We verify forestry carbon capture and long term storage

We are all one world

We are all one world, and we need to help each other – GHG emissions anywhere in the world affect everyone in the world. Conversely, GHG removals anywhere in the world help everyone everywhere. Not necessarily “help” the planet, because the planet will be just fine without people at temperatures beyond comfortable human life, but help “us”. GHG emissions know no territorial boundaries.

GHG emissions are an existential threat to “all of us”, second only to nuclear Armageddon. Already habitats, health and livelihoods are being irreversibly and deleteriously impacted. No-one should light a fire and walk away knowing it will inevitably burn a neighbour’s property, yet that is what e.g., digging or pumping up and burning fossil fuel is doing without action to control the effects.

The “social” costs of GHG emissions are by some estimates approaching or already exceeding US$300/tonne. Remediation by removing GHG emissions, even if it costs US$100/tonne, is always the best alternative on any cost/benefit comparison. “We” are not necessarily helped by consumers and/or emitters transferring value between themselves for some, or all, of the social cost of emitting, because transfers of value do not necessarily help or compensate “all of us”.

Emissions must be reduced and at the same time GHG emissions already in the atmosphere must be captured, at least until the end of 2100, the IPCC end date. Only by doing both will we best help “all of us”, wherever that help is rendered.

Permanence, additionality, and no double counting

To help “all of us”, climate action that removes GHG must be additional, meaning it has been responsible for ameliorating rises in global temperatures, permanent, in that it will not be reversed in the short term, and not already counted. It will also have to be consistent with the principles of ISO 14064-2, which are universally accepted, including by the UNFCCC Supervisory Body.

To meet all these requirements, especially that of permanence, and to do so with robust and scientific proof that will stand up to searching examination, e.g. by a court, is always going to be difficult. The PFS Standards, validated to ISO by SGS and 3rd party verified by SGS, are designed to do this.

Validation and verification 

No country in the world requires emitters to pay the social cost of carbon. Many countries, however, require emitters, when they are telling consumers or market participants they report to, (or implying), they are taking actions to remediate the social costs of their GHG emissions, to not make misleading claims. It is likely to be misleading to imply actions are helping “us” when this cannot be proved or in expressing an opinion when there is no reasonable ground for doing so. Many countries also require emitters to report the effect of climate risks on their business and the steps they are taking to remediate them.

The best way for emitters to protect themselves from the consequences of making misleading claims, however innocently, is to ensure their claims are verified by independent and competent verifiers (auditors) of international standing, with those verifications complying with standards published by the UN or its organs or validated to an internationally accepted standard of impeccable independence such as ISO. Validations and verifications to standards that have a history of over-crediting may prove a dangerous, and expensive, practice.

Those consequences can be penalties, successful lawsuits, loss of reputation, market loss, and others such as the inability to secure directors’ professional insurance.

PFS has published, amongst others, two AAR standards for durable carbon dioxide removals (CDR) “Best practice for proof forestry CO2 captured remains stored until 2100” validated by SGS to ISO 14064-1 and ISO 14064-2: and “Best practice for verifying forestry CO2 removals prove clear and appropriate consistency with the principles and essential requirements of UNFCCC’s Supervisory Body’s A6.4 methodologies where strict compliance not possible”. Currently being validated by SGS to ISO 14064-2.

SGS has issued PFS a Sustainability Assurance Certificate. SGS concludes in its ISO 14064 validation report that the PFS Standard consideration of ICVCM Principles in PFS Standard is clear and appropriate, and it recommends use of the PFS Standard. The PFS’ registry and platform operator is MUFG Pensions and Market Services (NZ) Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG).

PFS verifies to both standards and SGS third party verifies as well.

These standards are published to allow emitters to meet imperatives now driving the VCM, namely (a) proven longevity of carbon capture and storage; (b) unquestioned internationally accepted integrity of independent validation and verification; (c) no double counting of sinks on a NDC and (d) compliance with the principles of UNFCCC Supervisory Body (SB) principles and essential requirements of PA Art 6.4.

No over-crediting

Some independently published studies calculate that projects verified to privately published standards have in the past only delivered on average 16% of the climate outcomes that they were supposed to.

By validation and verification to ISO, including for baseline and end of project reporting period, PFS has minimised if not eliminated entirely the risks of over-crediting.

New Zealand for durable forestry CDR projects

New Zealand is in a possibly unique position when it comes to durable forestry CDR. In terms of legal longevity, it has a Torrens system of title registration with parcels guaranteed by the government. It also has strong rule of law and covenants or laws against felling are robustly enforced, there being no reason they will not continue to be for the next 100 years. That could not be said for many jurisdictions in the world.

Secondly, from a silvicultural perspective, New Zealand sequesters carbon as fast as, and in many cases faster than most countries in the world, meaning the unit cost per tonne CO2 sequestered will be lower than elsewhere. Further, most species planted in New Zealand, including pinus radiata, will not turn carbon negative within 100 years, depending on site selection. Fire, pest and other mortality risks are lower than most other countries. They do exist but need to be carefully assessed on a site-specific basis.

When it comes to climate change risks, New Zealand is one of the countries least exposed to these risks, although some regions will be more exposed, particularly in relation to drought and flooding, and this again needs to be carefully assessed.

Further, unlike many other countries, forestry in New Zealand does not displace indigenous or poor communities and the returns from selling carbon credits financially assists forest owners, of whom Māori Iwi form a large estate, and are not inconsistent with New Zealand’s free trade agreements or UN agreements (such as The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples).

Unfortunately, New Zealand has a history of production felling its extensive exotic forests, of which there are over 2m ha. When forests are cut down, they turn from sinks into emissions sources. Verification to the PFS Standards prevents that happening to qualifying forests with proven permanence of sinks and additionality, as well as no over-crediting or double counting. 

“GHG Statements going forward”

PFS expects GHG Statements will increasingly need to conform with non-climate centric regulations, such as consumer protection, financial market requirements and financial reporting standards. As part of this process, it will be necessary for emitters to understand what is implied by their GHG Statements, whether those implied representations can be proved or, if an opinion, that it is reasonably held. For example, if emitters imply durability of carbon removals, and can prove it, they can honestly tell the market they have been responsible for the capture of tonnes of CO2-e and its guaranteed storage.

What PFS can offer

PFS can connect carbon buyers with New Zealand forest owners who can and are likely willing to have their forests verified to the PFS Standards by PFS/SGS. PFS estimates such forest will likely annually sequester 2Mt/CO2 after deducting a required 30% as an insurance buffer for possible reversals. This may be scalable to 8Mt/p.a., but there is a limit on the available hectares of NZ forests able to be verified for CDR capture and proven storage.