this should be informed by the Direct Actors.
[/G-83N5-0]The Project Proponent should engage with Direct Actors associated with the site’s prior productivity to understand how the project activity impacted the previous users of the Project site. Direct Actors include the previous site owners, tenants or other users that engaged with the Project site in a way that produced commodities.
[/G-VRGT-0]The Project Proponent must receive an affidavit from the identified Direct Actors confirming the following:
Full records of correspondence, including meeting notes, and signed agreements must be made available as part of the PDD.
[/G-PQ3S-0]If information from Direct Actors is unavailable, the Project Proponent will be unable to undertake activity-shifting leakage mitigation.
For mitigation of market leakage, the following must be true in addition to the requirements set out in Section 8.3.3:
The emissions impact of leakage mitigation activities, [math: CO_2e_{Leakage\;Mitigation\;Emissions}] must be considered.
The same system boundaries set out in Table 1 must be considered, noting that it is likely only certain GHG SSRs will be included.
At minimum, the following emissions sources must be considered:
Only activities that are additional as a result of the leakage mitigation activity should be considered as part of [math: CO_2e_{Leakage\;Mitigation\;Emissions}]. Activities that were already occurring and would continue to occur without the leakage mitigation activity may be omitted from the emissions accounting, if evidence that the activity was already occurring and would have continued to occur in the absence of the leakage mitigation activity is provided.
[math: CO_2e_{Market\;Leakage}] considers emissions associated with land conversion as a result of market leakage.
It is noted that other emissions may result from market leakage, such as fertilizer use as part of intensification to produce an increase in commodity supply. These emissions sources have been excluded at this time given a lack of globally appropriate data availability. These emissions are also expected to be negligible compared to land conversion emissions.
If [math: PPP] includes multiple commodity types, [math: CO_2e_{Market\;Leakage}] must be quantified for each commodity type.
Market leakage emissions are quantified using the following equations:
(Equation 3) Where: and: (Equation 4) Where:[math: CO_2e_{Market\;Leakage} = \sum\limits_{c=1}^n CO_2e_{Market\;Leakage, c}][math: CO_2e_{Market\;Leakage, c} = ha_{LC, c} \times EF_{Carbon\;Stock}]
Project Proponents are required to estimate the amount of new land brought into production, [math: ha_{LC}]. This estimate must be informed by:
The new land brought into production must be calculated separately for each commodity type being displaced as a result of the Project.
Land conversion for production is quantified using the following equation:
(Equation 5) Where:[math: ha_{LC, c} = \frac{aPPP_{c} \ \times \:IS_{c}\ \times \:NL_{c}}{Y_{NL, c}}]
Adjusted unmitigated Pre-Project Productivity, [math: aPPP], must be calculated using the following equation:
(Equation 6) Where:[math: aPPP_c = uPPP_c \times (1+GR_c)]
The annual growth rate in productivity of the commodity type and region must be assigned as part of Equation 6. This is a requirement to ensure that any likely future increases in productivity are accounted for as part of the assessment.
Growth rate must be calculated based on the following hierarchy:
Growth rate must be calculated using the following equation:
(Equation 7) Where: Average growth rate is determined by taking the difference between yield in the most recent year of recorded data ([math: t]) and a historic year ([math: t-x]). Where possible [math: t-x] should represent 25 years prior to [math: t]. Where this is not possible, a minimum of 10 years prior to [math: t] is allowable. If a recent negative shock leads to a negative growth estimate of yield growth, a value of zero should be used.[math: GR_c =(\frac{yield_{c,t}}{yield_{c,t-x}})^{1/x}-1]
Increased Supply is the proportion of foregone productivity that will be replaced by increased supply elsewhere. This is underpinned by the premise that foregone production will not necessarily be replaced in totality by increased supply elsewhere as a result of elasticities of supply and demand. Global markets for commodities have been assumed for the purposes of the leakage assessment.
Estimates for [math: IS] are determined using the following equation:
(Equation 8) Where: Isometric has carried out a literature review of [math: ε_s] and [math: ε_d] values for certain regions. Values for [math: ε_s] and [math: ε_d] for these regions are provided in Appendix A. Where the Project falls into these regions, the default values provided must be used, unless suitable alternative values are approved by Isometric. This is because understanding which values to use from literature is challenging as academic papers are typically not written with this purpose or audience in mind. Isometric has completed this work for certain regions to lessen this complexity and provide consistency across projects. The default values also serve as an example of appropriate values to select from the literature for other regions; however, it should be noted that the quality of research differs across regions. For all other regions, values for [math: ε_s] and [math: ε_d] must be sourced from literature. The procedure and requirements for sourcing default values for [math: ε_s] and [math: ε_d] are set out in Appendix A.[math: IS = \frac{ε_{s,c}}{ε_{s,c} + |ε_{d,c}|}]
[math: NL] considers the percentage of increased supply that will result in new land brought into production for the commodity type. This is underpinned by the premise that not all increased supply will result in new lands being brought into production. Some increased supply may be made up of intensification of activities and increased yields on existing production lands.
Isometric have carried out a literature review of [math: NL] values for certain regions. Values for [math: NL] for these regions are provided in Appendix A. Where the Project falls into these regions, the default values provided must be used, unless suitable alternative values are approved by Isometric. The procedure and requirements for sourcing default values for [math: NL] are set out in Appendix A.
The default values also serve as an example of appropriate values to select, however it should be noted that the quality of research differs across regions.
[math: Y_{NL}] considers the yield on new land brought into production for commodity c. To determine yield on new land, follow the regional and national approach set out in the assessment of [math: Y_c] (Section 8.3.2.1.2).
[math: EF_{Carbon\;Stock}] must be derived from the IPCC average national aboveground biomass content of forests. Mean carbon stocks should be derived from aboveground
biomass estimates in Table 3A.1.4 of the IPCC Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry3126. Carbon stocks should be determined using the same ratio of mass of CO2 to mass of C, and carbon fraction, [math: CF], as set out in Section 9.3.1. Belowground
biomass stocks should be estimated using the same process as set out in Section 9.3.3.
Where activity-shifting mitigation is in place, activity-shifting leakage monitoring is not required. Where only market leakage mitigation is in place, activity-shifting leakage monitoring must be undertaken for the Project. This is because market leakage mitigation does not necessarily mitigate activity-shifting leakage and Direct Actors may still be implicated. Where only partial or no leakage mitigation is in place, activity-shifting leakage monitoring must be undertaken in addition to a full or partial market leakage emissions deduction.
Activity-shifting leakage monitoring requires satellite imagery of a buffer or boundary zone along the Project perimeter, called the Leakage Monitoring Zone (A transitional or boundary zone along the Project’s perimeter that is monitored for activity-shifting leakage.). The Leakage Monitoring Zone will form a consistent buffer zone along the perimeter of the Project site. The distance between the exterior perimeters of the Project site and Leakage Monitoring Zone (i.e., the buffer width) will be determined by the smaller of the following:
The Leakage Monitoring Zone sizing is based on the likelihood that most of the displacements from the project area will not go beyond a five-kilometer radius, as well as to reflect the relative impact of variations in project size.
Isometric will undertake monitoring of the Leakage Monitoring Zone. The satellite imagery will be monitored at every Verification and will account for seasonal differences in vegetation cover. The satellite imagery will compare the deforestation rate of the Leakage Monitoring Zone with the average deforestation rate in the region. Whenever the deforestation rate in the Leakage Monitoring Zone is higher than the average for the region, the Project Proponent must provide additional information. The additional information must include:
If the Project Proponent is able to provide justification that the above-average rates of deforestation observed are unrelated to the Project and not as a result of actions relating to the Direct Actors, then no further action is required. Acceptable evidence includes documentation from government authorities or other local records that show the observed deforestation was unrelated to the Project and the Direct Actors. This can be further supplemented with remote sensing observations and notarized statements. Both Isometric and the VVB must independently review the evidence and determine whether the Direct Actors were responsible. If either Isometric or the VVB determine the evidence is insufficient, then the above-average area of deforestation must be considered as part of the leakage calculation.
Consider two forest conservation projects with different areas:
Example 1: Small Project
The small reforestation project has a project area of 1 km2. Using the first approach, a 5 km buffer width would create a Leakage Monitoring Zone of 120 km2 (calculated as an 11 km x 11 km total area minus the 1 km2 project area). Using the second approach, the Leakage Monitoring Zone would only need to be 5 km2 (five times the project area). In this case, the second approach would be used as it results in the smaller Leakage Monitoring Zone.
Example 2: Large Project
The large reforestation project has a project area of 100 km2. Using the first approach, a 5 km buffer width would create a Leakage Monitoring Zone of 300 km2 (calculated as a 20 km x 20 km total area minus the 100 km2 project area). Using the second approach, the Leakage Monitoring Zone would need to be 500 km2 (five times the Project Area). In this case, the first approach would be used as it results in the smaller Leakage Monitoring Zone.
