The present method can be applied to individual standalone projects as well as to multiple grouped projects within a programme. Several project operators can join together to form a project or programme. Each project determines its own reference scenario and has its own monitoring. The programme primarily serves the organisational bundling for project development, monitoring, marketing and sales.

The method presented here is the update of the two methods "Method for Climate Protection Projects in Forests for Switzerland, according to ISO 14064-2 with external certification 2019" and "SILVACONSULT® Forest Carbon Standard, according to ISO 14064-2 with external certification 2022".

2.1 Normative Foundations

This methodology is based on the standard ISO 14064-2:2019 (Ref. 03) and uses its terminology. ISO 14064-2 is a standard for the "Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements" including. Validation and verification. The provisions of the standard are supplemented in this methodology by using elements of the CDM AR-AMS0001 methodology (Ref. 12) for the quantification of the CDM-Additionality Tool (Ref. 21), to check the Additionality as well as considering the risk determination according to VCS (Ref. 29). This comprehensively represents the aspects of good professional practice. In addition to the principles of relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy, transparency, conservatism is important. This states that the accountable sink performance must not be overestimated. Soil carbon accounts for more than half of the total carbon in forest on normal sites (Ref. 10, 27, 51, 52). Soil carbon is aligned with the biomass stock of the trees, but it responds slowly to stock changes and is not easily measurable at the project level. It is therefore conservatively not accounted for (Ref. 66).

2.2. Scientific Foundations

In the model of the sustainably managed forest, an equilibrium reserve of wood (normal reserve) establishes itself over larger areas. It is common practice to aim for the "Normal Forest". Growth and utilisation balance each other out. Mortality is negligible in the normal forest model (Ref. 07, 08, 09). The growth rate depends on the natural site. The forest sites are, among others. defined by potentially natural forest communities (Ref. 19). There is no utilisation in the natural forest. The trees there become significantly older and eventually die. A balance of wood stock is also established in the natural forest. This too is dynamic, with growth and decay balancing each other. According to Ref. 14, the average standing wood stock in the natural forest of temperate zones is about twice as high as in sustainably managed forests. Ref. 14 refers to the montane beech-fir-spruce forest of the temperate zone, one of the most common forest communities in Central Europe. Ref. 25 shows that this also applies to other forest communities.

The "Normal Forest Model" is an idealised model of forest structure, where all ages are represented with equal areas. Scientific yield tables are based on this model (Ref. 07, 08).

Utilisation determines the dynamics of the forest carbon storage. If more is used than grows, the average reserve decreases, if less is used, the average reserve increases. From a certain height of reserve, natural mortality increases and the reserve approaches equilibrium in the natural forest.

Forest owners control the development of biomass reserves in the forest through the intensity of wood utilisation relative to growth. By partially refraining from utilisation in the managed forest, the reserve and thus the carbon storage is increased or secured. In the case of a natural forest reserve (set-aside area, forest reserve, protected forest, refuge, old-growth island, etc.), forest owners completely refrain from wood utilisation.

Forest Nature Reserve (FNR) is a method for certifying forest areas that are withdrawn from use for at least 50 years. The aim is to quantify the carbon storage capacity achieved by refraining from wood utilisation.

Projects must present a risk assessment that complies with the requirements of NCS section 3.7 on environmental and social impacts.

Businesses with an officially approved management plan do not require a risk assessment (including an environmental impact assessment). Certifications according to a recognised standard such as FSC® (Forest Stewardship Council®) or an equivalent scheme (e.g. Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC)) are considered evidence of the project's environmental and social sustainability. If none of the aforementioned conditions are met, compliance with spatial planning requirements (e.g. forest development plan in Switzerland) must be demonstrated.

The forest is a significant carbon store. 50% of the organic dry mass is pure carbon (C) (Ref. ). Through tree growth, carbon dioxide CO₂ is withdrawn from the atmosphere and carbon is stored in the trunk and all other parts of the tree. The formation of biomass is called a CO₂ sink. When a tree dies, it decomposes, and the carbon is released back as CO₂ (CO₂ source). Without CO₂ sinks, the climate gas reduction targets of the Paris Agreement cannot be achieved. Biological carbon sequestration is considered one of the "nature-based solutions" ().

In temperate zones, on average, the same amount of carbon is found in the soil as in the living tree biomass, or even more (, , , ). Exceptions are waterlogged soils, such as bogs, and organic soils of high mountains and boreal zones, where significantly more carbon is stored in the soil than in tree biomass. In the natural forests of temperate zones, growth and decay of tree biomass balance each other over larger areas, maintaining a constant average biomass stock of wood (). However, carbon continues to accumulate in the soil even in natural forests ().

If a forest is managed sustainably, the cycles of forest development are significantly shortened compared to natural forests. The forest loses the stock-rich phases of old age and decay. This happens because as trees age, there is also a loss of wood quality. Thus, a 100-year-old spruce is used, even though it could remain standing for another 100 to 200 years. In a sustainably managed forest, the growth of wood and its use are ideally in balance. The average wood stock is, however, about half as low as in natural forests in balance ().

There is a considerable silvicultural potential for stockpiling in managed forests. For ecological reasons, parts of the forest can no longer be managed and are left to the forest's own dynamics as reserves, or old wood islands are preserved, both leading to higher average stocks (e.g. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ). In the case of spruce, there has been a trend for some time to reduce the rotation period to meet the wood industry's demands for weaker timber grades and to reduce the risk of storm damage (). This leads to generally lower average stocks. In high or hard-to-access altitudes, wood use is often not profitable, and use occurs below growth, resulting in increasing stocks. In easily accessible locations, stocks are sometimes reduced due partly to the growing demand for energy wood (e.g. , , ). Calamities such as storms and bark beetle infestations can also lead to a loss of stock. In small private forests, usage often occurs below growth because management is not economically significant for the owner. All these sometimes contrasting developments are reversible and respond sensitively to the wood market. When wood prices rise, usage intensifies.

