|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Jan24/02) Study suggests that carbon offset projects not as beneficial as claimed Policy discussions on how to integrate voluntary carbon offset projects from REDD+ activities into climate policies and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are ongoing. However, the contributions of these projects to actual emission reductions have been widely questioned. As growing scientific evidence shows that most carbon offsets have failed, demand and prices for offsetting have declined. A study published in the journal Science found carbon credits are not offsetting the vast majority of emissions that providers claim. Carbon credits are issued on the basis of comparison between the forest cover observed in the project areas and deforestation baseline scenarios expected to have been realized in the absence of the REDD+ projects. When these baselines become unrealistic counterfactuals, carbon offsets may lack additionality, which means they would not reflect actual emissions reductions. The researchers analyzed 26 REDD+ projects in South America, Africa and Southeast Asia, certified under Verras Verified Carbon Standard. The study compares the ex ante baselines established by the projects with the ex post deforestation counterfactuals informed by observable control areas. The results show that most projects have not significantly reduced deforestation, and for projects that did, reductions were substantially lower than claimed. Moreover, if the projects baselines are replaced by the deforestation observed in the control areas, estimates suggest that only 6.1% of the expected offsets from these projects would be linked to additional emission reductions. Given that 24% of carbon credits from these projects have already been used, by individuals and organizations, to offset their emissions, these mean almost three times more carbon emissions than their actual contributions to climate change mitigation. These results corroborate previous studies that question the additionality of carbon offsets. The authors suggest that adopting transparent jurisdictional baselines that are preestablished by government agencies could provide more reliability. They also conclude that it is critical to develop new and rigorous methods for the construction of credible deforestation baselines for voluntary REDD+ interventions. An earlier version of this study was the basis for reporting by The Guardian that many carbon offsets were worthless. This assertion is disputed by Verra, the worlds largest carbon credit certifier. Verra also questioned the methodology of the study, but recognized there were areas for improvement. In May 2023, Verras longtime CEO stood down after concerns about their carbon credits. On November 27, 2023, Verra published a new REDD methodology, by which Verra will now lead and manage the baseline setting process. It does not require linking with any governmental or jurisdictional programme. With best
wishes, - Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation Thales
A. P. West et al. Abstract Carbon offsets from voluntary avoided-deforestation projects are generated on the basis of performance in relation to ex ante deforestation baselines. We examined the effects of 26 such project sites in six countries on three continents using synthetic control methods for causal inference. We found that most projects have not significantly reduced deforestation. For projects that did, reductions were substantially lower than claimed. This reflects differences between the project ex ante baselines and ex post counterfactuals according to observed deforestation in control areas. Methodologies used to construct deforestation baselines for carbon offset interventions need urgent revisions to correctly attribute reduced deforestation to the projects, thus maintaining both incentives for forest conservation and the integrity of global carbon accounting.
|
||
