The project is being implemented in an area of application covered by the forest climate standard.
The project is located in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany.
wald-klimastandardVersion 1.1
Projects are compliant with national legislation and meet all eligibility criteria of the selected standard.
Background of the principle
To ensure the national legitimacy of certified ecosystem services, conformity with national legislation is the basis for all requirements defined by the standards.
The eligibility criteria represent a set of criteria that projects must meet in order to qualify for certification.
They set the general framework for projects within which they can be certified and generate their ecosystem services.
The project is being implemented in an area of application covered by the forest climate standard.
The project is located in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany.
The forest owner is a natural person or legal entity under private or public law that complies with laws, regulations and agreements relevant to project implementation.
The forest owner is the proprietor of the project area.
For certifications as a project group, this indicator must be checked for each individual project (see also indicator 8.2.6).
The forest owner complies with the laws, regulations and agreements relevant to project implementation.
The review of the indicator relates to the forest owner and not to other project participants.
The forest owner confirms that he has all the necessary permits to implement the project.
The forest owner assures to provide all information requested by eva completely and truthfully.
The temporal aspects of the project and the eligibility of the ecosystem service are clearly defined.
The project duration covers all crediting periods of the areas assigned to a project.
Each area has an individual crediting period, which is determined by the forest owner and may be limited by the selected method.
The crediting period commences with the implementation of the first project activities.
The project duration
Project duration = period of all crediting periods of a project.
The crediting period starts with the 'start of project activities' on the sub-areas.
_______________
If project activities on different sub-areas are more than 12 months apart, but are included together in an initial certification, the crediting period starts with the 'start of project activities' on the last sub-area.
This procedure is necessary to ensure that the crediting period can be determined uniformly for all sub-areas of an initial certification without overestimating the climate impact of the project.
In the course of time, additional areas can be added to a project through further initial certifications.
These additional areas differ from the existing areas in terms of their start date and possibly also duration and are given different crediting periods.
| Methode | Anrechnungszeitraum |
| 01 AR 04 Afforestation | 20, 25 or 30 years |
| 02 Climate-adaptive diversification | 30 years |
The length of the crediting period is freely selectable according to the restrictions of the indicator and the interests of the forest owner.
If the 'start of project activities' on a sub-area dates back more than 3 years before the initial certification, the forest owner must plausibly justify that the project activities were planned from the outset as a 'project for marketing ecosystem services'.
Additional evidence
In cases of retroactive accounting, the certifier may request additional evidence to obtain a more accurate assessment of the situation at the 'start of project activities'
.
Sofern der 'Beginn von Projektaktivitäten' auf einer Teilfläche mehr als 3 Jahre vor der Erstzertifizierung zurückliegt, begründet der Waldbesitzer plausibel, dass die Projektaktivitäten von Beginn an als 'Projekt zur Vermarktung von Ökosystemleistungen' geplant waren.
Zusätzliche Nachweise
In Fällen rückwirkender Anrechenbarkeit kann der Zertifizierer zusätzliche Nachweise einfordern, um eine genauere Einschätzung der Situation zu 'Beginn der Projektaktivitäten' zu erhalten.
Kann eine Fläche, auf der eine Pflanzung in jungen Jahren durch Dürre (Kalamität) ausgefallen ist, als Projekt unter dem Standard registriert werden?
Und wenn ‘ja’, wie sind dann die überlebenden Pflanzen der ersten Bestandesbegründung auf der Zertifizierungsplattform zu deklarieren?
Der Standard erlaubt die Zertifizierung von Flächen, bei denen bereits ein erster Versuch der Bestandesbegründung fehlgeschlagen ist.
Neben den regulären Anforderungen sind folgende Aspekte zu beachten:
Flächen, bei denen mehr als ein Versuch der Bestandesbegründung fehlgeschlagen ist, können nicht zertifiziert werden.
Projects are implemented professionally and transparently, taking into account the long-term nature of the project periods.
Background of the principle
Forest projects are often more complex and take longer than other project types, which places correspondingly high demands on the implementers. Professional management can mitigate many of the risks to which a project is exposed.
Transparency helps to involve stakeholders right from the start of project implementation and to create social acceptance. Integrative embedding in the social context is essential for the longevity and acceptance of this type of project.
The project has a process control system with clearly defined responsibilities and workflows.
Internal processes and processes with project participants are clearly structured and adhered to.
Clarification
The indicator refers to the implementation of the project and not to the general processes of an organization.
_______________
Projects with project consultants
The forest owner can commission external service providers and project consultants to implement the project. The following contract template is available for this purpose:
| Template | Project consultant contract |
The project is implemented by trained personnel and with quality products.
The staff responsible for project implementation have sufficient expertise, experience and skills to successfully implement the assigned tasks.
This indicator is considered fulfilled by the requirements of PEFC/FSC.
The following requirements of PEFC and FSC are the basis for the fulfillment of this indicator:
6.1 In the event that the company employs its own personnel, a number of forestry-trained specialist personnel adapted to the operational conditions shall be maintained or
created. Skilled personnel are defined as workers who have completed training appropriate to the activity or have several years of professional experience.
2.3 The forestry operation shall implement measures to protect employees from occupational health and safety risks. These measures shall be proportionate to the scope, intensity and risk of forest management and shall at least comply with the recommendations of the ILO Guidelines for Occupational Safety and Health in Forestry Work.
2.5 The forestry operation demonstrates that the employees receive task-specific further training and that it instructs them in order to be able to implement the management with all management measures safely and effectively
The products (tools, plants, machines, etc.) and services (planting/seeding, maintenance, etc.) used to implement the project meet the usual quality standards in the industry.
This indicator is considered fulfilled by the requirements of PEFC/FSC.
The following requirements of PEFC and FSC are the basis for the fulfillment of this indicator:
6.3 Forestry service providers, contractors and commercial self-producers employed in forest operations have the necessary qualifications for the activity.
6.4 Only those service providers, contractors and commercial self-producers who have a certificate recognized by PEFC Germany are used in forestry work.
10. Implementation of management measures: The selection and implementation of management measures carried out by or for the forest enterprise in the forest shall be in accordance with the economic, environmental and social objectives of the forest enterprise and comply with all FSC principles and criteria.
The forest owner makes project information available to the public as promptly and directly as possible.
All project information is published via the eva online platform.
Exceptions apply to financial, legal and personal project information. In such cases, the forest owner has the option of marking them as ‘sensitive’, which means that they are not published. The sensitivity must be justified to the certifier.
Sensitivity of provided data is assessed by the auditor and is based on the goal of the greatest possible transparency towards the
The labeling takes place on the eva online platform.
Sind Dokumente einer Forsteinrichtung als sensibel zu bewerten oder nicht?
Informationen gelten als sensibel, wenn sie Rückschlüsse auf die finanzielle Lage einer Person oder Organisation zulassen.
Forsteinrichtungen führen typischerweise Erntemengen auf, die als Grundlage von Einnahmen dienen und somit potenziell Rückschlüsse auf die finanzielle Situation ermöglichen. Daher können Forsteinrichtungen als 'sensibel' eingestuft werden.
Ecosystem services arise in addition to the reference scenario, and the income they generate makes a decisive contribution to project implementation.
Background of the principle
Additionality ensures that a project makes an additional positive contribution. This means that the ecosystem services are generated over and above government requirements, require additional financial income from the marketing of ecosystem services and achieve an additional impact compared to the reference scenario (baseline).
_______________
Further information on additionality can be found in the following baseline study:
| Study | Additionality of forest climate credits in Germany |
Separate proof of legal additionality is required for each category of ecosystem services (climate protection, biodiversity, water protection, soil protection, etc.).
Legal additionality is fulfilled if the project takes place in a country that has the greatest possible ambition to contribute to the United Nations' goals for a specific ecosystem service, but is unlikely to be able to achieve these contribution targets with its current legal framework and state funding.
The information basis for the proof is monitored by eva and adjusted on the basis of the latest information.
The following information basis currently applies:
| | Legal additionality |
If you are aware of more recent information (other than that mentioned in the information sheet), please report it to eva.
The income from the marketing of ecosystem services makes a decisive contribution to financing project implementation.
Financial additionality is given if in the crediting period
Option 1: Economic efficiency
Option 2: Profitability comparison
_______________
The forest owner is recommended to make the financial additionality documents publicly available, especially if
The verification template to be used with detailed information is provided in the indicator details.
_______________
For more detailed explanations on the verification of financial additionality, please refer to the following document:
| Infosheet | Financial Additionality |
_______________
General information
Funding, donations and sponsorship in a recognizable connection with the project implementation are part of the financial analysis.
For'Option 2: Cost-effectiveness comparison' the financial analysis of the reference scenario corresponds to the standardized reference scenario defined under the respective method (6.5. ).
_______________
Indicator check for project groups
For certifications as a project group, this indicator must be checked for each individual project (see also indicator 8.2.6).
Wie sollten potenzielle Einnahmen aus Ökopunkten in die finanzielle Additionalität einbezogen werden?
Potenzielle Einnahmen durch Ökopunkte sind unter folgenden Voraussetzungen zu berücksichtigen (kumulativ; siehe auch Entscheidungsschema zur Anrechenbarkeit von Ökopunkten):
Hinweis zu Pt. 4:
Als vermarktbar gelten Ökopunkte aus Sicht des WKS dann, wenn der Waldeigentümer mit bereits verkauften Ökopunkten aus vergleichbaren Flächen auf Erfahrungswerte zurückgreifen kann. Sofern die übrigen Voraussetzungen für die Anrechenbarkeit erfüllt sind, sind für die Finanzanalyse die entsprechenden Erfahrungswerte zu verwenden.
Hintergrund: Generell kann der WKS eine Vermarktbarkeit von Ökopunkten erst dann unterstellen, wenn belastbare Informationen zur Mengen- und Preisschätzung verfügbar sind. Über die Waldeigentumsgrenze hinaus ist die Datenlage hierfür aktuell unzureichend, sodass Ökopunkte erst unter den genannten Voraussetzungen als substanzielles Co-Finanzierungsmittel für WKS-Projekte berücksichtigt werden können.
Hinweis zu Pt. 6:
Sofern eine vergleichbare Menge an Ökopunkten auch ohne das Wald-Klimaprojekt erzielbar ist, kürzen sich bei Nachweis nach Option 2 die Einnahmen im Projekt- und Referenzszenario raus, sodass von der Berücksichtigung von Ökopunkten abgesehen werden kann.
Gibt es die Möglichkeit für den Nachweis der finanziellen Additionalität mit Durchschnittswerten zu arbeiten? Es bestehen in der Praxis häufig keine flächenscharfen Nachweise für alle Teilflächen.
eva befürwortet die Anwendung von Durchschnittswerten.
Während des Zertifizierungsprozesses hat der Zertifizierer
- die Plausibilität der Durchschnittswerte, sowie
- die Menge der umgesetzten Leistung zu überprüfen.
Hierzu ein Beispiel zum Thema Zaunbau:
Tatsächlich umgesetzte Leistung: 55 lfm Zaunbau
Durchschnittlicher Kostenansatz (gemäß Referenz XY): 35 EUR/lfm
Somit können die Kosten von insgesamt 1925 EUR (55 lfm X 35 EUR/lfm) als Beitrag zur finanziellen Additionalität berücksichtigt werden.
Inwieweit können bei der finanziellen Additionalität eines Projektes Aufwände auf Grundlage von Opportunitätskosten geltend gemacht werden, die nicht im Zusammenhang mit Referenzszenarien stehen, wie beispielsweise andere Anlageformen?