The amount of above-average deforestation that should be attributed to the Project as activity-shifting leakage is determined by the total amount of possible activity-shifting leakage. The difference between market leakage and identified activity-shifting leakage is included in the calculation of [math: CO_2e_{Leakage}] in Equation 9. [math: CO_2e_{Activity-shifting\;Leakage\:Adjustment}] is calculated with the following equation:
(Equation 9) Where: The amount of above-average deforestation that should be attributed to the Project as activity-shifting leakage, [math: ha_{ASL}], is determined by the total amount of possible activity-shifting leakage. This is represented in the following equation: (Equation 10) Where: [math: ha_{Max\:LC}] is calculated using the following calculation: [math: ha_{Max\:LC} = \frac{aPPP}{Y_{NL}}] (Equation 11) Where:[math: CO_2e_{Activity-shifting\;Leakage\:Adjustment} = max\;(ha_{ASL} \times EF_{Carbon\;Stock}-CO_2e_{Market\:Leakage}\:, 0)][math: ha_{ASL} = min\:(\frac{ha_{Monitored\:LC}}{ha_{Max \:LC}},1) \times ha_{Max\;LC}]
The Reporting Period for reforestation 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 5.3).
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 the project activities that occur within the Reporting Period (see Table 1). This includes:
In line with the Isometric Standard, this Protocol requires that Removal Credits are issued ex-post (Issuance of Credits after removal or reduction took place. This is the manner in which Isometric Delivers Credits.). 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:
(Equation 12) Where:[math: CO_2e_{Removal,\ RP} = CO_2e_{Stored,\ RP} - CO_2e_{Counterfactual,\ RP} - CO_2e_{Emissions,\ RP} + CO_2e_{HWP,\ RP}]
The total amount of CO2 stored from a reforestation project is calculated as
(Equation 13) Where: 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. Harvested Wood Products (HWPs) are an optional pool (see Equation 12). The inclusion of HWPs as a pool for Projects crediting under this Protocol is subject to the guidance and requirements of the applicable Module(s) the Project Proponent is crediting against, and the details of how to calculate [math: CO_2e_{HWP,RP}] are described in the applicable Module(s) the Project Proponent is crediting against. Soil, 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. 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.[math: CO_2e_{Stored,RP}=CO_2e_{AGB,\ RP}+CO_2e_{BGB,\ 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:
(Equation 14) Where: 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: (Equation 15) Where: The carbon fraction, [math: CF], must be chosen from the following hierarchy:[math: CO_2e_{AGB, RP} = CO_2e_{AGB}(t_2) - CO_2e_{AGB}(t_1)][math: CO_2e_{AGB}(t) = \frac{44}{12} \times CF \times M_{AGB}(t)] .[G-CM9Q-0, Projects must specify the carbon fraction they will use and justify the selection of the carbon fraction based on the following herirarchy: (1) a regional and species-specific factor that is justified based on scientific literature, (2) a genus or national average factor that is justified based on scientific literature, or (3) a last resort default factor of 47%.]
[/G-CM9Q-0]3227). This is the preferred approach to have the most accurate estimate and avoid overestimation;3328, 3429.
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, [math: M_{AGB}(t)]:
Uses field-based measurements of vegetation species and size taken within sample plots along with allometric equations to quantify biomass.
Uses LiDAR (LiDAR is a remote sensing technology that uses laser pulses to create highly accurate three-dimensional maps of forest structure, enabling measurements of tree height, canopy density, and biomass.) data collected over the project area and trained models to quantify biomass.
Uses eligible Earth Observation Maps of aboveground biomass developed by third parties to quantify biomass over the project area.
Requirements for each approach are described in the corresponding Modules. Project Proponents must describe in the PDD which option is used, and adhere to the requirements of that approach. Note that Projects using LiDAR and Earth Observation Maps for quantification 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:
(Equation 16) Where: 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 avoid 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 4.4 The uncertainty in selected [math: RS] factors must be reported from the same source dataset. For example, the IPCC 2019 Chapter on Forest Land[math: CO_2e_{BGB,\ RP} = RS \times CO_2e_{AGB,\ RP}][G-095C-0, Projects must specify if the RS factor is a regional-specific factor that is justified based on scientific literature or a default factor based on the IPCC 2019 Table 4.4.]3328, 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 Database3530.3328 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. In this approach, the counterfactual is determined by observing changes in forest carbon stocks for a collection of areas outside of the project area (control pixels) that are representative of the project area except for the project activity. By 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, the pixel matching procedure matches every pixel within the project area to multiple pixels in the control area, generating an ensemble of samples representing multiple baseline scenarios. This ensemble approach inherently characterizes uncertainty probabilistically through the variation in control pixels. This uncertainty is then included in carbon calculations (see Section 9.4.5). 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 literature3631, 3732, 3833, 3934, 4035. 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. The following section outlines the standardized workflow that Isometric will take; the Project Proponent is not responsible for carrying out the steps in this section. Project Proponents may suggest areas that could constitute suitable control pixels or features for matching based on their expert knowledge of their unique system. However, the ultimate determination of control pixels will be done by Isometric following the procedure and criteria below. 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 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.
Additionally, Isometric will make a pre-project estimation of the Baseline scenario at project validation using historical data as described in Section 9.4.6.
The zone from which control pixels will be selected, termed the Donor Zone, must meet the following eligibility criteria:
If possible, other features should also be matched between the Donor Zone and project area, such as:
Initially, the potential area for the Donor Zone should be limited to a 100 km band around the project area. However, if suitable matches (see Section 9.4.3 for matching step) are not found in this zone, additional step-outs in 10 km increments may occur to find appropriate control pixels, assuming they meet the criteria above. For projects consisting of multiple discrete planting areas spread across a region, multiple planting areas can share an initial single 100km radius Donor Zone which encapsulates the planting areas. Depending on the geographic spread of the planting areas, multiple Donor Zones may be defined.
In some scenarios, constraining the zone for eligible control pixels based on the criteria above may severely limit the size of the Donor Zone. Although further control pixels can be selected by expanding the potential Donor Zone area in 10-kilometer increments, doing so may only marginally increase the area of the Donor Zone or improve the performance benchmark accuracy.
Environmental criteria such as bioclimatic variables, productivity, and biogeography used for control pixel matching tend to exhibit spatial autocorrelation — especially in areas of high topographic relief. Therefore, control pixels selected even short distances from the project area can have fundamentally different ecological conditions that can lead to biased control pixel selection and forest carbon stocks and/or proxies. Land use history can similarly constrain the Donor Zone. To ensure accurate matching, the Donor Zone should account for legacy effects—such as prior management regimes, levels of degradation, and priority effects—that influence long-term carbon storage capacity. However, controlling for land use history does further limit eligible Donor Zone pixels due to the asynchronous timing of land-use changes across the landscape. In any given year, areas with similar land use may vary in the time elapsed since active management (e.g., harvesting, cultivation, grazing, or disturbance), potentially biasing control pixel selection and forest carbon stocks and/or proxies.
One consequence of a small Donor Zone is small control pixel sample sizes, which can reduce performance benchmark accuracy through sampling bias. In this situation, Isometric may temporally expand the pool of potential control pixels using a time-for-space substitution (TFSS) sampling strategy. TFSS relaxes the requirement to match the Donor Zone and project area from identical calendar years, thereby expanding the n-dimensional area available for valid control pixel selection. Instead of aligning control pixel and project forest carbon stocks and/or proxies by the same calendar year, TFSS compares changes in forest carbon stocks and/or proxies relative to the time elapsed since pre-project conditions, enabling more robust estimates of additionality.
In this approach, historical data for control pixels can be matched to current data for the Project. The same criteria as listed above must apply across the time points (i.e., current regulations which apply to the Project must have also been applicable at the historical time point for the control pixel). This approach will only be used when there is demonstrated necessity for its application to yield a sufficiently sized Donor Zone. If TFSS is implemented, Isometric will include the justification for the approach as well as the specific methodological approach and data included in the TFSS in its documentation of the baseline procedure.
When the TFSS is used, the temporal range considered for eligible control pixels will be expanded in 5-year increments, up to 15 years maximum. In addition to the features and criteria above, eligibility for the use of time substituted control pixels also includes:
When temporal substitution is used for control pixels, their eligibility will be re-evaluated at each Reporting Period according to the guidance set out in Section 9.4.4.
Once the boundaries of the Donor Zone are determined, Isometric will generate high-resolution (≤30 m) pixel maps representing forest carbon stocks or a suitable proxy for forest carbon stocks. These layers must cover the entire project area and Donor Zone at the same resolution for at least five historical time points relative to the start of the Project. Each historical time point must be separated by at least 1 year.
Isometric will select a suitable proxy that meets the following criteria:
Project pixels are matched to control plot pixels based on the historical time series of the selected forest carbon proxy, [math: C_{proxy}], of each pixel, using k-nearest neighbors with replacement (or an alternative justified algorithm). This matching will use, at a minimum, five historical time points capturing at least the five years prior to project initiation. Each project pixel must be matched to a minimum of 10 different control pixels, and the mean forest carbon proxy over the group of control pixels is calculated from the map product created using the procedure described in Section 9.4.2. Multiple project pixels may be matched to the same control pixels.
