Forest conservation and preventing deforestation is an essential and necessary part of combating climate change and its effects. Forests are among the most important carbon sinks on the planet. They also harbour rich biodiversity and are the basis of life for all humans.
In recent articles published by The Guardian and Die Zeit, accusations were made that forest projects using the REDD+ methodology have not saved the amount of emissions as stated on the carbon certificates issued by Verra. However, Verra has strongly rejected these allegations.
At Climate Neutral Group, for over 20 years it’s been our mission to support the world in its transition to net zero. We support those organisations that commit to first avoid and reduce their emissions. The next step is to take accountability for their remaining emissions by financially supporting projects that are already avoiding, reducing or sequestering carbon emissions.
When strong allegations are made, we are keen to understand what has happened. This is true too for buyers, developers or interested parties – and what, if anything, should we do about it.
We’re taking the allegations seriously and our findings so far, are as follows:
- On a positive note, all parties mentioned in the article agree that the project areas have positively impacted protecting the forest. Carbon financing is often the only available financing mechanism for these projects.
- The debate is focused on whether the prevented deforestation is higher, similar, or even lower than a (hypothetical) reference area. From our own analysis, we can only conclude that the ‘jury is still out’. Strong allegations, firm rebuttals, and a wide range of differences between projects make us cautious to draw (too) firm conclusions. Climate Neutral Group welcomes this discussion as it will lead to improved methodologies and with it, an improvement of the Voluntary Carbon Market as a whole. Frequently checking the baseline at the start of the project and when new information becomes available, will be a core element in the new methodologies that are already being drafted.
- Whilst we do not accept the outcome of the analysis referenced in the articles 1-on-1, we have reviewed the projects in our portfolio against those mentioned specifically in the studies referenced. Only 2 of our projects are part of the analysis and have been reviewed as better-performing projects. In conclusion, we believe that the REDD+ projects we use for our clients have a positive and important contribution to preventing deforestation and degradation.
Given our long-term involvement and commitment to the Voluntary Carbon Market, we recognise this market is ever-evolving. It has its critics, and examples where discrepancies have been found, but perhaps the outcome of the recent analysis will show that the market will need to evolve further – Climate Neutral Group and history, has shown that it will. We will follow the developments closely and act upon them if needed.