Aufwände, die nicht im Zusammenhang mit den Referenzszenarien stehen, können bei der finanziellen Additionalität nicht berücksichtigt werden.
_______________
Es ist korrekt, dass Staatsanleihen, Kryptowährungen, Immobilien, Aktien etc. alternative, möglicherweise renditestarke Anlageformen bieten können. Die Anrechnung dieser Opportunitätskosten unter der finanziellen Additionalität ist dennoch nicht erlaubt, da sie eine konkrete quantitative und objektiv überprüfbare Gegenüberstellung der Aufwand- und Ertragsberechnung über vergleichbare Investitionszeiträume voraussetzt.
Im Fall von Waldprojekten gestaltet sich eine solche Vergleichbarkeit äußerst schwierig, da:
Subjektives Risikobewusstsein: Die Wahl der vergleichbaren Opportunitäten hängt von der individuellen Risikoeinschätzung und den Werten der Investoren ab. Diese subjektiven Faktoren erschweren eine objektive Überprüfbarkeit, da sie von Investor zu Investor unterschiedlich sind und von nicht vorhersehbaren Faktoren beeinflusst werden, wie die sich entwickelnden rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen oder sich veränderndes Konsumverhalten.
Lange Zeiträume: Die Langfristigkeit von Waldprojekten mit Rendite-Zeiträumen von 50-100 Jahren führt zu einer extrem hohen Unsicherheit bei Prognosen zu Kosten, Preisen, politischen und klimatischen Entwicklungen. Diese Unsicherheiten machen eine konkrete quantitative Vergleichbarkeit über den gesamten Zeitraum hinweg unmöglich.
Mangelnde objektive Überprüfbarkeit: Die subjektive Risiko- und Opportunitätseinschätzung sowie der lange Zeitraum bei Waldprojekten erschweren eine objektive Überprüfbarkeit. Selbst wenn theoretisch eine Ableitung möglich wäre, würden Diskussionen über die Nachweisbarkeit und Anerkennung verschiedener Annahmen gegenüber einem Zertifizierer regelmäßig zu Meinungsverschiedenheiten führen. Dies würde letztendlich einer nutzerfreundlichen und damit breiten Anwendung des Standards entgegenstehen.
_______________
Fazit: Insgesamt kommt eva daher zum Schluss, dass eine ausreichend belastbare und objektiv überprüfbare Quantifizierung von 'Opportunitätskosten' für die finanzielle Additionalität bei Waldprojekten in Mitteleuropa nicht sinnvoll ist und daher in den eva-Standards nicht verwendet werden kann.
The 'State support' indicator is purely indicative and is intended to provide the forest owner with additional legal certainty for their project.
The Forest Climate Standard can be applied both when state support is used and independently of it.
If government funding is used in conjunction with income from the marketing of ecosystem services, forest owners are advised to clarify with the relevant authorities whether this affects eligibility for funding.
Independent of this reference, funding must be taken into account when assessing financial additionality (3.2.1).
The following legal opinions of the Redeker law firm can be used to clarify the situation with the authorities:
| Study | Marketability of the carbon sink performance of forests in Germany |
| Study | Legal classification of the valorization of the carbon sink performance of forests on the voluntary carbon market |
| Study | Marketing of forest climate certificates and state funding in the federal states of Saxony-Anhalt, Hesse, Thuringia, Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia |
The project measurably improves ecosystem services according to recognized scientific calculation guidelines and ensures continuous monitoring of the effects.
This criterion is met by the requirements under principle '6. Methods'.
Climate resilience and speed
The methods '01 Forest Reconstruction' and '02 Forest Restoration' base their climatic additionality in particular on the increased climate resilience and time savings that result from prompt action on calamity areas or endangered pure stands.
This field could not be hidden for technical reasons.
Projekte werden ökologisch verantwortlich durchgeführt und generieren positive Umweltauswirkungen für die Wiederherstellung, den Erhalt und die Resilienz von Ökosystemleistungen.
Background of the principle
Land use projects, especially in the area of forests, are embedded in a broad landscape and socio-economic context. They have an impact on the environmental and ecosystem services of landscapes, such as biodiversity, water availability and quality, soil fertility, air pollution control, sink effect and much more.
The environmental sustainability of projects therefore not only refers to the enhancement of individual ecosystem services through a project, but also includes a variety of ecological aspects that must be taken into account.
The project is part of a sustainable, resource-saving utilization concept.
The project area is part of an FSC- or PEFC-certified operational area.
Exceptions are first-time certifications of companies that implement projects using the '04 afforestation' method and have not previously been active in forestry. In these cases, the requirement must be fulfilled from the first re-certification.
Type of audit
During certification, the validity of the corresponding FSC or PEFC certificate is verified. The content is not checked.
If there are doubts about FSC or PEFC conformity, the auditor may record this in the certification report in the form of a FAR(8.2.13).
_______________
Further forest management standards
If you think that eva should recognize further standards of sustainable forest management, we would be pleased to hear from you.
_______________
Method: ‘04 afforestation’
The obligation to provide evidence of valid FSC or PEFC certification also applies to afforestations.
_______________
Indicator check for project groups
For certifications as a project group, this indicator must be checked for each individual project (see also indicator 8.2.6).
Projects act in a socially responsible manner, follow occupational health and safety standards and promote social well-being and the participation of the local population.
Background of the principle
Forest projects are embedded in a broad landscape and socio-economic context.
Social aspects of projects include interaction with local stakeholders, community involvement and participation, and the creation of jobs with fair working conditions.
Holistic stakeholder and employee management is part of comprehensive risk management that ensures the long-term successful implementation of the project.
In order to implement the project activities, statutory occupational health and safety regulations are observed, the local population is involved and a functioning complaints management process is established.
The project area is part of an FSC- or PEFC-certified operational area.
Exceptions are first-time certifications of companies that implement projects using the '04 first afforestation' method and have not previously been active in forestry. In these cases, the requirement must be fulfilled from the first re-certification.
Why is this indicator duplicated?
FSC and PEFC have both ecological and social requirements. Therefore, a corresponding indicator was included under both principles of the forest climate standard, although they are identical in terms of content.
On the eva online platform, a corresponding verification only needs to be uploaded once.
The forest owner designates a contact person for the project on the eva online platform who is sufficiently accessible and at the same time responsible for the complaint management process.
Complaints are systematically documented. The documentation includes the stakeholder's complaint, the forest owner's proposed solutions (in cooperation with the forest owners if necessary), the stakeholder's reaction to the proposed solutions (acceptance/rejection) and the implementation of the proposed solution in accordance with the SMART concept.
The forest owner responds to complaints within 30 days.
If it is foreseeable that no solution can be found between the parties, eva can take action to bring about a solution.
Projects generate real and measurable ecosystem services that are comprehensibly quantified, monitored and transparently reported in accordance with current recognized scientific principles.
Background of the principle
In order to determine the quantity and quality of the ecosystem services generated, clear requirements are needed that define processes for the quality assurance of the modeling and monitoring of these services. These requirements are defined in the form of methods.
The basis for these methods is formed by scientifically sound and recognized calculation approaches that enable an objective and reliable assessment of the modelling and monitoring.
The consistent application of these methods enables the ecosystem services generated to be precisely quantified and documented. This enables the results achieved to be accurately recorded and documented.
The methodological objective is defined for each method and relates to the crediting period and all sub-areas of a project. It is achieved through individual or a combination of project activities and accompanying measures.
Methodological objective: Establishment of a forest with increased climate resilience and extensive tree cover on areas that have been deforested due to extreme climatic events.
Project activities:
Accompanying measures:
Methodological objective
The objective of the project activities according to the method '02 forest conversion' is to increase climate resilience in commercial forests by diversifying tree species and stand structure.
Project activities
Measures to secure and maintain the stand
Methodological objective: In preparation (currently not available)
Project activities
Inventory protection and maintenance measures
Methodological objective: Establishment of forests with increased climate resilience and comprehensive stocking on areas not previously used for forestry.
Project activities:
Accompanying measures:
The quantification of ecosystem services takes place within a clearly defined scope.
The scope defines requirements for project areas that cannot be influenced by the forest owner.
The project area was deforested due to the direct effects of a calamity (such as drought, extreme heat, other extreme weather events) or their after-effects (such as pest infestation).
Elm dieback, ash dieback, chestnut blight and other epidemic diseases fall under the term calamity.
Wie alt darf bestehender Voranbau bei einer Kalamitätsfläche maximal sein?
Im Wald-Klimastandard gibt es keine spezifische Altersbeschränkung für bestehenden Voranbau auf Kalamitätsflächen.
Bei der Erstellung der Referenzszenarien ist anzugeben, welcher Anteil an gesicherter (> 130 cm) Verjüngung vorhanden ist. Dies umfasst sowohl die Naturverjüngung als auch die Verjüngung aus dem Voranbau. Führen erhebliche Altersunterschiede zu mehr Baumbiomasse als projiziert, wird das dem Projekt nicht angerechnet.
Kann eine Fläche, auf der eine Pflanzung in jungen Jahren durch Dürre (Kalamität) ausgefallen ist, als Projekt unter dem Standard registriert werden?
Und wenn ‘ja’, wie sind dann die überlebenden Pflanzen der ersten Bestandesbegründung auf der Zertifizierungsplattform zu deklarieren?
Der Standard erlaubt die Zertifizierung von Flächen, bei denen bereits ein erster Versuch der Bestandesbegründung fehlgeschlagen ist.
Neben den regulären Anforderungen sind folgende Aspekte zu beachten:
Flächen, bei denen mehr als ein Versuch der Bestandesbegründung fehlgeschlagen ist, können nicht zertifiziert werden.
The stocking rate of the area is at least 0.3.
None of the areas is a wetland or consists of organic soils.
_______________
For former wetlands, proof is required that they were drained before 1990.
Excluded from this indicator are areas where drainage was required by law after 1990, such as areas near highways or railroad tracks.
Maintenance
Maintenance of drainage ditches created before 1990 is permitted.
Mit welcher Genauigkeit sind Flächen zu hinterlegen?
Durch Abweichungen bei der Umrechnung in andere Koordinatensysteme (WGS84, UTM, Gauss-Krüger, etc.) und aufgrund der Ungenauigkeit handelsüblicher GPS-Systeme können Verschiebungen und Abweichungen in den Geo-Daten auftreten, die nicht vollständig mit der Realität übereinstimmen.
Da auch Zertifizierer lediglich mit handelsübliche GPS-Geräten prüfen, wird eine Genauigkeit von bis zu 10 Metern als ausreichend betrachtet.
Ab welcher Größe sollen Landschaftselemente (Gewässer, Felsen, Gebäude, Wege, Stromleitungen, Rückegassen etc.), auf denen keine Projektaktivitäten stattfinden, aus den Geo-Daten ausgespart werden?
Flächen, von denen davon auszugehen ist, dass diese bis zum Ende des Anrechnungszeitraums nicht überschirmt sein werden, wie bspw. größere Gewässer, Felsen, Gebäude und Stromleitungen sollen aus den Geo-Daten ausgespart werden.
Wenn das Aussparen dieser Landschaftselemente aus den Geo-Daten einen erheblichen Aufwand erfordert, besteht die Möglichkeit, dass bei den hochgeladenen Teilflächen die Größe dieser Elemente als 'nicht anrechenbare Fläche' festgelegt wird, wobei der Schwellenwert bei 500 m² liegt.
Während der Vor-Ort-Begehung prüft der Zertifizierer die Plausibilität dieser Angaben.
The project does not include any areas where the forest fire risk level 5 is predicted for more than 40 days per year during the crediting period.
