Skip to main content

Ground Truth:
Can Forest Carbon Protocols Ensure High-Quality Credits?

An evaluation and scorecard of 20 forest carbon credit protocols by a team of forest scientists demonstrates that most protocols are not strong enough to ensure that certified credits are high-quality.

View report
View scorecard

About

Forests store hundreds of gigatons of carbon. Enhancing and maintaining their ability to store carbon plays an important role in climate change mitigation.

Forest carbon credits are a way to finance projects that protect or restore forests, usually to offset emissions elsewhere. But using forest carbon credits with inadequate guardrails risks slowing down climate action instead of accelerating it.

High-quality carbon credits are essential to achieving a project’s promised climate benefits. A team of leading forest scientists evaluated and scored 20 forest carbon credit protocols relevant to North American voluntary and compliance markets to determine whether the rules of the road defined by these protocols are strong enough to ensure high-quality carbon credits.The team also developed actionable recommendations for strengthening forest carbon credit protocols moving forward.

The results of the evaluation were published in the journal Earth’s Future and have been summarized by Clean Air Task Force in a comprehensive report and scorecard.

Key Findings

The in-depth evaluation of 20 forest carbon credit protocols reveals the following:

1. Existing forest carbon credit protocols are too weak to ensure high-quality credits

Protocols lack the rigor to ensure high-quality credits, with most scoring “weak” or below in this evaluation.

2. Key concerns are with non-permanence risk, additionality and baselines, and leakage

The most common protocol shortcomings relate to these three components. However, because each protocol has unique weaknesses, no single solution can improve quality across the board. High-quality credits require protocols to be robust in all evaluated areas.

3. Protocol improvements are needed to deliver reliably high-quality forest carbon credits

Protocols should move towards independent, regional benchmarking data and tools, standardized processes to limit developer discretion and timely adaptability. The overall carbon markets should also improve transparency, remove conflicts of interest, and integrate emerging science on forest-climate interactions beyond greenhouse gases.

4. Non-offsetting financing mechanisms are needed to enhance forest carbon storage

Protocol improvements may reduce supply and raise costs, so additional financial models are needed to support essential forest management for climate change mitigation and resilience.

Protocol Scorecard

About the Scoring

Our in-depth evaluation analyzed 20* forest carbon credit protocols used in North American voluntary and compliance carbon markets.
We assessed 18 distinct protocol features to produce detailed scores for three types of forest projects: Avoided Conversation, Improved Forest Management, and Reforestation.

Score Summary

Score Summary
Score Protocol Results
6 Exemplary
0 (0%)
5 Very Robust
0 (0%)
4 Robust
0 (0%)
3 Satisfactory
1 (3.3%)
2 Weak
26 (86.7%)
1 Very Weak
3 (10%)
0 Fund. Flawed
0 (0%)
30 Total

Protocol Scores

View on desktop to see detailed scoring information for each protocol.

