Project standards

There has been a significant amount of debate concerning the role of forest sinks in global warming, and on the possible use of forestry as a means of mitigating CO2 emissions. During the course of various negotiations surrounding the inclusion of forest sinks in the Kyoto Protocol several central principles have emerged, adherence to which helps us to create new woodlands that make a positive impact on climate change. The two most important principles are summarised below, but our projects adhere to all of them.

Additionality is perhaps the most significant of all the principles of the Kyoto Protocol, and it is applicable to all greenhouse gas abatement schemes that receive financial reward through the protocol – not only forestry sinks. Additionality, in essence, requires that any greenhouse gas abatement activity that receives financial reward could not have gone ahead without that financial incentive. Additionality rules are concerned with preventing financial rewards accruing to emissions abatement projects that are part of business as usual activities – that would have gone ahead anyway. Voluntary off-set schemes, such as those offered by Forest Carbon, do not have to adhere to rules designed for markets created by legislation like Kyoto – buyers of Forest Carbon off-set credits are not submitting those credits for legal compliance purposes and they are therefore not subject to the same rules. Nevertheless, voluntary schemes must still aspire to the highest standards in order to ensure that they make a genuine contribution to solving the problem of global warming. Forest Carbon schemes are additional – the scheme would not have gone ahead without the intervention of the organisation buying the carbon sequestered by that scheme.

There are two main issues surrounding the non-permanence of forest sinks, namely (1) the mere fact that CO2 held in trees is not stored permanently, and therefore is not a long term solution to climate change, and (2) the contention by some that the use of sinks diverts resources away from looking for permanent solutions in emissions abatement. Both can be countered. In the case of the impermanence of sinks – Forest Carbon projects are carried out in conjunction with Forestry Commission grant aid, and this includes the legal requirement to replant any timber felled for any reason. In addition many projects are likely to be ‘permanent’ reservoirs, i.e. not intended for felling.
With respect to the argument concerning diversion of funds, it has to be accepted that a certain level and type of emission is unavoidable, and in this light it would be better to off-set with forest carbon activities than not at all.