Forest carbon certificate

Rewarding forestry practices that mitigate climate change

As part of the plantation sponsorship proposed by the Société Royale Forestière de Belgique (SRFB), more and more companies are asking to obtain carbon certificates from forestry projects. Meeting this demand would require the SRFB and its members to enter the current carbon certificate 'jungle'. There are a growing number of carbon certificate offers, and they are far from equivalent in terms of quality, robustness and guarantees for forest owners and buyers. Navigating the 'jungle' of global carbon certificates is therefore no easy task. SRFB has carried out an inventory of these certificates in order to assess their potential interest for foresters. Here are the main results of our study.

Why is SRFB studying the subject?

Is remuneration via forest carbon certification an opportunity to support foresters in their management? Foresters need recognition if they are to pass on a healthy, multifunctional forest to future generations. This can take the form of economic resources and/or objective communication about the added value provided by sustainably managed forests. PEFC/FSC certification already exists. A new certification could extend their scope by taking into account the beneficial effects of forests on the climate.

Carbon certificates could finance the adaptation of forests to climate change and, more broadly, the sustainable management of forests. These certificates should be meaningful, as close as possible to the reality on the ground and based on sustainable certification methodologies and mechanisms. It is clear that this would commit foresters and their beneficiaries to a process lasting at least 30 years. Finally, the procedure put in place to obtain carbon certificates should be replicable for other ecosystem services (ESS). Currently in Belgium, only carbon certificates are of interest to companies, but other ecosystem services could be monetised in the future.

Carbon markets

There are two types of carbon markets: the mandatory contract and the voluntary market.

The mandatory contract

In Europe, the mandatory market (European Union Emissions Trading Schemes (EU ETS)) has been imposed on energy production and heavy industry since the Kyoto Protocol (1997) initiated by the United Nations. The aim is to control greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions from Europe's biggest emitters. Targets are set for them, in the form of quotas allocated by the Member States. If these targets are exceeded, they must purchase "carbon credits"The European forest is therefore not involved in the game being played between Europe's major emitters and the European Union. The European forest is therefore not involved in the game being played between Europe's major emitting companies and the European Union.

At global level, the other countries have (or do not have) their own regulations and emissions quotas, creating carbon markets, again in connection with the Kyoto Protocol.

The voluntary market

Voluntary carbon markets are generally referred to as "carbon markets". carbon certificates "But the terms are often confused, adding to the difficulty of understanding and transparency. But the terms are often mixed up, adding to the difficulty of understanding and transparency.

Voluntary carbon markets are booming and have emerged in response to the desire of companies and local authorities to take action against climate change by improving their carbon footprint. The commitment is often linked to a corporate social responsibility (CSR) approach and is used, among other things, by companies to provide their customers with certified low-carbon products, whether for their image, to reassure their employees and investors or to "do their bit". Their efforts to reduce GHG emissions generally impact the entire chain, from production to marketing (insetting). This applies, for example, to agri-food companies that finance projects to improve farming practices for the climate (see case study from Belgium below). These companies also produce unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions. In order to achieve complete carbon neutrality, they use the "compensation" mechanism via the acquisition of "carbon certificates". These come from "capturing" or "avoiding" emissions in other sectors of activity (offsetting).

Today, every developer active in voluntary carbon certification defines and markets its certificates independently. It acts as the link between project sponsors (e.g. forest owners) and companies. The carbon certificates placed on the voluntary market are extremely varied, both in terms of their quality and their values (subjective, ethical, risk of greenwashing). Until recently, certificates were mainly bought in tropical and equatorial countries. Today, many initiatives are emerging in Europe with local offset projects. It is important to realise that voluntary markets are not currently regulated, which is why certificates vary so widely. To provide a framework, some countries such as France, the Netherlands and the UK have created national labels (see box at the end of this article). The European Commission is also working on the introduction of regulations, which should see the light of day at the end of the year.

New players

In Europe, many developers of projects that capture or avoid carbon emissions are embarking on this adventure. The most serious are based on the ISO 14064 standard¹which provides a set of tools for developing programmes aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. They then have their certificates verified and validated by external auditors. Soil Capital is an example of a Belgian developer in the agricultural sector (see Belgian case study below).

Key elements of forest-based carbon certificates

Developers interested in marketing forest carbon certificates need to define three fundamental elements: the scope of the project, the carbon measurement techniques and the definition of the benchmark. Project perimeter means :

• its duration (generally 30 years, which is a compromise between the reality of companies and that of the forest);
• its geographical extent: a homogeneous parcel or a property as a whole ;
• the carbon reservoirs that will be taken into account and estimated on pre-determined temporal and spatial scales: above-ground and underground biomass, litter, soil organic carbon, dead wood, etc;
• Beyond the forest, the benefits of wood for businesses should also be taken into account: CO2 stored in the wood products produced by the project and substitution effects (use of wood rather than another material that generates more GHGs, such as concrete or steel).

The techniques here are many ways of measuring forest carbon: field measurements, modelling, lidar or remote sensing.

The benchmark is the expected change in the forest's carbon stock without the certification project. The aim is to pay for an additional effect on the climate. This means demonstrating the additionality of the project, an essential prerequisite for all carbon certification projects, but one that has not yet been made mandatory by European legislation. Certificates will be issued for the difference in tonnes of CO2 sequestered between the baseline and the project.