Protocol Scores
ID
Protocol Name
Program Project Type Overall Score
1 VM0045 IFM Using Dynamic Matched Baselines from National Forest Inventories, V1.0** Verra IFM
3.2
Satisfactory
Scoring breakdown for VM0045 IFM Using Dynamic Matched Baselines from National Forest Inventories, V1.0**
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Satisfactory 3.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Weak 2.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Robust 4.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Satisfactory 3.5
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Robust 4.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Weak 2.5
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Satisfactory 3.5
What is the required sampling frequency?
Robust 4.0
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Robust 4.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.5
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Satisfactory 3.0
2 VM0035 IFM through Reduced Impact Logging, V1.0 Verra IFM
2.7
Weak
Scoring breakdown for VM0035 IFM through Reduced Impact Logging, V1.0
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Satisfactory 3.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Weak 2.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Weak 2.0
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
What is the required sampling frequency?
Weak 2.0
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Robust 4.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Weak 2.5
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Satisfactory 3.0
3 VM0005 Conversion of Low-Productive Forest to High-Productive Forest, V1.2 Verra IFM
2.5
Weak
Scoring breakdown for VM0005 Conversion of Low-Productive Forest to High-Productive Forest, V1.2
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Satisfactory 3.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Weak 2.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Very Weak 1.5
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Weak 2.5
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Weak 2.0
What is the required sampling frequency?
Very Weak 1.0
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Weak 2.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Robust 4.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Satisfactory 3.0
4 VM0012 IFM in Temperate and Boreal Forests (LtPF), V1.2 Verra IFM
2.5
Weak
Scoring breakdown for VM0012 IFM in Temperate and Boreal Forests (LtPF), V1.2
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Satisfactory 3.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Weak 2.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Very Weak 1.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Very Weak 1.5
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Weak 2.5
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Weak 2.0
What is the required sampling frequency?
Robust 4.0
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Weak 2.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.5
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Satisfactory 3.0
5 VM0034 Canadian Forest Carbon Offset Methodology, V2.0 Verra IFM
2.5
Weak
Scoring breakdown for VM0034 Canadian Forest Carbon Offset Methodology, V2.0
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Satisfactory 3.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Weak 2.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Very Weak 1.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Very Weak 1.5
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Weak 2.5
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Weak 2.0
What is the required sampling frequency?
Robust 4.0
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Weak 2.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.5
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Satisfactory 3.0
6 VM0010 IFM: Conversion from Logged to Protected Forest, V1.3** Verra IFM
2.4
Weak
Scoring breakdown for VM0010 IFM: Conversion from Logged to Protected Forest, V1.3**
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Satisfactory 3.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Weak 2.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Very Weak 1.5
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Weak 2.5
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Weak 2.0
What is the required sampling frequency?
Very Weak 1.0
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Weak 2.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Satisfactory 3.0
7 VM0003 IFM through Extension of Rotation Age, V1.3 Verra IFM
2.4
Weak
Scoring breakdown for VM0003 IFM through Extension of Rotation Age, V1.3
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Satisfactory 3.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Weak 2.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Very Weak 1.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Very Weak 1.5
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Weak 2.5
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Weak 2.0
What is the required sampling frequency?
Very Weak 1.0
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Weak 2.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Satisfactory 3.0
8 U.S. Forest Protocol, V5.1 Climate Action Reserve IFM
2.3
Weak
Scoring breakdown for U.S. Forest Protocol, V5.1
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Very Robust 5.5
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Weak 2.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Very Weak 1.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Very Weak 1.5
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Satisfactory 3.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Very Weak 1.0
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Very Weak 1.0
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Satisfactory 3.5
What is the required sampling frequency?
Weak 2.5
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Weak 2.0
9 IFM on Non-Federal U.S. Forestlands, V2.0** American Carbon Registry IFM
2.3
Weak
Scoring breakdown for IFM on Non-Federal U.S. Forestlands, V2.0**
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Weak 2.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Weak 2.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Very Weak 1.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.5
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Very Weak 1.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Weak 2.5
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Satisfactory 3.5
What is the required sampling frequency?
Robust 4.0
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Weak 2.0
10 IFM on Small Non-Industrial Private Forestlands, V1.0** American Carbon Registry IFM
2.2
Weak
Scoring breakdown for IFM on Small Non-Industrial Private Forestlands, V1.0**
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Weak 2.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Weak 2.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Very Weak 1.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.5
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Very Weak 1.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Weak 2.5
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
What is the required sampling frequency?
Robust 4.0
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Weak 2.0
11 U.S. Forest Projects – June 25, 2015 California IFM
2.2
Weak
Scoring breakdown for U.S. Forest Projects – June 25, 2015
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Very Robust 5.5
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Weak 2.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Very Weak 1.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Fund. Flawed 0.5
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Weak 2.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.5
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Very Weak 1.0
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Satisfactory 3.5
What is the required sampling frequency?
Weak 2.5
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is leakage accounted for?
