Two members of the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market’s (ICVCM) expert panel have resigned in protest following the approval of three revamped methodologies for forest carbon credits. Juerg Fuessler, managing partner at sustainability consultancy Infras, and Lambert Schneider, research coordinator for international climate policy at the Oeko-Institut, stepped down this month and withdrew from re-application processes.
Last month, the ICVCM decided to include three revamped REDD+ methodologies for issuing forest carbon credits under its Core Carbon Principles (CCP) label. These methodologies aim to address loopholes in previous processes by enabling organisations to offset one tonne of CO2 emissions through investments in projects that prevent deforestation and forest degradation in biodiversity-rich regions, typically in South America or Africa.
However, REDD+ credits have faced criticism for their efficacy. Investigations by ‘The Guardian’, Vrije University Amsterdam, and the London School of Economics raised concerns about greenwashing and questioned the credibility of these credits.
While ICVCM describes the revamped methodologies as “more robust” and effective at managing risks, Fuessler and Schneider expressed doubts about their environmental integrity. Fuessler stated that although the updates represent “real improvements,” they fail to meet the Core Carbon Principles’ standards.
In a statement Fuessler said, “I believe in the vision of ICVCM: Build integrity and scale will follow. This is how integrity can be earned and not vice versa… The decision by the ICVCM risks putting into question the quality of the ICVCM Assessment Process and poses environmental integrity risks. “
Schneider expresses similar concerns and said in a statement, “Due to large unaccounted baseline uncertainty and the considerable risk of selection bias, the methodologies… do not fulfil the requirement of the ICVCM that the credited emission reductions result from the implementation of the mitigation activity and not from changes in exogenous factors that are not related to the mitigation activity.”
Schneider added, “[Additionally,] none of the methodologies account for all relevant forms of leakage, as required by the ICVCM. In particular, leakage across international borders is not considered but could be significant for some jurisdictions or projects.”
The experts fear that current methodologies could generate a large volume of credits unsupported by actual emission reductions. They concluded that the methodologies need further improvements to ensure credited reductions are additional and directly attributable to mitigation actions.
Concerns over the credibility of voluntary carbon markets have dampened investor confidence. A survey has found that 60% of corporate sustainability leaders view these markets as “too risky” for investment.
Despite this skepticism, the market shows signs of growth. Research from risk management firm Gallagher this autumn revealed that nearly 90% of large UK-based businesses have purchased carbon credits, spending an average of £2 million. By 2025, companies plan to increase investments significantly, with an average planned spend of £20 million. One firm has earmarked £1.2 billion to meet its climate goals.