When the forest ecosystem is viewed as a carbon store, uses and mortality are carbon sources, whereas growth has a carbon sink effect. Forest owners can regulate the biomass reserves of their forests through the intensity of wood use and climate-optimised forest management.

The forest is also accounted as a carbon store in national climate balances (National Inventory Reporting) according to international agreements (Kyoto, Paris) (e.g. ). So far in Europe, forest owners do not participate in the value of this sink capacity, although the ownership of the carbon store forest is awarded to them (e.g. Ref. , ).

The aim of the method is to make the biological sequestration of carbon (sink capacity) in the forest calculable and demonstrable through a partial or complete renunciation of use. The initial situation and reference scenario is a forest managed according to usual practice.

In a forest climate protection project, a forest owner commits to a higher stockpiling than usual practice, while adhering to legal and silvicultural rules. Climate protection projects in forests, observing recognised methods, allow the generation of verified CO₂ emission reductions (verified emission reductions - VER) from the sink capacity of the forest.

5.1 Project Design Document (PDD)

(ISO 6.2 + 6.11, 6.12)

The project operator should describe the project and its context to ensure the following points are considered:

5.1.1 Title, Purpose(s) and Objective(s) of the Project

5.1.2 Type of Climate Protection Project

Project type (type) is the biological sequestration of carbon in the forest through refraining from usage (conservation and enhancement of forest sinks and reservoirs).

5.1.3 Location of the Project

The location of the project must be described, including geographical and physical information (e.g. GPS coordinates) that enables a clear identification and description of the specific scope of the project.

Already existing fallow land or unproductive land is excluded from the project. New forest reserves can also be geographically defined as standalone projects on parts of an owner's land.

Areas can be excluded from the project with special justification, such as marginal yield situations or areas under sale

5.1.4 Conditions before Project Start

The conditions before project start should be described. The forest is managed in accordance with legal regulations. Forest owners are free to manage within this legal framework. In principle, there is no obligation to manage. Small private forests are often little used. Larger areas are usually managed according to a plan. Ideally, as much should be utilised as grows back, modelled. Depending on stock distribution by age, it may be a build-up, a reduction operation, or a balanced operation. Depending on economic conditions or calamities, the felling may temporarily be above or below the felling rate. The forest enterprise's strategy may change if framework conditions such as timber prices or harvesting costs change.

The historical and current situation concerning stock, growth, and other relevant forest functions such as protection against natural hazards, recreation, biodiversity should be described for a project area.

&#x20

5.1.5 Project-Related Technologies, Products, Services and Expected Scope of Activities

By establishing forest reserves (fallow land, veteran tree islands, etc.), where forest owners largely refrain from timber use, the carbon storage is increased or secured.

The technology is the biological sequestration of CO₂ with forest. The products are tradable verified emission reductions (VER). This involves increasing and/or securing the carbon stock in the existing forest

5.1.6. Estimation of Storage Capacity (summarised reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and increase of removal)

The expected additional sink capacity in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (tCO₂e) is estimated for the project area, resulting from the forest owner's commitment. A reference scenario and a project scenario of stock management are presented, and a sink capacity is derived from the difference. For nature forest reserves, model assumptions for doubling the biomass stock based on normal stock are made.

5.1.7 Identification of Risks

The risks of the project, that might significantly influence carbon storage, should be described. This particularly concerns risks due to calamities like drought or bark beetle infestations.

This methodology stipulates that there is no risk deduction in sink calculation. However, 15% of the sink capacity is placed in the NCS risk buffer.

5.1.8 Tasks and Responsibilities

Tasks and responsibilities should be described, including contact information of the project owner or operator, other project participants, responsible monitoring authorities and/or climate programme managers to which the climate protection project belongs.

5.1.9 Environmental Impact Assessment

5.1.10 Relevant Results from Consultations with Affected Parties and Mechanisms for Ongoing Communication

5.1.11 Chronological Plan / Deadlines

A chronological plan should be drawn up, containing the following information:

1. Date of commencement of project activities

2. The project duration (baseline)

3. Date of project completion

4. The monitoring period (annual or biennial reporting)

5. Frequency of validation and verification (1-2 annually)

5.1.12 Forest Reserves and Veteran Tree Islands

The following regulations apply to forest reserves and veteran tree islands.

• Official forest reserves and veteran tree islands each have a contractually agreed term with the competent authority, up to indefinite commitments. Monitoring concerns the compliance with the commitment to refrain from use.

• Non-official reserves and veteran tree islands should be established based on the criteria of officials. The organisation of the project is responsible for appropriate monitoring. Monitoring concerns the compliance with the commitment to refrain from use.

5.2 Validation and Verification

Information applicable to several projects in a programme can be maintained by the programme organisation and do not need to be recorded afresh for each project.

5.2.1 Verification Materiality

The standard ISO 14064-2 (2019) with external certification is applied.

5.2.2 Site Visits

An on-site audit is conducted at the start of the project and subsequently at least every five years, as well as in the event of a VVB change. Shorter intervals are at the discretion of the VVB, or the project owner.

5.2.3 Requirements and Qualification of Verifiers

5.3 Ownership

The basic prerequisite for applying the method is that the project operator is the owner of the relevant forest, or has been transferred the authority to implement the climate protection project by the owner. The transfer of authority must be recorded by contract. Land evidence can be the following documents: land register entries (list of parcels), forest management plans, operational plans or other land evidences.

5.4 Additionality (Additionality)

The additionallity of the project lies in the voluntary commitment of the forest owner to reduce timber use over a long period, thereby securing or increasing the timber stock.

The baseline scenario corresponds to the usual forest management practice. The alternative to the project is to make no commitment.

Methods to determine additionality:

2. Analysis of legal or regulatory additionality

6. Performance Standards / Benchmarks

Methods 1-5 are applied to prove additionality.

1. Determination of Alternatives

Alternative one is the reference scenario. The reference scenario is determined in the form of the "normal stock".

Alternative two is the accumulation of stock above that of the reference scenario.