Very Weak 1.5
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Very Weak 1.5
12 IFM on Canadian Forestlands, V1.0 American Carbon Registry IFM
2.2
Weak
Scoring breakdown for IFM on Canadian Forestlands, V1.0
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Weak 2.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Weak 2.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Very Weak 1.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.5
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Very Weak 1.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Weak 2.5
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Satisfactory 3.5
What is the required sampling frequency?
Weak 2.5
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Weak 2.0
13 Forest Carbon Offset Protocol, V2.0 British Columbia IFM
2.1
Weak
Scoring breakdown for Forest Carbon Offset Protocol, V2.0
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Very Robust 5.5
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Weak 2.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Satisfactory 3.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Fund. Flawed 0.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Very Weak 1.5
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Very Weak 1.0
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Weak 2.0
What is the required sampling frequency?
Very Weak 1.5
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Weak 2.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Very Weak 1.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Weak 2.0
14 Mexico Forest Protocol, V3.0 Climate Action Reserve IFM
1.9
Very Weak
Scoring breakdown for Mexico Forest Protocol, V3.0
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Weak 2.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Weak 2.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Very Weak 1.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Very Weak 1.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Satisfactory 3.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Very Weak 1.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.5
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Very Weak 1.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Very Weak 1.0
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Satisfactory 3.5
What is the required sampling frequency?
Weak 2.5
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Weak 2.0
15 PM 001 Agriculture and Forestry Carbon Benefit Assessment Methodology, V1.0 Plan Vivo IFM
1.4
Very Weak
Scoring breakdown for PM 001 Agriculture and Forestry Carbon Benefit Assessment Methodology, V1.0
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Very Weak 1.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Weak 2.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Very Weak 1.5
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Very Weak 1.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Very Weak 1.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Fund. Flawed 0.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Very Weak 1.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Very Weak 1.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Very Weak 1.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Weak 2.5
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Weak 2.0
What is the required sampling frequency?
Robust 4.0
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Weak 2.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Very Weak 1.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.5
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Very Weak 1.0
16 U.S. Forest Protocol, V5.1 Climate Action Reserve AR
2.7
Weak
Scoring breakdown for U.S. Forest Protocol, V5.1
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Very Robust 5.5
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Weak 2.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Very Weak 1.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Very Weak 1.5
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Satisfactory 3.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.5
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Very Weak 1.0
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Satisfactory 3.5
What is the required sampling frequency?
Weak 2.5
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Satisfactory 3.0
17 Afforestation and Reforestation of Degraded Lands American Carbon Registry AR
2.7
Weak
Scoring breakdown for Afforestation and Reforestation of Degraded Lands
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Weak 2.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Weak 2.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Weak 2.5
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Very Weak 1.5
What is the required sampling frequency?
Robust 4.0
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Weak 2.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Robust 4.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Satisfactory 3.0
18 U.S. Forest Projects – June 25, 2015 California AR
2.7
Weak
Scoring breakdown for U.S. Forest Projects – June 25, 2015
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Very Robust 5.5
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Weak 2.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Very Weak 1.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Fund. Flawed 0.5
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Weak 2.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.5
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Very Weak 1.0
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Satisfactory 3.5
What is the required sampling frequency?
Weak 2.5
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Satisfactory 3.0
19 VM0047 Afforestation, Reforestation, and Revegetation, V1.0 Verra AR
2.7
Weak
Scoring breakdown for VM0047 Afforestation, Reforestation, and Revegetation, V1.0
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Satisfactory 3.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Weak 2.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Robust 4.0
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Robust 4.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Very Weak 1.0
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Weak 2.0
What is the required sampling frequency?
Robust 4.0
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Weak 2.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Weak 2.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Robust 4.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.5
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Weak 2.5
20 Forest Carbon Offset Protocol, V2 British Columbia AR
2.4
Weak
Scoring breakdown for Forest Carbon Offset Protocol, V2
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Very Robust 5.5
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Weak 2.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Satisfactory 3.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Fund. Flawed 0.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Very Weak 1.0
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Weak 2.0
What is the required sampling frequency?
Very Weak 1.5
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Weak 2.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Very Weak 1.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Weak 2.5
21 VM0034 Canadian Forest Carbon Offset Methodology, V2.0 Verra AR
2.3
Weak
Scoring breakdown for VM0034 Canadian Forest Carbon Offset Methodology, V2.0
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Satisfactory 3.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Weak 2.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Very Weak 1.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Very Weak 1.0
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Weak 2.0
What is the required sampling frequency?
Weak 2.5
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Weak 2.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Weak 2.5
22 Mexico Forest Protocol, V3.0 Climate Action Reserve AR
2.3
Weak
