A key oversight body set up to improve the quality of carbon credits has been called into question by members of its expert board, two of whom recently resigned in protest over its decision to endorse offset rules they say lack integrity.
Last month, the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) gave its high-quality label to three methodologies for producing carbon offsets that aim to reduce deforestation under so-called REDD+ projects – the first to be approved for forest offsets.
The watchdog said at the time that the new forest carbon credit rules would “usher in a new generation of high-integrity projects” as they addressed concerns with previous REDD+ methodologies that came under fire for overstating their emissions-cutting benefits.
But carbon market experts Lambert Schneider and Juerg Fuessler have now come out publicly against the decision which they say sets a “problematic precedent” and calls into question the ICVCM’s assessment process. They both announced this week they had stepped down from the body’s expert panel which plays an advisory role in the ICVCM’s decision-making. Schneider formally left the post in September.
Divisions in ICVCM’s ‘big tent’
The ICVCM was set up to address widespread concerns over the quality of carbon credits and inject more credibility into the market. The watchdog assesses guidelines used to develop offsetting projects to determine whether they comply with the “Core Carbon Principles” (CCP) criteria, which are designed to identify and encourage high-integrity credits that meet requirements on governance, emissions reduction and sustainable development.
A spokesperson for the ICVCM told Climate Home that the body “purposefully built a ‘big tent’, seeking out diverse experience and expertise”. Members of civil society, academia and the corporate world – including the carbon offsetting industry – provide input into the ICVCM’s rulings on carbon credit methodologies.
Why rich countries are “reluctant” on additional JETP coal-to-clean deals
Its working group on REDD+ – which operates separately from the expert panel – included representatives from Amazon, forestry project developer Wildlife Works, carbon standards like Verra and ART, and non-profits like the World Resources Institute and the Environmental Defense Fund, among others.
The spokesperson said that having “all perspectives” included in the process “inevitably produces disagreements on specific issues and even on assessment decisions”, and described that as a “strength” rather than a weakness. But, they added, “overall the assessment process found that the methodologies have robust approaches in place to mitigate environmental risks”.
Integrity ‘at risk’
Schneider, a research coordinator for international climate policy at Germany’s Oeko-Institut, disagreed, telling Climate Home the approval of the REDD+ methodologies threatens the oversight body’s mission.
“In our assessment, the three methodologies do not comply with ICVCM’s criteria,” he said. “That presents a risk to the integrity of the initiative,” he added.
ICVCM greenlit two methodologies proposed by leading carbon standard Verra and one developed under the ART Trees programme.
In a joint online post, Schneider and Fuessler, along with two other experts involved with the ICVCM, wrote that although the new rulebooks for forest carbon projects offer improvements on previous versions, they still run the risk of generating low-integrity credits.
That, they argue, is because of the ways project developers are able to estimate how much deforestation would occur without the project, demonstrate that funding from carbon credits is needed (known as “additionality”), and counter the risk of carbon being released back into the atmosphere, for example as a result of wildfires.
“Given the large size of these activities, we fear that the current methodologies could lead to large volumes of credits not backed by any actual emission reductions,” the experts concluded.
Continued monitoring
The ICVCM spokesperson told Climate Home that some of the risks raised by the experts “were not likely to be material due to external factors such as global deforestation trends”, without elaborating further, while others would be effectively addressed through the approach used in the methodology.
The spokesperson also added that the ICVCM will monitor the implementation of the methodologies and remain “attentive to integrity risks in their application”.
No credits have been issued so far under the three approved methodologies for forest projects, but the body said that “there is a large volume of credits in the pipeline”.
Hundreds of millions of REDD+ offsets have been issued under older methodologies but have faced widespread criticism over their alleged lack of real emissions reductions and weakness in protecting environmental and human rights. The ICVCM did not assess the criteria for these earlier projects, and producers of those credits will not be able to claim the high-integrity CCP label unless they switch to the approved methodologies.
Tiered system?
Schneider said the ICVCM had set a “relatively ambitious” benchmark, but for now “the problem is that the number of high-quality credits that meet that level is quite low”.
He added that the body could have chosen a different approach if it wanted to “distinguish the grey from the black”, referring to projects that are judged to have varying degrees of integrity.
“You could do this by introducing a tiered system instead of just setting one bar,” Schneider said.
The ICVCM spokesperson said the body’s approval process for its high-quality offsets label “is built intentionally to get many perspectives, not to force people into consensus”. There are 26 members in its advisory groups, and four of them disagreed with the REDD+ conclusion, the spokesperson added.
(Reporting by Matteo Civillini; editing by Megan Rowling)
The post Experts quit carbon market watchdog in row over quality label for forest credits appeared first on Climate Home News.
Experts quit carbon market watchdog in row over quality label for forest credits
Climate Change
Coral reefs are not doomed – but policy must catch up with the science
Dr. Stacy Jupiter is the Executive Director of the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Global Marine Program. Melissa Wright is Bloomberg Ocean Initiative Lead at Bloomberg Philanthropies.
For years, the dominant story on coral reefs has been one of inevitable loss, with news headlines focusing on mass bleaching, ecosystem collapse, and catastrophic tipping points. As ocean temperatures continue to rise, many people have come to see the decline of the world’s reefs as unavoidable.