In line with scientific and legal frameworks, a doubling of the stock compared to the normal stock is assumed in case of complete refraining from use. In commitment, the project owner fundamentally differs from forest owners who do not make this commitment and use the forest "normally" (as in the reference scenario). For the duration of the commitment and to the committed extent, they refrain from timber use, even if the timber price should rise and the timber use should yield more than the sink capacity

1. Analysis of legal or regulatory additionality

There is no legal obligation for the project owner to conduct the project.

1. Analysis of Barriers

A project with commitment means a restriction in the freedom of management, particularly of timber use over a very long period. For example, the rising energy wood prices make the use of otherwise poorer quality wood assortments interesting again.

The obstacles mentioned for the project are generally valid. Therefore, they do not need to be presented at the project level within the method framework.

1. Analysis of Usual Practice

In contrast, the commitment of forest owners in a climate protection project represents a case that does not correspond to the usual practice.

The usual practice corresponds to the reference scenario and is illustrated by usual model stocks.

1. Investment, Cost or Other Financial Analyses (Profitability Analysis)

The uncertainties are very large, and a medium to long-term forecast of the timber market is barely possible. The net present value method (Net-Present-Value-Method) is usually applied to plantations and for periods of 5-21 years.

The net present value method compares all costs and revenues of the reference scenario and the project scenario over the project duration and discounts these to the starting point.

For longer periods, this makes no sense. Economic considerations are not suitable for demonstrating the additionality of long-term forest sink projects. It is assumed that, in the context of state measures against climate change, CO₂ emissions will fundamentally have an increasing price. This will lead to energy-intensive building materials such as steel, concrete, and aluminium becoming more expensive and thus wood as a building material gaining significantly in importance. From a long-term perspective, a forest sink project is therefore uneconomic.

It is conceivable that owners of natural forest reserves established for CO₂ reduction may already receive financial support for biodiversity enhancement. The support of natural forest reserves usually targets biodiversity only, not carbon storage. Hence, the entire CO₂ storage performance can be credited to the forest owners.

An economic analysis is not required within the methodology.

1. Performance Standards/Benchmarks

Forest management depends on natural conditions, forestry practice, or the individual objectives of the forest owner and is therefore very diverse

A review of the project according to performance standards/benchmarks is not applied.

5.5 Uncertainty

A quality management procedure for managing data and information must be established and used, including the assessment of uncertainty regarding the project and reference scenario. Where practically possible, uncertainties associated with the quantitative determination of reductions of greenhouse gas emissions or increases in sequestration are to be reduced.

5.5.1 Reporting of Uncertainty

Uncertainties are described, as applicable.

5.6 Transparency

The documentation of the project is publicly available. Exempt from this are information that is confidential under data protection, operational, or personal reasons.

corresponds to NCS

The system boundary is the edge of the forest. The precisely designated forest area is the geographical definition of the project (location and size). The project area is to be defined by maps, coordinates, or other clear descriptions. In case of inaccuracies in the area definition, conservative values are to be assumed.&#x20

Areas that meet the legal requirements for forest definition are eligible. Furthermore, isolated small areas with an area less than 0.5 hectares are conservatively excluded from the project area. If an economic connection between such an area and other forest areas can be demonstrated, it can still be considered.&#x20

Bare areas, permanently unstocked and unproductive areas are not eligible for the project area.&#x20

corresponds to NCS

In the baseline scenario, it is determined how the forest would be managed without a climate protection project and how this would affect stockholding. Historical considerations show that the intensity of use and thus the stockholding can change significantly over decades and centuries. Economic considerations also do not allow for a reliable forecast of future timber use and stockholding.

The baseline scenario corresponds to usual practice and thus does not constitute a voluntary commitment that would force the forest owner to limited forest use and increased timber stockholding.

A moderate use scenario, which is conservatively within the silvicultural and legal scope and corresponds to usual practice, is assumed as the baseline scenario. It is either defined by an average inventory at the end of the project term, as presented in scientific yield table models according to tree species and site quality, or it is demonstrated by other recognised quantities of target inventories (e.g., in continuous cover forests) or operational considerations, such as determinations contained in the management plan. It should be noted that operational considerations may change.

Yield tables such as Ref. 09a represent idealised sustainable utilisation concepts for various tree species and growth conditions (site quality), which ideally specify the growth as a guideline for utilisation, as well as a corresponding equilibrium stock. Yield tables are suitable for determining the reference scenario in so far as they are growth-related and not value-related. They reflect a management aimed at optimal mass yield. The use of yield tables is conservative. On one hand, the yield level is higher today than depicted therein (Ref. 09). On the other hand, today utilisation concepts are especially advocated in spruce, which assume significantly shorter rotation periods and thus lower average inventories (Ref. 41). In other words, the legal and silvicultural scope would allow significantly lower average inventories than indicated in the yield tables.

Examples for Switzerland include the yield tables of the WSL (Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research 1983: Yield tables EAFV 1983, Ref. 7, Ref. 8) or for Germany the auxiliary tables for forest management in Baden-Württemberg (Ref 9, 9a). The use of yield tables is conservative. These were developed in the 1960s-70s. Afterwards, especially in the 1990s, the yield level increased significantly, meaning the yield tables underestimated the actual growth. Studies in Baden-Württemberg show underestimations for spruce of up to 40%, for beech up to 20% (Ref. 9). This underestimation has meanwhile been slowed down by climate warming, but is still significantly present. For continuous cover forests, ideal average inventories (target inventories) are indicated in the literature for certain forest types.

In contrast to the project scenario, the timber stock is not additionally increased or secured in the baseline scenario. Thus, the baseline scenario has a poorer CO₂ balance than the project goal.

The baseline scenario is depicted as the compensation line from initial stock at the start of the project duration to normal stock (target stock) at the end of the project duration.

The graphic shows example scenarios for a natural forest reserve, with a doubling of the stock according to conservative model assumptions (baseline scenario = constant stock (light blue), project scenario = stock build-up (dark blue)).

corresponds to NCS

Leakage are negative external effects. This means here that a reduction in use in the forest at one location must not be compensated by an increase in use at another location. Internal leakage concerns the forest owner himself. External leakage, usually referred to as market leakage, can also occur at geographically further distances.

