Standards For Results-Based REDD Finance - 2012 - Climate Focus

Standards for Results-Based REDD+ Finance
Overview and Design Parameters

Charlotte Streck and John Costenbader
November 2012
Standards for Results-Based REDD+ Finance
Overview and Design Parameters
Charlotte Streck and John Costenbader
The authors thank Donna Lee, Monica Zurek, Campbell Moore and Anne Haynes (Climate Focus) for their
respective research and comments on earlier drafts of this study.
A further special thanks for inputs goes to: Alexa Morrison (Plan Vivo), Aura Robayo Castañeda
(Government of Colombia), Charlie Parker (WWF-US), Evan Johnson and Anthony Brunello (California
Strategies), Joanna Durbin (CCBA), Ken Andrasko (FCPF), Maria Tereza Umbelino de Souza and Bruno
Ferraz (Brasil Mata Viva), Naomi Swickhard (VCS), Nicholas Martin (ACR), Nicole Virgilio (TNC), Reinhard
Wolf (GIZ) , Robert Lee (CAR), Sarah Walker (Winrock), Toby Janson-Smith (Conservation International),
Tony La Viña (Government of the Phillipines) and Zoe Ryan (Environmental Accounting Services).
All remaining errors fall into the sole responsibility of the authors.
The authors would also like to recognize Eszter Szöcs (Visilio Design) for the paper’s graphic design.
This report has been made possible with the generous support of the Climate and Land Use Alliance.
Standards for Results-Based REDD+ Finance: Overview and Design Parameters 1
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION: RESULTS-BASED REDD+ FINANCE ............................................................................. 2
2. TERMS, DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................... 4
3. A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REDD+ INITIATIVES AND STANDARDS .................................................. 7
4. APPLICABILITY OF REDD+ STANDARDS ............................................................................................. 17
5. CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................................. 21
ANNEX............................................................................................................................................. 23
A.1.1 UNFCCC ..................................................................................................................................... 23

A.2.1 AUSTRALIAN CARBON FARMING INITIATIVE ............................................................................................ 28
A.2.2 NEW ZEALAND PERMANENT FOREST SINK INITIATIVE .............................................................................. 29
A.2.3 J APAN OFFSET CREDIT (J-VER) SCHEME ............................................................................................ 31
A.3.1 CALIFORNIA (USA)......................................................................................................................... 33
A.3.2 REGIONAL G REENHOUSE G AS INITIATIVE (USA) .................................................................................... 34
A.4.1 VERIFIED CARBON STANDARD ........................................................................................................... 35
A.4.2 AMERICAN CARBON REGISTRY ........................................................................................................... 38
A.4.3 CLIMATE ACTION RESERVE ............................................................................................................... 40
A.4.4 CARBONFIX................................................................................................................................... 42
A.4.5 PLAN VIVO.................................................................................................................................... 43
A.4.6 T HE PANDA STANDARD ................................................................................................................... 45
A.4.7 BRASIL M ATA VIVA.......................................................................................................................... 46
A.5.1 CLIMATE , COMMUNITIES & BIODIVERSITY STANDARD .............................................................................. 48
A.5.2 REDD+ SOCIAL AND E NVIRONMENTAL STANDARD ................................................................................. 49
A.5.3 SOCIALCARBON.............................................................................................................................. 50
A.6.1 T HE FOREST CARBON PARTNERSHIP FACILITY: CARBON FUND .................................................................. 52
A.6.2 UNITED NATIONS REDD PROGRAM (UN-REDD) .................................................................................. 54
A.6.3 GCF STANDARD OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................. 55
A.7.1 NORWAY-G UYANA ......................................................................................................................... 57
A.7.2 NORWAY-I NDONESIA ...................................................................................................................... 58
A.7.3 NORWAY-AMAZON FUND (BRAZIL) .................................................................................................... 60
A.7.4 J APAN’S BILATERAL OFFSET CREDITING M ECHANISM .............................................................................. 61
A.7.5 G ERMANY’S REDD E ARLY M OVERS PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 62
CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012 Table of Contents

2 Standards for Results-Based REDD+ Finance: Overview and Design Parameters
1. Introduction: Results-Based REDD+ Finance
Results-based finance for reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation 1 (REDD+) links
payments to greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions and enhancements in forest carbon stocks. In
December 2011, at the 17th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Durban, parties agreed that “results-based finance provided to developing
country parties that is new, additional and predictable may come from a wide variety of sources, public and
private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources” and that “appropriate market-based
approaches [. . .] to support results-based actions by developing countries” could be developed. 2 Parties
also adopted guidance on reference emission levels and/or reference levels to establish benchmarks that
would serve to account for emission reductions from REDD+ activities.3 While it remains unclear if and how
these reference levels might be tied to ‘results-based’ payments in the future, consensus has emerged that
international finance would be linked to concrete results in achieving climate benefits through REDD+.
Programs or mechanisms that rely on results-based payments provide financial incentives and disburse
resources against demonstrated and independently verified results that are largely within the control of the
recipient. In the context of climate policy, results-based finance leverages private and public investment into
activities that reduce GHG emissions and promote carbon removals. The credibility and acceptance of
results-based finance frameworks depend on the rigor of the applied measurement methodologies, the
conservativeness of the baseline scenario, and the transparency of the crediting scheme.
The standardization of measurement and accounting systems ensures the comparability of mitigation
benefits achieved through REDD+. If the system is credible and results in real and measurable GHG emission
reductions, it could eventually become market-compatible and issue compliance-grade carbon credits.
Current standards that formulate guidance for the measurement and verification of climate benefits provide
the basis for REDD+ projects that generate carbon credits for the voluntary carbon market. Results-based
finance schemes are therefore both a first step towards REDD+ markets as well as an integral part of any
carbon market standard. At the same time, they can persist without ever being linked to carbon markets.
Today, in the absence of international modalities and procedures for REDD+ finance and without any
operational - not to mention sufficiently liquid - carbon market for REDD+, various voluntary designs,
standards, and methodologies for RED4/REDD+ results-based frameworks are competing for market
acceptance and investors. Consequently, these standards are emerging in a fragmented and abundant
fashion. Nonetheless, their different approaches and rules provide an empirical basis—through broad
experimentation and demonstration—for future rule setting.
While learning and piloting remains an important feature of REDD+ finance, the eventual convergence on
common standards and methodologies will create a more efficient, fungible marketplace for verified emission
reductions and carbon removals from REDD+ and allow forest countries to build single systems that can
1 The full reference to REDD+ includes not only the reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, but also the role of
conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
2 UNFCCC (2011). Decision 2/CP.17. Par. 66. U.N. Doc. FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1. (15 Mar 2012).
3 UNFCCC (2011). Decision 12/CP.17 U.N. Doc. FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.2 (15 Mar 2012).
4 RED limits the eligible activities to reduced emissions from deforestation or, in other terms, avoided deforestation.
Introduction: Results-Based REDD+ Finance CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012

access multiple sources of public and private finance. Building early linkages can help to rationalize the
number of standards and methodologies that are ultimately available—as communities learn together what
works and what does not—and catalyze convergence in effective directions.
The objective of this paper, the first in a series of analytical papers to evaluate the design features of various
results-based standards, protocols and methodologies, is to give an initial overview of existing and emerging
REDD+ frameworks for results-based finance. The paper will summarize the most important standards that
channel results-based payments to REDD+. It will begin by clarifying the terminology used in the context of
voluntary and other REDD+ standards. The next section will provide an overview of the most important
results-based REDD+ financing standards. An annex summarizes each initiative or organization’s objective
and background, and to the extent available, guidance or standards for main design elements. As relevant
and appropriate, the paper introduces design elements such as scope and scale, reference levels, safeguards,
leakage, permanence, additionality, registries, as well as measurement, reporting and verification. These
design elements are vital for REDD+ to create effective and rigorous programs to reduce emissions and
enhance carbon removals. This introduction into REDD+ standards sets out to identify central
commonalities and differences so that stakeholders may promote rapid learning for REDD+ and implement
no-regrets REDD+ activities.
CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012 Introduction: Results-Based REDD+ Finance

2. Terms, Definitions and Acronyms
For our analysis we divide REDD+ initiatives and standards into specific categories. These include:
international and national, regulated and voluntary, bilateral and multilateral initiatives, and other initiatives
that do not fit neatly into a category. We define ‘standards’ as a set of specific criteria, requirements or
rules that are set to attain a level of quality or attainment. In the context of results-based finance,
standards often regulate the eligibility of projects or programs, define required methodologies and protocols
for the measurement of GHG emission reductions and removals, and establish the criteria for verification,
issuance, and transfer of carbon credits. Standards often also formulate important enabling program
elements (e.g. validator/verifier accreditation frameworks, buffer reserves and registries), principles for the
application of methodologies and guidance on how to interpret and apply the various rules. Standards
often define a set of mandatory rules and requirements. Examples of standards that define criteria for
results-based REDD+ finance are the Verified Carbon Standard, the American Carbon Registry and the
Climate Action Reserve. Some standards, in particular those that are embedded in a broader legislative
context, such as the Kyoto Protocol’s Joint Implementation or Clean Development Mechanism, come with
modalities and procedures that define additional program rules, such as the accreditation of verifiers or the
establishment of emissions inventories or trading registries.
‘Methodologies’ (also referred to as ‘protocols’) define a system of technical procedures for accomplishing a
predetermined result. In the context of results-based finance frameworks, methodologies serve to establish
baseline emission scenarios and calculate emission reductions or removals. Methodologies include rules and
equations for estimating emissions and measuring emission reductions, assessing historical data or business-
as-usual projections to construct baselines, and developing monitoring plans to account for emissions,
emission reductions, and leakage. Methodologies are often complemented by ‘tools’ that set out
procedures for specific tasks or ‘modules’, which are independent building blocks of more complex
methodologies. ‘Guidelines’ (or ‘Guidance’) provide non-mandatory advice on the interpretation and
application of a standard. Guidelines help the user to apply standards to the concrete project or program
case. Although non-binding, they often contain valuable background information on a standard that is
essential to prepare the required project documents.
Climate policy in general, and carbon standards in particular, use a highly specific technical jargon that
creates barriers to the understanding, selection, and use of standards and protocols. To reduce confusion,
we have prepared a glossary that explains the most important standard design elements (Table 1) and a list
of the most relevant acronyms used in this paper (Table 2).
Terms, Definitions and Acronyms CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012

Table 1: Glossary of design elements
Element Definition
Additionality is the requirement that a REDD+ activity or project should generate benefits, such as
Additionality reduced emissions or increased removals, that would not have happened without the activity (i.e. the
business-as-usual scenario).
Benefits arising from REDD+ in addition to climate mitigation benefits, such as enhancing
Co-benefits biodiversity, enhancing adaptation to climate change, alleviating poverty, improving local livelihoods,
improving forest governance and protecting rights.
Leakage refers to changes in emissions and removals of GHGs outside the accounting system that
Leakage result from activities that cause changes within the boundary of the accounting system. The official
UNFCCC term is ‘displaced emissions’.
Measurement, reporting and verification are essential for the transparency and credibility of GHG
MRV climate benefits. An adequate MRV system is built on protocols and methodologies, technical
infrastructure and human capacities.
A ‘nested’ accounting system reconciles projects within a larger jurisdictional boundary such as a
Nesting
state/province system, or a province or state-level program with a national REDD+ program.
Reference A reference level, expressed in tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, serves as a benchmark
level/ for performance of implemented activities. Reference levels can be implemented at national,
baseline subnational, or project scales. Project-specific reference levels are often referred to as ‘baselines.’
Permanence refers to the longevity of a carbon pool and the stability of its stocks, given the
Permanence management and disturbance environment in which it occurs. The risk of non-permanence describes
the possibility of reversing climate benefits through the loss of forest carbon biomass.
A REDD+ registry is a tool that helps to transparently account for GHG emissions and removals.
Registry Where linked to carbon trading programs, a registry can also provide an infrastructure for the tracking
and trading of carbon credits and allowances.
Safeguards define criteria to prevent and mitigate undue harm in the process of implementing a
project, program or policy. Safeguards may also provide operational guidelines in the identification,
Safeguard
preparation, and implementation of programs and projects. Strategic assessments of environmental
and social implications help to design effective and equitable policies.
Scale describes the territorial and/or jurisdictional reference points of a particular standard or
Scale
program (national, subnational, program or project-level).
The scope of REDD+ describes the activities or land use categories that are included in a REDD+
Scope program, for example deforestation (only), deforestation and forest degradation, and/or
afforestation/reforestation.
CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012 Terms, Definitions and Acronyms

Table 2: Acronyms
Acronym Name Acronym Name

ACCU Australian Carbon Credit Units JI Joint Implementation
J-VER
ACR American Carbon Registry Japanese Offsetting Credit (J-VER) Scheme
Scheme
AFOLU Agriculture, forestry and other land-use LCDS Low Carbon Development Strategy (Guayana)
ALM Agricultural Land Management LULUCF Land use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry
ARB Air Resources Board (USA/CA) MRV Measurement, Reporting, Verification
A/R Afforestation/ Reforestation NCOS National Carbon Offset Standard (AUS)
Afforestation, Reforestation and Norway’s International Climate and Forests
ARR NICFI
Revegetation Initiative
BAU Business as usual NZU(R) New Zealand Emission Unit (Register)
Brazilian development bank (Banco
BNDES RMU Removal Unit (Kyoto Protocol)
Nacional do Desenvolvimento)
Bilateral Offset Crediting Mechanism
BOCM PFSI Permanent Forest Sink Initiative (NZ)
(Japan)
CAR California Action Reserve PRC Peat Rewetting and Conservation
CDM Clean Development Mechanism PVCs Plan Vivo Certificates
Climate, Community & Biodiversity Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and
CCB(A) REDD
(Alliance) forest Degradation
REDD and the role of conservation,
CCX Chicago Climate Exchange REDD+ sustainable management of forests and
enhancement of forest carbon stocks
REDD+
CER Certified Emission Reduction (CDM) REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards
SES
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (USA,
CFI Australian Carbon Farming Initiative RGGI
North East)
CRT Climate Reserve Tonnes (CAR) REL/RL Reference Emissions Level/ Reference Level
COATS CO2 Allowance Tracking System RMUs Removal Units (relevant for JI)
ERT Emission Reduction Tons (ACR) SFM Sustainable Forest Management
ERU Emission Reduction Unit (JI) tCER temporary CER (CDM A/R)
ETS Emission Trading System UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UN Food and Agricultural
FAO UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme
Organisation
United Nations Framework Convention on
FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility UNFCCC
Climate Change
FSC Forest Stewardship Council VCS Verified Carbon Standard
GRIF Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund VCU Verified Carbon Unit (VCS)
IFM Improved Forest Management VVB Validation/Verification Body
VCS Jurisdictional and Nested
JNR WRC Wetlands Restoration and Conservation
REDD+
Terms, Definitions and Acronyms CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012

3. A Comparative Analysis of REDD+ Initiatives and

Standards
Standards for results-based REDD+ finance occupy different niches and pursue different objectives, which
complicates the comparison of the design elements of various standards. Compliance instruments, such as
the project-based mechanisms defined under the Kyoto Protocol, and some voluntary market standards,
such as Verified Carbon Standard or the American Carbon Registry, seek above all to enable the creation of
rigorous, high-integrity, fungible carbon offsets. Other standards may place heavier emphasis on co-benefits
and a simplified approach to producing credits. Bilateral and multilateral initiatives often have the goal of
piloting results-based REDD+ projects at larger scales in anticipation of a future UNFCCC REDD+ mechanism.
These latter initiatives usually do not have defined ‘standards’ that must be met, instead they conclude
agreements which link payments to a specific set of results. Funds that pilot results-based payments for
REDD+, such as the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, may either define their own
requirements for results-based payments or demand compliance with a private5 standard.
Results-based REDD+ initiatives also differ in their scale and scope. The scale of REDD+ initiatives determines
whether a standard applies to a jurisdiction, such as an entire country, federal state or administrative region,
or whether it applies to an area defined by project boundaries. While national approaches are per definition
implemented at a jurisdictional (i.e. national) level, subnational approaches can refer to a project- or
program-level, or to a subnational jurisdiction. REDD+ initiatives are often also limited in their geographical
eligibility (regional standards) or contractually limited to a particular region (bilateral initiatives).
The scope of a REDD+ program refers to the types of activities that are included in the system. There are
five categories of activities that might be included in a REDD+ initiative: (1) emissions reductions from
reduced deforestation (RED or avoided deforestation); (2) emissions reductions from reduced forest
degradation; (3) forest carbon enhancement through regeneration, restoration, and tree plantations
(afforestation and reforestation); (4) emissions reductions through improved forest management; and
finally (5) forest conservation. Most project-level and voluntary carbon market standards exclude forest
conservation from the scope of eligible activities; some also exclude degradation and forest management
activities that are more costly to measure than avoided deforestation or forestation. Conservation activities
are generally emission neutral as they preserve a status quo; such activities would only qualify if the forest
within the boundaries of the activity is under threat, in which case a conservation project would fall under
avoided deforestation or degradation.
The annex to this report includes a description of the most important results-based REDD+ initiatives and
standards. Table 3 below summarizes and categorizes the information of the annex according to scale and
scope, environmental and economic characteristics of the reviewed standards and results-based REDD+
initiatives. For this purpose REDD+ initiatives and standards are divided into the specific categories of
international, national and regional compliance markets, voluntary markets and voluntary co-benefit
standards, multilateral and bilateral initiatives, and other initiatives that do not fit neatly into a category. It is
important to note that this list is neither complete nor exhaustive. This report’s analysis is limited to
5 Private standards include those managed by for-profit or non-for-profit entities.
CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012 Comparative Analysis of REDD+ Initiatives and Standards

information that is publicly available and to initiatives that have both defined criteria for GHG verification or
results-based payments and significant market share. Some standards require the execution of a
confidentiality agreement before disclosing their standard documents (e.g. the Brazilian Mata Viva
standard). Limited information is also available for initiatives based on bilateral agreements, such as the
cooperation of Norway with Indonesia. The German ‘REDD+ Early Movers’ and the Japanese Bilateral Offset
Crediting Mechanism are examples of more recent initiatives that pioneer results-based payments founded
on bilateral agreements with limited information publicly available on eligibility criteria and standard
requirements. Furthermore, a number of these bilateral initiatives may end up incorporating other standards,
such as the VCS JNR, to verify the emissions reductions for which they are providing compensation.
Table 3: Overview of forest carbon standards and REDD+ results-based initiatives6
International Standards
REDD+ ! based on UNFCCC decisions
Scale and Eligibility: Developing country parties to the UNFCCC. Scale: National and, as an interim step,
Scope subnational. Scope: Full range of REDD+ activities.
Objective: Creating incentives for climate mitigation and reduction of forest GHG emissions in
developing countries. Safeguards: Guidance and principles; reporting on safeguard systems in
Environmental
national communications. Role of non-carbon benefits under discussion. Design Parameters:
Characteristics
Modalities and guidance for REDD+ national and on an interim basis subnational RL, and MRV.
Criteria still emerging.
Link to finance: GHG results-based payments possible. Supported by market and non-market
Economic and
approaches. Details on results-based finance still under negotiation. Assessment: Ambitious
Regulatory
mechanism that creates incentives for REDD+ at the national level. Public sector driven; private
Characteristics
sector investment incentives uncertain.
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) ! UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol standard
Scale and Eligibility: Developing country parties to the Kyoto Protocol. Scale: Project level. Scope: Limited to
Scope A/R.
Objective: Creating incentives for GHG emission reduction projects, sustainable development and
loweing costs of compliance. Safeguards: Sustainable development criteria defined by host country.
Environmental Design Parameters: Methodologies developed by project sponsors; approved by the CDM Executive
Characteristics Board. RL: BAU baseline. Leakage to be managed and monitored through project design rules.
Permanence managed through temporary credits and periodic verification. Demonstration of
additionality required (through use of CDM tool). Independent validation and verification.
6 For lack of information we did not include in the table: the Japanese BOCM, and German Early Mover’s Program. Further, we did not include
the new Chinese Three Rivers Standard (http://www.threeriversstandard.com/en/index.html), the Rainforest Standard
(http://cees.columbia.edu/the-rainforest-standard), and the Pacific Carbon Standard
(http://www.markit.com/en/products/environmental/registry/standards/pacific-carbon-standard.page).
For the Brazil Mata Viva standard (http://www.brasilmataviva.com.br) we received information too late to be included in this report.
Comparative Analysis of REDD+ Initiatives and Standards Climate Focus ! 2012

Link to finance: GHG results-based payments possible. Compliance-grade. Issuance of tradable

Economic and
temporary Certified Emission Reductions traceable in Kyoto registries. Assessment: Comprehensive
Regulatory
requirements seek to ensure environmental integrity. High transaction costs and limited demand for
Characteristics
temporary credits. Future of CDM and acceptance of credits for private sector compliance uncertain.
Joint Implementation (JI) ! UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol standard
Eligibility: Developed country parties to the Kyoto Protocol. Scale: Project-level trading allowed but in
Scale and
context of national level commitment. Scope: A/R, Avoided Deforestation, Revegetation (if elected)
Scope
and Forest Management.
Objective: Creating incentives for GHG emission reduction projects and lowering costs of
compliance. Safeguards: Defined by host and investor country. Approval from host and investor
Environmental country governments necessary. Design Parameters: Methodologies proposed by project sponsors
Characteristics or by host country. RL: BAU baseline. Leakage to be managed and monitored through project design
rules. Permanence managed in the context of national accounting and target. Project-specific
additionality testing required. Independent validation and verification.
Link to finance: GHG results-based payments possible. Compliance-grade. Issuance of tradable ERUs
Economic and
traceable in Kyoto registries. Assessment: Nested standard that allows the integration of project and
Regulatory
national accounting. Limited by the fact that the issuance of Emission Reduction Units depends on
Characteristics
the availability of Removal Units in the host country.
National Standards
Australian Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI)
National legislation, in conjunction with cap-and-trade, ETS
Scale and Eligibility: Limited to Australian projects. Scale: Project level. Scope: ‘Positive list’ project types
Scope including avoided deforestation, forest management, and reforestation.
Objective: Creating incentives for GHG emission reductions through generation of offsets.
Safeguards: Defined by Australian legislation. “Negative list” of banned activities and fund for
Environmental ensuring indigenous participation. Design Parameters: RL, MRV: Through approved forestry
Characteristics methodologies. Permanence: 100 year storage for A/R; 5% risk buffer pool. Simplified additionality
testing (no legal requirement, no common practice). Independent verification, with exceptions for
small projects possible.
Link to finance: GHG results-based payments possible. Compliance-grade for Australia. Issuance of
tradable Carbon Credit Units (CCUs) traceable in Australian National Registry. Rules and
Economic and
methodologies still emerging. Seven integrity criteria for approving methodologies proposed by
Regulatory
project sponsors. Assessment: The Australian system could eventually generate demand for REDD+
Characteristics
credits (rules and modalities pending), the CFI itself is limited to Australian offsets however. Link to
European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) planned.
New Zealand Permanent Forest Sink Initiative (PFSI)
National legislation connected to regulated ETS built off Kyoto Protocol
Scale and Eligibility: Limited to NZ projects. Scale: Project level. Scope: Sequestration in post-1989 forests
Scope (forest management, A/R) , No incentive for avoided deforestation but penalties for deforestation.

