All perspectives round the table: Disagreement among experts is a sign of a healthy process 

The ICVCM Governing Board’s decision to approve three methodologies¹ for issuing high integrity carbon credits for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD+) has been met with positive reactions from stakeholders across the market as starting a new chapter and approach for forest finance.  

The decision came out following a robust assessment process, which includes ensuring dissenting voices are at the table. This week, two of these dissenting voices, two former ICVCM Expert Panel members and Subject Matter Experts, published their disagreement with the decision. 

The ICVCM assessment process is built intentionally to get many perspectives, not to force people into consensus. Differing expert views help us ensure that we have looked at risk from all angles so that the Governing Board can take decisions on methodologies and carbon crediting programs, knowing that potential risks have been closely examined.  

The assessment of REDD+ methodologies raised many different perspectives among the external and ICVCM experts involved in those assessments.  Those expert opinions and positions, including those documented in the blog published by four of the ICVCM experts, all played a part in the Governing Board’s final decision. The specific concerns raised in that blog are documented and addressed in detail in the Board Observations paper, which was published online alongside the assessment decision.   

Taking all this into account, the overall conclusion of the assessment process was that the three approved methodologies fulfil the requirements of the Assessment Framework. The Governing Board was also satisfied that the approved REDD+ methodologies address the concerns identified in older REDD+ methodologies and will usher in a new generation of high-integrity projects. The Integrity Council will, as part of its oversight process, and as it does for all methodologies, monitor the implementation and be attentive to integrity risks in their application.     

Disagreement is fundamental to an inclusive process and a natural consequence of choosing to include a wide range of perspectives in the assessment process. The ICVCM fully respects the independence of our 26 Expert Panel and Subject Matter Experts members and the depth of engagement that they have brought to the assessment processes. This includes respecting the right of these four individuals to disagree with this assessment decision.     

As the three-year term of the Expert Panel members comes to an end, and some move on to other areas of the collective fight against climate change, we recognize and appreciate the immense contribution of outgoing Expert Panel members to the ICVCM and our shared goal of maximizing the potential of a high integrity voluntary carbon market to deliver carbon finance and climate action at scale. Their collaboration and debate, bringing together all expertise and insights, has laid the foundation for a strong, high integrity market. 

Find out more about how we assess carbon crediting programs and categories of carbon credits here.

Footnotes:

¹ (ART) The REDD+ Environmental Excellence Standard (TREES) v2.0, TREES Crediting Level,  

(VCS) VM0048 Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation v1.0 and 

(VCS) Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ (JNR) Framework v4.1