Internal leakage: Leakage in the narrow sense is avoided by a forest owner having to consider his entire forest in the project in the case of managed forest. The exclusion of areas must be justified and must be conservative with respect to the C-balance. For example: non-inventoried yield boundary areas, areas up for sale, large damaged areas according to chap. 5.1.3

External leakage: It is fundamentally not excluded that more timber may be felled elsewhere due to the sink project. However, the timber market is often interconnected both globally and nationally. The project results in an underutilisation of the sustainable use potential at project level. As long as national use remains below what is sustainably possible, no leakage can be attributed to the individual project. Only when this utilisation potential is exceeded does a possible causal connection begin.

It must be demonstrated that the national utilisation amount of the country where the project is located is lower than the utilisation potential in the accounting year (calamity years are excluded). In this case, leakage is assumed to be zero. Otherwise, a 10% leakage must be deducted. If the utilisation quantity for the accounting year is not yet known, the following applies: If the difference between the national utilisation volume and the utilisation potential did not fall below 10% the previous year, this value can be used as a proxy

The non-consideration of soil carbon means an underestimation of the sink performance. This underestimation contains an additional buffer for potential external leakage effects.

corresponds to NCS

The legal framework for forest management in Europe generally requires that forests be managed in a way that allows them to continuously and unrestrictedly fulfil their functions.

Risk minimisation in natural forest reserves

The provisions of NCS Chap. apply. to ensure the integrity of the project register.

"Official" Reserves: subsidies for establishing forest reserves are intended to promote biodiversity. There are contracts with the state or other long-term commitments on a public-law basis. Examples of this in Germany are compensation areas with eco-points or compensations in Switzerland. The term is at least 50 years. Natural forest reserves with institutional status can be implemented as individual projects by the owners or within an IIFM project and within a programme. In the case of official protection status, additional official assurance of the project is provided.

In the event of the abolition of a natural forest reserve, the climate integrity must be maintained by continuing without official status, otherwise by compensation for the cancelled VERs.

Natural forest reserves with and without "official" status set up according to Chap. 6.4 introduces a monitoring system that confirms the protection status for each monitoring period.

corresponds to NCS

Forests are greenhouse gas reservoirs (carbon reservoirs). They can be both sources and sinks of greenhouse gases.

Relevant greenhouse gas reservoirs in the forest:

• Above-ground living biomass (trees, shrubs, soil vegetation)

• Below-ground living biomass (roots of trees, shrubs, soil vegetation)

• Deadwood (from trees and shrubs, standing and lying) 10-30% of total biomass

• Litter layer (partially decomposed biomass lying on the ground)

• Soil carbon (mineralised C component in the soil)

In principle, all greenhouse gas reservoirs can be considered by measuring or estimating them through reliable models. For reasons of practicability, the non-tree biomass, deadwood, litter layer, and soil carbon can be omitted. This is conservative because these reservoirs are aligned with the wood stock or negligible in amount (above-ground non-tree biomass, soil vegetation).

Greenhouse gas emissions, for example. from burning of logging residues, tillage, artificial fertilizers, and emissions from the decomposition of N-binding species cannot be identified as caused by the project. These emissions, associated with wood utilisation and stand establishment, tend to decrease due to project activities (reduced wood utilisation). Therefore, it is conservative that such emissions are not considered as baseline or project emissions for the method.

The reservoir (wood stock) is influenced by the following dynamic parameters:

• Utilisation (source)

• Growth (sink)

• Mortality / Risk (source)

6.3.1 Carbon sources, sinks and reservoirs controlled by the project operator

The main C reservoir is the living tree biomass, which is directly influenced by the project owner through wood utilisation. The wood stock is conservatively assumed to be the normal stock. determined. It is then inferred to the entire tree biomass using the relevant conversion factors.

Yield and stock models always refer to the living wood stock (above ground). For the conversion from the living standing wood stock to the biomass of the entire tree, there are corresponding conversion factors (root to shoot ratio, Biomass Expansion Factors BEF, e.g. Ref. 06).

Project emissions are emissions of greenhouse gases generated by the project, such as harvesting or planting work, construction and maintenance of roads, transport, planning and control trips by the forester as well as biodiversity measures. These emissions are lower or at most equal to those of normal management when adapted management is applied. In forest reserves, most of these emissions are eliminated because no harvesting takes place.

Therefore, project emissions in this methodology are conservatively assumed to be zero.

6.3.2 Carbon sources, sinks and reservoirs associated with the climate protection project

Non-tree biomass (shrubs, soil vegetation, litter layer) is not accounted for in natural forest reserves. Non-tree biomass is negligible in comparison to tree biomass.

Deadwood can constitute a significant portion of the biomass in natural-like forest stands. The proportion of deadwood increases with the age and wood stock of the forest stands, often due to many years of non-utilisation. The stock of deadwood is aligned with the standing living wood stock. Decomposition is very slow. Over the project duration, thick trunks do not rot completely. It is conservative not to consider deadwood in the project. In natural forest reserves, deadwood is not accounted for.

Soil Carbon

In forests of the temperate zones, soil carbon accounts for half to two-thirds of the total carbon (Ref. 27, 40, 54, 65 cited in Ref. 64). A certain underestimation results from the fact that more carbon is stored under large trees than between the trees (Ref. 59). Usually, the soil carbon between the trees is measured. In addition, in natural forests, carbon continues to accumulate in the soil over centuries Ref. 28. A literature review on this can be found in Ref. 66 considering Ref. 58, 59, 60, 61, 67.

On normal sites, there is about the same amount of carbon in the soil as in the living biomass (Ref. 10, 40). For every tonne of CO₂ bound in the trees, another tonne is to be expected in the soil. The storage is aligned with the living biomass. The soil carbon is not considered in the project.