The projected values refer to the climate scenario RCP 8.5 in the period from 2021 to 2050 and can be found on the website Klimafolgenonline of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). Here is the link to the corresponding website: Link
All sub-areas have a size of more than 0.5 hectares.
Technical background
In order to achieve the required accuracy in monitoring (6.9.1), the minimum area size described is required.
GHG accounting is carried out in a clearly defined area of application.
The scope of application defines requirements that can be influenced by the forest owner.
Time of initial certification
At the time of initial certification, the certifier assesses whether the project activities carried out to date are sufficient for the project to develop in accordance with the project scenarios. The time of initial certification is based on the achievement of this indicator.
_______________
Documentation
The forest owner documents the 'project activities' and 'accompanying measures' of the individual subsections in the project scenarios (6.6.2).
Besteht die Möglichkeit eine Pflanzung im Weitverband - mit einer reduzierten Pflanzendichte pro Hektar - durchzuführen, ohne dabei Konflikte mit der projizierten Klimaleistung zu provozieren?
Die Projektion der Projektszenarien (6.6) des Waldwachstums basiert auf durchschnittlichen, baumartenspezifischen und regionalisierten Wachstumsmodellen der Bundeswaldinventur. Mit dem Indikator 6.3.1 prüft der Zertifizierer, ob die Aktivitäten ausreichend umgesetzt bzw. rechtsverbindlich geplant sind, sodass die Erreichung dieser Projektszenarien (6.6) als plausibel und realistisch angesehen werden kann.
Ob eine Pflanzung im Weitverband mit einer reduzierten Anzahl an Pflanzen ausreicht, ist somit eine Ermessensentscheidung des Zertifizierers.
When recording the area of the project area, the remaining existing stock (residual stock in the form of individual trees or small groups of trees) is largely omitted.
Where this is not possible or sensible, the amount of living tree biomass (e.g. of individual trees or small groups of trees) is recorded in the baseline tool (6.5.5). of individual trees or small groups of trees) is stored in the baseline tool(6.5.5) at the beginning of the accounting period.
GHG accounting
The 'living tree biomass' stored in the reference scenarios (baseline tool) is offset against the project scenarios (forest growth tool) and therefore does not contribute to the project's quantity of allowances.
It is recommended that standing and lying deadwood resulting from calamities (6.2.1) be left on the project area.
Aspects of local forest protection (e.g. bark beetle control, forest fire prevention) as well as traffic and occupational safety should be taken into account.
Counting the climate impact
Counting the climate impact of voluntarily abandoned calamity wood in the GHG balance of the project is not yet possible in the current version.
eva is actively working on the development of a corresponding basis. Methodological advice can be sent to the secretariat by email.
_______________
How to deal with dead spruce
The 'Practical guide to spruce dry stands' from the North Rhine-Westphalia Forestry and Timber Agency is recommended for dealing with standing dead spruce on calamity areas. The guide can be accessed via the following link: Link
_______________
Loss of revenue and financial additionality
Loss of revenue due to standing or leaving calamity wood standing can lead to a loss of revenue. At present, revenue losses due to leaving calamity wood standing or lying around cannot be claimed for ‘financial additionality’(3.2.1).
Tree stumps and logging debris remain on the project area in their untreated form.
_______________
Exceptions may arise due to local or regional forest protection (e.g. bark beetle control, forest fire prevention) or for reasons of traffic and occupational safety and must be justified accordingly.
No tillage in the form of mulching, milling or plowing takes place.
_______________
Exceptions to this rule are:
_______________
The generally customary soil preparation for planting on calamity areas does not constitute an exception.
Scientific background
The overarching objective is to protect the upper soil layers with their sometimes considerable amounts of carbon from tillage in order to prevent the release of the carbon already stored. It should be noted that the carbon content depends heavily on various factors such as soil type, climate, vegetation and land use and can therefore vary.
_______________
Temporal aspect
A decisive factor in the assessment of soil carbon is the temporal horizon. According to the current UNFCCC guidelines (Link), which are also followed by the Forest Climate Standard, a minimum project duration of 20 years is specified.
During the start of the project, various activities such as clearing work, plow rows for planting or planting holes can lead to the release of carbon from the soil. The soil acts like a sponge and reabsorbs this carbon over time until a certain saturation is reached. Therefore, a comprehensive assessment always requires consideration of the time frame.
_______________
GHG accounting vs. soil ecology
The indicator only concerns the aspect of GHG accounting and not the ecological aspects of soil cultivation.
Ecological aspects of forest management are checked under the forest climate standard by the requirements of PEFC or FSC. These certifications may also exclude certain types of soil preparation. This must be clarified with the respective certification system.
Welche zusätzlichen Anforderungen beeinflussen die Bodenbearbeitung auf der Projektfläche?
Neben dem Anforderungen des Wald-Klimastandards gibt es Einschränkungen der Bodenbearbeitung durch Anforderungen von PEFC oder FSC.
_______________
Bei PEFC (Version: 04-01-01) heißt es hierzu:
Der Indikator 2.5 von PEFC macht deutlich, dass nur in Ausnahmefällen (‘unbedingt erforderliche Ausmaß’) eine flächige Bodenbearbeitung stattfinden darf. Ausnahmefälle sind gegenüber dem Zertifizierer von PEFC und nicht gegenüber dem Zertifizierer der eva zu begründen.
Der Indikator 5.4 von PEFC macht deutlich, dass auch eine ‘plätze- und streifenweise Bodenbearbeitung’ nur unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen zulässig ist.
Da ein Verlust der PEFC Zertifizierung ein Verlust der eva-Zertifizierung zur Folge haben kann, sollte der Waldbesitzer sofern er sich nicht sicher ist, ob eine bestimmte Maßnahme seine PEFC Zertifizierung gefährdet, vor der Umsetzung mit seinem PEFC Zertifizierer Kontakt aufnehmen.
Es ist anzumerken, dass es sich bei der Methode ‘01 Wald-Wiederaufbau’ nicht um eine Erstaufforstung handelt.
_______________
Bei FSC (Version 5.2) heißt es:
Diese Indikatoren von FSC verdeutlichen, dass eine Bodenbearbeitung auf der Projektfläche nur in Ausnahmefällen und nur unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen möglich ist. Eine vorherige Klärung mit dem entsprechenden FSC-Zertifizierer wird daher auch in diesem Fall empfohlen.
_______________
Hinweis: Diese Analyse betrifft ausschließlich den Aspekt der THG-Bilanzierung und nicht die ökologischen Aspekte der Bodenbearbeitung. Ökologische Aspekte der Waldbewirtschaftung werden unter dem Wald-Klimastandard durch die Anforderungen von PEFC oder FSC geprüft.
No biomass is burned on the project area
_______________
Exceptions may arise due to local or regional forest protection (e.g. bark beetle control, forest fire prevention) or for reasons of traffic and occupational safety and must be justified accordingly.
Firewood processing
The processing of biomass as firewood is not affected by this indicator.
The tree species selected for the project activities are considered site-appropriate and climate-resilient in accordance with a 'recognized scientific recommendation'.
_______________
Tree species from natural regeneration should be integrated into the project as part of a natural silviculture, taking into account the requirements of 6.3.8, even if they are not part of a scientific recommendation (see above).
Mixture
Requirements regarding the mixture of tree species are defined in 6.3.8.
_______________
Scientific recommendations
'Recognized scientific recommendation' refers to recommendations from
The approaches of the recommendations vary depending on the scientific organization/institution and often also differ between the different federal states.
As a rule, digital maps are provided for this purpose, on which various tree species and tree species mixtures are recommended for a specific area in the form of forest development types (WET), forest development targets (WEZ) or risk maps.
The mix of different tree species must meet the requirements of indicator 6.3.8, while indicator 6.3.7 refers exclusively to the selection of tree species.
The following table provides an overview of the recommendations:
| Federal state | Web link | Author |
| Baden-Württemberg | link | |
| Saxony-Anhalt | link map |
* In these federal states, there are currently no recommendations from eva. If you have any information about this, we ask that you forward it to eva.
_______________
Further information on the topic 'Tree species and forest development types' can be found in the following listed baseline study:
| Study | Fundamentals for a practical guide to tree species selection |
Können im Projekt Wildlingsverpflanzungen genutzt werden?
Ja. Wildlingsverpflanzungen aus benachbarten Beständen können genutzt werden, unter Beachtung der gesetzlichen Rahmenbedingungen.
The percentages of this indicator refer to the degree of canopy closure of the new stand to be established at the end of the crediting period. Canopy remnants are not to be included.
_______________
Each sub-plot consists of at least three tree species,
It is permitted to use tree species with less than 10%, but they do not contribute to the minimum number.
_______________
A deviation regarding the number of tree species and the associated mixture (first point) is permissible if a site-specific recommendation from a 'recognized scientific organization/institution' (see 6.3.7) is available.
Form of mixture
The form of mixture is not relevant for this indicator.
_______________
Natural regeneration
Tree species from natural regeneration are part of the tree species mixture.
______________
Data accuracy
The values may deviate by a maximum of ±10%. This accuracy refers to the total area and not to the individual proportions.
______________
Method-specific note
In the '02 - Forest conversion' method, depending on the initial situation, it may make sense from a silvicultural point of view to introduce certain tree species to the area even after the specified stand establishment period has expired. In such cases, a corresponding justification must be provided.
______________
Scientific background
The indicator follows the scientific recommendations of the Scientific Advisory Board for Forest Policy of the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) for the 'Adaptation of forests and forestry to climate change' (link), October 2021.
Excerpt from page 129: To spread risks and strengthen adaptability, the rejuvenation of forests should be tree species-rich, genetically diverse and adapted. Within the selected forest development type, future stands should be established with at least three site-appropriate tree species in stable mixing forms, where this is possible at the site.
_______________
Species of unknown origin
The introduction of tree species of unknown origin is possible provided that this is
Due to the diversity of silvicultural development types, potential risks to local ecosystems from introduced tree species must always be assessed on a site-specific basis and are addressed accordingly by the scientific recommendations listed above.
The following links provide a collection of information on introduced tree species and their risks:
Methodological principles for estimating site-specific risk can be found in the following study:
Wie ist der Umgang mit Begleitbaumarten bei der Bestandesbegründung?
Sofern eine Baumart als Begleitbaumart betrachtet wird, darf ihr Anteil von den Anforderungen unter Punkt 2 (bereits ausgefallen) und 3 (keine Empfehlung) abweichen und darf einen Anteil von bis zu 40% ausmachen.
Voraussetzung für diese Ausnahme ist, dass die Begleitbaumart aus natürlicher Verjüngung entsteht.
In der Berechnung der Projektszenarien wird in diesem Fall der Anteil der Begleitbaumart, der über die maximalen 20% hinausgeht, nicht an die Klimaleistung angerechnet.
Hintergrund
Wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse basieren auf Daten aus der Vergangenheit und sind stets im Wandel. Dies führt oft dazu, dass sie an ihre Grenzen stoßen, wenn es darum geht, künftige Risiken präzise abzuschätzen. Wälder sind besonders komplexe Ökosysteme mit zahlreichen biologischen Interaktionen und Parametern, was die Vorhersage ihrer Entwicklung unter veränderten Klimabedingungen erschwert.
Zahlreiche wissenschaftliche Studien zeigen auf, dass eine erhöhte Baumartenmischung, epigenetische Anpassungen sowie ein größerer Anteil an Totholz und anderen ökologischen waldbaulichen Konzepten positive Auswirkungen auf die Klimaresilienz unserer Wälder hat. Obwohl die allgemeine Richtung dieser Erkenntnisse unterstützt wird, sind die spezifischen Details und ihre Zuverlässigkeit noch nicht vollständig gesichert.