The threats are real and urgent, but new evidence points to a more complicated and useful conclusion: some reefs still have a meaningful chance to survive and recover, provided they are protected.
A major new analysis, published today with the support of Bloomberg Philanthropies, identifies more than 165,000 square kilometers of coral reefs, across 71 countries and 100 territories and jurisdictions, with the strongest potential to withstand and recover from climate impacts.
Drawing on more than 45,000 coral surveys, along with decades of climate and ocean data, the research finds that three times more reefs may be capable of surviving the climate crisis than previously understood. That has major implications for reef-dependent communities, food security, coastal protection, fisheries, tourism, and national economies.
Essential natural infrastructure for communities
The findings make clear that reefs will not all respond to climate impacts in the same way. Some are located in rare underwater cool spots that can help shield them from extreme heat. Some show greater resistance to bleaching and other climate-related stress. Others recover more quickly after severe disturbances. These differences matter because they show where protection can have the greatest long-term impact.
More than 500 million people depend on reefs for food, livelihoods, and coastal protection. For those communities, climate-resilient reefs are not an abstract conservation priority. They are essential natural infrastructure. They help protect coastlines, sustain fisheries, support local economies, and reduce climate risk. Because ocean currents move coral larvae and marine life between reef systems, some of these reefs may also help regenerate wider reef ecosystems after climate shocks.
This should change how governments, funders, and conservation partners prioritize action.
Climate change remains the greatest long-term threat to coral reefs. At the same time, many of the pressures pushing reefs closer to collapse are immediate and local. Sewage pollution, deforestation, agricultural runoff, destructive fishing practices, and poorly managed coastal development continue to damage reefs that are already under stress. Recent research shows that water pollution and fishing pressure are now among the leading local threats affecting nearly two-thirds of the world’s coral reefs.
These pressures can be reduced. Governments and local partners are already working to improve reef management, cut pollution, strengthen enforcement, and protect critical ecosystems. Those efforts need to move faster, alongside much stronger action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Prioritising climate-resilient reefs
The new maps of climate-resilient reefs give governments, communities, and reef managers a clearer basis for action. They show where reefs have the strongest potential to persist over time, and where protection can deliver the greatest benefits for people, coastlines, and economies.
Right now, only around 28 percent of the identified climate-resilient reefs fall within protected or conserved areas. If these reefs are among the most capable of surviving climate impacts and helping regenerate broader reef systems, they should be prioritized for protection, management, and investment.
The case for action is practical as well as ecological. Healthy reefs can reduce wave energy by up to 97 percent, helping protect coastlines from storms, flooding, and erosion. They support fisheries that feed millions of people, sustain tourism jobs and local economies, and help reduce climate risk for vulnerable coastal communities.
For many families, a healthy reef means food, income, and protection when storms hit. For Indigenous Peoples and coastal communities, reefs are also tied to culture, heritage, identity, and traditional knowledge systems.
Ocean conservation must catch up
Governments are beginning to recognize the urgency of protecting climate-resilient reefs. At last year’s UN Ocean Conference in Nice, 11 countries signed a declaration committing to stronger protection of these reefs, including action to address destructive fishing, pollution, and unsustainable coastal development.
As leaders meet in Kenya this week to discuss the challenges facing the world’s ocean, more governments should join the declaration and help build a broader coalition committed to safeguarding these critical ecosystems.
As coral reefs pass tipping point, ocean protection rises up political agenda
Some countries are already showing what this leadership can look like. Brazil has included corals in its national climate plans. The Bahamas is embedding reef protection into national policy and local stewardship systems. The declaration offers a way to build on these efforts and scale them globally.
But commitments will not be enough. Success will depend on implementation. That means stronger protection and management, reduced local pressures, increased investment, and meaningful support for the Indigenous Peoples and local communities stewarding these ecosystems.
The science is clear. Many reefs still have the capacity to persist and recover. The question is whether policy and investment will move quickly enough to protect them, so they can continue sustaining communities, economies, and coastlines for generations to come.
The post Coral reefs are not doomed – but policy must catch up with the science appeared first on Climate Home News.
Coral reefs are not doomed – but policy must catch up with the science
Climate Change
Months After a Jet Fuel Leak, No Agency Tested Waters Downstream of Piscataway Creek. So Community Groups Are Doing It Themselves.
Authorities that manage the Potomac River tributary did not sample the stretch where residents fish and recreate. One Indigenous leader sees the lack of response as part of a pattern of ongoing neglect.
In the five months after jet fuel started leaking from Joint Base Andrews into Piscataway Creek, no agency tested the water or sediment some 20 miles downstream, where the creek empties into the Potomac River and the shoreline community and anglers gather to fish and boat along the riverbank.
Climate Change
Trump Administration Abandons Fight Against Wind Energy as Clean Energy Output Surges
The clean energy sector is showing resilience despite challenges thrown at it by a hostile White House, a recent report found. A string of legal victories has further dampened the Trump administration’s efforts to halt wind and solar power.
The Trump administration has abandoned its effort to halt wind energy projects across the United States and dropped its challenge to the court ruling that tossed President Donald Trump’s order freezing federal permitting and leasing for wind projects. States that challenged the order hailed the development as one of the most significant legal victories against the Trump White House’s campaign against the energy transition.
Trump Administration Abandons Fight Against Wind Energy as Clean Energy Output Surges
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy8 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测