6.3.3 Determination of living tree biomass from the wood stock (reservoir)

Recognised methods of wood stock inventory are applied, usually on a sample basis with defined accuracy for tree species and/or tree species groups. Inventory procedures at different times must be identical or conservative to each other to avoid overestimations of sink capacity. A standard error of no more than 5% is allowed for sample inventories with a confidence interval of 95%. If the error is higher, the difference to 5% must be considered in the project assumptions. This inventory error can be calculated using permanent sample inventories, two-phase inventories, and inventories with synthetic estimators. Other inventory procedures must be able to provide a comparable and traceable accuracy statement. If no inventory data is available and estimation methods are used, the assumptions must be made conservatively so that an overestimation of sink capacity can be ruled out. The standing wood stock is measured in cubic meters of coarse wood, separated by tree species or tree species groups. The standing wood stock in m3 is converted into tCO₂e of living tree biomass using recognised conversion procedures.

Other relevant reservoirs can be accounted for, provided they are recorded with recognised methods and conservatively converted into tCO₂e.

In natural forest reserves, the normal stock is assumed as the initial stock.&#x20

As a rule, national conversion factors are used (see country modules). If no such basis is available, other applicable conversion factors are used, such as REF Guidelines2006V4_04_Ch4_Forest_Land.pdf

6.3.4 Determination of utilisation (source)

Wood utilisation is omitted in natural forest reserves. It is therefore omitted.&#x20

6.3.5 Determination of growth (sink)

Growth can be determined in two ways:

1. Growth is derived from successive inventories.

2. Growth is estimated.

In 1. growth is derived from follow-up inventories (stock change method): summarily, two stocks are compared. Utilisation and mortality are taken into account. The difference directly indicates the sink capacity.

In 2. growth is derived from models: Yield table models, or other growth models indicate the productivity by tree species based on the natural site, assuming certain management concepts. Yield table models indicate growth in cubic meters of stock (Vfm) or cubic meters of harvest (Efm). The conversion back to tCO₂e is performed conservatively with recognised factors. For natural forest reserves, the assumptions according to chap. 6.3.6.3.

6.3.6. Quantitative determination of sink capacity

6.3.6.1 Determination of the baseline scenario (Baseline)

The baseline scenario corresponds to the normal stock, which depends on the tree species, productivity, and rotation period. The project scenario can consist of partial scenarios (operational classes, tree species, etc.).&#x20

6.3.6.2 Determination of sink capacity in natural forest reserves (ex-ante/ex-post)

This project type involves the complete abandonment of wood utilisation on a defined area to promote biodiversity and allow all developmental phases of natural forest evolution (natural forest reserve).

The method applies to areas whose owners commit to protecting them in accordance with MCPFE categories 1.1 or 1.2.

International forest protection area types according to MCPFE (Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe): &#x20

The following assumptions are made for the calculation of reference development (managed forest) and project development in the natural forest reserve:

Assumption 1: The stock doubles from "normally" managed forest to natural forest.

If corresponding data are available, the calculations are performed as in chap. 6.3 (analogous to IIFM project type) applied. Model assumptions can also be used to determine the sink effect in natural forest reserves. In natural forests, at least twice as much carbon is contained as in managed forests (Ref. 66, referring to Ref. 14, 25, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 67).

Management removes the stock-rich and long-lasting optimal and decay phases from the forest. The decay phase is particularly rich in biodiversity. A forest reserve is always a carbon sink for a certain period of time. The doubling of the biomass stock is shown by Korpel Ref. 14 as well as Prusa Ref. 25 (Table 96, page 555). In sustainably managed forests, growth and utilisation balance each other, while in natural forests, it is growth and decay. Both are dynamic equilibrium states of biomass stock over larger areas, but at very different levels.

This one-time increase in the average biomass stock is defined as a sink project. This is conservative, because in Central Europe, natural forests in wood stock equilibrium continue to store carbon primarily in the soil (Ref. 28). Recent research suggests that ancient forests of the temperate zones remain sinks, even beyond the supposed equilibrium state (Ref. 28, 55). The further accumulation of carbon takes place mainly in the soil. Recent research also shows that the soil carbon content is higher directly under trees than between them, where it is usually measured. This implies a tendency to underestimate soil carbon. In temperate zones, soil carbon on normal sites (conservatively) is roughly equivalent to that of living biomass.&#x20

Assumption 2: The forest type (natural forest community) determines the site quality and the average normal stock.

Recognised model values of stockholding are applied as a reference scenario, such as the mean timber stock of the normal management class, weighted according to sites and derived from yield tables. The project generates the average stock of the natural forest, which is twice as high. The difference is the sink effect in the project's tree biomass. The application of yield tables is conservative, as the yield level of the growth models from the 1960s and 1970s yield tables has significantly increased (up to 40% in spruce, up to 20% in beech Ref. 09). The stock development typically occurs within 40 years. This stock development is distributed linearly over the 40 years.&#x20

The conversions from the standing stock to the tCO₂e are made according to chap. 6.3.6.

Calculation of sink performance in forest reserve ex-ante/ex-post

Stock Change Approach for Ex-ante Calculation of Sink Performance The methodology is fundamentally a stock change approach. An average carbon stock without project is compared with an average carbon stock with project (living tree biomass).

The sink performance is calculated as follows:&#x20

according to Korpel applies (Assumption 1):&#x20

For all i = average site quality, it applies:

They are:

i = site type defined by the site quality and tree species/tree species group

corresponds to NCS

The project start is defined by concrete activities to promote the sink performance and by the documented intention to commit.

The project duration is at least 50 years. According to the model assumptions (see "Determination of sink performance in natural forest reserves"), the stock doubles in about 40 years.

The monitoring period is 1 to 5 years.

The project operator commits to maintaining a stock level higher than the "normal" wood stock for the duration of the climate protection project, by building up stock and/or guaranteeing that a certain stock level is not fallen below.

If the project assumptions are based on an inventory, then a new inventory must be conducted no later than after 15 years (inventory date), in the mountains after 20 years. The deadline can be extended if a new inventory is carried out within five years of the project being validated according to this method. If the project assumptions are not based on an inventory, such an inventory must be carried out within five years.