Scoring breakdown for Mexico Forest Protocol, V3.0
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Weak 2.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Weak 2.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Very Weak 1.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Very Weak 1.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Satisfactory 3.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Weak 2.5
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Very Weak 1.0
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Very Weak 1.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Very Weak 1.0
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Satisfactory 3.5
What is the required sampling frequency?
Weak 2.5
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Satisfactory 3.0
23 Afforestation/Reforestation (A/R) GHGs Emissions Reduction & Sequestration, V2.0** Gold Standard AR
2.1
Weak
Scoring breakdown for Afforestation/Reforestation (A/R) GHGs Emissions Reduction & Sequestration, V2.0**
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Weak 2.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Very Weak 1.5
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Very Weak 1.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Very Weak 1.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Fund. Flawed 0.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Very Weak 1.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Weak 2.5
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Weak 2.0
What is the required sampling frequency?
Robust 4.0
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Weak 2.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Weak 2.0
24 Carbon Sequestration Through AR on Private Lands – September 2023 Quebec AR
2.0
Weak
Scoring breakdown for Carbon Sequestration Through AR on Private Lands – September 2023
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Very Weak 1.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Very Weak 1.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.5
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Fund. Flawed 0.5
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Satisfactory 3.5
What is the required sampling frequency?
Weak 2.5
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Weak 2.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Very Weak 1.5
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Weak 2.5
25 PM 001 Agriculture and Forestry Carbon Benefit Assessment Methodology, V1.0 Plan Vivo AR
1.8
Very Weak
Scoring breakdown for PM 001 Agriculture and Forestry Carbon Benefit Assessment Methodology, V1.0
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Very Weak 1.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Weak 2.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Very Weak 1.5
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Very Weak 1.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Very Weak 1.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Fund. Flawed 0.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Very Weak 1.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Very Weak 1.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Weak 2.5
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Weak 2.0
What is the required sampling frequency?
Robust 4.0
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Weak 2.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Very Weak 1.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.5
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Weak 2.0
26 Active Conservation and Sustainable Management on U.S. Forestlands, V1.0 American Carbon Registry AC
2.2
Weak
Scoring breakdown for Active Conservation and Sustainable Management on U.S. Forestlands, V1.0
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Weak 2.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Weak 2.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Very Weak 1.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.5
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Very Weak 1.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Satisfactory 3.0
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Satisfactory 3.5
What is the required sampling frequency?
Robust 4.0
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Weak 2.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Weak 2.0
27 Forest Carbon Offset Protocol, V2.0 British Columbia AC
2.2
Weak
Scoring breakdown for Forest Carbon Offset Protocol, V2.0
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Very Robust 5.5
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Weak 2.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Satisfactory 3.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Fund. Flawed 0.0
Non-permanence risk reduction What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Very Weak 1.0
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Weak 2.0
What is the required sampling frequency?
Very Weak 1.5
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Weak 2.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Very Weak 1.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Weak 2.0
28 VM0034 Canadian Forest Carbon Offset Methodology, V2.0 Verra AC
2.2
Weak
Scoring breakdown for VM0034 Canadian Forest Carbon Offset Methodology, V2.0
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Satisfactory 3.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Weak 2.0
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Weak 2.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Very Weak 1.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Weak 2.0
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Weak 2.0
What is the required sampling frequency?
Weak 2.5
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Weak 2.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Weak 2.0
29 U.S. Forest Protocol, V5.1 Climate Action Reserve AC
2.1
Weak
Scoring breakdown for U.S. Forest Protocol, V5.1
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Very Robust 5.5
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Weak 2.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Very Weak 1.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Very Weak 1.5
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Satisfactory 3.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Very Weak 1.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Weak 2.0
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Satisfactory 3.5
What is the required sampling frequency?
Weak 2.5
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Very Weak 1.0
30 U.S. Forest Projects – June 25, 2015 California AC
2.0
Weak
Scoring breakdown for U.S. Forest Projects – June 25, 2015
Component Feature Score
Non-permanence risk reduction How long is project carbon monitored for reversal?
Very Robust 5.5
How is approach to account for risk of reversal structured?
Weak 2.0
What is the approach to determining buffer pool contribution?
Weak 2.0
How is risk of fire accounted for the buffer pool?
Very Weak 1.0
How is risk of insect and disease outbreak accounted for the buffer pool?
Fund. Flawed 0.5
How frequently is risk assessment revisited?
Weak 2.0
Additionality and baseline establishment What are the requirements for demonstrating additionality?
Weak 2.0
How is the baseline scenario established?
Very Weak 1.0
How is the baseline scenario forecasted over time?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the requirements for reassessing the baseline over time?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into the baseline scenario?
Weak 2.0
Quantification and monitoring requirements How is carbon stored in tree biomass estimated?
Satisfactory 3.5
What is the required sampling frequency?
Weak 2.5
How is carbon stored in harvested wood products estimated?
Satisfactory 3.0
How is soil carbon storage handled?
Satisfactory 3.0
What are the data sources required for monitoring and credit issuance?
Weak 2.0
What are the requirements for incorporating uncertainty into project quantification?
Satisfactory 3.0
Leakage accounting How is leakage accounted for?
Very Weak 1.0

