Why the heat is on carbon offsets claiming to protect forest
Some carbon offsets promise to reduce deforestation. Theres growing evidence these claims may not always stack up. When ticking an airline's carbon offset box, youre probably picturing your dollars creating green action: someone planting a seedling that will grow into a tree. But fairly often , youll be paying someone not to take action: to not chop down or burn existing trees. People selling these offsets say forests lock away vast amounts of greenhouse gas that the world cannot afford to release. Rather than landowners making money by harvesting wood or clearing the land for farming, they can get paid to keep the trees, by selling offsets. But opponents say the concept opens a can of worms. It only works if the forest is at risk of being chopped or burned and its tough, if not impossible, to calculate the precise amount at risk. If it turns out the trees were never seriously at risk, the offset projects could become a sort of protection racket : with people threatening forest to secure cash. Meanwhile, the oil companies and airlines that buy credits can claim theyre taking climate action, while continuing to contribute planet-heating pollution. The offset industry says it has checks and balances, including certification schemes putting projects through their paces. But internationally, academics and investigators have questioned whether these so-called avoided deforestation offsets stack up. It has become an issue for the Government, which plans to buy billions of dollars worth of credits from other countries to meet its climate pledges. Officials have warned that some forest-protection schemes do not meet expectations of environmental integrity, according to briefings released to Stuff under the Official Information Act. But with these offsets often selling cheaper than other kinds, its a conundrum. Its not only an issue overseas. In New Zealand, Stuff has found that at least one leading offset project may have overestimated the impact of harvesting. So, are these schemes doing what they claim to? Weve laid out the arguments for and against. Globally, the loss of trees is a big climate problem, says Suzi Kerr the Environmental Defense Funds chief economist. Stopping deforestation in the Amazon thats the big game. Particularly when healthy and mature, forests lock away thousands (even millions) of tonnes of carbon dioxide. If felled, these carbon stocks would eventually enter the atmosphere and add to the dangerous blanket of greenhouse gas heating the planet. Ending deforestation around the world would prevent a significant amount of emissions, Kerr says. Any effort that is storing carbon, or reducing emissions is valuable. In New Zealand, Ekos chief executive Sean Weaver argues that forest owners need funding. Its not easy to make money from native forest, and carbon offsets provide income: a private sector source of money to look after the place, as Weaver puts it. The only alternative source of cash is the taxpayer, he says. If we want to rely on governments to do this, were going to have to pay nurses less, because theres a trade-off. The revenue allows landowners to end tree harvesting and introduce environmental programmes, such as fencing and pest control, he says. [Its] an opportunity to sell carbon credits instead of wood and to keep those ecosystems standing up. Overseas, high-quality credits can fund community projects. For example, one project in Fiji supports a honey business to provide jobs for locals. And the income is real. Globally, airlines, oil producers and carmakers buy millions of offsets each year. In New Zealand, tourism businesses, beverage companies and consultancies have all purchased offsets from projects paying landowners to protect existing trees. Advocates have always acknowledged there was a risk of junk credits offsets that do not represent a real benefit to the planet. But they believe this risk can be managed. Expert bodies, such as Verra and Gold Standard, created certification systems to identify trustworthy credits. Typically, a forests project manager calculates how much carbon is stored in the protected forest. Then they estimate how much deforestation and carbon loss the forest would have suffered, if the cash had not been paid. Sellers of credits say they keep their estimates conservative. The project is supposed to award carbon offsets only for the difference a principle enshrined in Ministry for the Environment guidelines . If the offset is certified, an independent auditor scrutinises the numbers, and the offsets undergo regular checks and reviews. Opponents say certification bodies and project managers have little financial incentive to be strict on how many carbon credits they approve. Thats because project managers and certifiers receive a small share of the revenue raised from the sale of carbon offsets. Verra, the worlds largest certifier, receives 10 cents for every offset it issues. In January, independent researchers accused Verra of over-counting deforestation. Verra chooses reference areas (a kind of control forest for comparison) and counts the forest loss within them. Any project with less deforestation than the reference area receives carbon credits. An investigation by journalists with the Guardian, the Die Zeit and