Die Klimawirkung in den frühen Jahren eines Bestandes in diesen spezifischen Fall nicht vollständig anzurechnen, ist demnach eine defensive, risikoaverse Maßnahme, um die Glaubwürdigkeit und Zuverlässigkeit der Klimaschutzprojekte zu gewährleisten.
Wie wird verfahren, wenn sich bei einer Re-Zertifizierung die Baumartenanteile geändert haben?
Für eine Re-Zertifizierung sind die Baumartenanteile entsprechend der tatsächlichen Entwicklungen im Waldwachstum-Tool zu aktualisieren. Bei Abweichungen ist die Entwicklung zu begründen. Diese Begründung ist Grundlage für mögliche Ausgleichsmaßnahmen entsprechend der Shortfall-Leitlinie (7.2.1).
Wenn eine Baumart gar nicht mehr vorhanden ist, ist zusätzlich die Konformität mit dem Indikator 4.2.2 zu prüfen.
Eine Nicht-Konformität bezüglich der Anzahl Baumarten ist nur akzeptabel, sofern dies auf 'unbeeinflussbare Faktoren' zurückzuführen ist.
1. Generell wird davon ausgegangen, dass Landesforstverwaltungen hinreichend Expertenwissen und -erfahrungen über die waldbauliche Konzeptgestaltung für Flächen haben, die wieder bewaldet werden sollen. Dahingehend wird auch das oben beschriebene Klumpenkonzept als Möglichkeit der Ausgestaltung der Projektaktivitäten der Methode '01 Wald-Wiederaufbau' gesehen.
Dabei soll die Sichtweise der eva nicht einer kritischeren Sichtweise des Zertifizierers entgegenstehen. Der Zertifizierer prüft die projektspezifische Plausibilität des Konzepts, die von der generellen Sichtweise der eva abweichen kann.
2. Der Zeitraum der Bestandsbegründung bezieht sich auf die ersten 5 Jahre nach der Pflanzung. Sofern der Zertifizierer die Plausibilität der Erreichung des Indikators zwar nachvollziehen, jedoch Zweifel an seiner erfolgreichen Umsetzung hat, kann der Zertifizierer ein Forward Action Request (FAR) ausstellen.
Um die geringere Klimawirkung der verzögerten Naturverjüngung zu adressieren ist im Wachstums-Tool der Methode '01 Wald-Wiederaufbau' für jede Baumart die Möglichkeit der 'verzögerten Naturverjüngung' gegeben - die durch den Projektverantwortlichen auszuwählen ist.
Mögliche Shortfalls, durch das Ausbleiben von Naturverjüngung, sind entsprechend der 'Shortfall Leitlinie' auszugleichen.
The geodata of the sub-areas (GeoJSON) stored on the eva online platform match the real areas.
GPS devices
Commercial GPS devices are sufficient for the accuracy of the measurement of the areas
.
Mit welcher Genauigkeit sind Flächen zu hinterlegen?
Durch Abweichungen bei der Umrechnung in andere Koordinatensysteme (WGS84, UTM, Gauss-Krüger, etc.) und aufgrund der Ungenauigkeit handelsüblicher GPS-Systeme können Verschiebungen und Abweichungen in den Geo-Daten auftreten, die nicht vollständig mit der Realität übereinstimmen.
Da auch Zertifizierer lediglich mit handelsübliche GPS-Geräten prüfen, wird eine Genauigkeit von bis zu 10 Metern als ausreichend betrachtet.
Ab welcher Größe sollen Landschaftselemente (Gewässer, Felsen, Gebäude, Wege, Stromleitungen, Rückegassen etc.), auf denen keine Projektaktivitäten stattfinden, aus den Geo-Daten ausgespart werden?
Flächen, von denen davon auszugehen ist, dass diese bis zum Ende des Anrechnungszeitraums nicht überschirmt sein werden, wie bspw. größere Gewässer, Felsen, Gebäude und Stromleitungen sollen aus den Geo-Daten ausgespart werden.
Wenn das Aussparen dieser Landschaftselemente aus den Geo-Daten einen erheblichen Aufwand erfordert, besteht die Möglichkeit, dass bei den hochgeladenen Teilflächen die Größe dieser Elemente als 'nicht anrechenbare Fläche' festgelegt wird, wobei der Schwellenwert bei 500 m² liegt.
Während der Vor-Ort-Begehung prüft der Zertifizierer die Plausibilität dieser Angaben.
No synthetically produced fertilizers and soil additives are used for the implementation of the project activities (6.3.1).
_______________
Fertilizers and soil conditioners produced organically are generally permissible, provided that they come from resource-conserving production.
Soil liming for the purpose of soil protection is generally permissible.
Already treated seeds and seedlings
Seeds and seedlings that have been treated and thus already contain fertilizers and soil additives are excluded from this indicator.
_______________
Environmental aspects
It should be noted that the use of organic fertilizers and soil additives as well as soil protection liming may be restricted for environmental reasons by the requirements of PEFC and FSC (4.1.1).
Climatic aspects
Synthetic fertilizers: The prohibition of synthetic fertilizers is due to the greenhouse gas footprint of the manufacturing process.
Organic fertilizers:
In general, it can be assumed that an increased nutrient availability through organic fertilizers from resource-conserving (low greenhouse gas footprint) production can result in a greenhouse gas-equivalent build-up of carbon (biomass, soil carbon) and thus the GHG balance is not negatively affected (Grüneberg et al. 2019).
Liming: The effects of liming on carbon storage are contradictory in detail, unclear overall and should be investigated in further studies (Grüneberg et al. 2019). Until then, they are considered by eva to be fundamentally permissible.
Only categories of carbon pools & GHG emissions that make a significant contribution are selected for GHG accounting.
In accordance with the requirements of the UNFCCC, the scope and applicability of the methodology, the following categories of carbon pools and GHG emissions are not selected for the GHG accounting:
In accordance with the UNFCCC guidelines, these categories are not included in the GHG balance.
| Carbon pools & | Rationale |
|---|---|
| Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) It is assumed that the amount of 'organic soil carbon' will not decrease in either scenario. Therefore, this carbon pool is not selected for GHG accounting when applying the Conservative Approach. | |
| Shrubs | It is assumed that the amount of ‘shrubs’ in both scenarios does not differ significantly, so that the delta of the pools can be considered insignificant. |
| Non-lignified biomass | A/R CDM Methodology as insignificant in relation to the total amount.
For this reason, this carbon pool is not selected for the GHG balance. |
| Combustion of fossil fuels for project implementation. | A/R CDM Methodology as insignificant in relation to the total amount.
For this reason, the GHG emissions in this category are not selected for the GHG balance. |
| Synthetic fertilizers | 6.3.10 indicator, the total quantity of GHG emissions in this category is assessed as insignificant.
For this reason, the GHG emissions of this category are not selected for the GHG balance. |
| 6.3.6 indicates that the ‘combustion of biomass’ does not differ significantly in the two scenarios.
For this reason, the GHG emissions of this category are not selected for the GHG balance. |
The requirements of the UNFCCC can be found in theA/R CDM Tool for Testing Significance.
_______________
Handling of calamity wood
A climatic classification of the handling of calamity wood from the point of view of the forest climate standard can be found in the following document:
| | Utilization vs. leaving calamity wood in place |
In der vorliegenden Methode werden aus Gründen der Systemabgrenzung folgende Kategorien von Kohlenstoffpools und THG-Emissionen nicht ausgewählt:
| Begründung | |
| Holzprodukte | engl. Harvested Wood Products (HWP) Der Kohlenstoffpool 'Holzprodukte' wird aus Gründen der Systemabgrenzung nicht für die THG-Bilanzierung ausgewählt. |
In this method, the carbon pool 'wood products' cannot be accounted for.
If you are interested in a method that includes this carbon pool in the calculation, we recommend that you contact eva.
_______________
Dealing with disaster timber
A climatic classification of how to deal with disaster timber from the perspective of the Forest & Climate Standard can be found in the note for indicator 6.3.1.
The following categories of carbon pools and GHG emissions are selected for the method:
| Carbon pools & | Rationale |
| engl. Above- and Belowground Biomass of Trees It is assumed that the amount of ‘above- and belowground biomass of trees’ differs significantly between the two scenarios. For this reason, this carbon pool is selected for GHG accounting. | |
| engl. Deadwood Depending on the method and project, the amount of deadwood can differ significantly between the two scenarios. For this reason, this carbon pool can be selected for GHG accounting. |
The 'GHG balance of the reference scenarios' (baseline) is based on the most likely development of an area without income from the commercialization of ecosystem services.
Quality assurance for solid reference scenarios
Standardized baselines are assumed or at least preferred for higher-level quality initiatives. The purpose of standardization is primarily to limit the scope in the design of reference scenarios as far as possible, but also to simplify processes and harmonize the quality of the certificates.
In the WKS, standardization means that the reference scenarios of a particular method are 1) formed with uniform sector-specific assumptions on common practice and 2) quantified according to uniform procedures and standard values.
Ideally, a standardized reference scenario can also reflect the relevant characteristics of a specific project. However, this depends on 1) the availability of comprehensive information bases and 2) the verifiability of the parameters of the assumptions taken into account.
For this reason, reference scenarios may deviate from reality.
_______________
Approaches to baseline modeling
There are different approaches to modeling reference scenarios, usually based on one or a combination of the following:
Common practice: The reference scenario is modeled based on common agricultural or forestry practices and management methods that are typical for the region or industry in question.
Uninfluenced natural development: The reference scenario shows the natural development of the area without human intervention, protection measures or management practices. It is based on the ecological laws and natural trends of the region or ecosystem concerned.
Management plans: The reference scenario is based on the existing management plans or strategies for the area or sector concerned. The planned management measures and objectives are taken into account.
Legal requirements: The reference scenario is modeled on the basis of the applicable legal requirements and regulations. These legal frameworks may, for example, prescribe specific measures and restrictions to ensure the protection of sensitive ecosystems or species.
The choice of the appropriate approach depends on various factors, such as the objective of the assessment, the available data, the verifiability of parameters, the local conditions and the requirements of the specific method or certification standards.
It is important that the chosen reference scenario is consistent, plausible and transparent to enable a reliable assessment of the project's ecosystem performance.
The baseline scenarios of Methodology '01 AR' correspond to the natural development of the project area without additional protection and planting measures by humans.
The modeling and projections of the 'GHG balance of the reference scenarios' are based on a scientific analysis that takes into account the following aspects:
Further details are described in the following documents:
| Methodology | Reference scenario forest restoration |
| Excel-Tool | Baseline tool forest restoration |
To achieve the most accurate possible recording of the 'GHG balance of the reference scenarios', it is necessary to stratify the project area so that the combination of the following parameters of the baseline tool can be clearly verified by the certifier for each reference scenario.
_______________
For Methodology '01 AR':
_______________
For the method '02 Forest Conversion' :
_______________
For the method '04 Afforestation' :
_______________
Alternatively, if a parameter cannot be clearly verified, as in the case of a reference scenario with different soil types, the most conservative value of the parameter can be used for the calculation.
In the interest of efficient parameter information gathering, the most conservative value for a parameter can always be selected.
The term 'conservative' refers to a value that leads to the highest possible reference scenario.
Stratification is carried out to achieve the most accurate coverage possible. This involves dividing the area into different sub-areas, each with a homogeneous pattern of features. The process of forming these sub-areas is known as stratification.
The 'GHG balance of the reference scenarios' is to be calculated using the baseline tool in accordance with the corresponding methodology. The baseline tool models and projects the individual reference scenarios based on the current state of science.