Objective: Creating incentives for GHG emission reductions, contribute to NZ’s Kyoto Protocol
compliance strategy. Safeguards: Defined by NZ legislation. Design Parameters: RL, MRV: According
Environmental
to national guidelines and legislation. Additionality determined through eligibility rules; no project
Characteristics
additionality. Leakage captured in national inventory. Permanence managed through obligation to
surrender NZUs in case of reversal. Self-verification and reporting every 5 years, subject to auditing.
Link to finance: GHG results-based payments possible. Compliance-grade for New Zealand. Issuance
Economic and
of tradable Emission Units (NZUs) traceable in NZ Emission Unit Register. Integration with the Kyoto-
Regulatory
compliance system of New Zealand. Assessment: Cost-efficient and attractive for forest owners.
Characteristics
Strong system and limited permanence risk reflected in full personal liability.
Japanese Offsetting Credit Scheme (J-VER) Scheme ! Japanese Voluntary Offsetting Program
Scale and Eligibility: Limited to Japanese projects. Scale: Project level. Scope: Forest thinning, afforestation,
Scope accelerated SFM.
Objective: Creating incentives for voluntary emission reductions. Safeguards: ‘Positive list’ defines
Environmental project eligibility, additionality and social and environmental co-benefits. Design Parameters: MRV
Characteristics and RL according to ‘Certification Standard for Forest Carbon Sink in J-VER Scheme’. 3% percent
buffer required for permanence. Independent validation and verification.
Link to finance: GHG-results based. Voluntary standard, future link to compliance mechanism
Economic and possible. J-VER Registry holds JRM carbon credits for voluntary and compliance offsetting. No link
Regulatory to international REDD+ planned. Assessment: High private-sector acceptance in Japan. Cost-
Characteristics efficient through defined eligibility and addititionality criteria. Limited permanence risk reflected in
favorable permanence rules.
Subnational and Regional Standards
California ! State cap-and-trade legislation (AB 32)
Scale and
Eligibility: Limited to U.S. projects. Scale: Project level. Scope: A/R, IFM, Avoided Conversion.
Scope
Safeguards: Safeguards as per domestic legislation, sustainable long-term management practises
and promotion of native species. Design Parameters: RL and MRV according to the ‘ARB Compliance
Environmental
Offset Protocol for U.S. Forest Projects’. Leakage: Accounting for ‘secondary effects’ and a standard
Characteristics
deduction for market leakage in harvested wood products. Simplified additionality test based on
regulatory additionality and exclusion of common practice. Permanence liability for 100 years.
Unintentional reversals are mitigated through the ARB buffer. Independent verification.
Link to finance: GHG results-based payments possible. Compliance-grade for California. Issuance of
Economic and
tradable and traceable units in approved registries. Assessment: 100-year liability for permanence
Regulatory
problem reduces attractiveness of standard. Potential of accepting international REDD+ credits in
Characteristics
the future. May serve as proof-of-concept for a small amount of REDD+ credits.
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) ! Regional ETS among 9 Northeastern U.S. states
Scale and
Eligibility: Limited to RGGI states (U.S.A.). Scale: Project level. Scope: A/R.
Scope

Safeguards: Safeguards defined by local law. FSC required for forest management and use of
Environmental domestic species recommended. Design Parameters: One single forest methodology. RL: Onsite
Characteristics carbon stocks at commencement of the project. Permanence: Permanent conservation easement.
A/R projects with a 10% discount in credits for reversal risk. Simplified additionality testing (no legal
requirement, no public financial support). Independent verification.
Link to finance: GHG results-based payments possible. Compliance-grade for RGGI. Issuance of
Economic and tradable and traceable units in RGGI CO 2 Allowance Tracking System. Assessment: 100-year liability
Regulatory for permanence limits attractiveness of this standard to the private sector. Limited scope, activity and
Characteristics market interest. Regulation combination of individual state legislation and model regulations; could
serve as model for the linking of various ETS.
Voluntary: GHG Accounting & Verification
Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) ! Independent, non-profit organization
Scale and
Eligibility: International. Scale: Project-based. Scope: REDD, A/R, revegetation, IFM, WRC.
Scope
Objective: Creating high-quality carbon credits for the voluntary carbon market. Safeguards: Projects
must identify potential negative environmental and socio-economic impacts and shall take steps to
mitigate them. While the VCS does not include quantification or measurement of co-benefits, VCS is
Environmental typically combined with CCB, or another co-benefit standard. Design Parameters: Methodologies
Characteristics developed by project developers and approved through independent validation/verification bodies.
CDM methdolologies also accepted. REL/RL: BAU baseline. Leakage to be managed and monitored
through project design rules. VCS Buffer Tool. Permanence risk buffer (10-60% of VCUs). Project-
specific additionality testing through approved tool. Independent verification.
Link to finance: GHG results-based payments possible. Issuance of tradable Verified Carbon Units
Economic and
(VCUs), traceable in approved registries. Assessment: Dominant voluntary carbon standard (58%
Regulatory
market share in 2011). Comparatively high transaction costs, particularly if a new methodology has to
Characteristics
be developed.
VCS Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ (VCS JNR) Standard ! Program Window Under the VCS
Eligibility: International. Scale: Jurisdiction-based (national and/or subnational). Scope: REDD+
Scale and
activity (or landscape) accounting at the jurisdictional level, which may include nested (VCS) projects
Scope
and subnational programs.
Objective: Providing the tools for integration of various levels of carbon accounting in REDD+.
Safeguards: Safeguards as per UNFCCC decisions. Design Parameters: Jurisdictions develop
Environmental
appropriate accounting methods per JNR requirements. Certain VCS project-rules apply to nested
Characteristics
projects. REL/RL: 10-year historic baseline, adjustment for national circumstances possible.
Additionality built into conservative REL/RL. Independent verification.
Link to finance: GHG results-based payments possible. Jurisdictions may issue tradable VCUs,
traceable in approved registries. Jurisdictional RLs approved by higher-level jurisdictional
Economic and proponents and independently reviewed; project RLs must be harmonized with jurisdictional RLs
Regulatory after potential grandfathering period expires. Assessment: Currently, the VCS JNR is the only global
Characteristics standard for accounting and crediting national and subnational jurisdictional REDD+ programs, and is
being piloted in half a dozen countries/states. Jurisdictions may choose whether to allow project-
level activities nested within jurisdictional accounting schemes.

American Carbon Registry ! Non-profit enterprise of Winrock International

Scale and Eligibility: International but targeted towards U.S. stakeholders. Scale: Project-based. Scope: REDD,
Scope A/R, revegetation and IFM.
Objective: High quality voluntary offset program with a view towards future U.S. climate legislation.
Safeguards: Net positive environmental and social impact of projects required. Design Parameters:
Environmental Methodologies are defined as “systematic explanations” that can be developed through project
Characteristics sponsors, CDM and VCS accepted. RLs: BAU baseline. Standard formulates guidance for leakage
management. In the absence of a specific permanence tool, the VCS Buffer Tool can be used.
Additionality testing through use of an approved tool mandatory . Independent verification.
Link to finance: GHG results-based payments possible. Issuance of tradable Emission Reduction
Tons (ERTs), traceable in own registry (for voluntary & California market offsets). Assessment:
Economic and
Transaction costs compared to VCS are generally lower, more flexibility (as no requirement to use
Regulatory
approved methodologies). Potentially less transparent (through the lack of publically available
Characteristics
methodologies) and potential for conflict of interests through the affiliation with Winrock
International.
ACR Nested REDD+ Standard ! Program window under the ACR
Scale and Eligibility: International. Scale: Jurisdiction-based. Scope: Projects nested under jurisdictional
Scope schemes.
Objective: Providing the tools for integration of various levels of carbon accounting in REDD+.
Environmental Safeguards: Safeguards as per UNFCCC decisions at the jurisdictional level and ACR-approved
Characteristics safeguard standards. Design Parameters: RL: 10-year and activity specific baseline. Additionality built
into conservative RL. Independent verification.
Link to finance: GHG results-based payments possible. Issuance of tradable VCUs, traceable in ACR
Economic and
registry. Assessment: Only covers nested project crediting and not the accounting of the
Regulatory
jurisdictional programs themselves. Followed the development of the VCS JNR with a faster but less
Characteristics
inclusive process.
Climate Action Reserve
Independent non-for profit, initially linked to California Climate Action Registry
Scale and Eligibility: Targeted towards U.S. / California; U.S. projects eligible, in future Mexican offsets
Scope possible. Scale: Project-level. Scope: Avoided Conversion (REDD), A/R, and IFM.
Objective: Creating incentives for GHG emission reductions by pioneering credible market-
based policies and solutions. Safeguards: US: compliance with existing regulatory requirements,
conscious of environmental justice, requirement to minimize harm. Mexico: possible additional
Environmental
safeguards required. Design Parameters: One protocol per project type, no methodologies. RL: 100-
Characteristics
year projected, fixed baseline. Leakage to be managed and monitored through project design rules.
100-year legal liability for permanence. Additional risk buffer. Standardized additionality through
comparison with sectoral standards. Independent verification.
Link to finance: GHG results-based payments possible. Issuance of tradable credits (CRTs), traceable
Economic and in own registry. Protocols are developed by CAR not the project sponsors. Assessment: Not very
Regulatory liquid due to small California market. Transaction costs reduced through standardized protocols.
Characteristics Expectation of U.S. forestry protocols to be recognized under the California ETS. 100-year liability for
permanence limits attractiveness for the private sector.

CarbonFix ! Acquired by Gold Standard Foundation in Sept. 2012

Scale and Eligibility: International. Scale: Project level. Scope: Limited to A/R, natural revegetation and
Scope agroforestry.
Objective: Creation of benchmark for international forest projects, GHG and social/environmental
standard. Safeguards: Formulates environmental and social requirements. Design Parameters: Single
Environmental methodology includes templates for all elements. Full MRV for GHG, but ex-ante crediting possible.
Characteristics RL: Sum of carbon stocks on the eligible planting area prior to plantings. Leakage: Accounting for
activity shifting required. Permanence: 30% buffer contribution is required across all projects. CDM
A/R Additionality Tool required, Independent verification.
Link to finance: GHG results-based payments possible. Additional environmental benefits built into
the standard demanding a price premium. Issuance of tradable CO2-certificates into Markit
7
Economic and Environment Registry. Projects required to use ClimateProjects platform for buyers and customers
Regulatory to track projects. Assessment: Very small (0.1%) market share, but high prices. Applicability reduced
Characteristics through limited scope. Ambition to establish a standard of highest quality, ex-ante issuance of
credits problematic in this respect. A required pre-validation by the CarbonFix technical board
reduces independence and possibly objectivity.
Plan Vivo ! Plan Vivo Foundation (Scottish Charity) oversees Plan Vivo Standard and System
Scale and Eligibility: International. Scale: Project level. Scope: Only community-based projects; A/R (non-
Scope commercial plantations), agroforestry, avoided deforestation, forest conservation and restoration.
Objective: Creating a framework for developing and managing community-based land-use

projects. Combined GHG and social/environmental standard. Safeguards: Social and environmental
Environmental considerations included in core principles of the standard. Design Parameters: Simplified GHG MRV.
Characteristics Ex-ante or ex-post issuance of credits possible. RL: ‘clear and credible’ baseline. Leakage sources
should be identified and mitigated. Permanence risk buffer with a minimum contribution of 10% of
project credits. Project-specific additionality testing. Independent verification.
Economic and Link to finance: GHG results-based payments possible. Issuance of tradable Plan Vivo Certificates
Regulatory (PVCs) into Markit Environment Registry. Assessment: Focus on small-scale projects with high
Characteristics community benefits justifies simplifications in GHG accounting, baseline setting and MRV.
Panda Standard ! Private standard managed by Panda Standard Association
Scale and
Eligibility: Limited to China. Scale: Project level. Scope: IFM and A/R.
Scope
Objective: Creating incentives for GHG emission reductions and investments in rural China. GHG and
social standard with goal to reduce emissions and alleviate poverty. Safeguards: Co-benefits and
stakeholder consultations are documented. Projects can also generate project credits with a special
Environmental
designation as poverty-alleviating. Design Parameters: Methodologies include CDM methodologies
Characteristics
and other methodologies under development. RL: According to approved methodology. Leakage to
be managed and monitored through project design rules. Permanence: Panda Buffer pool. Project-
specific additionality testing. Independent verification.
7 ClimateProjects Website: http://www.climateprojects.info/

Economic and Link to finance: GHG results-based payments possible. Issuance of tradable and traceable credits
Regulatory into Panda Standard Registry. Assessment: Focus on China rural development and poverty alleviation.
Characteristics New standard as yet untested, market share is small.
Voluntary: Co-benefit Standards
Climate Community, & Biodiversity (CCB) Standards
Initiative of partnership of conservation and pro-poor NGOs
Scale and
Eligibility: International. Scale: Project level. Scope: A/R, revegetation, REDD and IFM.
Scope
Objective: Provides standard for multi-benefit forest projects. Co-benefit and project design
standard. Safeguards: Validates project design and verifies the social and environmental co-benefits
Environmental of forestry projects. Design Parameters: Standard includes 14 mandatory criteria and 3 optional “Gold
Characteristics Level” criteria. GHG estimates but no GHG MRV. RL: Baseline situation has to be described. Leakage
must be addressed. Permanence management not included. MRV of climate, biodiversity and
socioeconomic impacts. Independent verification.
Link to finance: GHG results-based payments not possible, as no carbon credits generated.
Economic and Assessment: Dominant co-benefit standard, typically used in combination with VCS, CDM or ACR
Regulatory certification. Comes with additional requirements on the design of the projects, adds costs to
Characteristics verification and certification. Assessment: CCB certification reduces project and reputational risk
exposure and adds a premium to the project
REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards (REDD+ SES)
Initiative by CCBA and CARE International
Scale and Eligibility: International. Scale: Jurisdictional level. Scope: Social and environmental standard for
Scope jurisdictional REDD+ programs.
Objective: Creation of environmental and social assessment framework for jurisdictional REDD+
programs. Design Parameters: Standard consists of principles, criteria and indicators that help to
Environmental guide and evaluate the process and substance of a government REDD+ program. Leakage,
Characteristics permanence and additionality will be governed by the accompanying GHG standard. International
review process to ensure consistency in country-specific interpretations, developing independent
assessment framework.
Link to finance: GHG results-based payments not possible, as focuses exclusively on safeguards not
carbon. Currently, the only existing safeguards are a monitoring and reporting framework for REDD+
Economic and programs. Complements the VCS JNR or REDD+ government programs. 10-step process for
Regulatory implementation, based on eight socio-environmental safeguard principles. Assessments: In the
Characteristics testing and piloting phase (with a dozen national and subnational governments); some governments
may use the standard as guidance while others may adopt it as a mandatory requirement with
independent assessments.
SocialCarbon Initiative ! Founded and managed by Ecológica Institute (Brazil)
Scale and
Eligibility: International. Scale: Project level. Scope: All forestry project types.
Scope
Objective: Assessment of a carbon co-benefit standard that can be used in conjunction with a GHG
standard, with a focus on assessing economic, environmental and social impacts on communities.
Environmental
Design Parameters: Sustainable development standard. No GHG measurement. Project has to comply
Characteristics
with credible GHG standards (additionality, permanence, leakage). MRV must credibly follow relevant
accounting standards related to 6 co-benefits measured. Independent verification.

Economic and Link to finance: GHG results-based payments not possible. Assessment: Focus on Latin America, but
Regulatory currently used by very few forestry projects. Complementary credits are issued jointly with GHG
Characteristics credits into the SocialCarbon Standard registry managed by Markit.
Multilateral Initiatives
Carbon Fund of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF)
World Bank initiative with 37 developing and 18 developed country participants
Scale and Eligibility: International, limited to developing country participants that have reached a determined
Scope level of REDD+ readiness. Scale: National and subnational, no ‘projects’. Scope: REDD+
Objective: Supporting international REDD+ negotiations and pilot purchase of REDD+ credits.
Safeguards: Application of World Bank Operational Policies and Strategic Environmental and Social
Environmental
Assessment. Design Parameters: Full GHG MRV. Additionality ensured through conservative RL.
Characteristics
Leakage managed through jurisdictional approach. Permanence rules not yet determined.
Independent verification including leakage, co-benefits and safeguards.
Link to finance: The Carbon Fund is a USD200m REDD+ investment facility, which is planning to
develop investment criteria around REDD+ accounting. However, it is unclear whether REDD+ credits
Economic and will be issued or whether it will rely on existing (e.g. voluntary) standards for this purpose. National
Regulatory geo-referenced tracking system or registry for GHG emissions. Assessment: High credibility,
Characteristics transparency and visibility through participatory approach, but accounting framework yet to be
developed. Slow and costly. Test case for UNFCCC REDD+. Readiness support via special window and
fund. Public-sector driven, challenge to create incentives for private investments.
UN-REDD ! Initiative of UN FAO, UNDP, UNEP, 44 partner countries
Scale and Eligibility: International, UN REDD developing country partner countries. Scale: Support of readiness
Scope and implementation. Scope: REDD+
Objective: Assist countries in the implementation of REDD+ programs. Safeguards: A Social and
Environmental Principles Framework similar to the World Bank’s REDD+ strategic environmental
Environmental
assessment has been developed. A Benefits and Risks Tool is in development. Design Parameters:
Characteristics
No GHG MRV. Supports nationally-led REDD+ processes and promotes the informed and
meaningful involvement of all stakeholders.
Economic and Link to finance: No GHG results-based payments. Delivery Partner of the FCPF carbon fund; works
Regulatory with partner countries on implementing REDD+ systems. Assessment: Public-sector driven, limited
Characteristics consideration of private sector incentives.
Governors Climate Task Force (GCF) ! International initiative by subnational governments
Scale and Eligibility: Limited to GCF member states and regions. Scale: Subnational REDD+ activity accounting
Scope at the jurisdictional level. Nested projects possible. Scope: REDD+
Objective: Promotion of subnational REDD+ programs. Dedicated subnational REDD+ initiative.
Environmental Safeguards: Safeguards to be addressed in the context of emerging REDD+ programs and bilateral
Characteristics purchase/investment agreements. Design Parameters: Full GHG MRV. Capacity building planned, no
criteria yet for RL, permanence, or MRV.
Link to finance: GHG results-based payments possible. Focus on generating compliance-grade
Economic and REDD+ credits. Preparation of pay-for-performance public programs. Link to GHG registries planned.
Regulatory Assessment: Subnational cooperation and learning platform, coordination among states, sharing of
Characteristics lessons learned. Readiness support through GCF Fund. Potential for bilateral partnerships between
states that include results-based payments.