For each project pixel, the change in carbon stock over the Reporting Period is calculated both for the project pixel and for the collection of corresponding control pixels (taking the mean across the group) using the values from the carbon proxy map:
(Equation 17) Where: The carbon removal of the counterfactual scenario is found by scaling the quantified carbon removal in the project area by the ratio of the mean differences of the proxy change between the project and control pixels: (Equation 18) Where: To meet the additionality condition, the change in proxy value in the project area, [math: \Delta C_{proxy, project}], must be statistically greater (p < 0.05, inclusive of uncertainty) than the mean change in proxy value for the matched control pixels, [math: \Delta C_{proxy, control}]. If the mean proxy change in the control pixels is negative such that the resulting product of Equation 18 is negative, the counterfactual carbon storage, [math: CO_2e_{Counterfactual,RP}], will be assumed to be 0 in order to ensure the accounting of carbon storage is limited to removals. The counterfactual carbon storage is then used to calculate a performance benchmark for the project area, [math: PB_{RP}]: (Equation 19) If the additionality requirement is met, the performance benchmark will be greater than 1, with larger magnitudes indicating a greater difference between storage in the Project and control areas. At each Verification, the control pixels are reviewed to determine continued eligibility within control plots as outlined in Section 9.4.1. In the event that control pixel matches are no longer suitable, replacements will be selected for the impacted project pixels. Example scenarios that should lead to control pixels being reviewed and reselected include: The baseline assessment at project initiation ([math: t]=0) must be done after site preparation but before planting, including capturing any pre-existing biomass that will remain in the project area. If the site preparation includes any removal of woody biomass (e.g., invasives), this must be captured in the GHG emissions from project establishment as described in Section 8.1. If the planting plan of the Project does not allow for adequate temporal separation of site preparation and planting to allow for baseline establishment (e.g., site preparation and planting done simultaneously), Project Proponents must provide justification for the necessity of their timeline and approach for project establishment. In this scenario, Isometric will assess the initial baseline prior to any site preparation. Project Proponents must still report all GHG emissions associated with project establishment as above, including explicitly reporting all removals of woody biomass for site preparation. Isometric will review the reported data and, if appropriate, remove the cleared woody biomass component from the GHG emission analysis if this carbon pool is already accounted for in the baseline set before removals occurred as part of site preparation. In scenarios where there is removal of woody biomass as part of site preparation, the performance baseline may be less than one in the early period of the Project, and therefore ineligible for crediting, until growth of the reforested area results in greater biomass than what was removed as part of project establishment. However, this would not be considered a reversal as long as i) the Project Proponent has provided documentation that biomass was removed as part of site preparation and ii) there is not a continued decrease in biomass once site preparation is complete.[math: \Delta C_{proxy} = C_{proxy}(t_2) - C_{proxy}(t_1)][math: CO_2e_{Counterfactual,RP} = CO_2e_{Stored,RP} \times \frac{\mu_{\Delta C_{proxy,project}} - \mu_{\Delta C_{proxy,difference}}}{\mu_{\Delta C_{proxy,project}}}][math: PB_{RP} = \frac{CO_2e_{Stored,\ RP}}{CO_2e_{Counterfactual,\ RP}}]
Isometric will account for uncertainty in the dynamic baseline to obtain a conservative estimate of [math: CO_{2}e_{Counterfactual,\ RP}] in Equation 18. At minimum, this will include an evaluation of the following sources of uncertainty:
At validation, Isometric will use the historical data across the control pixels used in the matching procedure (Section 9.4.3) 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 the preceding subsections of Section 9.4 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.
[math: CO_2e_{Emissions,\ RP}] is the total GHG emissions associated with a Reporting Period, RP. This can be calculated as:
(Equation 20) Where: The following sections set out specific quantification requirements for each term in Equation 20.[math: CO_2e_{Emissions,\ RP} = CO_2e_{Establishment,\ RP} + CO_2e_{Operations,\ RP} + CO_2e_{End-Of-Life,\ RP} + CO_2e_{Leakage,\ 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 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 (The term used to describe allocation of Project emissions to multiple Removals or Reductions.) are outlined in Section 7 of the GHG Accounting Module v1.01.
See Section 7 of the GHG Accounting Module
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 reforestation 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.
[math: CO_2e_{End-of-Life,\ RP}] includes all emissions associated with activities that are anticipated to occur after the Crediting Period until the end of the Project Commitment Period. This includes activities related to ongoing monitoring for Reversals.
[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.
[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 emissions 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 full in Section 8.3.2.4 and is not repeated here.
ProjectGHG Proponentsemissions accounting must usebe undertaken in alignment with 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 v1.01, which ensures a consistently rigorous standard in how GHG emissions are quantified and reported between different CDR Projects and approaches. This includes:
SeeRefer Section 3 of theto GHG Accounting Module for guidance on GHG accounting rules.
AnThe exampleEnergy isUse Accounting Module v1.3 provides requirements on how energy-related emissions relatedmust tobe plantcalculated nurseries.for The Project Proponentso shouldthat strivethey tocan obtainbe activity data such as electricity use and consumable use at plant nurseries where seedlings are sourced. If such data is not available, it is acceptable to use an industry average emission factor for tree seedling production. Suitable emission factor sources are describedsubtracted in relevantthe Modules,net asCO₂e setremoval outcalculation. below.
This sectionIt sets out specificthe requirementscalculation relatingapproach to quantificationbe offollowed energyfor useintensive asfacilities partand ofnon-intensive thefacilities GHGand Statement.acceptable Emissionsemission associated with energy usage result from the consumption of electricity or fuelfactors.
ExamplesEnergy ofemissions activitiesare thatthose mayrelated requireto electricity or fuel usage. They may include, but are not limited to:
TheRefer to Energy Use Accounting Module for guidance on fuel and energy calculation requirements.
The GHG Accounting Module v1.1.2 provides requirements on how energy-relatedtransportation and embodied emissions must be calculated for theThe Project so that they can be subtracted in the net CO2₂e removal calculation. It sets out the calculation approach to be followed for intensive facilities and non-intensive facilities and acceptable emission factors.
Refer to Energy Use Accounting Module for the calculation requirements.
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:
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.
Refer to Transportation Emissions Accounting Module for the calculation requirements.
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 manufacturelife cycle impact of equipment and materialsconsumables. usedThey in a process.
Examples of project-specific materials and equipment that must be considered as part of the embodied emission calculationmay include, but are not limited to:
TheTransportation Embodiedemissions Emissionsare Accountingthose Modulerelated 1to transportation of products and equipment.0 setsThey outmay include, but are not limited to:
Refer to EmbodiedSection Emissions4.1 and Section 4.2 of the GHG Accounting Module for theguidance calculationon requirements.embodied and transportation emissions calculations
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:
The storage reservoir of the CO2 removed through reforestation is live aboveground and belowground woody biomass. 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.
The durability of a Credit is equal to the length of the Ongoing Monitoring Period as outlined in Section 5.4. The minimum duration of the Ongoing Monitoring Period, and therefore minimum durability of Credits issued under this Protocol, is 40 years.
The duration of the Ongoing Monitoring Period must not exceed any of the following:
Reversal risks which may threaten the durability of forest carbon and project-level risk assessment and mitigation requirements are discussed in Section 10.2 and Section 10.3, respectively.
A forestry-wide Buffer Pool managed by Isometric is used to insure Credits against Reversals. Throughout the Ongoing Monitoring Period, Isometric will monitor for Reversals to ensure Credits achieve their stated durability. Upon detection and quantification of carbon losses (for open systems, biogeochemical and/or physical interactions which occur during the removal process that decrease the CO₂ removal .), Credits issued to the Buffer Pool will be canceled in equal proportion to the loss (see Sections 10.4: Buffer Pool and 10.5: Ongoing Monitoring for Reversals).
A long-term durability plan to continue maintenance of forest carbon beyond the Project Commitment Period is needed to mitigate risk of timber harvest or Reversal after the Project ends (see Section 5.5: Post-Project Commitment Period). The long term durability plan may consist of evidence of the following, and ideally a combination of factors:
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, deforestation, and timber harvesting. 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:
Project-related factors:
Furthermore, the risk profile of the Project may change over the Project Commitment Period due to:
ProjectsThe must complete Isometric’s Reforestation Risk Assessment in Appendix E, which is independently evaluated by a third-party VVB. The Reforestation Risk Assessment is used to determine the risk profile of the Project, including risks to Credit delivery (The outcome of a Project Proponent providing Credits to fulfill Buyers' purchases.) 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 Reforestation Risk Assessment must be updated each Reporting Period by the Project Proponent and increased risk scores will result in additional mitigation activities.
Projects must complete Isometric’s Reforestation Risk Assessment in Appendix E, which is independently evaluated by a third-party VVB.
[/R-NRG5-0]Mandatory Safeguards
The following safeguards are required for all reforestation projects and must be in place at the start of the Project and maintained throughout the Project Commitment Period.