The quantification of the GHG balance in the baseline tool is as follows:
The calculation described above is applied to all subplots, and the results for the subplots are then added up to determine the GHG balance of the entire project.
Das Baseline-Tool ist als Software in die eva Online-Plattform integriert.
Um eine möglichst genaue Erfassung der 'THG-Bilanz der Referenzszenarien' zu erreichen, ist es erforderlich, die Projektfläche so zu stratifizieren, dass die Kombination der folgenden Parameter des Baseline-Tools für jedes Referenzszenario eindeutig vom Zertifizierer überprüft werden kann.
_______________
Für die Methode '01 Wald-Wiederaufbau':
_______________
Für die Methode '02 Waldumbau':
_______________
Für die Methode '04 Erstaufforstung':
_______________
Bei einem Parameter, der nicht eindeutig überprüfbar ist, wie zum Beispiel im Fall eines Referenzszenarios mit unterschiedlichen Bodentypen, kann zur Berechnung alternativ der konservativste Wert des Parameters herangezogen werden.
Im Sinne einer effizienten Informationsbeschaffung der Parameter kann stets auch der konservativste Wert für einen Parameter gewählt werden.
Der Begriff 'konservativ' bezieht sich hierbei auf einen Wert, der zu einem möglichst hohen Referenzszenario führt.
Eine Stratifizierung wird durchgeführt, um eine möglichst präzise Erfassung zu erreichen. Hierbei wird die Fläche in verschiedene Teilflächen unterteilt, wobei jede Teilfläche ein homogenes Muster an Merkmalen aufweist. Das Verfahren zur Bildung dieser Teilflächen wird als Stratifizierung bezeichnet.
Für die Berechnung der 'THG-Bilanz der Referenzszenarien' ist das Baseline-Tool gemäß der entsprechenden Methode anzuwenden. Das Baseline-Tool modelliert und projiziert die einzelnen Referenzszenarien basierend auf dem aktuellen Stand der Wissenschaft.
Die Quantifizierung der THG-Bilanz erfolgt im Baseline-Tool wie folgt:
| wobei | Einheit | |
|---|---|---|
| Wert für die 'THG-Bilanz des Referenzszenarios' der Projektfläche (PF) während der Crediting Period (CP) | [tCO2e] | |
| Veränderung der oberirdischen und unterirdischen Biomasse von Bäumen | [tCO2e/ha/Jahr] | |
| Dauer der Crediting Period | [Jahre] | |
| Fläche | [ha] | |
Die oben beschriebene Berechnung wird auf alle Teilflächen angewendet, und die Ergebnisse der Teilflächen werden anschließend addiert, um die THG-Bilanz des gesamten Projekts zu ermitteln.
Das Baseline-Tool ist als Software in die eva Online-Plattform integriert.
Wird bei den Projekt- und Referenzszenarien sowie bei den daraus resultierenden eva-Zertifikaten zwischen 'Avoidance' und 'Removal' unterschieden?
Je nach gewählter Methode tragen Projekte sowohl durch Speicherung (Removal) als auch durch die Vermeidung von Emissionen in der Atmosphäre (Avoidance) zur Klimawirkung bei.
eva strebt an, diese Differenzierung neutral und transparent zu dokumentieren, indem sie in den Projektinformationen das Verhältnis des Avoidance/Removal Anteils (zum Beispiel 30:70) kennzeichnet. Diese Kennzeichnung bezieht sich auf Ebene einer Zertifizierung und nicht auf einzelne Teilflächen.
Die technische Umsetzung dieser Information im Impact Registry ist für Ende 2024 geplant.
The 'GHG balance of the project scenarios' results from the planned project activities.
The project scenarios are determined by the planned measures, which were defined by the forest owners as part of the project activities.
_______________
For method '01 AR' and '04 Afforestation':
The modeling and projections of above-ground tree biomass by the project scenario tool are based on site- and tree species-specific data from the latest National Forest Inventory (link) of the Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries (Thünen Institute).
The project area is divided into homogeneous sub-areas, with homogeneity characterized by the following factors:
Homogeneity is necessary to ensure that the 'greenhouse gas balance of the project scenarios' is as accurate as possible.
The project scenario tool is to be used to calculate the 'greenhouse gas balance of the project scenarios' in accordance with the corresponding methodology. The project scenario tool models and projects the individual project scenarios based on the current state of science.
The greenhouse gas balance is quantified in the project scenario tool as follows:
The calculation described above is applied to all sub-areas. All the results for the sub-areas are then added up to give the GHG balance for the entire project.
The project scenario tool is integrated into the eva online platform as software. The structure and calculation process of the tool are also documented for download.
_______________
Methodology '01 AR' (Project Scenarios)
The method description is currently not up to date with the tool. There are minor deviations that will be incorporated by the time v1.0 is published (probably in fall 2023).
| Infosheet | How is the CO2 storage performance determined? |
| Study | Forest growth and yield model – for AR projects |
| | Forest growth and yield tool for AR projects |
Wird bei den Projekt- und Referenzszenarien sowie bei den daraus resultierenden eva-Zertifikaten zwischen 'Avoidance' und 'Removal' unterschieden?
Je nach gewählter Methode tragen Projekte sowohl durch Speicherung (Removal) als auch durch die Vermeidung von Emissionen in der Atmosphäre (Avoidance) zur Klimawirkung bei.
eva strebt an, diese Differenzierung neutral und transparent zu dokumentieren, indem sie in den Projektinformationen das Verhältnis des Avoidance/Removal Anteils (zum Beispiel 30:70) kennzeichnet. Diese Kennzeichnung bezieht sich auf Ebene einer Zertifizierung und nicht auf einzelne Teilflächen.
Die technische Umsetzung dieser Information im Impact Registry ist für Ende 2024 geplant.
Negative effects on carbon pools and GHG emissions due to activity-shifting leakage and market leakage are not considered relevant and are therefore not included in the GHG accounting.
Positive leakage effects on carbon pools and GHG emissions are set to zero in line with the conservative approach.
Shifting of activities
(Activity-Shifting-Leakage)
The implementation of the project activities can shift land use activities that lead to greenhouse gas emissions outside the project area. An example of this is the conversion of pasture land into afforestation areas, which can lead to deforestation (to pasture land) outside the project area.
For the current application of the forest climate standard, it is assumed that projects are subject to European and German law (1.2.2). In Germany and neighboring countries, sustainable forest management is required by law and deforestation is prohibited. Compliance with these laws is monitored.
This eliminates the risk of regional relocation of activities that lead to deforestation or unsustainable timber use on other areas.
Market leakage
(engl. Market leakage
Currently, there are no methods accredited under the forest climate standard that promote projects that lead to a reduced timber supply, such as the decommissioning of forest areas.
There is therefore currently no risk of market leakage effects, as no methods exist that support such effects.
This field could not be hidden for technical reasons.
To calculate the 'GHG balance of the project', the 'GHG balance of the reference scenario' is subtracted from the 'GHG balance of the project scenarios'.
The 'GHG balance of the project' is quantified as follows:
Wird bei den Projekt- und Referenzszenarien sowie bei den daraus resultierenden eva-Zertifikaten zwischen 'Avoidance' und 'Removal' unterschieden?
Je nach gewählter Methode tragen Projekte sowohl durch Speicherung (Removal) als auch durch die Vermeidung von Emissionen in der Atmosphäre (Avoidance) zur Klimawirkung bei.
eva strebt an, diese Differenzierung neutral und transparent zu dokumentieren, indem sie in den Projektinformationen das Verhältnis des Avoidance/Removal Anteils (zum Beispiel 30:70) kennzeichnet. Diese Kennzeichnung bezieht sich auf Ebene einer Zertifizierung und nicht auf einzelne Teilflächen.
Die technische Umsetzung dieser Information im Impact Registry ist für Ende 2024 geplant.
The quantity of certificates is regularly checked by independent monitoring.
Monitoring will take place every 3-5 years from the 5th year onwards, depending on the availability of remote sensing data. The timing of monitoring within this time frame will be determined by eva at its discretion.
The monitoring of the 'above-ground biomass of trees' shall be carried out with a precision that meets the guidelines of the UNFCCC (6.10.2 instead.
The 'greenhouse gas balance of the project scenario' is monitored to monitor the quantity of climate certificates. The 'greenhouse gas balance of the reference scenario' is monitored as part of the further development of the methodology (see 6.10.1).
_______________
Further information on monitoring can be found in the following fundamental study as well as the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP):
| Study | Monitoring concept for forest climate standards |
If new scientific findings lead to an adjustment of the reference scenario or project scenario tool, this will result in the development of a new version of the tool.
In the event of scientifically justified adjustments to the tool that have a negative impact, the quantity of allowances already issued will not be adjusted retroactively. Instead, in accordance with the shortfall guidelines (7.1.2) a corresponding compensatory measure is taken to make it clear how adjustments have been made and compensated for over time.
In the event of positive deviations, these are allocated to the permanent buffer (siehe 7.1.3).
The conversion of the values of the ‘above-ground biomass of trees’ from the unit stock solid cubic meters [Vfm] to tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent [tCO2e] of the ‘above-ground and below-ground biomass of trees’ is carried out according to the IPCC guidelines (Link) using the following formulas:
Conversion is based on the following conversion factors:
| Conversion table with conversion factors for quantifying the sink capacity of above-ground and below-ground tree biomass |
The total carbon of the above-ground and below-ground living tree biomass for the year t [CO₂] is calculated from the product of the living tree biomass, the ratio of biomass to carbon and the ratio of carbon to CO₂.
Calculation of above-ground biomass of tree [kg]:
= above-ground biomass of tree
= reprasentation of biomass function
= tree species
= dbh of tree
= tree heightCalculation of below-ground biomass of tree [kg]:
= below-ground biomass of tree
: dbh of tree
and 
coefficient of the below-ground biomass functionCalculation of living tree biomass for the year t [kg]:
= above-ground biomnass of tree [kg]
= below-ground biomass of tree [kg]Calculation of CO2 in the forest according to estimates for the year t [CO₂]:
= living tree biomass for the year t [kg]The quantity of eva certificates to be issued is determined on the basis of these calculations.
The calculation of the aboveground biomass [kg] is carried out according to the procedure of Riedel & Gerald (LINK) on the basis of the input parameters tree species, diameter at breast height and tree height. These functions are currently used in the German GHG reporting and are accepted by the IPCC.
The calculation of belowground biomass [kg] also follows the procedure in the National Inventory Report on the German Greenhouse Gas Inventory and uses biomass functions based on peer-reviewed articles or a separate biomass function for pine. A separate biomass function for pine developed by the Thünen Institute (LINK). All selected biomass functions correspond to the equation listed in the indicator.
The permanence of the ecosystem service is ensured by risk management requirements and a permanence buffer.
Background of the principle
The permanence of ecosystem services is about safeguarding against the risk that a service that has already been provided will be lost again. For example, carbon sequestered in trees, soil, furniture or houses is at risk of being re-emitted, e.g. through fire, windthrow, demolition, etc.
In order to ensure the permanence of ecosystem services, appropriate safeguards must be put in place.
A permanent buffer of sufficient size and quality is used to hedge against residual risks to permanence.
The perpetuity buffer is initially filled with eva certificates that are assigned to it upon issuance in accordance with 9.1.1 (currently 15% of the eva certificates issued for each project).
The permanence buffer is also filled by eva certificates that arise when a positive deviation (7.1.3) of the actual ecosystem service of a project compared to the predicted ecosystem service in the project and reference scenario.