Bilateral Initiatives
Norway
Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund (GRIF)
Bilateral agreement with World Bank as trustee, IADB, UNDP as partners
Scale and Eligibility: Limited to Guyana. Scale: Jurisdictional. Scope: Avoided deforestation only, other REDD+
Scope based on eventual national REL/RL.
Objective: Dedicated bilateral-REDD+ program. GHG and development benefits captured in Guyana’s
LCDS. Safeguards: Bilaterally agreed ‘enabling indicators’ that define safeguards. Design Parameters:
Environmental Initiative governed by bilateral agreement between Norway and Guyana. GHG MRV step-wise to be
Characteristics developed. Bilaterally-agreed RL based on national and global deforestation rates. Land-use
planning to address leakage. Permanence rules not clear. Additionality captured in RL. Periodic
independent verification.
Link to finance: Results based payments that depend on continued high forest cover; payments
Economic and
decline if deforestation increases. Assessment: Ambitious initiative that pilots the integration of
Regulatory
REDD+ in low carbon development. Test case for agreement with countries with low deforestation
Characteristics
rates.
Indonesia-Norway REDD+ Partnership ! Bilateral agreement
Scale and Eligibility: Limited to Indonesia. Scale: Jurisdictional, national with subnational pilots. Scope: No
Scope information available on activity scope.
Objective: Dedicated bilateral-REDD+ program. Safeguards: Bilateral agreement on multi-
Environmental stakeholder participation & extensive social and environmental safeguards. Design Parameters: Link
Characteristics to Indonesia’s climate and forest strategy. GHG MRV step-wise to be developed to progress to Tier
3 data. No information available on leakage, permanence, and verification.
Economic and Link to finance: Bilateral agreement provides benchmarks for both upfront and performance-based
Regulatory funding for phased REDD+ strategy implementation. Assessment: Test case for national results-
Characteristics based payments.
Bilateral Agreement Norway – Brazil and the Amazon Fund
Brazilian initiative managed by Brazilian development bank with international funding
Eligibility: Limited to countries of the Amazon Basin (Brazil & Amazon Cooperation Treaty
Scale and
Organization countries). Scale: Activities funded by the Amazon Fund. Scope: REDD+, Conservation,
Scope
Sustainable Forest Management, A/R, and related capacity-building.
Objective: Supporting REDD+ projects based on bilateral agreement between Brazil and Norway.
Payment from Norway to Brazil based on reduced emissions in the Brazilian Amazon. Safeguards:
Social and environmental safeguards lack grievance mechanism or FPIC. The Amazon Fund is subject
Environmental
to BNDES’s social and environmental safeguards. Design Parameters: For payments from Norway to
Characteristics
the Amazon Funds. RL: 10-yr. historic average with 5-yr. updates. Leakage and additionality captured
in RL. Permanence through periodic verification. MRV by Brazilian govt. agencies & independent
audits. Funding criteria include project coherence with federal, state, BNDES and Fund planning.
Link to finance: GHG proxies for results-based funding at the national level. The Amazon Fund is
Economic and open to payments from multiple funders, it funds projects in the Amazon region based on project
Regulatory proposals. Assessments: Example for using proxies to enable results-based funding. Example also
Characteristics for national distribution of international funds through local development bank. Funding
requirements of the Amazon Fund are not clear.

4. Applicability of REDD+ Standards
Public and private entities that seek to link a REDD+ activity to results-based payments will screen relevant
standards based on their applicability to the specific implementation context. After verifying whether their
particular REDD+ activity meets relevant eligibility requirements of a particular standard or initiative, they will
evaluate the environmental and economic features of the various standards. Environmental criteria include
the GHG offset quality generated, the environmental effectiveness of the mitigation standards, and the
level of safeguard or co-benefit credibility. Economic criteria include the market penetration of a particular
standard and the transaction costs associated with applying a particular standard.
Questions of eligibility relate to the governance of a standard that defines its character as mandatory or
voluntary within its regulatory context. The reviewed standards and initiatives differ according to the body
responsible for their development – chiefly either governmental or non-governmental body (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Results-based initiatives and standards according to governance level and sector
* Standards marked with an asterisk have a low market share and are not profiled in this report.
Government-created standards include national forest carbon regimes in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and
state regimes in California and nine states of the Northeastern U.S. Such standards are generally compliance-
based systems, with the exception of Japan, where J-VER offsets are voluntary. Additionally, multilateral
CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012 Applicability of REDD+ Standards

programs as exemplified by the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, and bilateral programs such as Norway’s
initiatives with Guyana, Norway and Brazil (as well as emerging initiatives such as the Japanese BOCM and
German Early Mover’s Program) demonstrate how public sector initiatives pilot results-based payments
before there are mandatory requirements and modalities for REDD+ formulated at the international level. In
the interim these initiatives draw on experience and expertise developed in the context of the voluntary
forest carbon market. Voluntary, non-governmental standards include the Verified Carbon Standard, the
American Carbon Registry, the California Action Reserve, CarbonFix, Plan Vivo, the Panda Standard, the CCB
Standard, REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards and SocialCarbon. All are voluntary regimes yet the
jurisdictional standards of the VCS and ACR allow for interaction with national and subnational compliance
systems.
The eligibility of a particular REDD+ activity under a standard or initiative is also determined by its
geographic location (see Figure 2). The preponderance of standards, and those that have been available
the longest, are those designed for global application (e.g. CDM/JI, ACR, CAR, CarbonFix,CCB Standard,
ISO, Plan Vivo, SocialCarbon, VCS). However, as national and subnational jurisdictionally-created carbon
markets have begun to develop around the world, with them have often come new forest carbon standards
tailored to their local circumstances. Forest carbon standards developed at a national level include J-VER in
Japan, CFI in Australia and PFSI in New Zealand. Subnational jurisdiction standards for forest carbon have
been developed under the AB-32 California and RGGI in nine northeastern U.S. states.
Figure 2. Geographic Mapping of Forest Carbon Standards
Applicability of REDD+ Standards Climate Focus ! 2012

Recent REDD+ bilateral funding initiatives provide a second set of geographically-specific incentives for
forest carbon investments. Generally such initiatives are designed for a single country that is recipient to the
bilateral funding, as in Norwegian bilateral agreements with Guyana, Indonesia, and Brazil, as well as the
multiple bilateral commitments anticipated between Japan and its partners in the BOCM. The Norway-Brazil
bilateral funding arrangement is somewhat unique however, as it allows for both public and private
contributions via the Amazon Fund, and is planned to extend to other Amazon Basin countries. Additionally,
in recent years there has been a explosion in country-specific voluntary market forest carbon standards
aimed at Brazil, China, Costa Rica, and the U.K. Recent voluntary initiatives also include new regional
standards such as the Rainforest Standard (targeting Amazon regions of Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador,
and Peru), the Pacific Carbon Standard focusing on the Canadian Pacific Northwest, and the Three Rivers
Standard aimed at Western China.8
When looking at environmental features of the various standards and initiatives, it is important to weigh the
rigor of an GHG offset standard against the opportunities presented by a broader, more comprehensive
sustainable development standard.
Standards creating tradable carbon credits represent the largest market force and underpin the development
of forest carbon management and mitigation efforts more broadly (NZ, AUS and Japanese offset systems,
VCS, ACR, CAR). However, quite a few initiatives not only aim at achieving emission reductions but also
include additional goals, which influence the choice of methodologies and standards employed by the
specific initiative. These can be either social or additional environmental goals or both. Examples of
initiatives with additional social goals are Plan Vivo, which works only with community-based projects, the
Chinese Panda Standard with its additional poverty alleviation goal for rural areas and the SocialCarbon
initiative, which focuses mainly on sustainable development objectives. Additional social and environmental
criteria are for example required by Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA), CarbonFix and
SocialCarbon (the latter two in addition to their GHG-related methodologies). Plan Vivo and REDD+ SES
make specific requirements of protecting ecosystems intact.
Economic considerations relate to the market share of particular standards and the transaction costs related
to their application. The market penetration of a standard reflects the acceptance of the system and its
criteria. Internationally the Verified Carbon Standard has by far the greatest market penetration, holding 58
percent of the voluntary market in 2011, while other initiatives such as the Climate Action Reserve or the
American Carbon Registry have much smaller market shares (see Figure 3). However, the international share
of a standard says little over the regional acceptance of particular REDD+ and forest carbon standards. The
J-VER has registered almost 200 projects in Japan alone, roughly 60 percent of which are forestry.9 On the
other hand, the formulation of a regional standard does not mean that it is necessarily accepted by local
players. The forest offset opportunity under RGGI has hardly been used, with high land prices and limited
willingness to accept a 100-year permanence liability counting among the most important factors for its
limited attractiveness.
8 Molly Peters-Stanley, Katherine Hamilton, Daphne Yin - Ecosystem Marketplace, Leveraging the Landscape: State of Forest Carbon
Markets 2012, Washington DC., pp. 76-78. (noting Three Rivers Standard focuses on headwaters of Yellow, Yangtze, and Mekong Rivers).
9 For more detail see: http://www.j-ver.go.jp/project/anken02.html
CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012 Applicability of REDD+ Standards

10
Figure 3. Market share of forest carbon standards
Another important decision point relates to the required financial resources and technical capacities for the
application of a standard. Several carbon accounting standards in particular are cited as having high
transaction costs, primarily due to detailed regulations (CDM) and the need to develop and approve
methodologies and protocols (VCS and CAR). The use of a standard with high transaction costs can be
associated with greater quality and/or rigor, and is often rewarded with internationally tradable offset
credits that may make the investment into certification under the VCS or the CDM worthwhile. Standards
that place more emphasis on community benefits may apply relaxed carbon accounting rules (Plan Vivo,
Panda Standard, SocialCarbon Initiative). These standards can achieve high prices if the project is considered
of high development value. In these cases the purchaser of the credits is investing more into the credibility
of the project rather than the credibility of the offset credit.
10 Adapted from Molly Peters-Stanley, Katherine Hamilton, Daphne Yin - Ecosystem Marketplace, Leveraging the Landscape: State of
Forest Carbon Markets 2012, Washington, DC, p. v (Market Share for Independent and Domestic Standards).
Applicability of REDD+ Standards Climate Focus ! 2012

5. Conclusions
The multitude of forest carbon standards currently available provides a formidable toolbox for results-based
REDD+ finance. The variety of initiatives brings ample evidence of interest from private as well as public
actors in creating systems to measure the performance of REDD+ and other forest carbon activities. Figure 4
below illustrates the increasing number of forest carbon standards.
Figure 4: Growth in Forest Carbon Standards11

ACR Nested REDD
VCS-JNR
Japanese BOCM
CFI (Aus) CFI (Aus)
AB 32 (Cal) AB 32 (Cal)
Three Rivers Three Rivers
Standard* Standard*
Pacific Carbon Pacific Carbon
Standard* Standard*
Panda Standard Panda Standard Panda Standard
Brasil Mata Viva Brasil Mata Viva Brasil Mata Viva
NZ PFSI NZ PFSI NZ PFSI NZ PFSI NZ PFSI NZ PFSI
J-VER J-VER J-VER J-VER J-VER J-VER J-VER
ACR ACR ACR ACR ACR ACR ACR
CDM/JI CDM/JI CDM/JI CDM/JI CDM/JI CDM/JI CDM/JI
CarbonFix CarbonFix CarbonFix CarbonFix CarbonFix CarbonFix CarbonFix
VCS VCS VCS VCS VCS VCS VCS
CCAR CCAR CCAR CAR CAR CAR CAR
SocialCarbon SocialCarbon SocialCarbon SocialCarbon SocialCarbon SocialCarbon SocialCarbon
CCB Standard CCB Standard CCB Standard CCB Standard CCB Standard CCB Standard CCB Standard
Plan Vivo Plan Vivo Plan Vivo Plan Vivo Plan Vivo Plan Vivo Plan Vivo
ISO 14064* ISO 14064* ISO 14064* ISO 14064* ISO 14064* ISO 14064* ISO 14064*
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
While there is competition for market share among some of the private standards, the majority of the
reviewed initiatives are complementary in their objectives and applicability. UN-REDD+, the Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility’s ‘REDD+ readiness’ window, and the Governors’ Climate and Forest Task Force provide
platforms for learning and capacity building at the jurisdictional level. These initiatives go hand in hand with
private standards such as the VCS Jurisdictional & Nested REDD+ Iniative and ACR nested REDD+ Standard,
and the CCB and REDD+ SES that provide concepts, tools and methodologies for the implementation of
11 Adapted from Peters-Stanley, M. (2012) State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets: Standards, Projects and Governments on a Lo(cal) Diet .
Ecosystem Marketplace. (Presentation), p. 4.
Climate Focus ! 2012 Conclusions

credible REDD+ programs. Governments may adopt these standards directly or use them as a starting point
to develop their own public system. Multilateral funds and bilateral programs test the potential of results-
based finance even where national REDD+ platforms are still under development. The Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility, Norway’s bilateral agreements and Germany’s Early Mover program provide examples of
such money-backed initiatives. Private actors can choose among a variety of standards, with the Verified
Carbon Standard serving as the dominant international standard. National and regional standards often
have a high penetration in particular jurisdictions and are tailored to specific contexts. This applies to
voluntary standards, such as Brazil’s Mata Viva and California’s CAR as much as China’s Panda standard, but
also to public standards, such as the national systems in New Zealand, Australia or Japan.
Standards surveyed in this report diverge between those aimed at providing concrete, market-ready
operational accounting for certification of carbon credits or non-carbon benefits (e.g. VCS, ACR, CCB) and
those aimed at high-level guidance on REDD+ activities (e.g. FCPF, UN-REDD, GCF). Given the different
users of these standards, there is generally little or no competition between them. Whereas the former
standards set unilateral requirements for their users, the latter gradually work to define goals based on
members’ shared experiences, often contributing the most significant added-value in the form of capacity-
building. Initiatives that support countries in their REDD+ readiness and the development of REDD+
activities often refer to existing standards for the quantification of mitigation benefits.
Generally, standards provided by public bodies, especially national or subnational standards integrated into
the carbon accounting established by the Kyoto Protocol (e.g. Australia, New Zealand or Japan), have the
advantages of greater clarity and ease of use than international standards and guidance from private bodies
that cannot refer back to durable national frameworks. Conversely, not only do private standards often
derive from a more complicated patchwork of standards, protocols, methodologies, and criteria or guidance,
but due to their global application, imply many questions of interpretation in the local and national
context. Where private standards are used in countries with weak governance they have to create an
environmentally secure system without having the ability to merely refer to national legislation and carbon
accounting.
In sum, it is likely that the future may certainly see further development of, and convergence among,
competing standards. This will neither be complicated nor costly as those standards that stand in
competition currently show significant overlap in their design criteria. Such process of consolidation is
therefore expected to continue gradually without major market disruptions. Simultaneously, the diversity
and complementarity of the various existing and emerging initiatives allow public and private entities to
apply a variety of mutually reinforcing tools and services in the pursuit of the same overall REDD+ objective:
reducing forest related emissions as effectively, permanently and swiftly as possible.
Conclusions Climate Focus ! 2012

ANNEX
A.1 Public International Law Initiatives and Standards

A.1.1 UNFCCC
A.1.1.1 REDD+ Mechanism (under negotiation)
Objective: In the context of the provision of adequate and predictable support to developing country
Parties to the UNFCCC, REDD + seeks to create incentives to slow, halt and reverse forest cover and carbon
loss in developing countries, in accordance with national circumstances, consistent with the ultimate
objective of the Convention.
History and Overview: As an official agenda item of the UNFCCC, REDD+ dates to the submission by Papua
New Guinea and Costa Rica at COP-11 in 2005 to add deforestation to the agenda of annual UNFCCC
negotiations. Since then, the scope has expanded from reducing emissions from deforestation (RED) to also
include forest degradation (REDD), and three additional ‘plus’ elements: conservation and enhancement of
forest carbon stocks, and sustainable management of forests, together known as REDD+. Subsequent
UNFCCC decisions have reemphasized the importance of REDD+ and formulated initial guidance for the
development of RLs, safeguards, and MRV systems.
Process: Compared to other agenda items, international REDD+ negotiations have progressed relatively fast.
Nonetheless, several major issues remain to be addressed in order to ensure environmental integrity of
emissions reductions and removals under REDD+, in particular including: reference levels, leakage, non-
permanence, and monitoring. Developments in voluntary carbon market and multilateral and bilateral
standards such as buffers, insurance mechanisms and temporary crediting, as well as enhanced monitoring
technology, may be of relevance to REDD+ as it moves from negotiations to implementation. The modalities
for results-based finance are still under development.
Main Design Elements

12 , 13 , 14 , 15
Element Treatment
Scale National level, with with subnational as an interim step towards national implementation
Geographical
Developing country UNFCCC Parties
scope
Activity scope Full scope of REDD+
12 Bali Action Plan, Decision 1,/CP.13 (2007) Annex.

13 Copenhagen Decision 4/CP.15, 11-13.
14 Cancun Agreements, Decision 1/CP.16, (2010) Annex I, 24-25.
15 Durban Decision 2/CP.17 (2011) Add.2, 14-16, Decision 12/CP.17.
Climate Focus ! 2012 ANNEX

RL expressed in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year are benchmarks for assessing each
country’s performance in implementing REDD+ activities. RLs shoud be built on transparent,
RL complete, consistent and accurate information, including historical data. They should be consistent
with national GHG Inventories, subject to review, and may consider national circumstances. Countries
should move towards national RLs, but can develop sub-national RLs in the interim.
Safeguards formulated in the Cancun agreements: (i) actions should be consistent with national and
international forest programmes and agreements; (ii) transparent forest governance; (iii) respect for
indigenous and local communities; (iv) full and effective participation of stakeholders; (v) consistency
Safeguards
with conservation of natural forests, biodiversity and other social and envronmental co-benefits; (vi)
ensuring permanence; (vii) preventing leakage. Countries report on safeguards in their National
Communications.
Countries should avoid displacement of emissions through carefully designed national programs.
Leakage
Leakage captured in national MRV systems.
Countries should avoid events of GHG emission reversals through carefully designed national
Permanence
programs. International crediting rules still to be developed.
Additionality No guidance yet. Assumed to be captured in national RL.
Countries to establish national monitoring, using both remote sensing and ground-based
MRV
measurements. Results-based finance linked to fully measured, reported and verified actions.
Registries No guidance yet.
A.1.1.2 Clean Development Mechanism (Kyoto Protocol)
Objective: The objective of the CDM is “to assist Parties not included in Annex I in achieving sustainable
development and in contributing to the ultimate objective of the Convention [advert dangerous climate
change], and to assist Parties included in Annex I in achieving compliance with their quantified emission
limitation and reduction commitments under Article 3.”16
History and Overview: The Kyoto Protocol’s CDM allows crediting from afforestation and reforestation (A/R)
projects, but excludes REDD+ and other forest carbon activities. REDD+ was not included due to both
environmental and market concerns around the accuracy of emissions reductions as well as the potential for
a large supply of credits to flood the market.17 A/R projects have remained a very minor share of the CDM
market, in part due to the temporary credits issued for these project types. 18 A/R credits through 2011
have made up only 0.9% of total credits registered under the CDM.19 Despite the small fraction of the CDM
market that A/R represents, in absolute numbers, the volume is still substantial. Given that the great
majority of A/R tCERs for the first crediting period were not issued until 2012 though, it is difficult to
16 UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol. Article 12.