The reference scenario is periodically, but at the latest within the framework of the new inventory, checked for its validity. In the case of exceptional events such as calamities, if it is assumed that the project assumptions are no longer valid and could affect already issued certificates, the project owner is obliged to report this to the registry organisation, so that it can stop the project from selling certificates if necessary. The project assumptions are also reviewed in the event of forest damage exceeding one year's harvesting rate.

If the new inventory shows lower storage values than previously reported, the corresponding amounts must be entered negatively in the project register. For measures to minimise risk, the conditions in chapter 6.6 apply.

Projects of the two methods "Method for Climate Protection Projects in Forests for Switzerland" and "SILVACONSULT® Forest Carbon Standard" are transferred into this method as part of the monitoring.

6.4.1. Purpose of Monitoring

Natural forest reserves: For forest reserves with a duration of at least 50 years, emission reductions (sink performance) are determined ex-ante based on model assumptions. The monitoring method consists of monitoring the non-use of wood on the reserve area. This means checking that the conditions according to MCPFE are met and no wood is actually used.

The same regulations apply for old-growth wood islands. When establishing and accounting for old-growth wood islands, recognised principles must be observed such as the "Selection criteria for old-growth wood islands, recommendations for delineation and assessment of old-growth wood islands".

Thibault L. et al. 2010: Selection criteria for old-growth wood islands Recommendations for delisting and assessment of old-growth wood islands. Eid. Research Institute WSL 77 p., (Ref. 15)

The areas of natural forest reserves are considered separately from other project areas.

6.4.2. Types of data and information to be provided in the report, including units of measurement

Project area in hectares, accurate to 0.1 ha, or rounded down to the whole ha value.

Carbon storage as in chap. 6.3.

The additional standing total tree biomass in tCO₂, derived from the standing living timber stock in m3/ha by tree species or species groups, is credited. The other storage types are conservatively excluded from crediting.

Timber stock: The standing wood stock is specified in m3 and converted to tCO₂e living tree biomass.

Increment: The increment in m3 is converted to tCO₂e living tree biomass.

Use: Use is relinquished in natural forest reserves.

6.4.3. Origin of the Data

The origin of the data is declared in each case. Stock and growth data come from measured inventories or model assumptions. The area from operational planning / GIS analysis. Model assumptions from literature.

6.4.4. Monitoring methodologies, including estimation, simulation, measurement, and calculation approaches and uncertainty

The sink capacity is quantified and described in chapter 6.3.&#x20

Sink performance The sink performance is determined by tree species or species groups. Generally recognised values from the literature for the parameters wood density, carbon content and biomass expansion must be used.

Timber stock The timber stock is determined through acknowledged methods of forest inventory in m3 standing stem wood. The results must be documented including the specification of the traceable accuracy. See chapter 6.3.1. When estimating the stock, the estimation parameters must be recognised and conservatively applied. The timber stock is recorded by tree species or groups of species and converted to the living tree biomass using recognised factors.

Use Use is relinquished in natural forest reserves.

Increment The increment is determined or estimated on the basis of sampling inventories. Recognised methods must be used. In the case of estimates, the conservative approach must be considered.

Mortality Mortality is not synonymous with the immediate release of bound carbon. Mortality is recorded in the stock change method or within the framework of inventories.

According to Ref. 18, for example, productive forest land in Switzerland totals 1.11 million ha, of which medium to long term 10% are excluded from commercial use as reserves.

Leakage control parameter The total utilisation of the land may not exceed the value of the potentially possible utilisation (minus project sink performances) to assume leakage = zero, (see chap. 6.5).

6.4.5. Monitoring frequency taking into account the needs of the intended users

The monitoring period extends over the entire project duration of 50 years in natural forest reserves. The individual monitoring periods (ex-post) can last between 1 and 5 years. Monitoring must be maintained throughout the project duration.

6.4.6. Roles and responsibilities in the context of monitoring

The project owner ensures that monitoring is conducted properly (self-management, programme manager, external body).

6.4.7. Controls and internal data checks

Recognised quality assurance methods must be ensured for the acquisition and processing of relevant data.

6.4.8. Management systems for information on greenhouse gases, including storage location and retention of stored data

The project owner ensures that the data are stored properly (self-management, programme manager, external body).

6.4.9 Reporting on the climate protection project

The applicant of the project must create a greenhouse gas report (monitoring report) and make it available to the intended users. The greenhouse gas report must

• identify the intended application and the intended user of the greenhouse gas report and

• have a structure and content that meet the needs of the intended user.

Information that applies to multiple projects in a programme can be maintained by the programme organisation and does not need to be recorded anew for each project.

6.4.6.2. Parameters to be monitored

6.4.6.3. Fixed parameter

The provisions of the NCS chapter apply. .&#x20

It is possible that the achieved emission reductions are also reported elsewhere. The countries account for the change in the carbon stock in the forest up to a defined maximum in the national climate balance (commitment market , ). States typically do this without allowing forest owners to share in the equivalent value

Conditions for excluding double counting (partly based on )

1. Direct proof that the risk of double counting is avoided (contribution claim) or deposit with a recognised second certificate or

2. Retirement of a corresponding amount of VER in the national accounting system or

3. A relevant confirmation from the competent authority of the host country regarding double counting, such as Ref. for Switzerland

Regarding 1: Documentation for non-use of VER for compensation (contribution claim) or deposit with a second certificate must be provided no later than at the sale.

Regarding 2: The general exclusion of DC, for example by confirmation from the competent authority of a country, must be available at verification.

Regarding 3: In the context of the retirement of a corresponding amount of VER in the national accounting system, a letter from the competent authority is adequate to indicate the possibility of retirement. Verification whether this has occurred is done no later than the next verification.

The method of preventing double counting is recorded in the project register and is a matter for subsequent verifications (collection of FAR for subsequent verifications).

Feedback is available through .

01

United Nations / Framework Convention on Climate Change (2015) Adoption of the Paris Agreement, 21st Conference of the Parties, Paris: United Nations. An official publication. Bell, E., Cullen, J. and Taylor, S.

03

EN_ISO_14064-2:2019, 18.1.2021: Greenhouse gases - Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring, and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements (ISO 14064-2:2019).