  • Protocol 1

    VM0045 IFM Using Dynamic Matched Baselines from National Forest Inventories, V1.0**

    Program:
    Verra
    Project Type:
    IFM
    Overall Score:
    3.2
    Satisfactory

  • Protocol 2

    VM0035 IFM through Reduced Impact Logging, V1.0

    Program:
    Verra
    Project Type:
    IFM
    Overall Score:
    2.7
    Weak

  • Protocol 3

    VM0005 Conversion of Low-Productive Forest to High-Productive Forest, V1.2

    Program:
    Verra
    Project Type:
    IFM
    Overall Score:
    2.5
    Weak

  • Protocol 4

    VM0012 IFM in Temperate and Boreal Forests (LtPF), V1.2

    Program:
    Verra
    Project Type:
    IFM
    Overall Score:
    2.5
    Weak

  • Protocol 5

    VM0034 Canadian Forest Carbon Offset Methodology, V2.0

    Program:
    Verra
    Project Type:
    IFM
    Overall Score:
    2.5
    Weak

  • Protocol 6

    VM0010 IFM: Conversion from Logged to Protected Forest, V1.3**

    Program:
    Verra
    Project Type:
    IFM
    Overall Score:
    2.4
    Weak

  • Protocol 7

    VM0003 IFM through Extension of Rotation Age, V1.3

    Program:
    Verra
    Project Type:
    IFM
    Overall Score:
    2.4
    Weak

  • Protocol 8

    U.S. Forest Protocol, V5.1

    Program:
    Climate Action Reserve
    Project Type:
    IFM
    Overall Score:
    2.3
    Weak

  • Protocol 9

    IFM on Non-Federal U.S. Forestlands, V2.0**

    Program:
    American Carbon Registry
    Project Type:
    IFM
    Overall Score:
    2.3
    Weak

  • Protocol 10

    IFM on Small Non-Industrial Private Forestlands, V1.0**

    Program:
    American Carbon Registry
    Project Type:
    IFM
    Overall Score:
    2.2
    Weak

  • Protocol 11

    U.S. Forest Projects – June 25, 2015

    Program:
    California
    Project Type:
    IFM
    Overall Score:
    2.2
    Weak

  • Protocol 12

    IFM on Canadian Forestlands, V1.0

    Program:
    American Carbon Registry
    Project Type:
    IFM
    Overall Score:
    2.2
    Weak

  • Protocol 13

    Forest Carbon Offset Protocol, V2.0

    Program:
    British Columbia
    Project Type:
    IFM
    Overall Score:
    2.1
    Weak

  • Protocol 14

    Mexico Forest Protocol, V3.0

    Program:
    Climate Action Reserve
    Project Type:
    IFM
    Overall Score:
    1.9
    Very Weak

  • Protocol 15

    PM 001 Agriculture and Forestry Carbon Benefit Assessment Methodology, V1.0

    Program:
    Plan Vivo
    Project Type:
    IFM
    Overall Score:
    1.4
    Very Weak

  • Protocol 16

    U.S. Forest Protocol, V5.1

    Program:
    Climate Action Reserve
    Project Type:
    AR
    Overall Score:
    2.7
    Weak

  • Protocol 17

    Afforestation and Reforestation of Degraded Lands

    Program:
    American Carbon Registry
    Project Type:
    AR
    Overall Score:
    2.7
    Weak

  • Protocol 18

    U.S. Forest Projects – June 25, 2015

    Program:
    California
    Project Type:
    AR
    Overall Score:
    2.7
    Weak

  • Protocol 19

    VM0047 Afforestation, Reforestation, and Revegetation, V1.0

    Program:
    Verra
    Project Type:
    AR
    Overall Score:
    2.7
    Weak

  • Protocol 20

    Forest Carbon Offset Protocol, V2

    Program:
    British Columbia
    Project Type:
    AR
    Overall Score:
    2.4
    Weak