The Project Proponent must:
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 Thethe 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 Reforestation Risk Assessment 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:
The Buffer Pool contribution will be held in a forestry-wide Buffer Pool managed by Isometric. Pooling of a diversified portfolio of forestry projects across geographic regions, spatial scales and temporal scales can reduce the exposure to systemic risks stemming from forestry projects constrained to a geographic area or ecological type4439, 4540, 3631. The forestry-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.
For more details on Reversals, refer to Sections 2.5.9 and 5.6 of the Isometric Standard.
Isometric will independently conduct continuous monitoring for Reversals for the full length of the Project Commitment Period. Monitoring will consist of:
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.
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) must be reported, investigated, and compensated for.
Upon detection of a loss event by Isometric or other third party, the following procedures will commence:
Quantification of Reversals are calculated by determining 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 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.
The method for quantifying Reversals is subject to the following limitations, and will be updated with developing science:
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 to quantify the remaining stocks of forest carbon stored in live woody biomass.
All pre-deployment requirements must be described in the PDD, as outlined in Section 7.1. The requirements are assummarized follows:across the following categories.
Description of the Project site, including:
[R-PT13-0, Projects must describe the project timeline, including the duration of the Crediting Period and the frequency of Reporting Periods]Description of project timeline, including[/R-PT13-0]:
Description of planned reforestation activities, including:
[/R-RHJX-0]Documentation of any pre-Validation activities, including:
Description of leakage assessment and leakage mitigation plan, including:
A shapefile indicating activity displacement areas;
Description of monitoring activities, including:
Risk of Reversal plan, including:
This Protocol requires a combination of in situ and remotely-sensed monitoring for the following purposes:
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:
Project Proponent owns and provides in monitoring reports:
This Protocol refers to monitoring at multiple different locations, which are illustrated in an example in Figure 3.
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 and Leakage Monitoring Zone.
[Image: **Figure 3** Monitoring locations]
Figure 3. Schematic of the various monitoring locations referred to throughout this Protocol.
The entire project area in Figure 3 must be monitored for the duration of the Project Commitment Period (see Section 5.1).
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 will handle all aspects of the dynamic baseline assessment. Project Proponents are responsible for monitoring conducted within the Project Area that is required for the selected AGB quantification method (see Section 9.3.2).
After the Crediting Period, ongoing monitoring of forest biomass (e.g., forest cover or saturation index) must continue annually until the end of the Project Commitment Period for detection of Reversals (see Section 10.5). Isometric will ensure independent ongoing monitoring for Reversals until the end of the Project Commitment Period.
Control pixels are used to assess natural regeneration in similar land areas outside the project area to determine the additional carbon storage of a reforestation 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 9.4.3).
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).
For projects without sufficient activity-shifting leakage mitigation, the Leakage Monitoring Zone must be monitored using satellite imagery for the duration of the Crediting Period to detect deforestation near the project area. Annual monitoring of forest cover over time is used to calculate deforestation rates over time. See Section 8.3.6 for more details on how leakage monitoring is used. Isometric is responsible for conducting any required leakage monitoring.
Airborne laser scanning measurements are only applicable for projects that wish to use regional LiDAR models to estimate AGB (details described in corresponding Module). ALS 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, or are used for benchmarking regional or global 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 within the in situ field plot.
During the first few years after planting seedlings, there may not be many trees with DBH > 10 cm. However, it is still important to monitor field plots during this time as young forests are particularly vulnerable to disease, ecological hazards, and may experience high rates of mortality. In addition, techniques to quantify forest biomass tend to overestimate in young forests. Between project initiation and first Verification (see Section 5), it is recommended to monitor for early tree mortality every 6 months to better constrain early stage growth as well as inform any mortality mitigation activities (e.g., replanting trees).
Table 2 Summary of the required and recommended monitoring parameters.
Frequency | Location | Parameter | Methods | Justification | Recommended or Required | Responsible party |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
From initial planting to first Verification, recommended every 6 months | In-situ field plots | Tree mortality | Mortality survey, or high resolution drone imagery | Estimations of forest biomass may be highly uncertain during the initial years after tree planting due to high rates of tree mortality and biases in young forests. Surveys for early tree mortality can better constrain early stage biomass growth, and enable mortality mitigation activities | Recommended | Project Proponent |
At the start and end of each Reporting Period for Area-Based AGB Quantification (see Module for details). Otherwise, at least every 5 years. | In situ field plots | DBH for all trees larger than 10 cm diameter | Tape measure | Fundamental measurement estimating AGB using allometric equations | Required | Project Proponent |
At the start and end of each Reporting Period for Area-Based AGB Quantification (see Module for details). Otherwise, at least every 5 years. | In situ field plots | Tree species | Ecologist identification | Necessary for selecting species-specific allometric equations and parameters | Required | Project Proponent |
At the start and end of each Reporting Period, e.g., once a year in the same season | Laser scanning plots | 3D Point clouds and derived metrics (e.g., canopy height) | Laser scanning instruments mounted on aerial | To derive estimates of forest aboveground biomass | Required when LiDAR quantification Module selected, otherwise not applicable | Project Proponent |
At the start and end of each Reporting Period, e.g., once a year in the same season | Project area | AGB Map | Satellite data or third-party mapped product | To derive estimates of forest aboveground biomass | Required when global AGB map quantification Module selected, otherwise not applicable | Isometric or a third party |
At the start and end of each Reporting Period, e.g., once a year in the same season | Control pixels & project area | Forest carbon proxy (e.g, canopy height, biomass saturation index) | Satellite data or third-party mapped product | To quantify relative change in forest carbon sequestration between control pixels and project area (Equation 17) | Required | Isometric or a third party |
At the start and end of each Reporting Period, e.g., once a year in the same season | Leakage buffer zone | Indicators of deforestation | Satellite | To identify any activity-shifting leakage that should be taken into account for the net carbon removal calculation (Equation 9) | Required | Isometric or a third party |
From the end of the Crediting Period to the end of the Project Commitment Period, annually | Project area | Indicators of deforestation | Satellite | To identify Reversals and appropriately remediate through the Buffer Pool | Required | Isometric or a third party |
Isometric has carried out a literature review of [math: ε_s] and [math: ε_d] values to inform [math: IS], as well as values for [math: NL] for certain regions. Where The Project falls into these regions, the default values provided must be used, unless suitable alternative values are approved by Isometric. This is because understanding which values to use from literature is challenging as academic papers are typically not written with this purpose or audience in mind. Isometric has completed this work for certain regions to lessen this complexity and provide consistency across projects.
These default values also serve as an example of appropriate values to select, however it should be noted that the quality of research differs across regions.
The following sections set out the procedure to be followed to obtain [math: IS] and [math: NL] values and set out the default values to be used for the regions studied.
The regions considered in the literature review were:
These regions were selected following a review of projected project demand. Isometric will update this analysis with additional regions iteratively based on demand. Values for other regions will be reviewed by Isometric on a case by case basis.
IS represents the amount of production that is diverted to other locations. The IS value does not provide any information on where or in what manner that production is produced.
Procedure for determining [math: IS] values:
Where possible:
Table A1.[math: IS] default values.
Geography | Crop | εdc | εsc | IS | Key citation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Global | Calories (rice, wheat, corn, soy) | -0.05 | 0.12 | 0.70 | Roberts and Schlenker (2013) |
Global | Coffee | -0.305 | 0.285 | 0.48 | Akiyama and Varangis (1990) |
Global | Cocoa | -0.075 | 0.075 | 0.50 | |
South America | Livestock | -0.40 | 0.4 | 0.5 | Fragoso et al. (2011) |
North America | Livestock | -0.40 | 1.6 | 0.80 |
Procedure for determining [math: NL] values:
In an ideal world, there would be estimates of the specific types of land use that were converted and their locations. However, this data is not available. Instead, the Project Proponent should focus on the most important elements of potential land use change from a carbon emissions perspective. NL values proposed aim to capture the net effect of a one unit removal of crop area on forestland conversion. These NL values will be smaller in magnitude than NL values that incorporate the possibility of conversion of grazing land or the conversion of lower-value crops to higher-value crops. Focusing on forests is more tractable and likely provides a large share of the relevant land use change emissions, since forest conversion is relatively permanent in a way that livestock to cropland conversion is not. In general, the NL values are more speculative than the IS values and often rely on assumptions about the yield-price elasticity that have not been empirically confirmed.
