Forest Carbon Credits Quality Label Sparks Controversy: Experts Resign from Market Watchdog
The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) is under scrutiny as two expert advisors resign from their positions due to concerns over the REDD+ decision. Lambert Schneider and Juerg Fuessler publicly oppose the approval of forest carbon credit rules, leading to their resignation from the ICVCM.
The ICVCM, established to enhance the quality of carbon credits and instill credibility in the market, granted a high-quality label to three methodologies for carbon offsets aimed at reducing deforestation in REDD+ projects. While the watchdog claimed these rules would bring about high-integrity projects and address previous concerns, Schneider and Fuessler disagree.
Divisions in ICVCM’s ‘big tent’
The ICVCM aims to ensure carbon credits comply with the Core Carbon Principles criteria for governance, emissions reduction, and sustainable development. The expert panel, including members from various sectors, assesses guidelines for offsetting projects. However, disagreements arose over the approval of REDD+ methodologies, leading to the resignation of key experts.
Integrity ‘at risk’
Schneider, a climate policy research coordinator, believes the approved methodologies do not meet ICVCM’s criteria, posing a risk to the initiative’s integrity. He suggests that these methodologies may generate low-integrity credits due to certain estimation processes and potential environmental risks.
Continued monitoring
The ICVCM spokesperson defends their approval process, stating that risks highlighted by experts will be addressed during implementation. While no credits have been issued under the approved methodologies, the ICVCM remains vigilant about integrity risks.
Tiered system?
Schneider proposes a tiered system to differentiate projects based on integrity levels, suggesting that the current benchmark is challenging to meet. The ICVCM spokesperson emphasizes the importance of diverse perspectives in their decision-making process, despite disagreements among advisory group members.
As climate issues continue to evolve, the debate over carbon credits’ quality highlights the complexities of balancing environmental concerns with market integrity. The resignations of Schneider and Fuessler underscore the challenges faced by oversight bodies in navigating these nuances. It prompts us to question how best to ensure the credibility of carbon offsetting projects while promoting sustainable development globally.