17 Fearnside, Philip M. (2001). Environmentalists split over Kyoto and Amazonian Deforestation. Environmental Conservation, 28(4): 295–
299.
18 Decision 5/CMP.1 2005, Annex, Section A. Definitions paragraph 1(g) “Temporary CER” or “tCER” is a CER issued for an afforestation or
reforestation project activity under the CDM which (…) expires at the end of the commitment period following the one during which it was
issued; (h) “Long-term CER” or “lCER” is a CER issued for an afforestation or reforestation project activity under the CDM which (…) expires
at the end of the crediting period of the afforestation or reforestation project activity sunder the CDM for which it was issued;
19 Data on registered projects from www.unfccc.int. Data on projects under development and projected numbers of credits from
http://www.cdmpipeline.org/
ANNEX Climate Focus ! 2012

compare the market for A/R projects under the CDM with voluntary markets, which tend to have significant
quantities of credits issued annually.
Standard components, methodologies, terms, and procedures are all defined in detail in the CDM modalities
and procedures adopted by the parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The ‘standard’ for CDM is comprised of a
range of decisions including relevant sections of the Kyoto Protocol, accreditation standards for Designated
Operational Entities (the VVB for the CDM), 20 approved methodologies and tools, and relevant regulatory
procedures, guidance and forms. New methodologies can be submitted to the CDM Executive Board for
approval requiring both the Board’s appraisal and evaluation by independent experts.21
Process: As the most developed compliance market for forestry credits, the CDM has eleven approved large
scale A/R methodologies, seven small scale methodologies, and two consolidated methodologies. In general,
CDM projects follow an eight step process including (i) development of Project Design Document, (ii) Letter
of Approval from the country where the project takes place approving the project design, (iii) project
validation, (iv) registration, (v) monitoring, (vi) verification, (vii) issuance of CERs, and (viii) forwarding of
CERs to relevant entities. 22

23 , 24
Element Treatment
Scale Project level
Geographical Countries that are a party to the Kyoto Protocol and not included in the Convention’s Annex I; this
scope means almost all developing countries.
Activity scope A/R
RL Transparent and conservative project-specific baselines must be developed.
The host country’s Designated National Authority confirms that the project contributes to national
Safeguards sustainable development, with details left to the host country to determine. International and local
consultations on the project are mandatory.
Projects require leakage estimation if activities that generate emissions are shifted outside the
Leakage project boundary, and if emissions are greater than before the project for any carbon stock
reductions outside the project boundary due to that project.
CDM A/R projects deal with permanence through the type of credits issued. CDM A/R credits are
Permanence
temporary and have to be replaced with new temporary or permanent credits upon expiration.
Additionality tools include Tool for the Demonstration and Assessment of Additionality in A/R CDM
Additionality Project Activities, Version 2 and Combined Tool to Identify the Baseline Scenario and Demonstrate
Additionality in A/R CDM Project Activities, Version 1.
The results of monitoring of emission reductions are reported to a Designated Operational Entity,
MRV
which periodically (every 5 years) verifies the emission reductions.
Registries CDM Registry electronic database managed by UNFCCC Secretariat.
20 CDM Executive Board. Annex 1, CDM Accreditation Standard for Operational Entities (Version 03). EB 62 Report Annex 1.
21 Further information can be found on CDM Procedures at: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Procedures/index.html
22 CDM Rulebook Website. http://cdmrulebook.org/
23 Clean Development Mechanism. CDM Rulebook, Clean Development Mechanism Rules, Practice & Procedures.
24 Mizuno, Yuji. MRV in CDM. Presentation for Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES).

A.1.1.3 Joint Implementation (Kyoto Protocol)
Objective: The objective of Joint Implementation (JI) under the Kyoto Protocol is to enable the greatest
reduction in aggregate costs of GHG mitigation, although it specifically was designed to enable more
industrialized Annex I countries to invest in projects in lesser-developed Annex I countries with economies in
transition with lower marginal abatement costs. 25
History and Overview: As in the CDM, JI is a project-based mechanism, although JI only works within Annex
I (developed) countries. The JI mechanism permits credits to be generated from any activity that falls under
a country’s LULUCF accounting. JI is an example of a nested forestry standard as it is embedded into the
country’s Kyoto Protocol accounting and compliance system. Under the Kyoto Protocol, carbon emissions
and removals from LULUCF are not (normally) calculated in a country’s cap.26 Rather, net LULUCF removals
may be used by a country to offset emissions from capped sectors.27 Annex I parties must account for
emissions by sources and removals by sinks of GHGs from afforestation, reforestation and deforestation
activities, but may account for emissions and removals from revegetation, forest management (e.g. reduced
impact logging, fire management), cropland management and grazing land management). 28,29
JI requires that a conservative baseline be established, leakage managed and monitored, and GHG
reductions accounted. Successful JI projects are rewarded with Emission Reduction Units (ERUs). As a result
of their non-temporary status, prices are generally much higher for ERUs than tCRs, although lower than for
non-LULUCF CERs or ERUs. However despite their permanent nature, ERUs from LULUCF activities are not
permitted to enter the EU-ETS, as it bans all credits from forest carbon.30 Unlike CDM A/R projects, ERUs
may be issued on a yearly basis for JI forestry projects.
The rules and procedures for JI are defined in decisions of the Kyoto Protocol Meeting of the Parties.31 The
same principles and the processes that apply in quantifying emission reductions in CDM projects are
generally applicable to JI projects. IPCC guidelines are used as the basis for accounting and reporting in JI,
as with all emissions reductions and removals under the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol. Parties to the
Convention use IPCC guidelines to prepare their national inventories of GHG emissions and removals. Annex
I countries (developed countries) who are Party to the Kyoto Protocol also use additional supplemental
IPCC guidelines to estimate and report land-use related emissions and removals for use under the Kyoto
Protocol.
25 Karousakis, K. (2006) Joint Implementation: Current Issues and Emerging Challenges. OECD. 7
http://www.oecd.org/env/climatechange/37672335.pdf
26 LULUCF accounting is found in Article 3 of the Kyoto Protocol. Under Article 3.7, if land-use change and forestry (LUCF) constituted a net
source of greenhouse gas emissions in 1990, a country may include this in their base year emissions (that are used to calculate the cap). This
exception was negotiated by Australia which had net LUCF emissions in 1990.
27 Emissions that are included in industrialized country’s emission limitation or reduction commitments (caps) under the Kyoto Protocol are
listed in Annex A to the Protocol. This list does not include LULUCF.
28 Kyoto Protocol Articles 3 paras 3 and.4, respectively.
29 In COP-16/CMP.6 in Cancun, the parties decided to adopt the same first-commitment period definitions of forest, afforestation,
reforestation, deforestation, revegetation, forest management, cropland management and grazing land management for the second
commitment period. Issues were still to be decided included whether to include wetlands, whether forest management will remain as an
optional activity, how to determine reference levels for forest management, and whether a cap should be applied to emissions and removals
from forest management. UNFCCC Decision 2/CMP.6, paras 2 and 3.
30 Burian, M. (2008) Assessment of Forestry Projects under the Kyoto Protocol – Obstacles and Opportunities. (Presentation at SB 28).
http://www.gfa-group.de/envest/publications/webdownloads/538311/VortragBurian.pdf
31 In particular, Decision 9/CMP.1 sets out many provisions governing JI.

JI projects may be conducted under either of two tracks. Under Track 1, the host country is responsible for
approvals. Track 2 projects (in countries not fully compliant with JI eligibility requirements) require approval
from the Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee. In each JI country, a Designated Focal Point serves
as the responsible agency for administering JI project activities within their respective jurisdiction.
Process: In general, JI projects follow a project cycle similar, albeit slightly simplified, to the CDM. Where a
host country qualifies for Track 1 JI, the host country can define methodologies, approve projects and
decide on the issuance of credits. JI project sponsors may develop and propose their own baseline and
monitoring methodologies.
They then have to (i) develop a Project Design Document, (ii) obtain Letters of Approval from the host and
investor countries, and perform (iii) independent or host country confirmation of the project design
(project determination), (iv) registration, (v) monitoring, (vi) verification (also referred to as determination)
of GHG emission reductions, (vii) issuance of ERUs, and (viii) transfer of ERUs to relevant entities.32

33 , 34
Element Treatment
Scale Project (nested in national LULUCF accounting)
Geographical Countries that are a party to the Kyoto Protocol and included in the Convention’s Annex I; this means
scope most developed countries and countries with economies in transition.
A/R, Avoided Deforestation, Revegetation and Forest Management (depends on elected LULUCF
Activity scope
reporting of the host party).
RL Must demonstrate that project baseline is developed based on conservative assumptions.
No guidelines exist for social or environmental co-benefits in JI projects. Stakeholder consultations
Safeguards
are part of the project approval process.
Increased anthropogenic emissions are to be accounted for as leakage if the outside emissions
Leakage
resulted from the project activity.
Permanence Loss of carbon stocks is captured in national inventories.
Project-specific additionality has to be proven in the Project Design Document. CDM additionality
Additionality
tools can be used.
MRV for projects under JI Track 2 procedure similar to those in CDM projects. JI Track 1 projects
MRV
have to follow host country rules on MRV.
Annex I countries must have in place national registries in order to record and track Kyoto units.
Registries Issuance of RMUs are limited by the fact that the issuance of ERUs depends on the availability of
removal units (RMUs) in the host country.
32 CDM Rulebook Website. http://cdmrulebook.org/

33 Clean Development Mechanism. CDM Rulebook, Clean Development Mechanism Rules, Practice & Procedures.
34 Carbon Offset Research and Education. “Joint Implementation” Stockholm Environment Institute and GHG Management Institute.
http://www.co2offsetresearch.org/policy/JI.html

A.2 National Law Standards

A.2.1 Australian Carbon Farming Initiative
Objective: Australia’s Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) enables domestic farmers and landowners to generate
carbon credits for Australia’s cap-and-trade program and to enter the Kyoto compliance market (through
2013).
History and Overview: In August 2011 the Australian Parliament passed enabling legislation for the CFI, with
further amendments in May 2012. The initiative is open to all Australian landowners and can generate
offsets for multiple markets, although the primary intent is to support Australia’s upcoming ETS. The
Australian government passed legislation for a cap-and-trade program in 2011, which allows 50% of an
emitting entity’s liability to be met with international offsets, through 2020. 35 For international REDD+ to
be recognized in Australia, the government would need to pass additional regulations.
No mention of ISO standards is made in the CFI documents reviewed, but the National Carbon Offset
Standard (NCOS) to which the CFI must adhere is based on ISO14040:2006, ISO 14044:2006, and ISO
14065:2007 . 36 CFI credits should conform to the initiative’s “integrity criteria” aiming to ensure that offsets
are additional, permanent, accounting for all emissions sources and sinks, accounting for variability,
measurable and verifiable, internationally consistent, and supported by peer-reviewed science. CFI credits
also must adhere to the regulations of the recently revised NCOS.
Process: Some processes for the CFI are still being developed. At the time of writing, a single Environmental
Planting forestry methodology had been approved although there were six under consideration.
Methodologies may be submitted by private individuals, industry associations, or government agencies.
Methodologies are evaluated by the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee for their conformance with the
CFI’s integrity criteria (see Terminology above). Draft methodologies are published and subject to public
comment and final approval by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.37 Project developers
commence projects by becoming a Recognized Offsets Entity (DVV of the CFI) and creating a registry
account, followed by project approval by the Administrator, project implementation, project reporting and
auditing, credit issuance, and closure or transfer of the project.38
35 Government of Australia. Clean Energy Act 2011. Part 1, Section 3 “Objects.”

36 Australian Government Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. National Carbon Offset Standard Version 2, released May 2,
2012.
37 Australian Government Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Website. Guidelines for submitting methodologies.
38 Australian Government (2012). The Carbon Farming Initiative Handbook, Version 1.0. Available at:
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/government/initiatives/carbon-farming-
initiative/~/media/government/initiatives/cfi/handbook/CFI-Handbook-20120403-PDF.pdf


39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44
Element Treatment
Scale Project level
Geographical
“Positive list” identifies eligible activities, which may only occur within Australia.
scope
Activity scope Avoided deforestation, forest management, and reforestation.
Reference levels and baselines will be addressed in specific methodologies as they are developed.
RL Only one forestry methodology, Environmental Plantings, has been approved (August 2012)
although several are under consideration.
Legislation includes a “negative list” of prohibited activities designed to protect biodiversity,
including prohibition on planting of weed species, reforestation on areas of illegally-cleared native
Safeguards forest and legally-cleared native forest within 7 years of clearing. An “Indigenous Carbon Farming
Fund” is in effect from July 2012 to develop low-cost methodologies and capacity building targeted
for Indigenous Australians.
Leakage Leakage will be addressed in methodologies as they are developed.
CFI sequestration projects only (A/R) must store carbon for 100 years. If the proponent wishes to
cancel the project they must relinquish credits to the administrator, purchase replacement credits, or
supplement with credits from another project.
Permanence
A risk buffer contribution of 5% is levied upon all projects. Proponents do not have to return credits
in the event of a natural disturbance but will not receive further credits until the pre-disturbance
carbon stocks are restored.
Two-part additionality test including (i) projects must not be required by law (regulatory surplus) and
Additionality
(ii) common practice test determined by activities on the positive list.
CFI project reports are required at least every 5 years, except for mature forests in sequestration
MRV projects. Audit reports from registered greenhouse/energy auditors are required, although some
small projects may be exempted.
The Australian National Registry of Emissions Units serves as the registry for Australian Carbon Credit
Registries
Units (ACCUs), which are divided into Kyoto compliant ACCUs and non-Kyoto ACCUs.
A.2.2 New Zealand Permanent Forest Sink Initiative
Objective: The objective of the New Zealand ETS is to reduce GHG emissions while helping the country
achieve its emission reduction targets as stipulated in the Kyoto Protocol. Since going into effect in the
39 Australian Government Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Website. Carbon Farming Initiative.
40 Australian Government Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. (October 2011). Carbon Farming Initiative: Negative list
guidelines.
41 Australian Government (2012). The Carbon Farming Initiative Handbook, Version 1.0
42 Australian Government Clean Energy Regulator (June 2012). Australian Carbon Credit Units.
43 Australian Government. Carbon Farming Initiative Act 2011: Provisions relating to indigenous land.

beginning of 2008, the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative (PFSI) supports establishment of permanent forests
on land not previously forested.
History and Overview: The New Zealand ETS (NZ ETS) was launched in January 2008 when the forestry
sector became the first industry to participate in the scheme.45 Since its launch, the energy, industry, and
transport sectors have also joined the NZ ETS. The New Zealand market accepts both international carbon
credits recognized by the Kyoto Protocol as well as the domestic New Zealand Unit (NZU), which is
equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide. These NZUs may then be sold on the NZ ETS to help other
companies meet their obligations under New Zealand’s climate change regulations. Under the PFSI,
landowners can earn income for reforesting land not previously forested by selling credits to offset emissions
from other sectors in the NZ ETS.
Process: Landowners of land that was not forested on January 1, 1990 are eligible to receive NZU’s for
every tonne of carbon sequestered from January 1 st 2008 onward, under the stipulation that land must be
registered by the end of 2012. NZUs need to be surrendered for carbon lost from pre-1990 forests. Carbon
rights may be divorced from the land and participants in the scheme may either be landowners themselves,
holders of registered forestry rights or land leases, or a party to a Crown Conservation Contract.46 Because
participation is voluntary in post-1989 forests, carbon stock changes on forests not registered by the
landowner go to the Crown by default. If carbon reversals occur, owners must surrender NZU units to offset
the emissions. Forestry NZUs comprised 13% of all credits surrendered in 2011 on the NZ ETS, with
international CER, ERUs and RMUs making up over 70% of the market.47

48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53
Element Treatment
Scale Project level
Geographical
NZ forest activities, with links to international carbon markets.
scope
Activity scope A/R and SFM post-1989. Deforestation of pre-1990 forests punished.
The NZ ETS is built off of the Kyoto Protocol and uses 1990 as the reference year for forests. A
requirement on pre-1990 forest landowners to surrender NZUs for every ton of CO2 emissions from
RL
deforestation effectively sets their baseline deforestation rate at 0%. All sequestration in forests
post-1989 is considered above the baseline.
Safeguards The reviewed rules do not specifically refer to safeguards.
45 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. (2011). Introduction to forestry in the Emissions Trading Scheme. New Zealand Government.
46 Ibid
47 New Zealand Government. (2012) NZ ETS 2011 – Facts and Figures. http://climatechange.govt.nz/emissions-trading-
scheme/building/reports/ets-report/nzets-2011-facts-and-figures-2012.pdf
48 Australian Government Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Website. Carbon Farming Initiative.
49 Australian Government Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. (October 2011). Carbon Farming Initiative: Negative list
guidelines.
50 Australian Government (2012). The Carbon Farming Initiative Handbook, Version 1.0
51 Australian Government Clean Energy Regulator (June 2012). Australian Carbon Credit Units.
52 Australian Government. Carbon Farming Initiative Act 2011: Provisions relating to indigenous land.

Leakage is managed by national inventories. At the project level it is indirectly addressed by the
Leakage creation of a system that does not provide incentives for avoided deforestation (as penalties are only
imposed where deforestation does occur).
When deforestation occurs or carbon stocks are reversed, forest owners must surrender an
Permanence
equivalent number of units from the NZ ETS.
All sequestration from post-1989 forests is considered additional. Pre-1990 forests are not eligible
Additionality
to create NZUs and therefore additionality is not addressed.
At the project level, landowners must comply with approved carbon accounting methodologies
created by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry that are based on IPCC guidelines. Landowners of
54
MRV areas greater than 100 hectares must comply with the Field Measurement Approach (FMA), with
post-1989 forest owners submitting monitoring results at least every five years. Pre-1990 forest
owners must submit results within one year after a deforestation event has occurred.
The New Zealand Emission Unit Register (NZUR) is a national, internet-based registry system for
Registries tracking forestry NZUs. The system manages reporting and reconciliation of emissions and register
55
participants in the NZ ETS. It is linked to the country’s Kyoto registry.
A.2.3 Japan Offset Credit (J-VER) Scheme
Objective: The Japan Verified Emission Reduction (J-VER) Scheme promotes domestic voluntary GHG
reduction/sink offset projects by the creation of carbon credits meeting international ISO standards.
History and Overview: The Japanese Ministry of the Environment began the program in 2008. J-VER issues
credits for the period from 2008 to 2012, and ends in March 2013, when the Japanese Ministry of the
Environment will determine its prospects for continuation.56 J-VER is an a voluntary offset program that is
linked for the ETS of the Saitama Prefecture, where the credits have compliance value. The standard records
some of the highest carbon prices at an average of USD 119/tCO2e, although only 6% of the forest
carbon credit market for Asia.57 The high prices reflect the high marginal abatement costs of GHG emissions
in Japan. Insiders have reported that they believe the program will continue after March 2013. Through
2011, AFOLU projects represented 95% of the overall share of J-VER projects validated in that time.58 As of
February 2012, 186 projects were registered, 60% of which operate under its forestry methodology.59
Process: J-VER is designed with Japan-only methodologies according to the ISO-14064 series.60 Originally
established for voluntary carbon offsetting, J-VER also may be used for compliance purposes (e.g. ETS).61
54 NZ Ministry for Primary Industries Website. Field Measurement Approach. http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-resources/faqs/faq-field-

measurement-approach
55 Chokkalingam, Unna. (2010) Design Options for a Forest Carbon Legal Framework for Lao PDR: Drawing lessons from across the globe.
GTZ-CLiPAD.
56 State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2012, p. 74.
57 State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2012, pp. 12, 31.
59 Kobayashi, N. (2012) Applicability of J-VER scheme to REDD+ project in Indonesia,
http://www.iges.or.jp/jp/cdm/pdf/indonesia/20120216/NihonUniv_Konayashi.pdf
60 ISO 14064-1:2006. Greenhouse gases - Part 1: Specification with guidance at the organization level for quantification and reporting of
greenhouse gas emissions and removals

Guidelines are provided specfically for J-VER carbon-offsetting and forest methodologies, with an emphasis
on participation, transparency and accountability. As a co-benefit, proceeds from carbon credits are
expected to benefit local environmental protection and economic devleopment.62
The scheme’s operations are managed by four entities. The Offset credit (J-VER) Certification and Steering
Committee (created by the Ministry of Environment) certifies emissions and issues credits and receives
opinions from a Third-Party Committee, and a Methodology Panel. In turn, the Steering Committee submits
decisions to the Certification Center of Climate Change, which acts as Secretariat of the Scheme.63
64 , 65 , 66
Element Treatment
Scale Project level
Geographical
Japanese forests
scope
Activity scope Forest thinning, afforestation, accelerated sustainable forest management
Follows gross-net method of calculating the annual amount of carbon sink in the project area (rather
RL
than baseline and credit method).
‘Positive list’ of project types and methodologies that meet Japanese sustainability criteria. Projects
Safeguards need to be developed in compliance with the eligibility and project design criteria of one of the
identified project types.
Under the “General Rules of the Offsetting Credit (J-VER) Scheme,” projects must demonstrate
Leakage
“completeness” of emissions reductions/removal by sinks activities without any leakage.
Permanence Three percent deposit required for buffering the reversal risk.
Additionality determined by meeting GHG project types, technologies and eligibility criteria on
Additionality
positive list.
Monitoring must follow “Certification Standard for Forest Carbon Sink (J-VER) Scheme.” Project
MRV
validation and verification must be carried out by ISO 14065 accredited bodies.
Registries J-VER Registry holds J-VERs for carbon offsetting and similar purposes.
61 Koyanagi, Y. (2011) Japan’s Domestic Offset Mechanism: Japan Verified Emission Reduction (J-VER) Available at: http://www.cdm-
mongolia.com/files/5_IGES_J-VER_5.pdf
62 Toda, E. Carbon Offsetting in Japan. http://www.env.go.jp/en/earth/ets/mkt_mech/co-japan.pdf
63 Toda, E. Ibid.,
64 Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan, Offset Credit (J-VER) Scheme.
http://www.j-cof.go.jp/pdf/pamph_15.pdf
65 Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan, Forest Carbon Sink Becomes Carbon Offsetting Credit
http://www.env.go.jp/en/earth/ets/mkt_mech/fcsb-coc.pdf
66 Hiroshima, T. (2012) “Trends and Issues on the Japan Verified Emissions Reductions (J-VER) scheme and carbon offset,” Available at:
http://repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2261/51963/1/esrh127001.pdf

A.3 Subnational and Regional Initiatives
A.3.1 USA California
Objective: California is instituting a cap-and-trade program to enable it to meet the objective of its climate
change legislation to reduce 2020 emissions to 1990 levels.67
History and Overview: In 2006, the State of California passed climate legislation (AB 32), enabling the
creation of a cap-and-trade system that will apply a cap on some entities as early as 2013. 68 The Air
Resources Board (ARB) is responsible for implementation of the cap-and-trade program. When the cap-and-
trade program goes into effect, ARB will immediately accept offsets sourced from US forest projects. A
limited number of international offset credits may be accepted for use in California’s trading program. 69 This
may eventually include international REDD+ credits that are generated against state-level accounting.
California signed a memorandum of understanding with Chiapas (Mexico) and Acre (Brazil) to cooperate on
building these potential linkages. It is unclear if ARB protocols adhere to ISO standards, but third party
verification bodies must adhere to ISO 14065.70, 71
Process: The ARB has created its own offset protocols for domestic offsets. They are similar to CAR in that
there is a single protocol per offset type (one for US Forests). For domestic projects, once the project is
established annual offset project data reports must be submitted with full verification every six years for a
100 year time period.