There are possible methodologies for obtaining [math: NL] values, which are set out here. Method B is in most cases the preferred approach. This is because the necessary conditions to implement Method A (limited trade/ disconnected markets and demand driven quantity increase) are rarely met in practice. Method A should only be used in special cases and justified appropriately. Both methods are set out below:
(Equation A1) Where: [math: x] is variable under the assumption that changes to supply are predominantly channeled through price changes By dividing the numerator and denominator, the above equation can be reformulated as: (Equation A2) Where: The following default values have been gathered using Method B. Table A2.[math: NL] default values. Geography Crop NL Key citation Brazil cropland 0.61 Pendrill et al (2019) US cropland 0.28 Lark et al (2022) Mexico cropland N/A Can use Brazil value Panama cropland N/A Can use Brazil value Brazil livestock 0.83 Bowman (2012) US livestock 0.20 Wu (2000) Mexico livestock N/A Can use Brazil value Panama livestock N/A Can use Brazil value Global coffee 0.60 Report: “60% of land suitable for coffee is forested” Global other specialty crops N/A See: global coffee value[math: NL = \frac{{Gross\: new\: production\:}_x}{{Gross\: new\: production\:}_x +\ {\Delta \ Average\: yield \:}_x\: +\ Total\: land \:area}]5348.[math: NL = \frac{{\Delta \ Area\:}_x}{{\Delta \ Area\:}_x +\ {\Delta \ Yield \:}_x\:}]54495550565157525853
When assessing the net climate impact (NCI) within the Project Area using the data from Hasler et al. (2024)9, the threshold for determining whether an area is net climate negative should use the biome-specific uncertainty values shown in Table B1 which are derived from Table S2 of the study. The uncertainty value for a given biome is taken from the range of values yielded from different parameterizations used in the study. Areas will be considered to be net climate negative, and therefore ineligible for planting, when their NCI Density value plus biome specific uncertainty is less than zero. For example, for temperate broadleaf and mixed forests, any areas with NCI densities less than -31 Mg [math: CO_{2}e] ha[math: ^{-1}] will be considered net climate negative.
Table B1. Net Climate Impact (NCI) Density [Mg [math: CO_{2}e] ha[math: ^{-1}]] Biome-Specific Uncertainty.
Biome | Mean NCI Density | Min NCI Density | Max NCI Density | Uncertainty (+/-) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Tundra | -110 | -190 | -41 | 74.5 |
Boreal Forests/Taiga | 42 | 0 | 85 | 42.5 |
Temperate Grasslands, Savannas & Shrublands | -98 | -138 | -56 | 41 |
Mediterranean Forests, Woodlands & Scrub | -92 | -135 | -65 | 35 |
Temperate Conifer Forests | 156 | 110 | 196 | 43 |
Temperate Broadleaf & Mixed Forests | 182 | 147 | 209 | 31 |
Tropical & Subtropical Grasslands, Savannas, & Shrublands | 39 | -15 | 70 | 42.5 |
Tropical & Subtropical Coniferous Forests | 250 | 235 | 260 | 12.5 |
Tropical & Subtropical Dry Broadleaf Forests | 203 | 179 | 216 | 18.5 |
Tropical & Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forests | 598 | 588 | 605 | 8.5 |
Mangroves | 527 | 519 | 532 | 6.5 |
Flooded Grasslands & Savannas | 91 | 65 | 108 | 21.5 |
Montane Grasslands and Shrublands | -233 | -315 | -188 | 63.5 |
Deserts & Xeric Shrublands | -205 | -250 | -171 | 39.5 |
Globally | 120 | 80 | 150 | 35 |
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:
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 States5954 and the coefficients are given in the supplementary materials.
Furthermore, Allometric is an R package that curates allometric equations and facilitates their usage.
Additionality
Approved Resources and Third-Party Datasets
Albedo
Baseline
Buffer Pool Contribution
Insurance
Quantification with LiDAR
Leakage
Leakage Mitigation
Stakeholder Engagement
Uncertainty
Emergency Response
The Reforestation Risk Assessment is used to assess the overall delivery and storage risk associated with reforestation and may inform the Buffer Pool contribution during Credit delivery (see Section 10.4). The assessment must first be filled in by the Project Proponent and must be validated by a VVB. During project Validation, discrepancies between the Project Proponent’s self reported score and VVB may result in monitoring or risk mitigation activities, or project ineligibility. Eligible projects must have an initial risk score ≤ 20 and initial risk category scores at or below the following thresholds:
All risk categories shall have a minimum score of 0, regardless of the outcome of the Reforestation Risk Assessment.
If Project Proponents choose to forgo a flat 20% Buffer Pool contribution (see Section 10.4.1), the Reforestation Risk Assessment will inform Buffer Pool contributions for the Project according to the process outlined in Appendix G for each Reporting Period and in accordance with the requirements in Section 10.3.
Table E1. Reforestation Risk Assessment, with the score to be filled out for each question.
Risk Category | Risk Indicator | Evidence | Scoring Guidelines | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Project Proponent Capacity Risk | Does the Project Proponent maintain staff with domain expertise relevant for forest carbon projects? (e.g., forest ecology, forest measurement, carbon accounting) | Project’s team structure | If no, describe how gaps in relevant expertise will be filled, +1. | |
Does the Project Proponent maintain a staff presence in the local vicinity (within one day of travel) of the Project site? | Project’s team structure | If no, +2. | ||
Was the Project Proponent established more than 12 months ago? | Project Proponent declaration | If no, +1. | ||
Does the Project Proponent have prior experience in ecosystem restoration, carbon projects or planting? | Review of Project Proponent provided evidence and independent research | If yes, -1. | ||
Has the Project Proponent abandoned or failed previous projects? | Review of projects on other registries | If yes, +3. | ||
What proportion of the project area requires active enforcement against external threats (e.g., illegal logging, agricultural encroachment, unauthorized grazing) to protect carbon stocks? | Peer-reviewed publications, local or national government databases, NGO reports and assessments, site security assessment, satellite data, data on enforcement from other reforestation projects in the same region, local or national reports on environmental crimes or violations |
| ||
Financial Viability Risk | Has the Project secured funding to cover all activities required before carbon revenue accrues? | Project financial plan |
| |
What is the projected time to reach financial breakeven? | Project financial plan |
| ||
Is the budget reasonable given the proposed project activities and ex-ante estimates for forest growth? | Project financial plan | If no, +2. | ||
Does the Project financial plan demonstrate sufficient cash flow throughout the Ongoing Monitoring Period to maintain forest carbon stocks? | Project financial plan | If continued financial incentive is low compared to likely opportunity cost of harvest, +2. | ||
Does the Project financial plan rely on future increases in market price for Carbon Credits? | Project financial plan | If yes, +1. | ||
Social Governance Risk | Are there currently or have there been disputes over land ownership over the last 20 years? | Jurisdictional history | If yes, +2. | |
Does the government have a history within the past 50 years of revoking legal agreements regarding land ownership, access, and usage? | Jurisdictional history | If yes, +2. | ||
Does the Project host country score below the 40th percentile on 3+ of the Worldwide Governance Indicators over the last 10 years? | If yes, +2. | |||
Does the government have an NDC in place that addresses corresponding adjustments/prevents double-counting of project Credits and NDC contributions? | National registries | If no, +1. | ||
Does the Project have a detailed benefit-sharing plan that includes: clear distribution mechanisms, transparent criteria for beneficiary selection, a grievance resolution process, monitoring and reporting procedures? | Project financial plan |
| ||
Does the Project Proponent have a presence on human rights, environmental or labor infraction lists? | National registries | If yes, fail. | ||
Does the Project Proponent have ongoing legal disputes? | National registries | If yes, +1. | ||
Does the Project Proponent have a presence in negative press content? | Online search | If yes, +1. | ||
Have projects on Indigenous or Community Lands been identified? | Cross reference project documentation with Global Forest Watch | If no, fail. | ||
Are baseline activities primarily subsistence-driven? | Land use documentation, Socioeconomic surveys |
| ||
(a) Are there anticipated or demonstrated net positive community impacts? | Community impact assessment, project financial plan, socio-economic surveys | If no, +2. | ||
(b) What is the net present value (NPV) of alternative land use compared to project NPV? | NPV analysis comparing alternative uses to project activities over Crediting Period, price forecasts, discount rate justification |
| ||
Are opportunity cost risk mitigations in place? | Legal agreements protecting carbon stocks, Non-profit status documentation, grant/funding agreements |
| ||
Disturbance Risk | Fire risk | Mean daily Global Fire Weather Index over the prior two years |
| |
Pest and disease outbreak risk | Regional third-party maps, if available. |
| ||
Extreme weather (temperature - heat and cold) | IPCC AR6 |
| ||
Extreme weather (hydrologic - flood and drought) | IPCC AR6 |
| ||
Coastal risks (sea level rise, storm surge, tropical cyclones, salinity intrusion) | Regional third-party maps, if available. |
| ||
Geologic risks (earthquakes, tsunami, volcanoes) | If historical hazards in area, +1. | |||
Illegal timber risk |
| |||
Surrounding anthropogenic activities pose environmental risk (e.g., toxic pollution, industrial farming, new developments etc.) | Satellite imagery, site visit | If yes, +1. | ||
Ecological Resilience | Project Design Document |
|
The following section outlines how Isometric calculates the indicator scores for climate-related extreme weather disturbance risks to carbon permanence within a project’s region (Figure F1). Project Proponents should use Table F1 to lookup the Isometric-calculated values for their project's region and include those scores in their Reforestation Risk Assessment (see Appendix E).
