ncx-gitbot
commented
2 years ago NCX response: Where the methodology is not explicitly prescriptive, it is expected that project developers will implement appropriate safeguards to avoid adverse selection. NCX signs a legal agreement with landowners that affirms their willingness to harvest the volume they are instead credited with deferring. We look forward to working with other developers and academic researchers to explore methods of measuring adverse selection directly in the future.
Commenter Organization: Berkeley Carbon Trading Project, Environmental Center, Goldman School of Public Policy University of California, Berkeley
Commenter: Barbara Haya
2021 Deferred Harvest Methodology Section: No Section Indicated
Comment: Non-additional crediting due to adverse selection is an inevitable challenge with any offsetting program and must be managed to avoid over-crediting. Current improved forest management (IFM) methodologies use baselines designed to average over many years. The long-term commitment to hold carbon can partially remedy any over-crediting at the project start. Even if initial credits are non-additional, the offset program acts like an easement, preventing management changes over decades. For some plots (but not all) non-additional credits generated early in the project can become addition over time as landowner management choices are constrained. It can be argued that the biggest effect of current IFM methodologies is the long-term commitment – the year on year requirement to avoid forest conversion or carbon reduction. Even though there is still a timing disconnect – credits generated for reductions that could happen over many decades are used to offset immediate emissions from the buyer – the offset program can still reduce forest carbon loss over the project life.
Proposed Change: No Proposed Change