Additional forestry projects are afforestation and reforestation or differentiated forest management. They involve the planting of trees or forests in areas where there were no trees before (afforestation) or the conversion of land to forest that previously contained forests but has since been converted to other uses (reforestation). Reforestation after a scheduled clear-cutting operation is therefore not considered to be additional. Differentiated forest management refers to measures that increase carbon sequestration in forest biomass or soils. This includes, for example, measures to protect the soil (skidding with a horse, winching logs, keeping machinery on the logging paths) or reducing the intensity of harvesting to encourage sequestration in the forest (longer forest rotations, conversion of a regular high forest to a mixed high forest with continuous cover (SMCC) or conversion of a coppice to a high forest, etc.).

In addition to this list of potential additionality measures, the way in which they are calculated needs to be defined and, above all, validated.

Let's remain cautious

While the idea of allowing landowners to be remunerated for storing more carbon in forests is attractive, we need to remain cautious and focused on the long-term vision: having an impact on climate change.

Environmental associations reject the very principle of carbon offsetting. This is a philosophical, political and ethical debate. Is it acceptable to acquire the right to emit CO2 by paying for an action to store it in another sector or another country? European forest carbon offset projects (see case studies) are no exception to this questioning. In order to partly remedy this criticism, more and more voluntary market players are communicating in terms of their contribution to carbon neutrality rather than in terms of offsetting.

Another criticism concerns the possibility for companies to offset without any real obligation to reduce emissions. Given the current low price per tonne of carbon, companies have little incentive to invest in reducing their emissions.

In addition, the emerging questioning of forest carbon certification in developing countries is instructive. We will highlight three of them:

1. the effectiveness of measures, monitoring and the sustainability of tree plantations as a means of storing carbon are not sufficiently robust;
2. The notion of additionality is only partially integrated into the figures for carbon capture in forests;
3. certification bodies do not have the resources to carry out audits of the huge areas of forest involved, given the very low price per tonne of CO2.

These three points can be avoided in Europe if :

• European developers of carbon certification projects apply rigorous protocols for measuring and registering projects. This is what the European Commission is trying to put in place through its regulation on carbon certification, expected by the end of 2022;
• Certification by an independent body is systematically carried out;
• the price per tonne of CO2 is sufficiently high.

It would be a little simplistic to imagine that landowners will transform their forests into a climate solution by receiving income for applying silviculture that favours carbon sequestration. However, the simple idea of "paying to sequester more carbon" has the advantage of being easy to communicate. Companies wishing to offset their carbon footprint, seeking to improve their raison d'être and wishing to convince their partners of their virtuous approach to climate change, are willing to finance this process. This is assuming that companies entering into this type of agreement with forest owners are not 'going green' on their backs.

Finally, the cost of setting up and monitoring certification is very high. Foresters will receive only a fraction of the resources committed. Implementing forest carbon certification requires human energy, public relations, training, legislation, research and scientific consensus to improve and validate calculation models, as well as a democratisation of the price of techniques such as lidar and remote sensing..... We must remain vigilant to ensure that support for the transition to increasingly sustainable management remains the primary objective.

Knowledge is our first power

Remuneration (public or private) for planting trees already exists, but there is no question of certification. Yes, but the world is moving. Citizens are out on the streets, demanding action for the climate. Companies are realising this and want to offer "low carbon" products or show that they are taking action by financing the transition. In return, "sponsor" companies are demanding certified, quantified results that they can pass on to their employees, customers or investors. On the other hand, the European Commission is preparing legislation to harmonise the impact of carbon storage on the climate.

Foresters have not waited for climate concerns to give thought to the sustainable management of their forests. But more and more players are turning the issue of climate change into a market opportunity. Should we jump on the bandwagon or just watch it go by?

At present, there is no carbon certification for forests in Belgium. This is already happening in other European countries. It is important for forest owners to find out more about the subject so as not to miss out on an opportunity and bite their fingers off, or to avoid buying a cat in a bag.². SRFB has always been at the service of forests and foresters, with the courage to undertake and innovate whenever the situation demands. It continues to do so by taking on this social issue, which is more topical than ever.

1. ISO standards (International Standard Organisation - International Organization for Standardization) are based on the knowledge of experts in their chosen field. They are comparable to a formula describing the best way of doing things. The ISO14000 series consists of standards applicable to environmental management.
2. Buying something without being sure of its quality or true value.

—

Samenvatting

Alsmaar meer bedrijven vragen om koolstofcertificaten te verkrijgen voor hun projecten van bosbouw vanuit een optiek van compensatie. Is it true, however, that a supply via koolstof certification is a real opportunity for the bosses to make the best use of their time? Yes, but it is also true that the KBBM and its leaders are in the thick of the "jungle" of koolstof certifications, which means that they have to work hand in hand, but that one of the certifications is not the other, as it means that the bosbouwer and the koper have to be able to work properly, be honest and respect the rules.

Bosbouwers hebben de klimaatproblemen niet afgewacht om na te denken over het duurzaam beheer van hun bos. However, we should not forget that the problem of climate change is caused by the fact that many more actors are being brought into a position of great opportunity. Can we take advantage of this opportunity or should we leave it?

In Belgium, there is now no koolstofcertificatie voor het bos maar in andere Europese landen is al een en ander aan het bewegen. It is a good thing that the citizens of the Netherlands are aware of this initiative, because they know that they have a great opportunity and can take advantage of it. De KBBM staat als vanouds ten dienste van het bos en de bosbouwers en durft te ondernemen en te vernieuwen, zodra de situatie dit vereist. Ze blijft dit verder doen door zich dit meer dan ooit currently maatschappelijk thema toe te eigenen. Aldus has the KBBM set up a stand to provide information on building industry certification, so that you can see how interesting it is for builders.

—