Extreme weather risks are assessed via two indicators: a temperature indicator (extreme heat and/or cold) and a hydrologic indicator (flooding and/or drought). Each indicator includes both historical data (1961-2015) and projected future extreme events. Historical data indicate the likelihood of extreme events based on past climate patterns, e.g., projects in regions with extended dry periods are expected to experience increased water stress as part of their typical climate. Climate model projections describe how changing climate conditions, relative to historical patterns, might present an increased risk of disturbances. Areas where there is a larger shift towards extreme conditions under future climate relative to their historical baseline have a greater disturbance risk (e.g., drier conditions relative to historical averages increases risk for drought-driven mortality).
To calculate the scores in Table F1, Isometric uses values from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change AR6 report2759. The temperature indicator is calculated using data describing the annual number of frost days ([math: FD], minimum temperature below 0°C) and annual number of days with a maximum temperature above 40°C ([math: TX_{40}]) to capture extreme cold and extreme heat risks, respectively. The hydrologic indicator is calculated using data describing the maximum 5-day precipitation ([math: RX_{5Day}]) and annual maximum number of consecutive dry days ([math: CDD]) to capture risks of flooding and drought, respectively. All values come from the CMIP6 climate models. Future projections use the SSP2-4.5 medium term (2041-2060) scenario and are assessed as the change in value relative to a historical baseline (1961-1990).
For each indicator subcomponent, the region’s terrestrial median value is compared with the global terrestrial distribution of the same variable (Table F2). To convert the regional value into a subscore, regional values below the global 50thth percentile are considered Low Risk, regional values equal to or greater than the global 50th percentile but below the 75th percentile are Medium Risk, and any regional values equal to or greater than the global 75th percentile are High Risk. Low Risks are given a subscore of 0, Medium Risks are 0.25, and High Risks are 0.5. The overall score for each of the indicators is calculated by summing the corresponding subscores, as described below:
[math: Indicator_{Temperature} = Historical_{TX_{40}} + Future_{TX_{40}} + Historical_{FD}]
[math: Indicator_{Hydrological} = Historical_{CDD} + Future_{CDD} + Historical_{RX_{5Day}} + Future_{RX_{5Day}}]
Projected change in the number of frost days is not included as a subcomponent since it is projected that they will decline under future climate across the globe, representing a low risk of future extreme cold events.
[Image: Map of IPCC regional codes]
Figure F1. Map and lookup table for IPCC regional codes
Table F1. Regional Lookup Table of Disturbance Risk
Region | Indicator | Variable | Time | Value | Risk | Score | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NW North America (NWN) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 224.2 | High | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 0 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 23.5 | Low | 0 | 0.5 | |
Change (Days) | -1.4 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 54.4 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (%) | 11.9 | High | 0.5 | ||||
NE North America (NEN) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 242.9 | High | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 0 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 25.1 | Low | 0 | 0.5 | |
Change (Days) | -2.7 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 50.6 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (%) | 11.8 | High | 0.5 | ||||
Western North America (WNA) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 128.4 | High | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0.9 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 2 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 40.6 | Low | 0 | 0 | |
Change (Days) | -0.2 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 67.3 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (%) | 5.5 | Low | 0 | ||||
Central North America (CNA) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 104.9 | High | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 4.7 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 8.9 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 23.7 | Low | 0 | 0.25 | |
Change (Days) | -0.4 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 84.3 | Medium | 0.25 | |||
Change (%) | 6.7 | Low | 0 | ||||
Eastern North America (ENA) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 116 | High | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0.1 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 0.6 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 15.5 | Low | 0 | 0.75 | |
Change (Days) | -0.3 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 89.4 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 9 | Medium | 0.25 | ||||
Northern Central America (NCA) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 15.9 | Low | 0 | 0 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 4.7 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 8.7 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 51.6 | Low | 0 | 0.5 | |
Change (Days) | -0.2 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 92.9 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 6 | Low | 0 | ||||
Southern Central America (SCA) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 0.1 | Low | 0 | 0 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0.5 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 1.7 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 39.7 | Low | 0 | 0.5 | |
Change (Days) | -1.6 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 134.3 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 4.3 | Low | 0 | ||||
Caribbean (CAR) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | 0 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 0 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 24.3 | Low | 0 | 0.5 | |
Change (Days) | 0.1 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 99.9 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 0.8 | Low | 0 | ||||
NW South America (NWS) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 0.6 | Low | 0 | 0 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0.1 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 0.8 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 28.6 | Low | 0 | 0.5 | |
Change (Days) | -0.2 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 133 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 7.5 | Low | 0 | ||||
Northern South America (NSA) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | 0 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0.5 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 9.4 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 46.7 | Low | 0 | 1 | |
Change (Days) | 9.7 | High | 0.5 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 111.6 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 5.5 | Low | 0 | ||||
NE South America (NES) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | 0 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0.3 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 4.4 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 95 | High | 0.5 | 1.5 | |
Change (Days) | 6.3 | High | 0.5 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 144.3 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 5.7 | Low | 0 | ||||
South America-Monsoon (SAM) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 7.5 | Low | 0 | 0.25 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 2.2 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 11.5 | Medium | 0.25 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 64.8 | Medium | 0.25 | 1.25 | |
Change (Days) | 13.7 | High | 0.5 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 133.7 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 6 | Low | 0 | ||||
SW South America (SWS) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 35.8 | Low | 0 | 0 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 0 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 65.9 | Medium | 0.25 | 0.5 | |
Change (Days) | -4.2 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 83 | Medium | 0.25 | |||
Change (%) | -0.9 | Low | 0 | ||||
SE South America (SES) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 16.6 | Low | 0 | 0 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 2.8 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 5.5 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 36.3 | Low | 0 | 0.75 | |
Change (Days) | 0.4 | Medium | 0.25 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 105.1 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 8.4 | Low | 0 | ||||
Southern South America (SSA) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 75.4 | Low | 0 | 0 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 0.1 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 20.5 | Low | 0 | 0.5 | |
Change (Days) | 1.6 | High | 0.5 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 57.5 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (%) | 3.4 | Low | 0 | ||||
Northern Europe (NEU) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 150.3 | High | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 0 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 18.5 | Low | 0 | 0.25 | |
Change (Days) | 0 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 52.8 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (%) | 10 | Medium | 0.25 | ||||
Western & Central Europe (WCE) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 109.7 | High | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0.1 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 0.7 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 22.8 | Low | 0 | 0.5 | |
Change (Days) | 1.3 | High | 0.5 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 55 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (%) | 8.5 | Low | 0 | ||||
Eastern Europe (EEU) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 171.4 | High | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 1 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 2.7 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 27.6 | Low | 0 | 0.5 | |
Change (Days) | 1.1 | Medium | 0.25 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 42.9 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (%) | 10 | Medium | 0.25 | ||||
Mediterranean (MED) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 27.6 | Low | 0 | 0.25 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 6 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 11.8 | Medium | 0.25 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 75 | High | 0.5 | 1 | |
Change (Days) | 6.7 | High | 0.5 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 49.5 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (%) | 3.9 | Low | 0 | ||||
Western Africa (WAF) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | 1 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 24 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (Days) | 26.4 | High | 0.5 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 83.5 | High | 0.5 | 1.25 | |
Change (Days) | -0.4 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 85.2 | Medium | 0.25 | |||
Change (%) | 19.6 | High | 0.5 | ||||
Central Africa (CAF) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | 0.25 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 11.1 | Medium | 0.25 | |||
Change (Days) | 9.2 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 61.8 | Low | 0 | 0.75 | |
