The lack of a globally agreed definition of forest and associated monitoring tools creates the potential for varying estimates of forest carbon. Different methodologies do not produce consistent differences in direction or magnitude, making comparisons of changes in forest cover and condition from one country to another difficult. In the context of arresting global deforestation and forest degradation the lack of standardisation increases the challenges in successfully detecting change, particularly in relation to degradation. In the context of addressing climate change, the ability to reliably verify sovereign carbon claims is a critical element of Paris Agreement Article 6 mechanisms, yet one that is not sufficiently material. Recent debate on over-crediting risk by forest carbon projects has drawn attention to the selection of baselines and other critical information: the need to agree a standard forest definition is clearly an important aspect of this process.
1. Forest definitions are arbitrary. The lack of an objective definition or a global standard introduces uncertainty in reporting changes in forest cover. Different forest definitions have the potential to hide loss of carbon from REDD+ projects.
2. Forest degradation and deforestation could be taking place outside the country’s gazetted forest areas, with implications for measures of carbon stocks.
3. Globally-adopted forest definitions would facilitate Article 6 markets and ITMOs: the lack of standardisation is not helpful.
To sign up to updates from BeZero Carbon, including ratings, events and insights, click here.
Read more from BeZero Carbon:
20 January 2023
Shipping & the VCM: Charting a course for Paris Report