The compensation obligation of eva is limited to the eva certificates in the perpetuity buffer. There is no obligation on the part of eva to replenish the buffer.
eva will monitor the content of the permanence buffer in order to be able to take timely action in the event that the eva certificates in the permanence buffer are no longer sufficient to compensate for any shortfalls.
Should the number of eva-certificates in the permanence buffer be reduced by offsetting measures to such an extent that less than 50% of the total eva-certificates in the permanence buffer are still available, eva reserves the right to increase the buffer contribution to be paid by the forest owner in accordance with
Analysis of the buffer size
The buffer size was determined by analyzing examplatory projects of accredited methods ('01 AR' and '02 Forest Conversion') in the scope of Germany.
The 'AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool' is used here, which is regarded as the leading tool for risk analysis of forest climate protection projects worldwide. This analysis is updated when new methods are accredited.
| | Permanent risk for the scope of Germany |
_______________
No differentiation between methods
Although the risk differs slightly between the methods, there is a uniform buffer contribution averaged across all methods under the Forest Climate Standard.
If it becomes apparent in the future that certain methods place excessive demands on the permanence buffer, priority will be given to improving the method-specific requirements in order to ensure a fair distribution of the burden between the methods.
_______________
Infosheet
Further information on the permanence buffer can be found in the following infosheet:
| | Securing the C-storage capacity of forest climate projects |
_______________
Pilot phase
In the pilot phase (2022/23) of the forest climate standard, the share for a few pilot projects was only 5%. This exception was based on the fact that the initial analysis to determine the buffer size had not yet been completed at this time.
Despite the lower deposit, these pilot projects are entitled to compensation measures like all other projects.
If it turns out in the course of monitoring (6.9.), recertification (8.2.9) or in any other way (e.g. due to termination of the contract) that the project is not developing according to the project scenario, in particular that the quantity of eva-certificates predicted in the project scenario has not or will not be achieved by the project activities, a shortfall has occurred.
Compensation
A shortfall within the accounting period must be compensated by the forest owner or through the perpetuity buffer provided by eva (7.1.) so that the ecosystem service actually achieved by the project again matches the ecosystem service predicted in the project scenario and the number of eva certificates issued corresponds to the actual ecosystem service of the project. The shortfall is compensated for by the party responsible for the shortfall retiring eva certificates.
The shortfall must be compensated for no later than 6 months after becoming aware of the shortfall. If the responsible party demonstrably does not have enough eva-certificates in his account in the Impact Registry to compensate for the shortfall by retiring them, he must submit a plan for offsetting the shortfall to eva within this period (“offsetting plan”). The compensation plan must include specific measures (e.g. the purchase of eva certificates or the expansion of the project with new areas) that can be used to compensate for the shortfall within 18 months of becoming aware of the shortfall. The person responsible must then have compensated for the shortfall by the end of these 18 months at the latest.
Who compensates? (person responsible)
Whether the forest owner compensates at his own expense or whether eva does so via the permanence buffer depends on whether the cause of the shortfall is an 'influenceable' or 'non-influenceable factor'. The details are regulated in the following paragraphs as well as in the Forest Climate Standard, which is applied additionally.
Influencable factor
Shortfalls that are based on an 'influencable factor' are to be compensated by the forest owner. An 'influencable factor' always exists when the materializing risk has been assigned to the forest owner's sphere of risk by the General Terms and Conditions (GTC) or the Forest Climate Standard.
This is particularly the case in the following constellations:
Non-influenceable factor
Shortfalls that are based on a 'non-influenceable factor' are to be compensated by eva via the perpetuity buffer. A 'non-influenceable factor' exists if the materializing risk has been assigned to eva's risk sphere by the terms and conditions or the forest-climate standard. This is particularly the case in the following constellations:
Joint responsibility
If the causes of the shortfall lie in both controllable and uncontrollable factors, the shortfall shall be compensated for proportionately in line with the responsibilities.
If the parties cannot agree on whether the cause of the shortfall was an influenceable or an influenceable factor, eva will decide on this question at its reasonable discretion.
Certificates used
The eva certificates used by eva and the forest owner for the compensation must have characteristics that are as similar as possible to those of the eva certificates for which the shortfall is to be compensated. However, eva cannot guarantee that a sufficient number of similar certificates are available in the perpetuity buffer. Therefore, eva's obligation to compensate is limited to the eva-certificates in the perpetuity buffer.
The forest owner must primarily use eva-certificates from the project to be compensated for the compensation (for example, by expanding the project with new sub-areas) and may only fall back on the purchase of eva-certificates from other eva projects as a last resort.
If the forest owner maintains several projects, he is liable for all eva certificates from these projects in the event of shortfalls.
Specific stand establishment
Notwithstanding the previous paragraphs, the following applies to projects that involve stand establishment (method '01 Forest Restoration' and '02 Forest Conversion'):
If there is a shortfall within the project during the first five years of the stand establishment, this must be compensated for by the forest owner alone. Compensation for 'uncontrollable risks' through the perpetuity buffer does not take place during this period.
The forest owner must adequately hedge this default risk through their own safeguards or through third-party insurance.
After this period has expired, shortfalls are either offset by the forest owner or by the buffer, depending on whether the risks are 'influenceable' or 'uninfluenceable', in accordance with the preceding paragraphs.
The forest owner explicitly agrees that possible positive deviations from the projected amount of eva-certificates are assigned to the permanence buffer (7.1.) and do not lead to an additional expense to the forest owner.
If, after two consecutive monitoring periods, there is a positive deviation in the actual ecosystem service performance of the project compared to the projected ecosystem service performance in the project and reference scenarios, and it is therefore foreseeable that that sufficient certificates are deposited in the perpetuity buffer to offset the future risks of perpetuity for the respective project, eva can evaluate whether any surpluses of eva certificates in the perpetuity buffer can be transferred to the forest owner at eva's discretion and/or whether the forest owner's buffer contribution for new projects can be reduced.
There are clear rules for dealing with non-conformities of indicators, the exclusion of sub-areas, the exclusion of projects, project elimination and the time after the crediting period.
If, during a re-certification by the auditor or as part of a review of an 'at risk' notification in accordance with Indicator 8.2.15 by eva, that a sub-area no longer meets the requirements of the Forest Climate Standard and that a relevant indicator is therefore assessed as 'Non-compliant' (NC), the forest owner has the option of excluding this area from the project in order to avoid an overall exclusion of the project.
The exclusion is made by adjusting the project area in the project information on the eva online platform.
This partial exclusion will result in a shortfall in eva certificates attributable to the excluded area, which must be offset in accordance with the provisions of 7.1.2.
If, during a recertification by the certifier or as part of a review of an 'at risk' report in accordance with 8.2.15, eva determines that an indicator is rated as 'non-compliant' (NC), eva will exclude the project.
Before declaring the exclusion of the project, eva shall admonish the forest owner and give him the opportunity to eliminate the defects within a period of 4 weeks or - if the complaint refers to a delimitable partial area - to exclude this partial area from the project.
If it is impossible to rectify the defects within this period, the forest owner must present eva with a concept for rectifying the defects within this period and take all measures that will lead to the defect being rectified as quickly as possible.
Within the same period, the forest owner can prove to eva that the complaint was unjustified and that the project is therefore compliant with the Forest Climate Standard.
The exclusion of the entire project area is always the last resort.
The final decision on a project exclusion is made by eva.
Such a project exclusion leads to a shortfall in the eva certificates attributable to the project area, which must be offset in accordance with the provisions of 7.1.2.
After the crediting period has expired, the project will no longer be bound by the contract. There will be no further obligations for the parties. Upon retirement, the project's certificates in the Impact Registry will be marked accordingly.
eva reserves the right to contact the forest owner after the crediting period has expired to discuss monitoring the project after the crediting period has expired.
Projects are certified at regular intervals by independent, qualified certifiers.
Background of the principle
In order to ensure that projects comply with the requirements of the Forest Climate Standard and to avoid potential conflicts of interest, regular and independent certification is crucial.
These certifications are carried out by professionally qualified and accredited bodies that have no personal or financial links to the projects. This independent verification ensures the objective conformity of the projects with the Forest Climate Standard and strengthens confidence in the results achieved.
The certification processes include detailed reviews of project documentation, on-site visits and compliance with transparency and reporting requirements. The regular repetition of the certifications ensures that the projects continuously comply with the forest-climate standard and that potential deviations or problems can be identified and rectified at an early stage.
The validation and verification is carried out by an independent quality service provider.
The certifier holds a valid accreditation according to one of the following quality standards:
Certifiers are only authorized to carry out initial or recertification in accordance with the required accreditation in projects on areas classified as forest.
Before the first assignment for initial or recertification by eva, the certifiers or their authorized persons take part in an onboarding for the use of the eva online platform. This is carried out by an eva employee.
In the event of significant changes in the use of the eva online platform, eva reserves the right to schedule a new training course as a mandatory qualification measure for the certifiers.
In addition, eva checks the validity of the relevant accreditations of the certifiers or their authorized persons at least once a year or on special occasions.
Further information can be found in the Standard Operating Procedures.
The auditor is determined by eva and changes at least after every third certification of a project.
With most climate standards, the forest owner selects the certifier, which can lead to accusations of bias since the forest owner pays the certifier directly.
In contrast to this, eva selects the certifier in accordance with 8.1.1 and assumes the costs in accordance with 8.1.3. This counters this accusation.
In addition, this approach enables a cost-efficient and user-friendly certification process.
The costs of all certifications are covered by eva, provided that a project is
For projects with smaller areas, we ask you to check the possibility of certification as a project group. If this is not possible, please contact eva for further assistance.
The costs of checking ENs (8.2.15) are only covered by eva after a case-by-case review.
More information on certification as a project group can be found under 8.2.5.
eva reserves the right to take measures to verify compliance with requirements at its own expense and without being requested to do so.
During the crediting period, the indicators of the forest climate standard are regularly reviewed according to a clearly defined process and clear responsibilities.
The indicator details are described in more detail on the following page: link
The certification of the project is to remain valid throughout the crediting period (1.3.2). Both the initial certification and the subsequent re-certifications are valid for a period of five years.
A valid version of the forest and climate standard is used to certify the project.
_______________
How does the upgrade work?
From 1 August 2024, projects can use version 1.1. Applications under version 1.0 are possible until 31 November 2024 (transition period).
Existing documentation
Maps, documents, project and reference scenarios from version 1.0 can also be used in version 1.1. Indicator content must be re-entered. It is not possible to migrate content.
Changes
Details of the changes from version 1.0 to 1.1 can be found here: Link
Questions
If you have any questions about the changeover or the new version, please contact eva.
The Forest & Climate Standard and its methodologies are continuously being developed. In order to ensure transparency and traceability, the development steps are divided into versions.
Protection of existing projects
If new or adapted requirements arise from further developments of the Forest Climate Standard that an existing project cannot practically fulfill or whose implementation requires a disproportionate effort, there is the option during the certification process of submitting a clarification request (CL.8.2.16) as an exception in accordance with the ‘protection of existing rights’. This means that the situation of the project concerned is examined more closely and eva checks whether an adjustment or exception is justified.
The 'protection of vested rights' extends equally to requirements of third parties, such as FSC or PEFC, which the Forest Climate Standard refers to and which may also evolve.
Certifications must be completed within 6 months of their start.
Projects can be submitted as a project group for certification under the following conditions:
* If the forest owners in a project group are organized in a joint forestry association in accordance with §15 BWaldG, the maximum number (12) of forest owners within a group does not apply.
When a project group is certified, each individual project receives a certification report in accordance with 8.3.1. The certificates are also issued to each forest owner in accordance with 9.1.1.