05

Rigling, Andreas; Schaffer, Hans Peter (2015): Forest Report 2015. Status and use of the Swiss forest. Ed. by. Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) and Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL). Bern/Birmensdorf.

06

Thürig, Esther; Schmid, Stéphanie (2008): Annual CO₂ Flows in the Forest: Calculation Method for the Greenhouse Gas Inventory. In: Swiss Forestry Journal 159 (2), p. 31-38. DOI: 10.3188/szf.2008.0031.

07

Swiss Federal Institute for Forest Research (Ed.) (1983): Yield Tables - Beech. 3. Ed. Birmensdorf.

08

Swiss Federal Institute for Forest Research (Ed.) (1983): Yield Tables - Spruce. 3. Ed.

09

Bösch, Bernhard (2003): New Estimation Tools for Growth Performance of Major Tree Species. Forest Research Institute Baden-Württemberg (FVA-BW).

09a

State Forest Administration Baden-Württemberg (1966): Auxiliary Tables for Forestry Planning Part 1. Compiled for use in the State Forest Administration. Ed. by. Ministry of Agriculture, Food, Viticulture and Forestry

10

Klein, Daniel; Schulz, Christoph (2011): Forests and Wood Products as Carbon Stores. A Reflection on the Climate Protection Performance of Forests in Bavaria. In: LWF aktuell (85), p. 40–43.

11

Zimmermann, Willi (2010): Legal Aspects of the Marketing of Non-Timber Forest Services. Regulations Concerning CO₂ Sink Services. In: Swiss Forestry Journal (161 - 9), p. 364.

12

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) (Ed.) (2008): Simplified baseline and monitoring methodologies for small-scale afforestation and reforestation project activities under the clean development mechanism implemented on grasslands or croplands AR-AMS0001.

13

Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) (Ed.) (2014): Forest Reserves in Switzerland. Report on the Status End 2012. Bern.

14

Korpel, Stefan (1995): The Primeval Forests of the Western Carpathians. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer.

15

Lachat, Thibault; Müller, Markus; Bütler, Rita (2010): Selection Criteria for Veteran Tree Islands. Recommendations for the Delimitation and Assessment of Veteran Tree Islands. Ed. by. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL) and Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN). Birmensdorf.

16

Brändli, Urs-Beat: Swiss National Forest Inventory. Results of the Third Survey 2004-2006. Ed. by. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL) and Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN). Birmensdorf/Bern.

16a

Brändli, U.-B.; Abegg, M.; Allgaier Leuch, B. (Ed.) 2020: Swiss National Forest Inventory. Results of the fourth survey 2009–2017. Birmensdorf, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape WSL. Bern, Federal Office for the Environment. 341 pp.

18

Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) (Ed.) (2017): Yearbook Forest and Wood 2017. Bern (Environmental State, 1718).

19

Keller, Walter; Wohlgemuth, Thomas; Kuhn, Nino; Schütz, Martin; Wildi, Otto (1998): Forest Communities of Switzerland on a Floristic Basis. Statistically revised version of "Forest Communities and Forest Sites of Switzerland" by Heinz Ellenberg and Frank Klötzli (1972) (Reports of the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, 73) (2).

20

Bader, Lorenz; Kaufmann, Geri (1993): Compensation of Forest Reserves. Guidelines for the Assessment of Compensations for Abstention from Use on Ecologically Valuable Forest Sites. Ed. by. Office for Spatial Planning of the Canton of Solothurn and Cantonal Forest Office of Solothurn.

21

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) (Ed.) (2012): Methodological Tool: Tool for the Demonstration and Assessment of Additionality.

22

Schmidtke, Hubertus (2010): Oberallmig Climate Protection Project. CCBA Project Design Document. In collaboration with the Corporation of Oberallmeind Schwyz. SILVACONSULT® AG. Switzerland.

23

Schmidtke, Hubertus (2016): CO₂ Sink Project Forest Reserve. Law of Vallon Soulce - Undervelier Canton Jura, Switzerland. Winterthur.

23b

SGS 2013: CO₂ Sink Project - Forest Reserve Vallon Soulce-Undervelier, Validation Report - Version 01 / August 2013

24

Volz, Richard; Nauser, Markus; Hofer, Peter (2001): Climate Policy Needs the Forest and Wood. Forest and Wood 3/01, p.39-41

27

Pruša, Eduard (1985): The Bohemian and Moravian primeval forests - their structure and ecology. Prague: Academia, publisher of the Czechoslovak Academy. Czechoslovak. Acad. Sc. Wiss (Vegetace CSSR: A, 15).

(2012): AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool.

Tyrrell, Mary L.; Ross, Jeffrey; Kelty, Matthew (2012): Carbon Dynamics in the Temperate Forest. In: Mark S. Ashton, Mary L. Tyrrell, Deborah Spalding and Bradford Gentry (eds.): Managing Forest Carbon in a Changing Climate. 2012. Ed. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 77-107.

31

Baumgartner; Hansjakob (2012): National Forest Inventory: Record-high Wood Reserves in the Swiss Forest. In: Nature (455), pp. 213-214.

Verified Carbon Standards (VCS) (Ed.) Röösli, Bruno; Landolt-Parolini, Daniel (2013): Sustainable Forest Development – Challenges from the Perspective of the Government (Essay).

In: Swiss Journal of Forestry 164 (8), pp. 216–219.

DOI: 10.3188/szf.2013.0216.

Hofer, Peter; Altwegg, Jürg; Schoop, Andreas; et al. (2011): Timber utilisation potentials in the Swiss forest. Evaluation of utilisation scenarios and forest growth development. Bern (Environmental Knowledge, 1116).

(2013): Forest Policy 2020.

Visions, Goals and Measures for Sustainable Management of the Swiss Forest.

Baumgartner; Hansjakob (2012): National Forest Inventory: Record high timber stocks in the Swiss forest. Ed.

Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN).

Canton of Solothurn: Office for Forest, Hunting and Fisheries (Ed.)

(2012): Condition and Development of the Solothurn Forest.