The following overview is only of the California Air Resources Board’s Compliance Offset Protocol for U.S.
Forest Projects. Although there is potential for international REDD+ to be included in the California market
in coming years, this is not yet final and no guidance or standards have been released.
72 , 73
Element Treatment
Scale Project level
Geographical
USA
scope
Activity scope A/R, IFM, Avoided Conversion
BAU baseline must be modeled over 100 years for onsite carbon stocks as well as baseline harvested
RL
wood products. No update is required.
67 Government of California. (2006). Assembly Bill 32. Chapter 4, Part 3, 38550.

68 Ibid.
69 Electronic communication from ACR program. 21 Nov 2012.
70 California Air Resources Board (October 2011). California Air Resources Board Greenhouse Gas Verification Program: Requirements for
Accreditation of Verification Bodies and Verifiers.
71 ISO 14065:2007, Supra note 49.
72 California Air Resources Board (ARB) (2010) Compliance Offset Protocol for Forest Projects.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/capandtrade10/cappt5.pdf
73 California Air Resources Board. (2011) Compliance Offset Protocol U.S. Forest Projects.

Regarding environmental safeguards, if commercial harvesting occurs in the project, “sustainable

Safeguards long-term harvesting practices” are required, by FSC certification or other options. Additionally, all
projects must “promote and maintain a diversity of native species.” Social safeguards are absent.
“Secondary effects” must be accounted for, and include activity shifting and a standard deduction for
Leakage market leakage in harvested wood products (20% of difference in harvested volume between
baseline and project scenario).
Permanence is defined as 100 years (following issuance of offset credit for GHG reductions or
removals from the project). Unintentional reversals are mitigated through the ARB buffer account
Permanence
based on project-specific risk evaluation. Intentional reversals require retirement of offset credits
pursuant to the regulatory rules.
ARB Protocols require a two-part additionality test including (i) regulatory surplus and (ii) a
Additionality
performance test indicating that the project goes beyond common practice.
Annual reports including estimation of on-site carbon stocks are required with third-party
MRV
verification including site visits at least every 6 years.
Multiple registries can apply to become an approved ARB offset registry. As of October 2012, the
Registries
Climate Action Reserve was the first approved registry.
A.3.2 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (USA)
Objective: The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a cooperative effort among nine Northeastern
and Mid-Atlantic US states to reduce power sector CO2 emissions 10% from 2009-2018.74, 75
History and Overview: The initiative went into effect at the beginning of 2009 and was the first GHG
compliance market in the US. 76 US-based afforestation and reforestation is one of the eligible offset
categories under RGGI, and no other forestry credits are permitted. Offsets can contribute up to 50% of an
entity’s compliance obligation.77 RGGI does not currently accept, and is considered unlikely to accept,
international offsets. 78 RGGI uses an approach to A/R projects wherein the regulations creating the
“standard” for these project types comes from a combination of individual state legislation and the “Model
Rule,”79 a set of proposed regulations meant to guide the development of consistent offset regulations
across the participating states.
Process: As RGGI does not use multiple methodologies for a single project type, additional methodologies
cannot be proposed.80
74 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Website.

75 Note that as of July 2012, the continuing participation of New Jersey was in jeopardy with the governor having vetoed the continued
membership in RGGI and the legislature unlikely to successfully override the veto.
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.1944090?&ref=searchlist
76 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Program Design. http://www.rggi.org/design.
77 Stevens, K., G. DeAngelo, S. Brice, (2010) Comparative Study of Selected Offset Protocols for Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Reporting
Programs. Report for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
78 WB State and Trends
79 See Model Rule “Subpart XX-10.1”
80 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. (2008) Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Model Rule: Part XX CO2 Budget Trading Program.


81 , 82 , 83 , 84
Element Treatment
Scale Project level
Geographical
Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic US, participating states
scope
Activity scope A/R
Project baseline is defined as the onsite carbon stocks at commencement of the A/R project among
RL
required carbon pools. Unlike most other standards, soil carbon is a required pool.
Required to use “mainly” native species. FSC certification is required for projects involving timber
Safeguards
harvesting.
Leakage No provisions
Required permanent conservation easement. Emission reductions from A/R projects only are
Permanence
discounted by 10% to account for potential reversals.
RGGI uses a standardized approach to additionality requiring projects (i) started after Dec. 20 2005,
(ii) pass the regulatory surplus test, (iii) cannot receive funding/incentives from other programs
Additionality
funded by electricity or natural gas ratepayers, (iv) cannot be awarded credits from another GHG
program, (v) cannot include electricity generation.
Independent validation (called “consistency determination”) at project outset, with annual
MRV
independent monitoring and verification report.
RGGI CO 2 Allowance Tracking System (COATS) serves as the registry for “CO 2 offset allowances.”
Registries Unlike nearly all other CO 2 trading programs, RGGI offsets are measured in short tons as opposed to
85
metric tons.
A.4 Voluntary Carbon Market Standards
A.4.1 Verified Carbon Standard
Objective: The Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) was founded to “provide a robust quality assurance standard
for GHG emission reduction projects with the purpose of issuing credits for voluntary markets.”86
History and Overview: The VCS Association was founded in 2005 by the Climate Group, the International
Emissions Trading Association, and the World Economic Forum to provide “greater quality assurance in
voluntary markets.” It is an independent, non‐profit organization headquartered in Washington, DC.87
81 Stockholm Environment Institute. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Carbon Offset Research & Education (CORE).
82 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Website.
83 Stevens, K., G. DeAngelo, S. Brice, (2010) Comparative Study of Selected Offset Protocols for Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Reporting
Programs. Report for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
84 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. (2008) Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Model Rule: Part XX CO2 Budget Trading Program.
85 A short ton is equal to 2,000 pounds (907.18474 kg), whereas a metric ton is equal to 1,000 kilograms (2,204.62262 pounds).
86 Verified Carbon Standard Website. Our Mission. http://v-c-s.org/who-we-are/mission-history
87 Verified Carbon Standard Website. Who we are. http://v-c-s.org/who-we-are

VCS provides a general standard (latest version, 3.3 against which a large number of project types are
validated, with the standard built upon ISO standards ISO 14064-2:2006,88 ISO 14064-3:2006 89 and ISO
14065:2007.90 The VCS is the major voluntary carbon standard comprising 58% of 2011 overall voluntary
market share 91 with 105 million carbon credits (VCUs) for all project types issued 92 cumulatively at the time
of writing. Of the 738 total projects validated to date under VCS, over 35 corresponded to the overall
AFOLU project type classification.93 In that year, REDD projects under the VCS reduced 2.5 MtCO2e from
12 projects across different development stages.94 At the time of writing, the VCS counts eight REDD+
projects at some stage of development on its website. 95
REDD+ projects, as all projects, must adhere to the principles of the VCS Program; each VCU must
correspond to real, measurable, and additional GHG reductions or removals, it must be independently
audited, unique, transparent, and conservative. The VCS Standard (current version, 3.2) is comprised of
criteria and procedures, and approved methodologies. REDD+ projects are subject to the additional
Agriculture, Forestry, and other Land Use (AFOLU) Requirements (current version, 3.2). Specific
methodologies define a specific set of criteria and procedures for a given project type (for example REDD+).
A single project type may use multiple approved methodologies to combine project types (such as
Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation (ARR) with REDD).96 Methodologies can be further divided
into modules—components applied to perform a specific methodological task. Tools are a type of module
used for performing a specific analysis.97
Process: Projects developed under VCS must (i) choose an approved methodology or develop a new one for
approval, (ii) submit a project description (PD) using the VCS PD template for validation by a
Validation/Verification Body (VVB), (iii) have emission reductions verified by a VVB, (iv) register the project
with a VCS registry operator and request issuance of VCUs, the unit of VCS credits.
As of July 2012, VCS has ten approved methodologies under the scope of REDD+ and generally accepts
CDM A/R methodologies. Additionally, Climate Action Reserve (CAR) protocols are accepted under VCS,
although CAR’s forest protocol was still pending approval at the time of publication. VCS permits
methodologies (and revisions), modules, and tools to be submitted for approval. These are first posted
online for a global stakeholder consultation, and then they are independently assessed by two VVBs and
approved by the VCS Association.
VCS has until recently only been a standard for project-level REDD+ activities. In October 2012, VCS released
their final requirements for Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ (JNR) , which provides requirements for nested,
88 “Greenhouse gases -- Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse
gas emission reductions or removal enhancements.” ISO Website: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=38382
89 “Greenhouse gases -- Part 3: Specification with guidance for the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions.” ISO Website:
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=38700
90 “Greenhouse gases -- Requirements for greenhouse gas validation and verification bodies for use in accreditation or other forms of
recognition.” ISO Website: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=40685
91 Peters-Stanley, K. Hamilton. (2012). Developing Dimension: Peters-Stanley, K. Hamilton. (2012). Developing Dimension: State of the
Voluntary Carbon Market 2012. Ecosystem Marketplace publication. Carbon Market 2012. Ecosystem Marketplace publication.
92 Electronic communication from VCS program, 19 Nov 2012.
94 State of Voluntary Carbon Markets, 2012, p. 28.
95 Website: http://www.vcsprojectdatabase.org/ (Keyword search “REDD”). Last checked 19 Nov 2012.
97 Verified Carbon Standard. VCS Program Definitions, VCS Standard, Version 3.3 (Oct 2012) Available at: http://v-c-s.org/sites/v-c-
s.org/files/VCS%20Standard%2C%20v3.3.pdf

subnational, and national scale REDD+ and is the first global standard for accounting and crediting national
and subnational jurisdictional REDD+ programs. The information below regarding main design elements for
JNR is from Version 3 released in October 2012. 98
99 , 100 , 101
Element Treatment
Scale Project- and jurisdictional-level (JNR)
Geographical
International
scope
Project Scale: Five general AFOLU categories: Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation (ARR),
Agricultural Land Management (ALM), Improved Forest Management (IFM), REDD, Wetland
Activity scope Restoration and Conservation (WCR).
Nested/Jurisdictional Scale: All activities within a national and/or subnational jurisdiction, as selected
by the jurisdiction.
Project Scale: Business-As-Usual (BAU) baseline revalidated every ten years. Information inputs
depend on methodology.
RL Nested/Jurisdictional Scale: 10 year historic baseline, updated every 10 years. Adjustment for
national circumstances is possible. If a baseline already exists for a compliance program, whichever is
more conservative shall be used. No spatial overlap is permitted with activity data.
Project Scale: VCS requires any potential negative social and environmental impacts to be identified
and mitigated. Most projects also apply CCB or another co-benefits standard. Nested/Jurisdictional
Safeguards
Scale: Must address and respect safeguards from Annex 1 of 1/CP.16 UNFCCC Cancun Agreements
and provide information on complementary safeguard or co-benefit standards that are used.
Project Scale: Leakage is addressed through leakage sharing agreements, a leakage belt, or a
leakage deduction tool.
Leakage Nested/Jurisdictional Scale: National jurisdictions do not need to account for leakage but should
mitigate it to the extent possible. Subnational jurisdictions must estimate and deduct leakage that
may occur outside the jurisdiction but within the country.
Project Scale: A 10-60% buffer is required, determined by the application of the AFOLU
Permanence Non-permanence Risk Tool.
Nested/Jurisdictional Scale: A Jurisdictional Non-Permanence Risk Tool is in development.
Project Scale: Must use Tool for the Demonstration and Assessment of Additionality in VCS AFOLU
Project Activities, v. 3.0 (Adapted from CDM A/R Additionality Tool). This includes four steps, (i)
identification of alternative land use scenarios, (ii) investment analysis, (iii) barriers analysis, (iv)
Additionality
common practice analysis.
Nested/Jurisdictional Scale: Additionality is factored into the jurisdictional baseline. If projects are
credited directly, they must use an approved AFOLU methodology to assess additionality.
98 Verified Carbon Standard. (Oct 2012). Draft Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ (JNR) Requirements. Available at: http://v-c-s.org/sites/v-
c-s.org/files/Jurisdictional%20and%20Nested%20REDD%2B%20Requirements%2C%20v3.0.pdf
99 Verified Carbon Standard. (Oct 2012). Draft Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ (JNR) Requirements. Available at: http://v-c-s.org/sites/v-
c-s.org/files/Jurisdictional%20and%20Nested%20REDD%2B%20Requirements%2C%20v3.0.pdf
100 Verified Carbon Standard. (Oct 2012). Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Requirements, section 3.1.5. Available at:
http://v-c-s.org/sites/v-c-s.org/files/AFOLU%20Requirements%20v3.3_0.pdf

Project Scale: Required intervals for monitoring vary by methodology and the parameter monitored.
Some methodologies require annual monitoring of some parameters, while others require
monitoring only every 10 years. Monitoring requires verification by a VVB, following this VCUs are
issued.
MRV
Nested/Jurisdictional Scale: Jurisdictional Monitoring Report Template to be developed and
submitted at least every 5 years. Nested and subnational projects may monitor and report at different
intervals than the larger jurisdiction, but must also monitor and synchronize their reporting with the
larger jurisdiction at least every 5 years.
Project Scale: The VCS Project Database is supported by three registry operators: NYSE Blue, Markit,
and Caisse des Depots.
Registries
Nested/Jurisdictional Scale: Jurisdictional programs and nested projects use the VCS registry
system, domestic registries may also be developed by jurisdictions.
A.4.2 American Carbon Registry
Objective: The American Carbon Registry (ACR) has been established as a “voluntary offset program with
strong standards for environmental integrity and transparency” with a view towards future US federal and
regional GHG regulatory programs.102
History and Overview: The American Carbon Registry was founded in 1996 as the GHG Registry and
currently functions as a non-profit enterprise of Winrock International. 103 ACR has a comprehensive
American Carbon Registry Standard (current version, 2.1) as well as a Forest Carbon Project Standard
(current version, 2.1), and as of October, 2012 was in the process of developing Nested REDD+
Requirements released in October 2012.104 To date, eight AFOLU sector projects have been validated under
the ACR out of a total of 68 projects through 2011. Overall, AFOLU projects made up 64% of the total of
project types transacted in 2011.105
ACR standards establish uniform technical criteria, methods, processes and practices and are based on ISO
14064-3:2006 and ISO 14065:2007. REDD+ projects under the ACR must adhere to the American Carbon
Registry Standard (v 2.1), as well as the Forest Carbon Project Standard (v 2.1) and potentially the Nested
REDD+ Requirements. Methodologies are defined as systematic explanations for how the project baseline
scenario(s) were established as well as an estimation of emissions reductions and removals, following
scientific good practice. 106
Process: Projects developed under ACR submit a project document for independent third party validation.
Emissions reductions must be verified at least every five years by a VVB, including a field visit to the project
site. Following this the project proponent submits a verification statement. ACR has six approved
methodologies under the scope of REDD+, and CDM and VCS methodologies are generally accepted.
102 American Carbon Registry Website. About Us. http://americancarbonregistry.org/

103 American Carbon Registry Website. About Us. http://americancarbonregistry.org/
104 American Carbon Registry Nested REDD+ Standard Version 1.0 (October 2012). http://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-
accounting/acr-nested-redd-standard-v1.0
105 State of Voluntary Carbon Markets, 2012, p. 66
106 American Carbon Registry. (June 2012). Validation and Verification Guideline, Version 1.1

Methodologies can be independently developed to be evaluated and approved through scientific peer
review and public comment.107
108 , 109
Element Treatment
Scale Project- and projects nested in jurisdictional-level programs
Geographical
International
scope
Project Scale: Full Scope of REDD+ including REDD, A/R, and IFM
Activity scope
Nested/Jurisdictional Scale: All nested project activities within a jurisdiction
Project Scale: Baseline approach. A/R baselines are the on-site carbon stocks prior to site
preparation. IFM baselines rely upon identification of credible alternative forest management
scenarios from the proposed project activity (historical or common approaches in the area), including
wood products. For REDD the ACR Tool for Determining REDD Project Baseline and Additionality
should be applied. REDD baselines for planned deforestation projects are what would have
RL happened in the absence of project activities (as determined by documentation) and for unplanned
deforestation baselines should be modelled. Performance standard approaches to baselines may be
accepted for IFM projects.
Nested/Jurisdictional Scale: Jurisdictional baseline should be conservative and divided by selected
REDD+ activities, to be re-evaluated every 10 years (or more frequently when a triggering event
occurs). The baseline unit may be determined by jurisdictions.
Project Scale: “Net positive” environmental and community impacts are required. No specific tool or
process is defined, although CCBA tools are recommended.
Nested/Jurisdictional Scale: Must address and respect safeguards from Annex 1 of 1/CP.16
Safeguards
UNFCCC Cancun Agreements and meet one of ACR-approved project or jurisdictional safeguard
standards, as well as meet requirements on free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), relocation, and
positive social and environmental benefits.
Project Scale: For A/R only activity shifting is usually accounted for. Market leakage is only
accounted for in IFM if the project activities will reduce total wood production below the baseline
during a crediting period. In REDD, market and activity shifting leakage should be accounted for
Leakage using default leakage deductions, or other tools proposed in methodologies.
Nested/Jurisdictional Scale: No need to account for leakage outside national jurisdiction borders;
subnational jurisdiction must have a system to monitor leakage outside borders and a Leakage
Buffer Account to correct for leakage.
Project Scale: ACR will release an ACR Risk Analysis and Buffer Tool; until the tool is released the
VCS AFOLU Buffer Tool can be used. Projects must be at least 40 years in length and risk is
Permanence mitigated through a buffer account or insurance.
Nested/Jurisdictional Scale: Nested projects to assess and mitigate as under ACR projects;
jurisdictions to reassess non-performance risk at least once every 5 years.
107 American Carbon Registry Website. Standards and Methodologies.

108 American Carbon Registry. (2010). The American Carbon Registry Standard. Version 2.1.
109 American Carbon Registry. (2010). The American Carbon Registry Forest Carbon Project Standard. Version 2.1.