Corrective action requests (CARs) identified by random checks (8.2.8) by the certifier are proactively corrected by the project consultant in all projects/sub-plots.
The possibility of jointly marketing several projects in the Impact Registry is already being considered. If you are interested in this point, please contact eva.
The number of samples corresponds at least to the square root (√) of the total number of all sub-areas of a project or a project group.
For the verification of indicators, which are designed in very different forms, the Forest Climate Standard does not prescribe a minimum number of samples for project groups. This is at the discretion of the certifier.
The following indicators are to be checked for each individual project by the project group: ownership (1.2.1), financial additionality (4.1.1).
The forest owner uses the eva online platform to:
If provided for by the eva online platform, he adds documents to support his statements.
On the basis of this information, the expected ecosystem service performance of the project during the accounting period is calculated, which is the basis for the eva certificates issued by eva to the forest owner.
When the project information is submitted, the project is given the status 'Certification requested'.
The forest owner uses the reference scenario tool (6.5.5) to create reference scenarios that serve as a basis and benchmark.
With the project scenario tool (6.6.3), the forest owner creates individual models based on their defined project activities.
The difference between the reference and project scenarios indicates the positive effect of the project in the form of an additional ecosystem service created. This forms the basis for the eva certificates issued by eva (6.8.1).
The initial certification takes place when the application is submitted.
As part of the initial certification, the project information submitted by the forest owner is reviewed by a certifier for compliance with the requirements of the Forest Climate Standard.
The exact timing of the initial certification may be restricted by requirements of the Forest Climate Standard.
The certifier is commissioned by eva. In selecting the certifier, eva is free to choose from the certifiers regulated in the Forest Climate Standard, with the restrictions set out in the Forest Climate Standard.
The forest owner is obliged to cooperate with the certifier and to provide the certifier with all the information and documents required for the inspection and certification of the project via the eva online platform and during the certifier's on-site inspection.
The exact scope, content and process of the initial certification audit are set out in the Forest Climate Standard.
The result of the initial certification is recorded by the certifier in a certification report, which also contains the number of eva-certificates generated by the project. The content of the certification report corresponds to the content defined in the Forest & Climate Standard.
Procedure
The auditor suggests a date for a joint video call or an on-site inspection to the forest owner or the contact person of the project.
During the on-site visit, the project information and documents are usually discussed in the office in the morning, while the areas are inspected at noon and in the afternoon.
The presence of the responsible forester during the on-site visit is recommended.
The presence of the forest owner during the on-site inspection is not absolutely necessary as long as the contact person has sufficient information about the project.
After the on-site inspection, the certifier and the forest owner/contact person exchange information via the eva online platform, during which the certifier asks specific questions in the form of inquiries/corrective requests (IN/CARs,
The project is monitored by regular re-certifications during the entire credit period, which take place at least every 5 years from the initial certification. During these re-certifications, the certifier commissioned by eva checks whether the project is developing in line with the assumptions in the project and reference scenario.
The timing of the re-certifications is determined by eva at its reasonable discretion within the 5 years. The costs for the re-certifications are borne by eva. eva is free to choose the certifier, with the restrictions set out in the Forest Climate Standard.
Updates
The review is mainly based on the project information posted and updated by the forest owner on the eva online platform. The forest owner must regularly (at least every five years) update the project information based on any changes to the Forest Climate Standard.
If, due to changes in the Forest Climate Standard, new or adapted requirements arise for the project that cannot be retrospectively achieved by an existing project, the forest owner can apply for 'protection of existing rights' for the project. If eva grants this protection, the project does not have to comply with the changed requirements.
Review of indicators
The type and scope of the re-certification review arise from the requirements of the Forest and Climate Standard. In particular, the certifier reviews indicators related to
The additionality of the project is not checked as part of the re-certification.
The certifier assesses the verified indicators according to the rules set out in the Forest Climate Standard and assigns a corresponding status to each indicator.
If necessary, the certifier is entitled to conduct an on-site inspection and/or interviews with project participants to support the review.
If the project meets the requirements of the Forest Climate Standard and the actual developments correspond to the predicted number of eva-certificates in the project scenario, re-certification is granted. If this is not the case, there is a non-conformity (NC) or deviation, which is treated in accordance with the requirements of the Forest Climate Standard.
The certifier prepares a certification report on the result of the re-certification, which meets the requirements of the Forest Climate Standard.
As part of the monitoring process, a review is carried out during the crediting period of a project to determine whether the project is developing in line with the assumptions in the project and reference scenarios, and in particular whether the predicted ecosystem services of the project are actually being achieved by the project activities at the time of the monitoring and whether the number of eva certificates issued corresponds to the actual ecosystem services provided.
To this end, eva commissions an independent organization with the appropriate expertise to carry out a monitoring study at its reasonable discretion.
After completion of the monitoring study, eva checks it for plausibility and compares its result with the predicted ecosystem service. If necessary, the monitoring information is reviewed by a certifier for quality assurance purposes.
In order to carry out the monitoring studies, the forest owner grants the participating parties the necessary access and overflight rights.
The intervals of the monitoring are based on the requirements of the Forest Climate Standard. The costs of the monitoring are covered by eva.
If the developments of the project correspond to those predicted in the project scenario for the time of monitoring, a corresponding part of the eva-certificates is transferred from the status 'validated' to the status 'verified' and changed accordingly in the Impact Registry. This reflects the fact that the originally predicted ecosystem service could actually be achieved by project activities at the time of monitoring.
If the current status of the project deviates from the projected status in the project and reference scenarios, a shortfall exists in the case of a negative deviation, which is to be treated in accordance with the provisions in 7.1.2. In the case of a positive deviation, additional eva certificates arise that are not issued to the forest owner but assigned to the perpetuity buffer (7.1.3).
In the event that project-specific monitoring data is available, this can be used as the basis for implementing the monitoring in consultation with eva. Any additional costs incurred as a result shall be borne by the forest owner.
This status indicates that the indicator is fulfilled based on project information and evidence that is checked during a certification process.
With status C (Compliant) an indicator is considered compliant.
This status indicates that an indicator is not sufficiently met by the project, but that, in the certifier's opinion, there is an opportunity to bring about compliance with the indicator through further evidence or improvement measures during the current certification process.
The status is to be transferred to C, CL, FAR or NC by the certifier before the certification process is completed.
With the status IN/CAR (Inquiry / Corrective Action Request), an indicator is considered to be non-compliant.
This status indicates that although an indicator is not sufficiently fulfilled by the project, the certifier believes that it is possible to achieve fulfillment of the indicator through further evidence, corrective measures or natural developments before the next certification.
After the review of a FAR of a past certification, the indicator is to be converted by the certifier into a C, CL, CAR or NC
With the status FAR (Forward Action Request) an indicator is considered compliant.
This status indicates that an indicator has not been met by the project and, in the opinion of the certifier, there is no possibility that this indicator can be met by further evidence or improvement measures by the next certification.
The consequence of an NC at the level of an indicator is that the entire certification process is given NC status and is subject to a project exclusion procedure implemented by eva.
The status is published in the register together with the project information for the certification.
An indicator is considered not compliant with the status NC (non-compliant).
The forest owner undertakes to notify eva immediately if the realization of the objectives set in the project scenario with regard to the ecosystem service is endangered and/or he has reason to believe that the project activities planned by him cannot be implemented or cannot be fully implemented ('at risk report').
Until the underlying process of the 'at risk' notification has been clarified and depending on its nature and severity, eva reserves the right to pause activities on the eva online platform or in the Impact Registry that are related to the project.
If it is determined that current developments of the project do not correspond to the predicted and issued number of certificates, the forest owner must also report this to eva.
As a consequence, the forest owner must adjust the models of the project scenario on the eva online platform at his own expense. The updated scenarios and possibly also areas are checked by eva. If the certificates resulting from the new scenarios are lower than the certificates already issued to the forest owner, a shortfall (7.1.2) exists.
This status indicates that there is a disagreement between the certifier and the forest owner regarding the interpretation of an indicator, the application of the forest climate standard or the acceptance of a proof or measure. In the event of such a clarification request, the question of whether or not the indicator has been met by the project is clarified by eva.
The costs of the decision-making process are borne by eva.
The status of a responded CL (Clarification Request) is to be transferred by the certifier into a C, CAR, FAR or NC.
In the case of a CL, there is no change of status of the indicator until the facts have been clarified.
This status indicates that a forest owner has withdrawn their application. As a result, the certification process is considered to be discontinued and the forest owner bears the certification costs incurred.
The status WD (withdrawal) applies to a certification and not to a project.
The status is published in the register together with the areas of a certification. Further project information from the certification application is not published.
Areas that originate from a canceled certification and are resubmitted at a later date must be additionally justified.
The contents of the certification report comply with the UNFCCC guidelines.
UNFCCC defines the content of its certification reports in the following guidelines: CDM Validation and Verification Standard for Project Activities, 395, Link
The certification report includes at least the following content:
In the certification report, the certifier confirms to eva that
* Only relevant for initial certification.
The uniqueness of the output and valorization of ecosystem services is ensured by a publicly accessible registration system (Impact Registry) that reports to the national inventory system.
Background of the principle
The issuance and valorization of ecosystem services entail the risk that they are counted and sold in different systems (e.g. voluntary and mandatory carbon market).
To prevent this risk, clear rules are needed to avoid or deal with double counting and double claiming.
Certificates from ecosystem services are issued on the basis of a certification report (8.3.) and can then be transferred and decommissioned.
Issuance
After the initial certification of the project, eva issues the number of eva certificates shown in the initial certification report to the forest owner on the basis of the initial certification report for the project (issuance). The issuance takes place by crediting the eva certificates to the forest owner's account in the Impact Registry.
Documentation service
The issuance is not legally a transfer of eva certificates from eva to the forest owner. Rather, by issuing the eva certificates, eva provides a service to the forest owner in the form of documentation.
The content of this documentation is that the eva certificates issued have been created by the forest owner in compliance with the requirements of the Forest Climate Standard and that, if the circumstances assumed in the project and reference scenario occur and the planned project activities are implemented, additional ecosystem services will be created that correspond to the number of eva certificates issued.
The object of the documentation is expressly not that the contractual claim to the ecosystem service embodied in the eva certificates actually exists vis-à-vis the forest owner.
The forest owner alone is liable to the purchaser of the eva certificates for the legal existence of the rights embodied in the eva certificates (verity), not eva.
Distribution of the eva certificates
The forest owner receives 70% of the eva certificates for the project, which arise according to the certification report of the initial certification when the project activities are fully implemented. The remaining 30% of the project's eva certificates are divided up: 15% serve to secure permanence and are allocated to the permanence buffer. The remaining 15% represents the remuneration of eva(10.3.1 / 10. 3.2).
Status of eva certificates
The eva certificates that are issued after the initial certification of the project initially have the status ‘validated’. A validated certificate proves that if the assumptions in the project and reference scenario are met, the ecosystem service embodied by the eva certificate is expected to be generated over the crediting period.
During the crediting period, eva certificates change their status from 'validated' to 'verified', assuming successful project implementation. This change occurs when monitoring confirms that a predicted ecosystem service of the project has actually been achieved. The corresponding status is noted in the Impact Registry.
Wird bei den Projekt- und Referenzszenarien sowie bei den daraus resultierenden eva-Zertifikaten zwischen 'Avoidance' und 'Removal' unterschieden?
