Improved Forest Management Projects: The Importance of Methodology to Reflect Quality

whitepaper

Carbon removal has a measurable climate impact by removing tons of emissions from the atmosphere. True carbon removal methods are rarely questioned for their value or integrity. While often linked to engineered solutions, nature-based alternatives also play a significant role in offsetting emissions.

However, carbon markets are flooded with “avoidance” or “reduction” offsets, based on counter-factual deforestation claims in the absence of carbon credit revenues. These projects and their developers face criticism, questioning the integrity of carbon offsets.

This case study compares the quality of credits from the Verra Carbon Registry’s Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) and the American Carbon Registry (ACR) for Improved Forest Management (IFM) projects.

Key Takeaways:

• Risks of reduction-based credits due to questionable impact standards.
• Benefits of removal credits that promote realistic measurements.
• Strategies to ensure corporate alignment with high-quality, long-duration credits for real climate outcomes.