Röösli, Bruno; Landolt-Parolini, Daniel (2013): Sustainable forest development – Challenges from the perspective of the Confederation (Essay). In: Swiss Journal of Forestry 164 (8), pp. 216–219.

35

Jandl, Robert; Lindner, Marcus; Vesterdal, Lars; Bauwens, Bram; Baritz, Rainer; Hagedorn, Frank et al. (2007): How Strongly Can Forest Management Influence Soil Carbon Sequestration?

Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) (Ed.) (2013): Forest Policy 2020. Visions, goals and measures for sustainable management of the Swiss forest. 36

(2008): Estimation of the Sink Capacity of the Swiss Forest for the First Commitment Period of the Kyoto Protocol 2008 - 2012.

Canton of Solothurn: Office for Forests, Hunting and Fishery (Ed.) (2012): Condition and development of the Solothurn forest. Results from the surveys of the Swiss National Forest Inventory LFI. With the collaboration of Federal Research Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape (WSL).

Part Two: Action Taken by the Conference of the Parties.

35

Jandl, Robert; Lindner, Marcus; Vesterdal, Lars; Bauwens, Bram; Baritz, Rainer; Hagedorn, Frank et al. (2007): How strongly can forest management influence soil carbon sequestration? In: Geoderma 137 (3-4), pp. 253-268. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.09.003.

36

Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) (Ed.) (2008): Estimation of the carbon sink performance of the Swiss forest for the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol 2008 - 2012.

37

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) (Ed.) (2002): Report of the Conference of the parties on its seventh session, held at Marrakesh from 29 October to 10 November 2001. Part two: Action taken by the conference of the parties.

38

Schmid, Silvio (2015): Monetisation of the CO₂ sink performance of forests: Obstacles and opportunities. In: Swiss Forestry Journal 166 (4), pp. 246-252. DOI: 10.3188/szf.2015.0246.

39

Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) (2017): Confirmation of the government regarding double counting. Voluntary CO₂ market.

40

Federal Office for the Environment FOEN (Ed.) (2018): Switzerland's Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2016. National Inventory Report. Submission of April 2018 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and under the Kyoto Protocol. Bern.

41

Ebner, Gerd (2013): Spruce - Tree with a future. Timber enterprise of the year 2014. In: Holzkurier (49), pp. 14-16.

42

Lemm, Renato (2014): Conversion from standing measurement without bark to solid cubic metre with bark.

45

FOEN (Ed.) 2014: Forest Reserves in Switzerland 2014, 26 pages.

50

The Nature-Based Solutions for Climate Manifesto 2019

Developed for the UN Climate Action Summit 2019

51

Christopher, Dean et. al. (2020): The overlooked soil carbon under large, old trees

52

Pistorius, Till et. al. (2006): Studies on the role of forests and forestry in the carbon balance of the region of Baden-Württemberg.

Forestry Research and Testing Institute Baden-Württemberg, Institute of Forest Economics. Research Report FZKA-BWPLUS

53

Utilisation potential Germany, National Forest Inventory

54

The forest as a carbon reservoir. The Carbon stock in Bavarian forests

55

Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU) e.V. (2010): Is unused forest bad for the climate?

The underestimated sink capacity of dynamic natural forests

56

Climate calculator DFWR

57

Brigitte Commarmot et. al. (2005): Structures of virgin and managed beech forests in Uholka (Ukraine) and Sihlwald (Switzerland): a comparative study. For. Snow Landscapes. Res. 79, 1/2: 45-56 (2005)

58

Kucbel, S.; Saniga M.; Jaloviar, P.; Vencurik, J. (2012): Stand structure and temporal variability in old-growth beech-dominated forests of the northwestern Carpathians: A 40-years perspective.

Forest Ecology and Management 264, 125-133.

59

Skytt, Torbjörn et. al. (2021): Climate mitigation forestry—temporal trade-offs.

Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 114037

60

Book review Korpel 1995, Schütz

61

Raus, Thomas (1988): Book review Prusa, Eduard: The Bohemian and Moravian primeval forests - their structure and ecology. -Vegetation CSSR A 15. - Prague: Academia Verlag of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, 1985

of Sciences, 1985. - 578 S. in Willdenowia, Bd. 17, H. 1/2 (Feb. 4, 1988), p. 246

62

Bütler Rita et. al. (2020): Identify, protect and promote habitat trees.

Practical leaflet 64. Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Birmensdorf 2020.

63

Drössler, Lars et. al. (2006): Forest development phases in two beech primeval forest reserves in Slovakia

Forest Archive 77 (2006), 155-161

64

Wördehoff, René; Spellmann, Hermann; Evers, Jan; Aydın Cihan T.; Nagel Jürgen (2012): Carbon Study Forestry and Timber Schleswig-Holstein.

Publisher North West German Forestry Research Institute (NW-FVA)

65

Jarvis, Paul G., Ibrom, Andreas and Linder, Sune (2005): "Carbon forestry": managing forests to conserve carbon.

In: HOWARD GRIFFITHS and PAUL G JARVIS Eds. (2005): The Carbon Balance of Forest Biomes pp. 366-377

66

Schmidtke, Hubertus (2020): Biomass stocks in the forest, working paper

In: HOWARD GRIFFITHS and PAUL G JARVIS Eds. (2005): The Carbon Balance of Forest Biomes pp. 366-377

67

Commarmot, B.; Brändli, U.-B.; Hamor, F.; Lavnyy V. (eds) 2013: Inventory of the Largest Primeval Beech Forest in Europe. A Swiss-Ukrainian Scientific Adventure.

Birmensdorf, Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL; L’viv, Ukrainian National Forestry University; Rakhiv, Carpathian Biosphere Reserve. 69 pp.

68

Fellenberg, F and Reiter K. 2021: Marketability of the carbon sink capacity of forests, with special consideration of property rights conditions in Germany

Statement commissioned by the Ecosystem Value Association e.V.

69

Gold Standard 2015: Double Counting Guideline

70

Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) (ed.) (2018): Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry

71

Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (2001): MCPFE Classification of protected and protective forests and other wooded land in Europe