Je nach gewählter Methode tragen Projekte sowohl durch Speicherung (Removal) als auch durch die Vermeidung von Emissionen in der Atmosphäre (Avoidance) zur Klimawirkung bei.
eva strebt an, diese Differenzierung neutral und transparent zu dokumentieren, indem sie in den Projektinformationen das Verhältnis des Avoidance/Removal Anteils (zum Beispiel 30:70) kennzeichnet. Diese Kennzeichnung bezieht sich auf Ebene einer Zertifizierung und nicht auf einzelne Teilflächen.
Die technische Umsetzung dieser Information im Impact Registry ist für Ende 2024 geplant.
The 'Direct Trade' indicator is purely indicative and is intended to help the forest owner to potentially better market its ecosystem services.
The forest owner can decide after the issuance for each transfer(9.1.3), whether or not to transfer the units as ‘Direct Trade’ certificates.
If this option is not selected, the recipient can transfer the certificates further to a third party or decommission them (9.1.3).
If the 'Direct Trade' option is selected, the recipient cannot carry out any further transfer. The recipient can only use and retire the ecosystem service for himself (9.1.3).
In contrast to regular certificates, an ecosystem service cannot be traded.
The background to this indicator is to give projects the opportunity to exclude speculative trading.
_______________
In the Impact Registry, you can select this option by selecting the option "Climate output" instead of "Certificates" under "Transfer method".
The eva certificates generated by the project (validated and verified) can be utilized by the forest owner on the voluntary market without restrictions once the certificates have been successfully issued, in particular by transferring the eva certificates to third parties or decommissioning them. Trading eva certificates on the regulated market is not possible.
Transfer
The transfer of eva certificates results in the authority to dispose of the certificate being transferred from the transferor (e.g. the forest owner) to the recipient. It requires that the transferor and the recipient each have an account in the Impact Registry, as the transfer is processed via this platform. Once the transfer has been completed, the recipient is noted in the Impact Registry as the new owner of the certificate. eva is not involved in the transfer process, but merely provides the digital infrastructure for the transfer of eva certificates.
Assignment and retirement
Instead of a transfer, eva certificates can also be assigned or retired by the authorized party (holder).
Assignment applies only to validated (ex-ante) certificates and halts the credits' transferrability. Certificates can be assigned to a decarbonization strategy and linked with supporting documentation.
Retirement applies only to verified (ex-post) certificates, discontinues any transferrability or future usability as the credit is being used as a carbon offest at the time it is retired. A retirement can take place in order to offset the ecosystem service embodied in the eva certificate against specific company targets or to compensate for shortfalls. The retirement can only be carried out by the person who is listed as the authorized party in the Impact Registry at the time of retirement. The retirement is noted in the Impact Registry.
Prior written consent from eva is required for retiring with the intention of issuing digital currencies or tokens and transferring them to another registry.
Pricing
The forest owner is completely free with regard to the pricing for the transfer and assigment or retirement of eva certificates. eva nevertheless reserves the right to issue a non-binding price recommendation as part of its product communication.
Additional restrictions on transferability may result from 9.1.2
In the Impact Registry, there is the option of storing two decommissioning notes (for the validated and verified status). These allow the corresponding use of the certificates to be communicated publicly.
The certificates are issued, valorized and managed via an impact registry recognized by eva.
Processes in the Impact Registry are secured using the latest technology.
The costs for the forest owner's Impact Registry user account are covered by eva.
The risk of double counting ecosystem services is avoided.
The certificates are reported annually to the national inventory registry authorities. This enables the issuance of corresponding adjustments in accordance with the Paris Agreement.
For more information on the topics 'Certificate Types, Double Counting & Climate Claims', please refer to the following infosheet:
| Infosheet | Certificate types, double counting & climate claims |
Due to the current dynamics in the voluntary carbon market regarding double counting, the content of the infosheet is to be revised at the end of 2023 / beginning of 2024.
The forest owner ensures that the project activities are not used to generate other certificates from third parties for the same ecosystem service during the crediting period.
This indicator is intended to ensure that there is no double counting of the ecosystem services embodied in the eva certificates.
eva promotes the broad acceptance and scaling of various ecosystem services in the forest sector through a participatory, market-oriented and practice-oriented design of its regulations.
Background of the principle
In order to achieve maximum impact in the field of ecosystem services, it is crucial that standards not only demonstrate the direct performance of projects, but also take into account the practicability of certification and the different motives of all stakeholders.
This holistic approach creates optimal conditions to ensure high integrity, user-friendliness and scalability of the standards in the various areas of ecosystem services.
The development of the Forest Climate Standard takes place in a practice-oriented, participatory process.
eva regularly incorporates the interests of relevant stakeholders in Germany in terms of practicality and expediency through events and public consultations.
This criterion and its indicators describe the accreditation and revision process for web-based ecosystem accounting methods under the Forest Climate Standard.
Accreditation process
The accreditation process is to be used by method developers who wish to extend the scope and application of the Forest Climate Standard.
Revision process
Revision processes are used to continuously update and improve methods on the basis of new scientific findings, experience from projects and changing political and market conditions. Revisions take place regularly:
In a method outline, the method developer presents his web-based method to eva.
Accreditation process
This process step (indicator) aims to critically examine the idea of a new method, to clarify the market potential and strategic relevance for eva.
For the evaluation, eva receives a method sketch in the form of a presentation (PPT) from the method developer. The following contents are described in this method sketch:
The method developer uses eva terminology (see glossary: link).
After a presentation and exchange rounds, eva evaluates the method sketch with regard to its market potential and its strategic relevance for eva. eva may involve external experts for the evaluation.
In the event of a positive evaluation, a memorandum of understanding regarding the development and possibility of recognition of the planned method is agreed between the method developer and eva. The next step follows.
In the event of a negative evaluation, the process is terminated.
Each party bears its own costs.
The draft methodology is positively evaluated by members of the multi-stakeholder forum, the technical committee, interested stakeholders (the public) and eva.
Accreditation and revision process:
The indicator refers to the multi-stakeholder forum, technical committee, and interested stakeholders within the scope and application defined for the method.
eva organizes workshops / feedback rounds with the method developer, which take place in different formats (online, offline) and enable the method developer to collect the perspectives and assessments of the stakeholders named in the indicator by means of feedback / suggestions for improvement.
All stakeholders will be presented with an updated draft sketch (PPT) and method draft (DOC). The workshops / feedback rounds can be divided into topic blocks, as long as all content is discussed with all stakeholders.
The feedback and suggestions for improvement from the workshops and feedback rounds lead to an updated draft version (PPT, DOC) and software by the method developer.
Part of the workshops and feedback rounds is a public consultation of 30 days, which is organized by eva.
A summary is provided of
are documented by the method developer and published by eva.
The public consultation is publicly accessible via the eva website. eva informs all stakeholders and the general public via the communication channels used by eva. Participation in the public consultation is possible in German and English.
In the event of a negative evaluation, eva may decide to discontinue the process.
Each party bears its own costs.
Additional points in the accreditation process
During the accreditation process, at least five pilot projects should be identified in this process step that agree to be certified as pilots in the context of the practice check (10.2.5).
These pilot projects should be selected with the aim of achieving a high level of diversity in terms of project types within the scope and application of the method. eva can limit the maximum size and number of pilot projects.
The updated draft method is reviewed by an independent organization with technical expertise to ensure its quality.
Accreditation process
eva commissions an independent organization with many years of expertise in the scope and application of the method to evaluate its quality.
The auditor is provided with an updated draft of the method (10.2.2), and a login to the current method software is provided to the technical reviewer and presented.
On this basis, the technical reviewer reviews the draft method in accordance with the performance description link and prepares a review report.
The draft test report may include feedback in the form of correction requests (CARs), which are addressed by the method developer.
Once all correction requests have been addressed, the auditor prepares his final audit report with a recommendation for the approval or rejection of this draft version of the method.
In case of a positive recommendation, the next step follows. In case of a negative recommendation (rejection), eva may decide to discontinue the process.
The costs are borne by eva.
Appeal procedure
In the event of an appeal, eva decides whether an external expert review is necessary. The significance of the adjustments made since the last audited version is the deciding factor here.
The draft method is approved by the Technical Committee for the practical check.
Accreditation and revision process
The Technical Committee receives an updated draft method (10.2.1), the summary of the stakeholder feedback (10.2.3). The method developer presents a summary of these documents to the Technical Committee in the form of a presentation.
Feedback and suggestions for improvement from members of the Technical Committee should have already led to possible adjustments in process step 10.2.2.
In the event of a positive evaluation, the method is approved for the next process step. In the event of a negative evaluation, eva can decide to discontinue the process.
The costs are borne by eva.
The method is applied in the field.
Practical check in the accreditation process
In the method accreditation process, the phase of the practical check is referred to synonymously as the 'pilot phase'.
The 'pilot phase' has the following objectives:
During the pilot phase, the method is tested in about 5-10 projects. Ideally, projects with different project characteristics are piloted. The completion of the pilot phase is based on the fulfillment of its objectives. Certificates that arise from the pilot projects are issued as full eva certificates.
_______________
Further development after accreditation
The method developer has the right to further develop the user-friendliness of the software without the knowledge of eva, provided that these developments have no influence on the calculations and thus on the issuance of certificates.
_______________
Review procedure
In accordance with the frequency defined under 10.2. Methods are regularly reviewed.
_______________
Support from method developers
In general, the method developer provides forest owners, project consultants and certifiers with sufficient support and documentation for the use of the method and software (e.g. tutorials, Q&A webinars).
The eva's income ensures the long-term financing of standard development and administration.
The issuance (9.1.1) is made to the eva user account in the Impact Registry.
The tasks and obligations of eva include:
The services provided by eva are charged to the project in accordance with the fee schedule, which is part of the contract.
eva aims to efficiently connect the motivations and interests of stakeholders along the ecosystem services value chain.
The Forest Climate Standard enables all forest owners to provide crucial (co-)financing for their project activities through the certification of ecosystem services.
Users have the option of depositing their environmental or climate strategy when their certificates are retired in order to make it publicly transparent what motivates them and to what extent they support certain ecosystem services or projects.
For organizations with more than 500 employees, eva recommends implementing a climate strategy in accordance with the net-zero standards of the Science Based Target Initiative (SBTi).
For organizations with fewer than 500 employees, eva recommends developing their climate strategy in collaboration with professional climate protection experts, whether internal or external.
In general, buyers of validated certificates have the option of making contribution claims that state, for example, “We contribute to Germany's forest climate targets”.
In addition, buyers of verified certificates can obtain the right to net-zero claims, which are defined according to the definitions of SBTi or other standards.
Supporting documents for this indicator are to be submitted to the Impact Registry when the certificates are retired.
_____________
Further information on the topic 'Certificate types, double counting & climate claims' can be found in the following infosheet:
| Types of certificates, double counting and climate claims. How companies can support climate afforestation in Germany Infosheet v1.0.00 |
The Forest Climate Standard takes full account of the interests of the public and civil society. Particularly in times of a climate and biodiversity crisis, great importance is placed on rapid and effective action, whereby ecological and social issues are carefully weighed.
Dieses Dokument kann Aussagen, Annahmen und Prognosen enthalten, die auf Informationen basieren, wie sie den Autoren zum Zeitpunkt der Erstellung des Dokumentes zur Verfügung stehen.
Die Autoren und die eva service GmbH übernehmen trotz sorgfältiger Ausgestaltung des Dokumentes keine Gewähr für deren Vollständigkeit, Richtigkeit und Aktualität.
Eine Vervielfältigung, Verbreitung, Veröffentlichung oder Bearbeitung des Dokumentes, insbesondere in elektronischen oder anderen gedruckten Publikationen, auch auszugsweise, ist ohne vorherige schriftliche Zustimmung der eva service GmbH nicht gestattet.