Change (Days) | -0.1 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 84.4 | Medium | 0.25 | |||
Change (%) | 14.9 | High | 0.5 | ||||
North Eastern Africa (NEAF) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | 1 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 16.1 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (Days) | 15.4 | High | 0.5 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 80.4 | High | 0.5 | 1 | |
Change (Days) | -2.1 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 64.6 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (%) | 15.4 | High | 0.5 | ||||
South Eastern Africa (SEAF) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | 0 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 0.3 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 78.5 | High | 0.5 | 1.5 | |
Change (Days) | 0.4 | Medium | 0.25 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 91.9 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 9.7 | Medium | 0.25 | ||||
West Southern Africa (WSAF) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 1.2 | Low | 0 | 0 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0.1 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 3 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 108.7 | High | 0.5 | 1.5 | |
Change (Days) | 10.5 | High | 0.5 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 87.6 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 2 | Low | 0 | ||||
East Southern Africa (ESAF) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 2.7 | Low | 0 | 0 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0.7 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 2.8 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 68.7 | Medium | 0.25 | 1.25 | |
Change (Days) | 4.3 | High | 0.5 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 127.5 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 6 | Low | 0 | ||||
Madagascar (MDG) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | 0 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 0.2 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 46.7 | Low | 0 | 0.5 | |
Change (Days) | -1.2 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 175.7 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 5.8 | Low | 0 | ||||
Russian-Arctic (RAR) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 271.3 | High | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 0 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 31.5 | Low | 0 | 0.5 | |
Change (Days) | -4.3 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 39.7 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (%) | 16.7 | High | 0.5 | ||||
West Siberia (WSB) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 203.1 | High | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0.7 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 2 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 31.4 | Low | 0 | 0.25 | |
Change (Days) | -0.4 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 37.5 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (%) | 10.8 | Medium | 0.25 | ||||
East Siberia (ESB) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 233.9 | High | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 0.1 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 34.1 | Low | 0 | 0.25 | |
Change (Days) | -3.7 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 54.5 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (%) | 11.5 | Medium | 0.25 | ||||
Russian-Far-East (RFE) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 238.1 | High | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 0 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 28.8 | Low | 0 | 0.5 | |
Change (Days) | -3.2 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 65.1 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (%) | 14.4 | High | 0.5 | ||||
West Central Asia (WCA) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 95.8 | High | 0.5 | 1.5 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 22 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (Days) | 17.5 | High | 0.5 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 113.6 | High | 0.5 | 0.75 | |
Change (Days) | -0.3 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 42.5 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (%) | 10 | Medium | 0.25 | ||||
East Central Asia (ECA) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 195.6 | High | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0.5 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 2.5 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 75.1 | High | 0.5 | 1 | |
Change (Days) | -6.2 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 30.5 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (%) | 12.9 | High | 0.5 | ||||
Tibetan-Plateau (TIB) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 258.6 | High | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 1.6 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 0.4 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 42.3 | Low | 0 | 0.75 | |
Change (Days) | -2.6 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 80.9 | Medium | 0.25 | |||
Change (%) | 11.6 | High | 0.5 | ||||
East Asia (EAS) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 91.7 | Medium | 0.25 | 0.25 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0.3 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 0.7 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 29.1 | Low | 0 | 0.75 | |
Change (Days) | 0.1 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 132 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 9.6 | Medium | 0.25 | ||||
South Asia (SAS) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 7.9 | Low | 0 | 1 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 33.1 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (Days) | 14.5 | High | 0.5 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 93.9 | High | 0.5 | 1.5 | |
Change (Days) | -3.3 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 132.2 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 12 | High | 0.5 | ||||
Southeast Asia (SEA) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | 0 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0.3 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 1.1 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 26.8 | Low | 0 | 0.75 | |
Change (Days) | 0.8 | Medium | 0.25 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 168.4 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 7.3 | Low | 0 | ||||
Northern Australia (NAU) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | 0.75 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 11.8 | Medium | 0.25 | |||
Change (Days) | 20.4 | High | 0.5 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 95.7 | High | 0.5 | 1.25 | |
Change (Days) | 0.7 | Medium | 0.25 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 163.7 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 7.7 | Low | 0 | ||||
Central Australia (CAU) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 0.1 | Low | 0 | 1 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 27.8 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (Days) | 75.8 | High | 0.5 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 27.3 | Low | 0 | 1 | |
Change (Days) | 3.5 | High | 0.5 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 86.5 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 4.7 | Low | 0 | ||||
Eastern Australia (AU) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 1.4 | Low | 0 | 0 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 2.7 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 4.2 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 35.8 | Low | 0 | 0.5 | |
Change (Days) | -0.5 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 120.6 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 5.6 | Low | 0 | ||||
Southern Australia (SAU) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 1.3 | Low | 0 | 0 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 7.1 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 6.9 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 40.2 | Low | 0 | 0.5 | |
Change (Days) | 2 | High | 0.5 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 60.3 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (%) | 2.8 | Low | 0 | ||||
New Zealand (NZ) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 5.9 | Low | 0 | 0 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 0 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 13.8 | Low | 0 | 0.75 | |
Change (Days) | 0.5 | Medium | 0.25 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 92.3 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 5.6 | Low | 0 | ||||
South Pacific Ocean (SPO) | Temperature | Frost Days | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | 0 |
Days > 40°C | Historical | 0 | Low | 0 | |||
Change (Days) | 0 | Low | 0 | ||||
Hydrological | CDD | Historical | 19.4 | Low | 0 | 0.5 | |
Change (Days) | -0.5 | Low | 0 | ||||
5-Day Precip | Historical | 183.3 | High | 0.5 | |||
Change (%) | 3.8 | Low | 0 |
Table F2. Global Benchmark Values for Extreme Weather Risks.
Time Frame | Variable | Median | 75th % | 90th % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Historical | Frost Days | 89.8 | 94.1 | 97.5 |
Days Max Temp > 40°C | 9.9 | 15.1 | 21.9 | |
Consecutive Dry Days | 63.7 | 71 | 76.2 | |
Maximum 5-day Precipitation (mm) | 79.5 | 86 | 90.4 | |
Projected Future | Frost Days | |||
Days Max Temp > 40°C | 9.9 | 11.8 | 14.6 | |
Consecutive Dry Days | 0.3 | 1.1 | 1.8 | |
Maximum 5-day Precipitation (%) | 8.9 | 11.5 | 14.1 |
By default, Projects are subject to a flat 20% Buffer Pool contribution as outlined in Section 10.4.1. Project Proponents may opt to calculate a project-specific Buffer Pool contribution based on the outputs of their Reforestation Risk Assessment for each Reporting Period.
The following steps are used to convert the outputs of the Reforestation Risk Assessment into a Buffer Pool contribution:
Table G1. Risk score to Buffer Pool contribution conversion for each risk category.
Risk Category | Cumulative Risk Score | Buffer Pool Contribution |
|---|---|---|
Project Proponent Capacity Risk | 0 | 2.5% |
1 | 2.6% | |
2 | 3.1% | |
3 | 4.8% | |
4 | 7.7% | |
5 | 9.4% | |
6 | 9.9% | |
7 | 10.0% | |
Financial Viability Risk | 0 | 2.5% |
1 | 2.6% | |
2 | 2.9% | |
3 | 3.9% | |
4 | 6.3% | |
5 | 8.6% | |
6 | 9.6% | |
7 | 9.9% | |
8 | 10.0% | |
Social Governance Risk | 0 | 2.5% |
1 | 2.6% | |
2 | 2.7% | |
3 | 3.1% | |
4 | 3.9% | |
5 | 5.3% | |
6 | 7.2% | |
7 | 8.6% | |
8 | 9.4% | |
9 | 9.8% | |
10 | 9.9% | |
11 | 10.0% | |
Disturbance Risk | 0 | 2.5% |
0.25 | 2.5% | |
0.5 | 2.6% | |
0.75 | 2.6% | |
1 | 2.6% | |
1.25 | 2.6% | |
1.5 | 2.6% | |
1.75 | 2.7% | |
2 | 2.7% | |
2.25 | 2.7% | |
2.5 | 2.8% | |
2.75 | 2.9% | |
3 | 3.0% | |
3.25 | 3.1% | |
3.5 | 3.2% | |
3.75 | 3.4% | |
4 | 3.5% | |
4.25 | 3.5% | |
4.5 | 4.0% | |
4.75 | 4.3% | |
5 | 4.7% | |
5.25 | 5.0% | |
5.5 | 5.4% | |
5.75 | 5.8% | |
6 | 6.3% | |
6.25 | 6.7% | |
6.5 | 7.1% | |
6.75 | 7.5% | |
7 | 7.8% | |
7.25 | 8.2% | |
7.5 | 8.5% | |
7.75 | 8.7% | |
8 | 9.0% | |
8.25 | 9.1% | |
8.5 | 9.3% | |
8.75 | 9.4% | |
9 | 9.5% | |
9.25 | 9.6% | |
9.5 | 9.7% | |
9.75 | 9.8% | |
10 | 9.8% | |
10.25 | 9.8% | |
10.5 | 9.9% | |
10.75 | 9.9% | |
11 | 9.9% | |
11.25 | 9.9% | |
11.5 | 9.9% | |
11.75 | 10.0% | |
12 | 10.0% |
The Buffer Pool contribution for each risk category is determined using a sigmoid function described by Equation G1. The Buffer Pool contribution for each risk category ranges from 2.5% to 10%.
(Equation G1) Where: The sigmoid function, Equation G1, applied to each risk category can also be visualized in Figure G1. [Image: Figure G1. Buffer Pool contribution based on risk score for each risk category.[math: BP_{risk} = \frac{L}{1 + e^{-k(x - x_0)}} + 2.5]**Figure G1** Buffer Pool contribution based on risk score for each risk category.]