Project Scale: The ACR Tool for Determining REDD Project Baseline and Additionality is used and
includes a three pronged approach for testing for (i) regulatory surplus, where the project activities
must go beyond any activities required by federal, state, or local law, (ii) common practice, and (iii)
Additionality implementation barriers.
Nested/Jurisdictional Scale: Nested projects within a jurisdiction with an approved baseline do not
need to prove additionality; projects lacking such must register as non-nested and follow project-
level requirements.
Project Scale: Following successful validation, ACR requires third party verification at least every 5
years.
MRV
Nested/Jurisdictional Scale: Same project-level verification plus jurisdiction-level assessment and
mitigation of contractual, political, natural disturbance and non-performance risks.
Project Scale: ACR hosts its own registry which supports voluntary market projects as well as
upcoming California compliance market offsets. Carbon credits are issued as Emission Reduction
Tons (ERTs).
Registries
Nested/Jurisdictional Scale: A jurisdictional registry must publicly document all ERRs credited to
nested REDD+ activities in a jurisdiction for ACR to register a REDD+ project nested within a
jurisdictional accounting framework (to avoid double-counting).
A.4.3 Climate Action Reserve
Objective: The Climate Action Reserve (CAR) was founded to “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions by pioneering credible market-based policies and solutions” and is a sister organization of The
Climate Registry.110
History and Overview: CAR began as a project of the California Climate Action Registry and has since
developed as an independent entity. CAR focuses primarily on the US market, although it is in the process
of developing a Forest Project Protocol for Mexico. The standard is based on ISO standards 14065:2007
and 14064-3: 2006.
Of a total of 126 projects validated through 2011 under the CAR, six fell under the AFOLU sector type.111
At the time of writing, CAR lists on its website 11 reforestation projects, 12 avoided conversion projects, five
conservation-based forest management projects, 44 improved forest management projects, and one urban
forestry project, all at various stage of development. 112
The CAR standard is regulated by the Climate Action Reserve Program Manual (hereafter “Program Manual”),
the Verification Program Manual, and specific project protocols for each project type. The Program Manual
describes the principles, general guidelines, and process rules for registering and creating offsets. All US
forestry projects are covered by the Forest Project Protocol V3.2 (version 3.3 is in development), with the
exception of urban forestry projects that have their own protocol. CAR is in the process of creating a
110 Electronic communication from Climate Action Reserve, 15 Nov 2012. (Website: www.theclimateregistry.org)
112 Climate Action Reserve Website, http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/projects/ (Option “View Projects”).

Mexico forest project protocol, for which a draft was released in November 2011. 113 CAR does not use
“methodologies” in the same sense as some of the other standards. CAR instead has one single
encompassing project protocol for each project type. This is in contrast to other standards, such as VCS
with ten REDD+ methodologies.
Process: Projects developed under CAR first create an account and submit a range of initial required
supporting documents including a Project Design Document. Projects that are deemed eligible by Reserve
Staff submit remaining required documents and undergo third party verification at the required time interval
(at least every 6 years). Upon approval of the verification documents, Climate Reserve Tonnes (CRTs) are
issued.114
In July 2012 all CAR protocols were accepted under VCS, with the exception of the forest protocol, which
was under review. Additionally, CRTs can be converted to VCUs, but not vice versa.115

116 , 117 , 118
Element Treatment
Scale Project-level
Geographical
Only in US and Mexico.
scope
Activity scope Full Scope including Avoided Conversion (REDD), A/R, and IFM.
A 100-year baseline modeling of carbon stocks is used for all required and selected optional carbon
RL
pools, which is not to be modified during this 100 year period.
US Projects: The Program Manual requires demonstration that projects do not “undermine progress
on other environmental issues… [including] environmental justice.” Compliance with relevant laws is
required. Co-benefits are not required, but steps are required to be taken to minimize harm. The
Safeguards Program Manual explicitly notes that CAR is designed to be used with additional safeguard
standards. Mexico (in development): Projects likely would be required to be additionally verified
under CCBA or Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) to comply with the principles of the Cancun
Agreements.
CAR defines the GHG assessment boundary as including all sources, sinks, and reservoirs that could
be significantly impacted by project activity. Leakage is implicitly included in this. Also, Sustainable
Leakage
Harvesting Practices requirement is applied across all of forest owner’s landholdings within the same
ecological region, which further addresses activity shifting leakage.
Emission reductions should be permanent for more than 100 years. Project proponents must sign a
Permanence Project Implementation Agreement requiring them to retire CRTs in the event of a reversal to
compensate. Permanence is also managed by required contributions to a buffer pool.
113 For more information see: http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/protocols/mexico-forest/

114 Electronic communication from Climate Action Reserve, 15 Nov 2012. (“Site visit verification at least every 6 years for Improved Forest
Management and Avoided Conversion with optional desktop verification in the interim. Reforestation Projects may defer the second site visit
verification for longer than 6 years.”)
115 Climate Action Reserve Website. Reserve FAQs.
116 Climate Action Reserve. US Forest Project Protocol. Version 3.2
117 Climate Action Reserve. (2011). Mexico Forest Protocol, Draft for Public Review, Version. 1.0.
118 Electronic communication from Climate Action Reserve, 15 Nov 2012.

CAR uses a “standardized” approach to additionality whereby project characteristics are measured
Additionality against sectoral standards to determine additionality, as opposed to a project-based approach that
compares a project scenario to alternative scenarios.
MRV Third party verification is required at least every 6 years.
CAR has its own registry supporting voluntary market projects that hosts offset projects across North
Registries
America including the upcoming California compliance market.
A.4.4 CarbonFix
Objective: CarbonFix seeks to set a “quality benchmark for worldwide climate forestation projects.”119
History and Overview: CarbonFix as an organization was created in 1999 to promote A/R projects through
the CDM. In September 2012, the Gold Standard Foundation announced that it would acquire the
CarbonFix Standard to establish the foundation of its expansion into the land-use and forests sector. 120
The CarbonFix Standard dates to 2007 and focuses on afforestation, reforestation, natural regeneration,
and agro-forestry projects. CarbonFix does not accept avoided deforestation (RED) projects. CarbonFix
does not advertise in its standard or on its website which specific ISO standards it adheres to although
general reference to ISO standard(s) is made. CarbonFix can be considered a “boutique” standard and as
such had a very small market share in the 2010 forest carbon market (0.1%) but attained some of the
highest prices.121 Through 2011, five projects have been validated, all in the AFOLU sector. 122 There is a
single CarbonFix Standard (v 3.2) comprised of Terms, Criteria & Methodology, and Procedures. 123
CarbonFix has a single methodology comprised of various templates that must be completed on all aspects
of the methodology, for example, additionality, baseline, leakage, etc.
Process: The first step in creating CarbonFix offset credits is an initial pre-validation desk review conducted
by the CarbonFix technical board to determine whether the project is likely to satisfy CarbonFix regulations.
This is different than many other standards in which a pre-validation is carried out by an independent VVB.
Following a successful pre-validation the project developer submits the project for initial certification by a
VVB, followed later by a monitoring certification (to verify emission reductions and removals, to be
completed at least every five years), and possibly a management unit certification.124
119 CarbonFix Website: http://www.carbonfix.info/CarbonFix-Standard.html?PHPSESSID=1cj48qahe4891iq9dmvvjd63a4

120 The Gold Standard Foundation was established in 2003 by WWF and is a certification standard for both voluntary and compliance
markets such as the CDM. As of July 2012, over six million voluntary market credits have been issued and nearly one million compliance CERs
have been issued. Gold Standard Foundation Website. Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/
121 Diaz, D., K. Hamilton, E. Johnson (2011) State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2011. Ecosystem Marketplace.
123 Terms provide definitions used in the standard. The Criteria & Methodology describes the criteria and process that must be used to be in
conformance with the standard. Procedures refer to the way the information must be presented for validation and certification.
124 CarbonFix Standard, Version 3.2. The management unit certification enables scaling up of the same project by adding new management
units.


125
Element Treatment
Scale Project-level
Geographical
International
scope
Activity scope Only afforestation, reforestation natural revegetation and agroforestry allowed.
The baseline is the sum of carbon stocks on the eligible planting area prior to planting. Carbon pools
RL
include above and below ground woody biomass and non-woody biomass.
CarbonFix is designed as an all-inclusive GHG quantification and safeguard standard, but can be used
with other safeguard and co-benefit standards. Requires proving land cover eligibility for A/R and
Safeguards net positive ecological and socio-economic impacts. Includes protection of endangered species,
buffering waterways, consulting stakeholders and not displacing people. In some cases FSC and
CCBA criteria can substitute for those required by CarbonFix.
All project activities with a potential impact on leakage are to be accounted for, but there is no
Leakage defined leakage belt as in other standards. Market-shifting leakage is not mentioned, although this
is not relevant in A/R projects.
A 30% buffer contribution is required across all projects. Both ex-post and ex-ante crediting are
Permanence
possible.
The CDM A/R Additionality Tool is used with (i) barrier analysis, (ii) investment analysis, and (iii)
Additionality
common practice analysis.
Monitoring and validation/verification is a 3-step process with (i) initial certification of the project, (ii)
MRV a monitoring certification after implementation, (iii) and management unit certification for project
expansion. Monitoring certifications should occur at least every 5 years.
Registries Markit Environment Registry acts as the registry for CO2-certificates.
A.4.5 Plan Vivo
Objective: Plan Vivo is a “framework for developing and managing community-based land-use projects with
long-term carbon, livelihood and ecosystem benefits.”126 The standard aims to serve as a stand alone, all-
inclusive standard incorporating social and biodiversity safeguards along with emissions reductions, similar to
CarbonFix.
History and Overview: The Plan Vivo Standard is designed to be accessible for smallholder- and community-
based projects, and arises out of a pilot project originally supported by the UK Department for International
Development (DFID). The standard is underpinned by four principles: (i) livelihoods, (ii) transfer [of
capacity] and continuous improvement [of projects], (iii) restoring and conserving native ecosystems, and
(iv) equitable distribution of benefits. 127 The standard is not expressly based on ISO standards but
verification bodies must be accredited by an international certification agency, of which ISO 14064 is one
125 CarbonFix Standard, Version 3.2. http://www.carbonfix.info/chameleon//outbox//public/214/CFS-v32.pdf

126 Plan Vivo Website. About Plan Vivo. http://www.planvivo.org/about-plan-vivo/
127 Plan Vivo Website. Plan Vivo Principles. http://www.planvivo.org/what-is-plan-vivo/

option. 128 Plan Vivo has a small but steadily growing market share,129 and had the highest ratio of issued to
retired credits through 2011.130
Process: Plan Vivo projects are encouraged to start as pilot projects and scale up regionally. The structure of
the standard reflects this. Projects first, (i) submit a Project Idea Note to be evaluated by the Plan Vivo
Foundation, next (ii) a Project Design Document is submitted and evaluated, (iii) the project runs a “pilot
activity cycle” where it is implemented and subsequently validated by the Plan Vivo Foundation or a selected
expert reviewer, and later registered, (iv) third-party VVB conduct a verification every five years, and projects
normally expand during this time period.131

132 , 133
Element Treatment
Scale Project-level
Geographical
International
scope
A/R (only non-commercial plantations), agroforestry, avoided deforestation, forest conservation and
Activity scope
restoration. Standard is targeted towards small scale projects.
RL Baseline must be “clear and credible”, no further specification is provided.
Safeguard considerations are integrated into the principles of the core standard. Requires direct
Safeguards payment to communities, 100% native species, as well as monitoring of benefit distribution and
operational costs in reporting.
Sources of leakage should be identified and mitigation measures implemented; further guidance is
Leakage
found in the Plan Vivo Guidance Manual and in the technical specification template.
A risk buffer is used to ensure permanence, with a minimum 10% contribution although the
Permanence
technical expert panel may set it higher.
Additionality tests include (i) project additionality demonstrated by no support from external
Additionality
legislation or commercial interests, (ii) barriers analysis, and (iii) common practice analysis.
Annual reports are submitted to the foundation to describe progress and demonstrate conformance.
MRV
Third party verification is required at least every 5 years.
Registries Markit Environment Registry acts as the registry for Plan Vivo Certificates (PVCs).
128 Plan Vivo Website. Validation and Verification. Additionally, Plan Vivo notes that the standard is designed to ensure completeness,
consistency, accuracy and transparency in line with ISO principles.
129 State of the Forest Carbon Markets, 2012, p. 30. (“Volumes contracted under the Plan Vivo program grew from .2 MtCO2e in 2010 to 1
MtCO2 e in 2011. . . “).
130 Ibid. p. 72. For all years until 2011, Plan Vivo had an issued to retired ratio of 1.2 to 1; the next closest ratio was VCS of 3to1.
131 Electronic communication from Plan Vivo Foundation, 16 and 20 Nov 2012. (reporting that most projects scale up, based on annual data).
132 Plan Vivo. (2008). The Plan Vivo Standards.
133 Reference Section, Plan Vivo Website: http://www.planvivo.org/tools-and-resources/reference-materials/ (offering technical methods
and manuals).

A.4.6 The Panda Standard
Objective: As the first voluntary carbon standard specific to China, the Panda Standard (PS) seeks to
provide transparency and credibility in the market and advance China’s poverty alleviation objectives
through investment in rural China.
History and Overview: The Panda Standard arises out of the concern for the livelihoods and exposure to
climate change impacts of China’s rural poor. It was founded in 2009 by a mix of public and private
organizations including the China Forestry Exchange, Winrock International, BlueNext, and the China Beijing
Environment Exchange.
The Panda Standard is based on ISO standards ISO 14064-2 134 and ISO 14064-3.135 Eligible PS projects
must comply with the standard’s seven core principles, (i) real, (ii) additional, (iii) measurable, reportable and
verifiable, (iv) unique, (v) permanent, (vi) demonstrate ancillary benefits, and (vii) be unambiguously
owned. The structure of PS is somewhat similar to VCS in that there is an overarching PS Standard as well as
PS AFOLU requirements, and multiple methodologies may be developed to meet these standards and
requirements.
Process: As the Panda Standard is fairly new, some processes are not yet developed in depth. The PS has
detailed its methodology approval process as follows: (i) methodologies are proposed; (ii) a technical
committee pre-approves them; (iii) a public comment period takes place; (iv) the technical committee revisits
the methodologies; and (v) final approval is given. The entire process is designed to take 50 working
days. 136 Currently-approved methodologies include CDM large and small scale A/R methodologies, and there
are two A/R methodologies under development. PS projects are audited by third parties. Designated
Operational Entities under the CDM are de facto approved as auditors, whereas other entities and persons
must be approved by the PS Secretariat. 137
138 , 139
Element Treatment
Scale Project level
Geographical
China
scope
Activity scope Improved Forest Management (IFM) and Forestation and Vegetation Increase (F-V) (A/R)
Baselines must comply with approved PS-AFOLU Methodologies. Only CDM large and small-scale
RL
A/R methodologies are currently approved although others are under the approval process.
134 ISO 14064-2:2006.

135 ISO 14064-3:2006.
136 Panda Standard Website: www.pandastandard.org.
137 Ibid.
138 Panda Standard. (2011). Panda Standard Sectoral Specifications for Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (PS-AFOLU).
139 Panda Standard. (2009). Panda Standard, v1.0.

‘Ancillary benefits’, analogous to safeguards, must be documented along with stakeholder

consultation processes. A mitigation plan may be required for on and off-site negative impacts of
Safeguards project activities. More detail is expected as methodologies are approved. Projects can also apply the
PS Poverty Alleviation Criteria Tool, which may give project credits special designation as poverty-
alleviating.
Leakage must be assessed, quantified, and mitigated. More detail is expected as methodologies are
Leakage
approved. Both market and activity shifting leakage may be included.
A Panda Standard Risk Analysis Tool (in development) is used to determine the quantity or percent
of PS Credits that must be deposited in the Panda Buffer Pool to mitigate reversal risks. Contribution
Permanence to the buffer pool is determined based on the project-specific risk rating, but contributions can
come from that specific project or any other project (PS Credits can be bought from another project
for this purpose).
140
Three-prong additionality test, including a (i) regulatory compliance test, (ii) common practice
test, (iii) and barriers test for investment, technological, or institutional barriers. Alternatively, a
Additionality
performance standard approach can be used if a methodology is developed that develops
appropriate performance benchmarks.
The Panda Standard provides general requirements for the precision of monitoring, but more detail
MRV
is expected to be forthcoming in methodologies. Projects are third-party audited.
Registries The Panda Standard Registry (currently under development) will issue Panda Standard Credits.
A.4.7 Brasil Mata Viva
Objective: The Brasil Mata Viva (BMV) standard aims to align environmental, social, and economic factors to
result in sustainable action plans in rural areas through the generation and sale of sustainability credits.
History and Overview: The inception of BMV and its standard can be traced to Brazilian federal government
legislation requiring 80% of land in the Amazon to remain under forest cover. 141 A group of farmers in Mato
Grosso built relationships with other partners to develop the organization and later the standard. Rather
than carbon credits, the BMV standard creates Sustainability Credit Units, which are meant to quantify
carbon as well as ecological, economic, and social sustainability of the project generating them.142 In 2011,
BMV represented 20% of market share of transacted credit types in Latin America, with 14 projects.143
Project-based forest carbon payments for environmental services activities to date have preserved roughly 1
million ha of native forests in 235 certified properties. 144 Certification under the BMV standard results in
Sustainability Credit Units, or UCSVT BMV (from the Portuguese). Audits are performed by third parties
140 Note the difference of this regulatory test which tests for compliance with regulations vs. regulatory surplus tests used by many other
standards wherein the project must demonstrate that it surpasses and is not required by regulations.
141 Código Florestal, Brasil. Lei nº 4.771, (15 September1965).
142 Brasil Mata Viva Website. http://www.brasilmataviva.com.br/
144 Brasil Mata Viva Website. http://www.brasilmataviva.com.br/index.php?pg=31. Also by electronic communication from Brasil Mata Viva,
16 Nov. 2012.

including universities like São Paulo State University (UNESP), international certifiers like TÜV Rheinland, as
well as public environmental and social management institutions.145
History and Overview: Neither the BMV standard itself nor detailed objective, project documentation was
publicly available from the BMV program. However, the following information on the standard’s main design
parameters was provided directly by the BMV program for this publication.
146
Element Treatment
Scale Project level
Geographical
To date used in Brazil, although theoretically globally replicable.
scope
Forest Protection Projects; Biodiversity Protection Projects; Watershed Protection Projects; Life
Activity scope Protection Projects; as well as Culture and Traditional Society Protection Projects (still in
development).
Baseline defined by regional and local historical emissions, agricultural potential, deforestation
RL issues, legislation, capacity and land use value. Monitored and validated by score system through
ASE Protocol for sustainable development indicators; revalidated every five years.
The ASE Protocol evaluates and verifies positive net impacts and additionality in project areas of
Safeguards environmental, social and economic development; also legal compliance and registration with
relevant laws. Stakeholder participation included, with annual reassessments.
Leakage Leakage evaluated and mitigated through project design.
Adjustable compliance system identifies and measures relevant risks to the project, with a reliability
Permanence
scale between 2 and 10%, which informs the contribution to a project credit buffer.
Additionality No ex-ante additionality test.
All activities are monitored with indicators and established goals, quantified and audited periodically,
MRV
generating several annual reports on all phases of project development and its activities.
BMV projects and project documentation are registered in the proprietary registry system “BTAAB,”
where titles registration and activities are available for monitoring. Project development reports are
Registries public and available upon release access. BMV also provides international securities identification
number (ISIN), relevant project documents (via custody and financial records), and lifetime registry
and UCSVT BMV titles on retirement of credits.
145 Brasil Mata Viva Website. http://www.brasilmataviva.com.br/index.php?pg=24. Also by electronic communication from Brasil Mata Viva,
16 Nov. 2012.
146 Electronic communication from Brasil Mata Viva, 16 Nov. 2012.

A.5 Social and Environmental Standards
A.5.1 Climate, Communities & Biodiversity Standards
Objective: The Climate, Communities & Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA)’s goal is to create rigorous standards to
evaluate land-based climate change mitigation projects that create climate, biodiversity, and sustainable
development benefits.147
History and Overview: The CCBA is a partnership and initiative of non-governmental organizations,
corporations, and research institutions. The Climate, Community & Biodiversity (CCB) Standards are typically
used in addition to a GHG reporting standard and is the dominant co-benefit standard in the voluntary
market for all land-based project types, not just REDD+. For instance, in 2011, projects validated against
rules of the CCB standards made up 77% of the co-benefit standard market share. 148 Through 2011, 44
projects have been validated under the CCB Standards.149
Process: The CCB Standards are used in the early phase of a project to exclusively evaluate the social and
environmental performance of a project’s design (i.e. rigorous project design, and local community and
biodiversity benefits).150 CCB Standards certify the co-benefits of a carbon project and requires ongoing
verification to assure safeguards and benefits are implemented over time. The standards include fourteen
mandatory performance criteria and three optional “Gold Level” measures. Only projects using best practices
and providing significant climate, community and biodiversity benefits earn CCB approval.