SourceMaterial alleged that Verra issued too many carbon credits. The work was based on three academic studies that tested Verras claims. After selecting their own reference areas and making comparisons, one university research team found only a fraction of projects had a meaningful impact. Another study, led by a Cambridge University researcher, was more positive. It found the majority of protected forests reduced tree loss though deforestation actually increased in a minority of projects. The journalists concluded that in most cases Verra issued many more carbon offsets than deserved. Verra disputes many of the investigations conclusions. But the certifier says the research is a useful contribution to the wider work on optimising methodologies. Meanwhile in New Zealand, a Stuff probe has raised questions about an offset project overseen by Weavers Ekos. The project asked the owners of a regenerating forest in Southland to stop selectively logging their trees. For every extra tonne of carbon the unharvested forest sucks up, the owners can sell one offset. The project claims that without its carbon credits, the Southland forest would be in an arrested state, meaning forest growth essentially comes to a halt. However, the Ministry for Primary Industries says these kinds of regenerating forests continue to grow anyway even with some harvesting. Weaver disputes that he has done anything wrong. However, he says he plans to review his assumptions in light of Stuff s questions. That could affect the number of offsets issued in future. But Weaver disputes the project overestimated its benefits. Weve followed the rules and best practice. Asked if certification bodies are being tough enough, Weaver defends his work. He says a forests project manager and verifier should regularly improve the way they calculate the likely rate of deforestation. The ability to review and recalculate is a feature of the system, not a bug, he argues. A honest and plausible project would evolve through time, he says. Outsiders can bring things to bear and raise issues you hadnt considered... If were an open community, we listen. However, Kerr, formerly of Motu, warns that some offset projects can make claims that go beyond what they actually know or can really justify. (Kerr was not commenting specifically on Ekos scheme). Overestimating deforestation can produce what are often described as phantom or hot air credits. The offset industry acknowledges junk credits can lead to real-world emissions. For example, a traveller might believe that their offsets undo the environmental damage of a long-haul flight, which could change their behaviour. On a larger scale, an oil company might use offsets as a political shield when questions are raised about its plans to expand fossil fuel production. At the highest level, this type of credit could be purchased by a government to claim it is cutting emissions under the Paris Agreement the international deal that means all countries have to slash emissions. Its an issue New Zealand officials are contending with, because the Government will need to buy up to 102 million credits from overseas, since it only plans to achieve a fraction of its 2030 climate pledge by cutting emissions within New Zealand. In briefings to ministers, climate officials have advised against buying carbon credits from forest-protection projects. Any credits the Government buys must have environmental integrity, officials say. However, their advice says, it can be very hard to prove whether a forest is at immediate risk of being felled, particularly in developing countries experiencing socio-economic instability. They warned the Government that New Zealands use of this type of credit is likely to be highly scrutinised by other countries, and that ensuring they had integrity would likely be so difficult that it would make them too expensive. For people or businesses voluntarily trying to lessen their impact, some experts suggest stepping away from the concept of offsetting completely. Kerr supports finance for forest owners but says they shouldnt necessarily be sold as offsets that claim to neutralise climate damage. She says it may be impossible to calculate the carbon saved, and forest protection projects should be very clear that the consumer is encouraging people to keep their forest nothing more. But [dont] be too quantitative, too specific about it. Because thats where it begins to get really misleading. Kerr likens payments to forest owners as a donation. Celebrate that people are doing things. They got money from somewhere. Its not that its perfectly offsetting anything. And dont treat it as a licence to pollute, she says. Stopping people from deforesting... supporting people with small pieces of marginal land who need support, those are good things and we should be encouraging them. What were trying to avoid is people feeling as though theyve done their bit and now dont have to do anything else. Weaver isnt convinced. He believes the offset framework needs tuning, but thinks its a mistake to abandon the system. But he agrees with Kerr on one thing that the priority is to harness money to protect forests. I dont really mind what you call it, he says. Our weekly email newsletter, by the Forever Project's Olivia Wannan, rounds up the latest climate events. Sign up here .