The Project has completed the Reforestation Risk Assessment and obtained the following risk scores in a Reporting Period:
Mapping these risk scores to Table G1, the total Buffer Pool contribution for the Project is:
4.1% + 6.2% + 4.0% + 3.9% = 18.2%
Isometric would like to thank following contributors to this Protocol:
Isometric would like to thank following reviewers of this Protocol:
van Diemen, R., Matthews, J. B. R., Möller, V., Fuglestvedt, J. S., Masson-Delmotte, V., Méndez, C., Reisinger, A., & Semenov, S. (Eds.). (2022). Annex I: Glossary. In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, & J. Malley (Eds.), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.020↩
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↩
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↩
Bastin, J. F., Finegold, Y., Garcia, C., Mollicone, D., Rezende, M., Routh, D., ... & Crowther, T. W. (2019). The global tree restoration potential. Science, 365(6448), 76-79. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0848↩
Tierney, G. L., Faber-Langendoen, D., Mitchell, B. R., Shriver, W. G., & Gibbs, J. P. (2009). Monitoring and evaluating the ecological integrity of forest ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(6), 308-316. https://doi.org/10.1890/070176↩
FAO (2000). On Definitions of Forest and Forest Change. Forest Resources Assessment Programme, Working Paper 33, Rome. ↩
Walker, W. S., Gorelik, S. R., Cook-Patton, S. C., Baccini, A., Farina, M. K., Solvik, K. K., Ellis, P.W., Sanderman, J., Houghton, R.A., Leavitt, S.M., Schwalm, C.R., & Griscom, B. W. (2022). The global potential for increased storage of carbon on land. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(23), e2111312119. ↩
Roebroek, C. T., Caporaso, L., Duveiller, G., Davin, E. L., Seneviratne, S. I., & Cescatti, A. (2025). Potential tree cover under current and future climate scenarios. Scientific Data, 12(1), 564. ↩
Hasler, N., Williams, C. A., Denney, V. C., Ellis, P. W., Shrestha, S., Terasaki Hart, D. E., ... & Cook-Patton, S. C. (2024). Accounting for albedo change to identify climate-positive tree cover restoration. Nature Communications, 15(1), 2275. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-46577-1↩↩2
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↩↩2
Besnard, S., Koirala, S., Santoro, M., Weber, U., Nelson, J., Gütter, J., ... & Carvalhais, N. (2021). Mapping global forest age from forest inventories, biomass and climate data. Earth System Science Data Discussions, 2021, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4881-2021↩
Searle, E. B., & Chen, H. Y. (2017). Tree size thresholds produce biased estimates of forest biomass dynamics. Forest Ecology and Management, 400, 468-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.06.042↩
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↩↩2↩3
Ewers, R. M., Orme, C. D. L., Pearse, W. D., Zulkifli, N., Yvon-Durocher, G., Yusah, K. M., ... & Banks-Leite, C. (2024). Thresholds for adding degraded tropical forest to the conservation estate. Nature, 631(8022), 808-813. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07657-w↩
Lindenmayer, D. B., & Luck, G. (2005). Synthesis: thresholds in conservation and management. Biological Conservation, 124(3), 351-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.041↩
IUCN. 2024. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2024-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed on [16 Oct. 2024]. ↩
Zhang, Y., Chen, H. Y., & Reich, P. B. (2012). Forest productivity increases with evenness, species richness and trait variation: a global meta‐analysis. Journal of ecologyEcology, 100(3), 742-749. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01944.x↩
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↩
van Kleunen, M., Pyšek, P., Dawson, W., Essl, F., Kreft, H., Pergl, J., ... & Winter, M. (2019). The global naturalized alien Flora (Glo NAF) database. ↩
Convention on Biological Diversity. (2002). Decision VI/23: Biodiversity and climate change. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=7197↩
Gann, G. D., McDonald, T., Walder, B., Aronson, J., Nelson, C. R., Jonson, J., ... & Dixon, K. (2019). International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Restoration ecology, 27(S1), S1-S46. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13035↩↩2
Höhl, M., Ahimbisibwe, V., Stanturf, J. A., Elsasser, P., Kleine, M., & Bolte, A. (2020). Forest landscape restoration—what generates failure and success?. Forests, 11(9), 938. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11090938↩↩2
United Nations General Assembly. (2007). United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples (A/RES/61/295). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf↩
United Nations. (2016). Free, prior, and informed consent: An indigenous peoples’ right and a good practice for local communities. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/publications/2016/10/free-prior-and-informed-consent-an-indigenous-peoples-right-and-a-good-practice-for-local-communities-fao/↩
Hoek van Dijke, A. J., Herold, M., Mallick, K., Benedict, I., Machwitz, M., Schlerf, M., Pranindita, A., Theeuwen, J.J.E., Bastin, J.F., & Teuling, A. J. (2022). Shifts in regional water availability due to global tree restoration. Nature Geoscience, 15(5), 363-368. ↩
Life cycle modules as described in BS EN 15978:2011 Sustainability of construction works — Assessment of environmental performance of buildings — Calculation method. https://knowledge.bsigroup.com/products/sustainability-of-construction-works-assessment-of-environmental-performance-of-buildings-calculation-method?version=standard↩↩2↩3
IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 35-115. https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647↩↩2↩3↩4
United States Energy Association (2022) Life Cycle Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Removal Methods Summary Report. Available at: https://usea.org/sites/default/files/USEA_CDR_LCA_SummaryReport_Final.pdf↩
Cooper, J., Dubey, L., & Hawkes, A. (2022). Life cycle assessment of negative emission technologies for effectiveness in carbon sequestration. Procedia CIRP, 105, 357-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.02.059↩
Lefebvre et al. (2021) Assessing the carbon capture potential of a reforestation project. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99395-6↩
IPCC (2003) Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/GPG_LULUCF_FULLEN.pdf↩
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↩
Aalde, Harald. vol. 4, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), 2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/20880391↩↩2↩3
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↩
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. ↩
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
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. ↩
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. ↩
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. ↩
Ferraro, P. J., & Hanauer, M. M. (2014). Quantifying causal mechanisms to determine how protected areas affect poverty through changes in ecosystem services and infrastructure. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 111(11), 4332-4337. ↩
Gao, S., Zhong, R., Yan, K., Ma, X., Chen, X., Pu, J., ... & Myneni, R. B. (2023). Evaluating the saturation effect of vegetation indices in forests using 3D radiative transfer simulations and satellite observations. Remote Sensing of Environment, 295, 113665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2023.113665↩
An initial evaluation of carbon proxies for dynamic reforestation baselines. Pachama. Retrieved October 16, 2024, from https://pachama.com/blog/dynamic-reforestation-baselines/↩
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↩
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. Environ. Res. Lett, 16(9), 091001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac18e8↩
Galik, C. S., Murray, B. C., Mitchell, S., & Cottle, P. (2016). 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9573-4↩
Roberts, M. J., & Schlenker, W. (2013). Identifying supply and demand elasticities of agricultural commodities: Implications for the US ethanol mandate. American Economic Review, 103(6), 2265-2295. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.6.2265↩
Akiyama, T., & Varangis, P. N. (1990). The impact of the International Coffee Agreement on producing countries. The World Bank Economic Review, 4(2), 157-173. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/4.2.157↩
Askari, H., & Cummings, J. T. (1977). Estimating Agricultural Supply Response with the Nerlove Model: A Survey. International Economic Review, 18(2), 257. https://doi.org/10.2307/2525749↩
Jere Richard Behrman, 1965. "Cocoa: A Study of Demand Elasticities in the Five Leading Consuming Countries, 1950–1961," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, 47(2), 410-417. https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v47y1965i2p410-417..html↩
Fragoso, R. M. D. S., Marques, C., Lucas, M. R., Martins, M. D. B., & Jorge, R. (2011). The economic effects of common agricultural policy on Mediterranean montado/dehesa ecosystem. Journal of Policy Modeling, 33(2), 311-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2010.12.007. ↩
Mintert, J. R., Tonsor, G. T., & Schroeder, T. C. (2009). US beef demand drivers and enhancement opportunities: a research summary. https://beef.unl.edu/beefreports/symp-2009-14-xxi.shtml↩
Jeong, S. (2019). The change in price elasticities in the US beef cattle industry and the impact of futures prices in estimating the price elasticities. Proceedings of the NCCC-134 Conference on Applied Commodity Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk Management. Minneapolis, MN. http://www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/nccc134↩
UN-REDD: Defintion of market leakage [Accessed October 2024]. Available at: https://www.un-redd.org/glossary/market-leakage#:~:text=Definition,actors%20to%20shift%20their%20activities↩
Pendrill, F., Persson, U. M., Godar, J., & Kastner, T. (2019). Deforestation displaced: trade in forest-risk commodities and the prospects for a global forest transition. Environmental Research Letters, 14(5), 055003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab0d41↩
Lark, T. J., Hendricks, N. P., Smith, A., Pates, N., Spawn-Lee, S. A., Bougie, M., Booth, E. G., Kucharik, C. J., & Gibbs, H. K. (2022). Environmental outcomes of the US Renewable Fuel Standard. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(9). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2101084119↩
Bowman, M. S., Soares-Filho, B. S., Merry, F. D., Nepstad, D. C., Rodrigues, H., & Almeida, O. T. (2012). Persistence of cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon: A spatial analysis of the rationale for beef production. Land use policy, 29(3), 558-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.09.009. ↩
Wu, Z., Satter, L., & Sojo, R. (2000). Milk production, reproductive performance, and fecal excretion of phosphorus by dairy cows fed three amounts of phosphorus. Journal of Dairy Science, 83(5), 1028–1041. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(00)74967-8↩
Coffee Barometer. In Coffee Barometer (pp. 1–36). https://hivos.org/assets/2018/06/Coffee-Barometer-2018.pdf↩
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↩
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. ↩
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↩
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↩
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↩
IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 35-115. https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647↩↩2↩3