151
Element Treatment
Scale Project level
Geographical
International
scope
Activity scope A/R and revegetation, REDD, IFM
The baseline measurements include both original conditions in the project area and baseline
RL
projections.
The CCB Standards are predominantly a safeguards and project design standard, and 12 criteria
evaluate general project conditions and those relating to climate, community, and biodiversity, as well
Safeguards
as an optional “Gold Level” (adaptation benefits and exceptional community or biodiversity benefits).
The standards include climate criteria but no carbon quantification.
147 Communities, Climate & Biodiversity Alliance. CCB Standards, Mission and Goals.
148 Peters-Stanley, M., Hamilton. K. (2012). Developing Dimension: State of the Voluntary Carbon Market 2012. Ecosystem Marketplace
publication, p. 70.
149 Ibid.
150 Carbon Offset Research & Education (CORE), “The Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standards.” Website:
http://www.co2offsetresearch.org/policy/CCBS.html.
151 Climate, Community and Biodiversity Project Design Standards. http://www.climate-
standards.org/standards/pdf/ccb_standards_second_edition_december_2008.pdf.

Leakage Leakage has to be accounted for in the climate section of the standards.
Measures must be described that will maintain and enhance the climate, community and biodiversity
Permanence
benefits beyond the project lifetime.
Additionality The baseline measurement section includes evaluation of additionality.
The CCB Standards certify that project design and implementation meet climate, community, and
MRV biodiversity benefit goals and verify this every five years (or sooner) by independent, accredited
auditors.
No official registry but CCB Verification provides for listing all projects on the CCB website and the
Registries
addition of a 'CCB' label to verified emissions reductions units such as VCUs on a registry.
A.5.2 REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards
Objective: The REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards (REDD+ SES) aim to create support for
government-led REDD+ programs that contribute to human rights, poverty reduction, and biodiversity
conservation. REDD+ SES is designed for jurisdictional REDD+ programs, as opposed to co-benefit project
standards like the CCB standard.
History and Overview: The REDD+ SES were developed between May 2009 and September 2012 through an
inclusive process engaging governments, NGOs and other civil society organizations, Indigenous Peoples
organizations, international policy and research institutions and the private sector. CCBA and CARE
International function as the international secretariat of the REDD+ SES. 152 As of October 2012, Brazil
(Acre, Amazonas), Ecuador, Indonesia (Central and East Kalimantan), Nepal, Peru (San Martin), Mexico,
Guatemala and Liberia were participating in the initiative. Version 2.0 of the standard was published in
September 2012.153
Process: The standard is composed of (i) principles, (ii) criteria, (iii) and indicators. Principles describe the
“intent” of the standard and are “statements about the desired outcome and are not designed to be
verified.” Criteria describe the “conditions to be met in order to deliver a principle.” Indicators define
“quantitative or qualitative information needed to show progress achieving a criterion.”154 Principles and
criteria are the same across all countries, whereas indicators can be country-specific to acknowledge differing
contexts. Usage of REDD+ SES at the country level is through a ten-step process organized around three
core elements (governance, interpretation, and assessment). Final assessment reports are published and
should be developed through a multi-stakeholder process. A formal independent verification process does
not yet exist, but an international review mechanism will be developed in 2013.155
152 REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards Factsheet.

153 Draft REDD+ SES Version 2 was released on June 22, 2012.
154 REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards Website. Structure of the REDD+ SES. http://www.redd-standards.org/
155 REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards. Draft REDD+ SES Version 2. June 22, 2012. http://www.redd-standards.org/files/pdf/redd-
docs/Guidelines/REDDSES%20draft%20Version%202%20revised%2006-22-12.pdf


156
Element Treatment
Scale Jurisdictional level
International, limited to developing countries that participate in REDD+, currently includes Brazil
Geographical
(States of Acre and Amazonas), Ecuador, Indonesia (Central and East Kalimantan), Nepal, Guatemala,
scope
Peru (Region of San Martin) Mexico and Liberia.
Activity scope Government-led REDD+ programs, all REDD+ activities included
Not applicable. Reference level set on the jurisdictional level using another standard (e.g. VCS JNR,
RL
UNFCCC) or set by policy decision and law
Social and environmental core standard. seven principles list the social and environmental safeguards
as follows: (i) rights to lands, territories, and resources recognized and respected; (ii) benefits shared
equitably; (iii) long-term livelihoods of indigenous and local communities improved; (iv) broader
Safeguards
sustainable development, human rights and good governance objectives; (v) biodiversity and
ecosystem services maintained and enhanced; (vi) full and effective participation; and (vii) compliance
with applicable local, national and international laws and policies.
Leakage Rules of GHG standard or legislation applies.
Permanence Rules of GHG standard or legislation applies.
Additionality Rules of GHG standard or legislation applies.
No independent verification, only international review process to ensure consistency in country-
MRV
specific interpretations
Registries Rules of GHG standard or legislation applies.
A.5.3 SocialCarbon
Objective: SocialCarbon as a standard focuses specifically on the sustainable development benefits

generated by voluntary emission reduction projects by assessing economic, environmental and social impacts
on communities.
History and Overview: The Brazilian non-government organization Ecologica Institute founded the
SocialCarbon standard in 2000 and manages the standard. The standard can be used for any climate
change mitigation project, but was originally created for forest-dependent communities and has historically
focused on forest carbon projects. 157 SocialCarbon does not have criteria for carbon baseline and
monitoring methodologies, but is used in conjunction with a carbon accounting standard. Specific
requirements for projects include (i) use of SocialCarbon methodologies for verifying social, environmental
and economic performance of projects, (ii) monitoring and improvement of the project, and (iii)
independent auditing. Additionally, the community consultative process used to generate information
about the project must be conducted by an organization approved by the Ecologica Institute. Indicators
are selected from a preapproved list, or new indicators can be submitted, focusing on six aspects of
156 REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards. Draft REDD+ SES Version 2. June 22, 2012.
157 SocialCarbon Standard. SocialCarbon for Forest Projects, Version 1.0.

sustainable development. A list of existing approved indicators for forest projects can be found online. 158
SocialCarbon is the most prevalent co-benefit standard after CCBA, with 23% market share of all project
types in 2011, although forestry played a small role in this. 159 It does not issue its own independent credits,
but rather complementary credits are issued jointly with a GHG standard on the Markit Registry
(SocialCarbon + VCS).

160
Element Treatment
Scale Project level
Geographical
International
scope
Activity scope All forestry project types
Developers must show that the baseline has been developed in compliance with a credible carbon-
RL
accounting standard.
The standard focuses specifically on the sustainable development benefits generated by voluntary
emission reduction projects by assessing impacts on social, human, financial, natural, biodiversity and
carbon resources. Five criteria are used to measure carbon offset projects as follows: (i) Offset
Safeguards
Project Eligibility; (ii) Use of SocialCarbon methodology; (iii) Monitoring (iv) Continual improvement of
project performance; and (v) Independent auditing conducted through SocialCarbon reports by a
VVB.
Leakage Rules of GHG standard apply.
Developers must show that the project meets permanence risk management requirements of a
Permanence
credible carbon-accounting standard.
Developers must show that additionality requirements of a credible carbon-accounting standard are
Additionality
met.
Developers must show credible MRV of relevant accounting standards within the six co-benefits
MRV
measured, as well as with a credible carbon-accounting standard.
Registries Markit manages SocialCarbon Registry, which tracks credits and all project details.
158 SocialCarbon Standard. Indicators for Forest Projects. Version 2.1, June 2011.
159 Peters-Stanley, K. Hamilton. (2012). Developing Dimension: State of the Voluntary Carbon Market 2012. Ecosystem Marketplace
publication.
160 REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards. Draft REDD+ SES Version 2. June 22, 2012.

A.6 Multilateral Initiatives
A.6.1 The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility: Carbon Fund
Objective: The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), a global partnership focused on REDD+,
complements UNFCCC negotiations on REDD+ by demonstrating application at the country level and
learning lessons during early implementation for REDD+. 161
History and Overview: The FCPF was started in 2008 and has a current membership of 36 developing
countries and 18 financial supporters. The Participants Assembly, comprised of all organizations and
countries involved, annually elects a Participants Committee, the decision-making body of the FCPF, of 14
REDD+ countries and 14 financial contributors as well as observers from indigenous groups, the private
sector, and international organizations. The World Bank acts as a trustee, secretariat, and one of several
implementation agencies (referred to as Delivery Partners). 162 The FCPF consists of two funding windows:
the Readiness Fund and the Carbon Fund.
The FCPF Carbon Fund pilots results-based payments for verified GHG emission reductions from REDD+ in
FCPF member countries only. Although the FCPF focuses primarily on national level REDD+, subnational
programs may be permitted if approved by the national REDD+ authority and linked to the national strategy
and monitoring.163
Process: Participants in the FCPF that have made substantive progress in their REDD+ Readiness preparation
may submit Emission Reductions Plan Idea Notes (ER-PINs) for consideration by carbon fund
participants.164 Important details for the Carbon Fund are currently being developed. The process by which
countries may submit Emission Reduction Project Idea Notes (ER-PINs) has been outlined and is in use. The
criteria against which these ER-PINs may be assessed to allow further development of Emissions Reductions
Programs and eventually negotiation of Emission Reductions Purchase Agreements (ERPAs), have been
agreed (a set of seven selection criteria . 165
The Methodological Framework to guide development of the Emission Reductions Programs by REDD+
countries is under development.
An October 2012 draft ERPA term sheet outlines likely requirements for FCPF country participants to receive
financing for their REDD+ activities and programs under the Carbon Fund, including conditions on MRV,
161 Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Website. Introduction.

162 Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Website. Governance.
163 Ibid
164 The ER-PIN template can be accessed at:
http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/Aug2011/FCPF%20Carbon%20Fund%
20ER-PIN%20v%201.pdf
165 Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Carbon Fund. June 24-25, 2012. Selection Criteria for Emission Reductions Program Idea Notes (ER-
PINs). Available at:
http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/June2012/Final%20CF%20Resolution
%201%20ER%20Prin%20selection%20criteria.pdf

non-carbon benefits, permanence, safeguards and benefit-sharing. 166 On MRV, participants are to “collect
and record all relevant data related to the generation of ERs under the ER program.“167 Participants further
are advised to ensure the production of and report on non-carbon benefits,“ which may include, but not
be limited to, the improvement of local livelihoods, building of transparent and effective forest governance
structures, making progress on securing land tenure and enhancing or maintaining biodiversity and/or other
ecosystem services.”168 Regarding permanence of forest carbon sequestered, the draft ERPA term sheet
specifies that participants report on any Reversal Events as well as address such risks by means of
approaches such as buffer reserves, use of insurance, and/or effective forest management practices.169
Participants are also required to comply with World Bank Operational Policies and Procedures and to submit
Safeguards Plans describing measures to prevent or mitigate adverse environmental and social impacts from
REDD+ programs, as well as report on their implementation in each interim progress report. Finally,
participants must develop and submit a benefit-sharing plan to the IBRD which details how it “will share all
or a significant portion of the monetary or other benefits achieved . . . with relevant stakeholders,” which it
must report on in each interim progress report. 170
Main Design Elements171
172 , 173 , 174 , 175

Element Treatment
National and subnational REDD+ (subnational programs occurring at large scale and ambition, with
Scale
national government(s) endorsement)
Geographical
FCPF developing country participants that have reached a determined level of REDD+ readiness.
scope
RLs with clearly documented methodology; stepwise approach; subnational RL is geo-referenced
and nested. Tier 2 standards as starting point; Tier 1 considered in exceptional cases and if
RL
conservative. Adjustments for relevant national circumstances are acceptable if credible and
defendable. Public consultation and peer review are required in the approval process of the RL.
166 Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), Draft FCPF ERPA Terms Sheet, online at:
http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/FCPF%20ERPA%20Term%20Sheet%2010-
18-2012%20TT.docx
167 Draft FCPF ERPA Terms Sheet, p. 8. (noting that participants’ MRV should also follow the “‘Methodological Framework for the Carbon
Fund of the FCPF’ following the guidance received by the FCPF Participants’ Committee in the ‘Methodological Framework and Pricing
Approach for the Carbon Fund of the FCPF’. . . “).
168 Ibid., 9-10.
169 Ibid., 10-11
170 Ibid., 12-13.
171 Main design elements presented are early considerations, as the FCPF program is currently under development. Electronic communication
th
with FCPF, 16 Nov 2012.
172 Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Readiness Fund. (June 2012). Common Approach to Environmental and Social Safeguards for Multiple
Delivery Partners.
173 Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Readiness Fund. (December 2011). Readiness Package Content and Assessment Approach Concept
Note—Draft for Feedback. FMT Note 2011-14.
174 Rapp, K. Cancun & Durban Decisions on Safeguards and the FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (April 2012)
http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/Apr2012/3%20UNFCCC%20Safeguard
s%20and%20FCPF.pdf
175 Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Participants Committee (June 2012) Recommendations of the Working Group on the Methodological
and Pricing Approach for the Carbon Fund of the FCPF. Revised Final Draft.

Must comply with WB Operational Policies and Procedures (Charter Article 3.1) as well as UNFCCC
safeguards related to REDD+. Benefiting countries must create Environmental and Social
Management Framework (ESMF) through Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA).
The FCPF provides guidelines on stakeholder engagement. WB Policy on Indigenous Peoples
Safeguards
requires free, prior informed consultation resulting in broad community support for REDD+
programs by affected Indigenous Peoples. The FCPF follows a Common Approach in safeguards and
co-benefits, wherein any Delivery Partner involved with the FCPF can and must use “substantially
equivalent” safeguards.
Both international and domestic leakage potential are to be assessed, but only domestic leakage has
Leakage
to be accounted for in the MRV system.
Suggested measures for addressing reversal risk include buffer reserves, insurance and forest
Permanence
management practices, and any reversals that occur must be included in accounting.
Additionality Additionality is achieved through a conservative RL.
Stepwise, eventually comprehensive, system for conservatively measuring and reporting changes in
deforestation, degradation, conservation and forest enhancement (relative to transparent RL for
REDD+ program area, following Carbon Fund Methodological Framework and informed by national
MRV
RL) as well as co-benefits, benefit sharing and safeguards. Local communities, private sector, and
other entities should be involved in the implementation and verification of results. Leakage is to be
monitored and addressed through this system.
National geo-referenced tracking system or registry with information on location, ownership, carbon
Registries
accounting and financial flows for subnational and national.
A.6.2 United Nations REDD Program (UN-REDD)
Objective: UN-REDD aims to help countries develop and implement REDD+ strategies in an efficient,
effective, and equitable way in order to facilitate REDD+ readiness. 176
History and Overview: The UN-REDD Programme was launched in 2008 to help developing countries prepare
and implement national REDD+ strategies, and uses expertise from the UN FAO, UNDP, and UNEP. Currently
44 partner countries are assisted, and 16 are supported in National Programme activities, 177 with the
remaining 28 countries engaged as observers to UN-REDD’s Programme’s Policy Board in workshops and
knowledge-sharing activities.178 UN-REDD intends to scale up its National Programme activities to support
20 to 40 countries by 2015, contingent upon funding.179 As of July 2012, total funding for UN-REDD
countries was USD 117.6 million. UN-REDD focuses on readiness support, often in collaboration with the
FCPF and Forest Investment Programme, on six integrated work areas including MRV, engagement of
Indigenous Peoples and civil society, multiple benefits, national REDD+ governance, equitable benefit-
sharing systems, and sectoral transformation. 180
176 UN-REDD. (2011) UN-REDD Programme 2011-2015 Strategy. Note that the UN-REDD website includes knowledge sharing as a seventh
work area. See UN-REDD “Global Support to Partner Countries,” online at: http://www.un-
redd.org/Global_and_Regional_Support/tabid/104435/Default.aspx
177 UN-REDD Website. About the UN-REDD Programme. http://www.un-redd.org/AboutUNREDDProgramme/tabid/583/Default.aspx
178 UN-REDD Website. National Programmes.
179 UN-REDD. (2011) UN-REDD Programme 2011-2015 Strategy.
180 UN-REDD. (2011) UN-REDD Programme 2011-2015 Strategy.

Process: The program works to develop tools, data, guidelines, methodologies, and analyses that support
these six work areas in partner countries.181 UN-REDD does not provide results-based payment, although it
indirectly supports FCPF activities by acting as a Delivery Partner.

182
Element Treatment
Scale National
Geographical
Developing country partner countries
scope
RL No global guidance*
Applies a ‘rights-based approach’ recognizing the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(UNDRIP), Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), UN Development Group guidelines for
Safeguards Indigenous Peoples, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Social and Environmental
Principles Framework was developed based on 7 safeguards supported by 24 criteria consistent with
the Cancun Agreements. A Benefits and Risks Tool is in development.
Leakage No global guidance*
Permanence No global guidance*
Additionality No global guidance*
MRV No global guidance*
Registries No global guidance*
*UN-REDD may address these issues in individual partnerships with supported countries but does not offer overarching global
guidance.
A.6.3 GCF Standard Overview
Objective: The Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force (GCF) works to promote subnational jurisdictional
programs for REDD+, low emissions rural development, and national and international efforts to include
forests and land use in climate change policy.
History and Overview: The GCF is an initiative supported by 19 states and provinces from Brazil, Indonesia,
Mexico, Nigeria, Peru,Spain, and the U.S. that share experiences and best practices, build capacity and
develop recommendations on designing and linking REDD+ programs with GHG compliance regimes and
other performance-based opportunities.183 The GCF grew out of November 2008 Memoranda of
Understanding (MOUs) signed at the First Governors’ Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles. A 2009 Joint
181 UN REDD. Global Support to Country Actions. http://www.un-

redd.org/AboutUNREDDProgramme/GlobalActivities/tabid/5957/Default.aspx
182 UN-REDD. (2011) UN-REDD Programme 2011-2015 Strategy. Available at: http://www.unep.org/forests/Portals/142/docs/UN-
REDD%20Programme%20Strategy.pdf
183 “About GCF” Website: http://www.gcftaskforce.org/about

Action Plan guides overall implementation efforts and provides a set of goals towards which members are to
dedicate their efforts. The Secretariat for the GCF is based in the University of Colorado (with regional
coordinators in Brazil and Indonesia) and coordinates and facilitates the work of the initiative.
Process: The GCF conducts annual meetings as well as several technical workshops each year to exchange
experiences and develop capacity. In addition, reports prepared by consultancies have provided new
technical information to members for their consideration and deliberation on furthering the agreed
guidance of the group.