  • Protocol 21

    VM0034 Canadian Forest Carbon Offset Methodology, V2.0

    Program:
    Verra
    Project Type:
    AR
    Overall Score:
    2.3
    Weak

  • Protocol 22

    Mexico Forest Protocol, V3.0

    Program:
    Climate Action Reserve
    Project Type:
    AR
    Overall Score:
    2.3
    Weak

  • Protocol 23

    Afforestation/Reforestation (A/R) GHGs Emissions Reduction & Sequestration, V2.0**

    Program:
    Gold Standard
    Project Type:
    AR
    Overall Score:
    2.1
    Weak

  • Protocol 24

    Carbon Sequestration Through AR on Private Lands – September 2023

    Program:
    Quebec
    Project Type:
    AR
    Overall Score:
    2.0
    Weak

  • Protocol 25

    PM 001 Agriculture and Forestry Carbon Benefit Assessment Methodology, V1.0

    Program:
    Plan Vivo
    Project Type:
    AR
    Overall Score:
    1.8
    Very Weak

  • Protocol 26

    Active Conservation and Sustainable Management on U.S. Forestlands, V1.0

    Program:
    American Carbon Registry
    Project Type:
    AC
    Overall Score:
    2.2
    Weak

  • Protocol 27

    Forest Carbon Offset Protocol, V2.0

    Program:
    British Columbia
    Project Type:
    AC
    Overall Score:
    2.2
    Weak

  • Protocol 28

    VM0034 Canadian Forest Carbon Offset Methodology, V2.0

    Program:
    Verra
    Project Type:
    AC
    Overall Score:
    2.2
    Weak

  • Protocol 29

    U.S. Forest Protocol, V5.1

    Program:
    Climate Action Reserve
    Project Type:
    AC
    Overall Score:
    2.1
    Weak

  • Protocol 30

    U.S. Forest Projects – June 25, 2015

    Program:
    California
    Project Type:
    AC
    Overall Score:
    2.0
    Weak
/

Additional detail on scoring is available in project resources.
*Since some protocols apply to more than one project type, this process resulted in a total of 30 unique scores.
**An updated version of this protocol with moderate changes is now available.

High-Level Recommendations

Based on available science, the project team recommends the following improvements to protocols and the carbon market system to promote reliably high-quality forest carbon credits.

1. Non-permanence risk reduction

Require regular risk reassessments at least every five years, use third-party scientific data for reversal risk, integrate project-specific information with independent datasets, and adjust buffer contributions based on current and projected risks.

2. Additionality and baselines

To prevent overcrediting, baseline scenarios used to calculate credits should be dynamic to account for changing conditions over time, assumptions should be regularly reassessed, and should ideally be based on observations of similar forested areas not managed for carbon over time.

3. Quantification and monitoring requirements

Protocols should provide regionally appropriate values for carbon stock estimation, exclude soil carbon gains until science advances, and be structured to accommodate improvements in science and tools for monitoring as they emerge.

4. Leakage accounting

Develop more regionally representative default values and integrate them into protocols as minimum leakage deduction rates.

5. General market structure

Improve transparency into data and transactions underlying market activities, address potential conflicts of interest related to validation and verification bodies, and integrate non-greenhouse gas feedbacks between forests and climate.

Project Publications

Reports, papers, and briefs from our team.

The Team

Meet the team of leading forest scientists who conducted the technical assessment of forest carbon credit protocols.

Lucy Hutyra

Distinguished Professor, Department of Earth and Environment

BOSTON UNIVERSITY

Matthew Hurteau

Professor, Department of Biology

UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

William Keeton

Professor, Gund Institute for Environment and Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources

University of Vermont

William Anderegg

Professor, School of Biological
Sciences and Director of Wilkes Center for Climate Science and Policy

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH

David Hollinger

Supervisory Physiologist, Northern Research Station (retired)

US Forest Service

Sara Kuebbing

Director of Research, Applied Science Synthesis Program, The Forest School at the School of the Environment and Research Scientist, Center for Natural Carbon Capture

Yale University

Melissa Lucash

Research Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Studies, Geography

University of Oregon

Elsa Ordway

Assistant Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

University of California, Los Angeles

Rodrigo Vargas

Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences

University of Delaware;
Arizona State University

Wayne Walker

Chief Scientific Officer, Senior Scientist

Woodwell Climate Research Center

Kathy Fallon

Program Director, Land Systems

Clean Air Task Force

Rebecca Sanders-DeMott

Director, Ecosystem Carbon Science

Clean Air Task Force