A new study reveals major differences between the recently-emerging accreditation standards applied to forestry projects operating in the voluntary carbon offset market. Researchers from New Zealand's University of Canterbury compare the relative strengths and weaknesses of four standards available for the verification of afforestation and reforestation (A/R) activities, providing valuable information aimed at buyers of voluntary credits. Further work will look at these standards from the point of view of project developers. Much of the recent attention on forestry carbon credits has been on the preservation of existing forests the avoided deforestation or REDD approach - rather than on planting new forests. This is understandable given the alarming rate of deforestation in tropical rain forest countries. But realistically both preservation and replanting are going to be necessary on a wide scale to reverse the alarming 20 per cent of global greenhouse emissions stemming from the forestry sector.

Amid the explosive growth of carbon markets around the world, A/R carbon projects have suffered. As the researchers Eduard Merger and Alwyn Williams point out, in the 'official' UN market under the Kyoto Protocol, the CDM, procedures and methodologies of project registration are overly complex for forestry and the carbon credits issued are of limited time span. And in the biggest mandatory market 'the EU ETS' forestry carbon credits are not even recognised. This has forced the forestry sector into the almost-entirely unregulated voluntary carbon market. The lack of oversight has inevitably lead to a crisis of confidence over the integrity of emissions reduction claimed, and the ensuing credits sold, in this market. A number of accreditation standards have recently emerged to tackle this issue, developed by environmental alliances, carbon finance interests and aid organisations. These standards themselves are now being scrutinised and the University of Canterbury comparison is an early attempt.

They compare the Climate, Community, & Biodiversity Alliance (CCB) Standard, CarbonFix, Plan Vivo Foundation and Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) on the basis of what they demand of A/R projects on:

    * transparency and additionality of activities
    * permanence of forest plantings,
    * other environmental and socio-economic impacts
    * CO2 storage calculation
    * certification of results


Importantly, the CCB Standard is not designed for the verification for carbon credits, more to ensure the all-round sustainability of land-use projects like forestry. It defers to the CDM and its methodologies for carbon verification and generation of credits. The VCS, on the other hand, takes the opposite approach and concentrates on the integrity of carbon offsetting and leaves the other aspects to other standards. Transparency and additionality are key tests of all carbon offset projects and at the heart of controversy over the integrity of the voluntary carbon market in recent years, especially in forestry. There has been little certainty up until the advent of these standards that emissions reductions claimed have actually taken place. Or that any that have are would not have occurred anyway without the project.

The study shows the standards have varying treatments of the additionality question, CCB adopting the CDM standards, the VCS creating its own comprehensive set of tests, CarbonFix offering a choice of both and Plan Vivo not strong on proving additionality at all. Also key to the integrity of carbon credits generated by an offset project is the rigour of carbon storage calculations applied to growing forests and the confirmation of that storage over time. Here Plan Vivo and CarbonFix rate well in their accounting approach with third-party monitoring required before credits are certified.

The standards also have quite different approaches to handling the non-carbon benefits of projects ? other environmental and social benefits flowing from the activities such as protection of biodiversity or the creation sustainable incomes for local communities. The CCB and Plan Vivo standards rate well on this aspect with their strong emphasis on the all round benefits of projects for the local people and environment. The VCS ranks low. However, the VCS encourages project developers to seek other standards for demonstrating co-benefits.