184
Element Treatment
Scale Subnational jurisdictional level with ‘nesting’ of projects possible
Geographical
GCF Member States and Regions
scope
Jurisdictional RL. Baseline methodologies flexible enough to capture the different circumstances
RL prevailing in different jurisdictions while also meeting the needs of the compliance regimes to be
developed (potentially including a single, shared baseline for multiple states).
Safeguards are under development in a variety of ongoing multi-stakeholder processes in a number
of GCF states and provinces (e.g. Acre, Amazonas, Mato Grosso, Brazil Social & Environmental
Principles and Criteria for REDD+, and Aceh) and other fora, including the Forest Carbon Partnership
Safeguards Facility, UN-REDD, and CCBA-SES. MRV could be required for all safeguards and on the revenue
and other benefit flows (public and private). The GCF recommends general criteria for safeguards
and multi-stakeholder processes that retain some flexibility in how states and provinces
demonstrate compliance. There are no mandatory requirements formulated yet.
Mechanisms for accounting for leakage as part of the MRV system, including, where relevant and
Leakage
feasible, links to national-level accounting. No detailed guidance formulated yet.
Relevant standards and criteria for project-level activities to be clearly defined and identified.
Permanence Enforceability of offset credits across jurisdictions to be explored, including use of liability rules,
insurance instruments, buffers, and/or credit reserves.
Additionality Captured in the jurisdictional RL.
Nesting approaches possible. Relevant standards and criteria to be clearly defined and identified,
MRV with attention to potentially combining third-party certification and verification of project-level
activities with sub-national-level performance indicators.
Forest carbon registries for sub-national- and/or national-level forest carbon accounting to be built
upon existing GHG registry infrastructures, with capabilities for tracking all transactions, acquisitions,
Registries cancellations, and retirements of forest credits in a transparent and publicly accessible manner. The
overall goal is to develop a prototype or model forest carbon registry that could be used in the
different GCF states/provinces.
184 GCF Task Force Joint Action Plan (2009), pp. 16-17. Available at: http://www.gcftaskforce.org/documents/GCTF-1000-2009-031.pdf

A.7 Bilateral Initiatives
A.7.1 Norway-Guyana
Objective: The goal of the Norway-Guyana partnership is to reduce Guyana’s emissions from deforestation
and degradation, provide an early action example of REDD+ in a high forest cover, low deforestation rate
country, and to leverage funds to support Guyana’s Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS).
History and Overview: The Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund (GRIF), funded by Norway’s International
Climate and Forests Initiative (NICFI) was launched in October 2010. The partnership funds Guyana’s LCDS
based on the country’s REDD+ performance against a bilaterally-agreed reference level of 0.275% annual
deforestation.
Process: The World Bank International Development Association acts as the trustee for GRIF funds with the
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the UN Development Program (UNDP), and the World Bank acting
as Partner Entities. The carbon price is set at USD5/ton of CO2e, and the current program covers the
entirety of Guyana except the Iwokrama International Center for Rainforest Conservation and an area of
planned deforestation around the Amaila Falls hydro-electricity plant.185 Payments are managed by the GRIF
and disbursed against the Trust as funds are made available and as funding decisions are made by the
Steering Committee (consisting of Norway and Guyana representatives) and requested by Partner Entities. A
Joint Concept Note agreed by Guyana and Norway outlines the MRV system Guyana will put in place, with
interim benchmarks to assess Guyana’s performance, as evaluated by independent verification.186

187 , 188 , 189 , 190 , 191 , 192 , 193
Element Treatment
Scale Jurisdictional
Geographical
Guyana, national territory
scope
Only reduced emissions from deforestation initially with other REDD+ activities addressed in the
Activity scope
future.
185 Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund. Joint Concept Note. (hereafter “Norway-Guyana Joint Concept Note”), online
at:http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/MD/2011/vedlegg/klima/klima_skogprosjektet/Guyana/JointConceptNote_31mars2011.pdf. Note
that the Amaila Falls hydro-electric plant is considered a key part of Guyana’s Low Carbon Development Strategy.
186 “The World Bank and the Guyana REDD-Plus Investment Fund (GRIF) – Frequently Asked Questions,” (2011) online at:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/CFPEXT/Resources/299947-1267555827203/GRIF_Trustee_FAQs_November2011.pdf
187 Norway-Guyana Joint Concept Note, supra note 185.
188 Santiago, Chris. May 20, 2011. “Writing the Rules for a new REDD Paradigm: Norway and Guyana.” Ecosystem Marketplace.
http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php?page_id=8331&section=news_articles&eod=1
189 World Bank. (November 2011). The World Bank and the Guyana REDD-Plus Investment Fund.
190 Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund (GRIF). (2011) Fact Sheet.
191 Guyana Forestry Commission. (2012). Guyana REDD+ Monitoring Reporting & Verification System (MRVS) Interim Measures Report, 01
October 2010-21 December 2011. Version 1.
192 Norway-Guyana Joint Concept Note, supra note 185.
193 Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund (GRIF) (2010). Administration Agreement.

Combined Reference Level: The level in the Norway agreement is calculated from an analysis of
Guyana’s historical deforestation baseline for 2000-2009 (0.03%) and the global average
deforestation rate of 0.52% from 2005-2010 (both sourced from FAO data). Although the
RL
reference level has been set at 0.275%, the crediting baseline has been amended so that Guyana
receives progressively less compensation as the deforestation rate rises above 0.056%, and no
compensation if the deforestation rate rises above 0.1%
Norway identified a number of “enabling indicators” in its 2011 Joint Concept Note with Guyana
concerning the implementation of safeguards. The indicators are evaluated by an independent
neutral expert chosen by both Guyana and Norway and continued funding depends on its
Safeguards satisfaction. Additionally, if a Partner Entity is implementing a given project through the GRIF it will
apply its own safeguards. The GRIF Administration Agreement between Norway and Guyana notes
that FPIC is required for inclusion of indigenous lands into a national land use planning system that is
to help avoid national leakage.
A national land use planning system is to be developed to avoid leakage. Leakage is captured in the
Leakage
national accounting system.
Permanence No requirements
Additionality The combined reference level approach is meant to ensure additionality.
In 2009, Guyana and Norway issued a Joint Concept Note on MRV and Guyana developed a roadmap
for installing a comprehensive national MRV system, including interim progress indicators. Two
MRV national forest inventories have been completed (2010, 2011) indicating specific national
deforestation rates (for instance, 0.053% for 2011). Also Guyana is in the process of developing
country specific data (e.g. wood density, root to shoot ratios) to enable rigorous future MRV.
Registries No guidance
A.7.2 Norway-Indonesia
Objective: The goal of the Indonesia-Norway REDD+ Partnership is development and implementation of
Indonesia’s REDD+ strategy leading to performance-based payments in reducing emissions from forests.
History and Overview: The Partnership was established through a Letter of Intent between the two
governments in May 2010, with initial validity through 2016.194 The Partnership permits up to USD 1 billion
and is implemented via a three phase approach: Phase 1 included the development of a national REDD+
strategy and frameworks; Phase 2 calls for national level capacity building, a suspension on concessions for
conversion of peat and natural forest, and provincial pilot projects; and Phase 3 scales up performance-
based payments for emission reductions.195 Initial support is allocated to completing Indonesia’s climate and
forest strategy, building and institutionalizing MRV capacity, and catalyzing needed policies and institutional
194 Government of the Kingdom of Norway and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia. May 2010. Letter of Intent on cooperation on
reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. (hereafter “Norway-Indonesia Letter of Intent”).
http://www.forestsclimatechange.org/fileadmin/photos/Norway-Indonesia-LoI.pdf
195 HuMA (2010) Preliminary Study on the Safeguards Policies of Bilateral Donors to REDD Programs in Indonesia. HuMa, Jakarta, Indonesia.

reforms.196, 197, 198 The partnership includes a two-year moratorium instituted in May 2010 on logging
concessions in Indonesia. Along with praise there has also been criticism of the moratorium’s efficacy, which
includes only primary and peat forests and excludes secondary and logged forests that make up the majority
of unprotected forests. 199
Process: The phased approach outlined in the LoI and subsequent documentation provides guidance for
design and implementation of a multi-stakeholder REDD+ strategy incorporating safeguards and with a
strong focus on an independent MRV system. Payments are channeled through a temporary financial
mechanism (with dialogue ongoing over the form of a longer-term funding arrangement) and disbursed
over a 7-8 year period on the basis of deliverables produced.
200 , 201 , 202

Element Treatment
Scale Jurisdictional
Geographical
Indonesia, national territory, with selected pilot provinces
scope
Funds are dedicated to verified emissions reductions from deforestation, forest degradation or
Activity scope
peatland conversion/destruction?
RLs set either at a UNFCCC level or domestically according to Indonesia’s emissions reductions
RL
pledges and UNFCCC methodological guidance.
Multi-stakeholder REDD+ Strategy developed in Phase 1. Stakeholder participation and
Safeguards transparency emphasized in Letter of Intent, as well as a general respect for international
management standards including fiduciary, governance, environmental and social safeguards.
Leakage No information publicly available
Permanence No information publicly available
Additionality Assumed to be captured in national RL.
Independent institution to conduct MRV created in Phase 1, and Phase 2 is planned to implement “a
country wide MRV system conforming to IPCC Tier 2 or better” run by the independent MRV
MRV
institution, with a strategy to improve the MRV system to Tier 3. A province-wide pilot will parallel
the national MRV process.
Registries No information publicly available
196 Norway Office of the Prime Minister. May 26, 2010. Press Release no 66/10 “Norway and Indonesia in partnership to reduce emissions
from deforestation.”
197 Norway-Indonesia Letter of Intent, supra note 194.
198 Caldecott, J., M. Indrawan, P. Rinne, M. Halonen (2011). Indonesia-Norway REDD+ Partnership: first evaluation of deliverables. Gaia
consulting.
199 Kandy, D. and Kiatz, D. (2011) Indonesia Bets on REDD With new Moratorium, but can it Deliver?.
http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php?page_id=8328&section=news_articles&eod=1
200 Norway-Indonesia Letter of Intent, supra note 194.
201 NORAD (2011). Real-Time Evaluation of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative Contributions to National REDD+ Processes
2007-2010 Country Report: Indonesia.
202 Norway-Indonesia REDD+ Partnership - Frequently asked questions. (May 2010) Webpage:
http://www.norway.or.id/Norway_in_Indonesia/Environment/-FAQ-Norway-Indonesia-REDD-Partnership-/

A.7.3 Norway-Amazon Fund (Brazil)
Objective: Norway’s partnership with Brazil seeks to support emissions reductions thorough REDD+ and
learning activities supporting REDD+.
History and Overview: The Amazon Fund is an initiative created by the Brazilian president in 2008 to raise
donations to minimize and prevent deforestation in the Amazon region. In 2009, Norway pledged up to
USD 1 billion until 2015 to support Brazil’s Amazon Fund.203 The Amazon Fund does not issue tradable
carbon credits. In June 2012, the Amazon Fund announced that funding resources will be shared between
Brazil and other Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization countries including Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador,
Guyana, Peru, Suriname, and Venezuela.204 As with Norway’s bilateral agreement with Guyana, the carbon
price is set at USD5/ton.
Process: A donation agreement was made between the BNDES and Norway in 2009, which established the
initial donation in 2009 as well as the terms and procedures of Norway’s continued commitment in
subsequent years (of which Norway has signed four Addenda extending the initial Agreement). Funding
under the Agreement is linked to reduced GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.
Disbursements from Norway are made every six months or less based on the Fund’s needs. 205
Unlike in Indonesia and Guyana where Norway’s financing is channeled via separate dedicated funding
instruments, in Brazil payments from Norway are pooled in a fund with donations from other countries and
some voluntary donations from the private sector, with pre-existing arrangements for results-based
payments. 206 The Brazilian National Development Bank (BNDES) manages the Amazon Fund and also raises
funds and assists with contracts and project monitoring. The decision-making arrangement of the Amazon
Fund consists of the Amazon Fund Guidance Committee (COFA) and the Amazon Fund Technical
Committee (AFTC). COFA, which consists of representatives of federal and state governments as well as civil
society, sets the Amazon Fund guidelines and follows up on results to ensure they follow these guidelines
and relevant laws and policies. (An independent auditor also checks that funds used meet the guidelines set
by COFA.) The AFTC consists of six Ministry of Environment-appointed technical and scientific experts who
calculate carbon per hectare and deforestation avoided, and issue non-tradable carbon emissions
certificates. 207
203 Norway Ministry of the Environment. (2011). Norway and the Amazon Fund: Facts about the rainforest and the Amazon Fund. (In 2011,
Norway contributed roughly $170 million to the Amazon Fund.)
204 IISD. June 20, 2012. Brazil’s Amazon Fund to Extend Anti-Deforestation Support to ACTO Countries. IISD Reporting Services, Biodiversity
Policy & Practice.
205 Amazon Fund: Donations – “Norway,” website: http://www.amazonfund.gov.br/FundoAmazonia/fam/site_en/Esquerdo/doacoes/
206 For the latest totals of Norway’s donations received by the Amazon Fund at the time of writing, see:
http://www.amazonfund.gov.br/FundoAmazonia/fam/site_en/Esquerdo/doacoes/
207 Climate Funds Update: Amazon Fund. Website: http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/listing/amazon-fund#TOC-Fund-Governance


208 , 209 , 210 , 211 , 212
Element Treatment
Project (supported by the Amazon Fund)
Scale
Jurisdictional (payment from Norway to the Fund)
Geographical Eligible projects from the Amazon Basin: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, and
scope Venezuela
REDD, Conservation, Sustainable Forest Management, Recovery of Deforested Areas (A/R). Other
Activity scope capacity building activities are funded by the Amazon Fund that do not directly create emission
reductions.
Payments from Norway to the Amazon funds are based on reference emission levels of a 10 year
rolling average of historical deforestation that is updated every 5 years (conservative assumption of
RL
100tC/ha in all areas). The Amazon Fund provides a set of relatively basic benchmarks for the
funding of REDD+ activities, including criteria on safeguards and permanence.
The Amazon Fund is subject to BNDES’s social and environmental safeguards. There is no grievance
Safeguards
mechanism.
Not addressed specifically in the agreement between Norway and Brazil due to the national scope of
Leakage
the agreement. Whether BNDES requires leakage management from applicant projects is not clear.
If the deforestation rate for a given year is higher than the reference emission level, the government
Permanence will be unable to raise funds that year and will have to compensate for those emissions the following
year.
Additionality Captured in national reference emission level. Requirements for applicant projects is not clear.
Monitoring is completed through a combination of activities by SFB/MMA (Brazilian Forest Service)
MRV
and INPE (Brazilian National Institute of Space Research). Results are independently audited.
Registries No guidance
A.7.4 Japan’s Bilateral Offset Crediting Mechanism
Objective: Japan has proposed the creation of a Bilateral Offset Crediting Mechanism (BOCM) to facilitate
the meeting of its climate mitigation goals of reducing GHG emissions in 2020 to 25% less than 1990
levels213 through international offsets.
208 Amazon Fund. Presentation by Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES).

209 Angelsen, A., D. Boucher, S. Brown, V. Merckx, C. Streck, D. Zarin. (2011) Guidelines for REDD+ Reference Levels. Meridian Institute
publication for The Government of Norway.
210 The Amazon Fund Website.
211 Eidhammer, Asbjorn, et al. (2010). Real-Time Evaluation of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative, 2007-2010, Country
Report: Brazil.
212 Zadek, S., M. Forstater, F. Polacow (2010). The Amazon Fund: Radical Simplicity and Bold Ambition. AVINA Working Paper.
213 Point Carbon. July 14, 2012. Japan selects new batch of bilateral offset projects.

History and Overview: In mid-2011 the Japanese Environment Ministry announced its bilateral support of
29 carbon projects located in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, including seven REDD+ projects, with an
additional 25 projects receiving support in mid-2012. 214 These projects, which the Japanese government
was supporting with USD37.5 million for feasibility studies, would be used to help the country meet its
climate mitigation goal. This initial support has grown to over USD100 million in feasibility studies for over
100 offset-generating projects throughout 2011. The feasibility studies have focused on identifying
emissions reductions opportunities that do not exist in the CDM and developing corresponding MRV
standards and methodologies. 215 The BOCM, as Japan calls this initiative, has similarities to the CDM, yet
operates at the bilateral level and is likely to include a wider range of project activities than the CDM.
Process: A number of important details around additionality, safeguards, MRV and other issues are not yet
fully detailed, although Japan is expected to release more information at COP 18. 216 Japan’s proposal to
date has been to follow general international guidelines but work bilaterally with countries to define the
precise criteria for elements such as MRV, additionality, verification and accreditation of verifiers.217
Feasibility studies and MRV model projects continue through 2012 with the actual BOCM commencing in
2013. 218
A.7.5 Germany’s REDD Early Movers Program
Objective: The German REDD Early Movers Program (REM) promotes forest conservation and resulting
reductions in CO2 emissions. This is done using incentive payments and performance-based payments,
supported by the setting up of institutions, monitoring systems and REDD registries, and by capacity
development.
History and Overview: REM is a worldwide support program for REDD+ that rewards actors in those countries
which have already taken independent action towards mitigating climate change. It is results-based and
helps to close funding gaps in the current REDD process.
Process: Criteria for REM funding include the (1) establishment/extension of systems to monitor forest
cover/CO2, (2) high MRV standards, (3) clear benefit sharing, (4) effective consultation and safeguards,
(5) transparency of the REDD system. To minimize the transaction costs of carbon finance, results-based
incentive payments and payments for emission reductions under REDD are made on the basis of proxy
indicators - such as IPCC's conservative assumptions about the carbon content of forest ecosystems and
about prices per tonne of CO2 for emission reductions. The carbon payments are complemeted by technical
assistance and capacity building to achieve REDD+ readiness.
214 Point Carbon. July 2, 2012. Japan to fund 21 studies for new CO2 offset market projects.
215 Le, Hanh, A. Delbosc. (2012). ClimateBrief N011: Japan’s Bilateral Offset Crediting Mechanism. CDC Climat Research, p. 3.
http://www.cdcclimat.com/IMG/pdf/12-01_climate_brief_11_-_japan_s_bilateral_offset_crediting_mechanism.pdf
216 Le, Hanh, A. Delbosc. (2012). ClimateBrief N011: Japan’s Bilateral Offset Crediting Mechanism. CDC Climat Research.
217 Ibid.
218 Government of Japan. May 18, 2012. Establishment of flexible and effective new market mechanism – Japan’s suggestion. Presentation
from UNFCCC SB 36 Side Event “Low Carbon Growth in East Asia and Japan’s Effort.”

Standards For Results-Based REDD Finance - 2012 - Climate Focus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Standards For Results-Based REDD Finance - 2012 - Climate Focus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Standards For Results-Based REDD Finance - 2012 - Climate Focus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Standards for Results-Based REDD+ Finance

Overview and Design Parameters

1. INTRODUCTION: RESULTS-BASED REDD+ FINANCE ............................................................................. 2

2. TERMS, DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................... 4

3. A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REDD+ INITIATIVES AND STANDARDS .................................................. 7

4. APPLICABILITY OF REDD+ STANDARDS ............................................................................................. 17

A.1.1 UNFCCC ..................................................................................................................................... 23

CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012 Table of Contents

1. Introduction: Results-Based REDD+ Finance

Introduction: Results-Based REDD+ Finance CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012

CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012 Introduction: Results-Based REDD+ Finance

2. Terms, Definitions and Acronyms

Terms, Definitions and Acronyms CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012

Table 1: Glossary of design elements

CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012 Terms, Definitions and Acronyms

Acronym Name Acronym Name

Terms, Definitions and Acronyms CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012

3. A Comparative Analysis of REDD+ Initiatives and

5 Private standards include those managed by for-profit or non-for-profit entities.

CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012 Comparative Analysis of REDD+ Initiatives and Standards

Table 3: Overview of forest carbon standards and REDD+ results-based initiatives6

Comparative Analysis of REDD+ Initiatives and Standards Climate Focus ! 2012

Link to finance: GHG results-based payments possible. Compliance-grade. Issuance of tradable

CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012 Comparative Analysis of REDD+ Initiatives and Standards

Comparative Analysis of REDD+ Initiatives and Standards Climate Focus ! 2012

CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012 Comparative Analysis of REDD+ Initiatives and Standards

American Carbon Registry ! Non-profit enterprise of Winrock International

Comparative Analysis of REDD+ Initiatives and Standards Climate Focus ! 2012

CarbonFix ! Acquired by Gold Standard Foundation in Sept. 2012

Objective: Creating a framework for developing and managing community-based land-use

7 ClimateProjects Website: http://www.climateprojects.info/

CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012 Comparative Analysis of REDD+ Initiatives and Standards

Comparative Analysis of REDD+ Initiatives and Standards Climate Focus ! 2012

CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012 Comparative Analysis of REDD+ Initiatives and Standards

Comparative Analysis of REDD+ Initiatives and Standards Climate Focus ! 2012

4. Applicability of REDD+ Standards

CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012 Applicability of REDD+ Standards

Figure 2. Geographic Mapping of Forest Carbon Standards

Applicability of REDD+ Standards Climate Focus ! 2012

CLIMATE FOCUS ! 2012 Applicability of REDD+ Standards

Applicability of REDD+ Standards Climate Focus ! 2012

Figure 4: Growth in Forest Carbon Standards11

Climate Focus ! 2012 Conclusions

Conclusions Climate Focus ! 2012

A.1 Public International Law Initiatives and Standards

A.1.1.1 REDD+ Mechanism (under negotiation)

Main Design Elements

12 Bali Action Plan, Decision 1,/CP.13 (2007) Annex.

Climate Focus ! 2012 ANNEX

A.1.1.2 Clean Development Mechanism (Kyoto Protocol)

16 UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol. Article 12.

ANNEX Climate Focus ! 2012

Main Design Elements

Climate Focus ! 2012 ANNEX

A.1.1.3 Joint Implementation (Kyoto Protocol)

ANNEX Climate Focus ! 2012

Main Design Elements

32 CDM Rulebook Website. http://cdmrulebook.org/