(ISO 6.2 + 6.11, 6.12)
The project operator should describe the project and its context to ensure the following points are considered:
Project type (type) is the biological sequestration of carbon in the forest through refraining from usage (conservation and enhancement of forest sinks and reservoirs).
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
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.
 
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
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.
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.
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.
Covered in Chap. 4.
A chronological plan should be drawn up, containing the following information:
Date of commencement of project activities
The project duration (baseline)
Date of project completion
The monitoring period (annual or biennial reporting)
Frequency of validation and verification (1-2 annually)
See also chapter 6.4
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.
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.
The standard ISO 14064-2 (2019) with external certification is applied.
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.
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.
According to the legal assessment of Zimmermann (Ref. 11) using the example of Switzerland, the sink performance of a forest a priori belongs to the forest owner and not to the state. Ref. 68 comes to the same result for Germany.
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:
Determination of Alternatives (CDM Tool Ref. 21)
Analysis of legal or regulatory additionality
Analysis of Barriers (CDM Tool Ref. 21)
Analysis of the Usual Practice (CDM Tool Ref. 21)
Investment, Cost, or Other Financial Analyses (CDM Tool Ref. 21)
Performance Standards / Benchmarks
Methods 1-5 are applied to prove additionality.
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
Analysis of legal or regulatory additionality
There is no legal obligation for the project owner to conduct the project.
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.
Forest owners are therefore not easily willing to commit to long-term stock management obligations (Ref. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34). It is also assumed that in this environment, forest owners, if at all, will conduct rather moderate forest CO₂ sink projects to keep this constraint on management freedom as small as possible due to the commitment. The forest owners' reluctance is evidenced by the fact that the establishment of legally secured "non-use areas" despite subsidies lags far behind political targets. Example Germany: Less than half of the politically targeted 5% reserve area of the total forest is reached (Federal Forest Report 2017). Example Switzerland: The reluctance of the forest owners is evidenced by the fact that the only larger CO₂ sink project in Switzerland has not found any imitators for many years, even though it has been successful for years. The establishment of reserves also lags far behind political goals despite subsidies. Only half of the politically aimed 10% of forest reserve area of the total forest has been achieved (Ref. 18, 45). The mentality of the forest owners is rather against a long-term commitment.
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.
Analysis of Usual Practice
The currently usual practice of stock management is diverse. In forests with medium-term planning, a stock where use and growth balance each other out is generally sought. In the mountains, wood reserves increase due to high harvesting costs, also in small private forests generally due to their low economic significance. However, high stocks are reversible should the net returns from timber sales rise again, whether due to rising prices or more efficient harvesting techniques, or both. The usual practice is thus diverse, but it is common to all forest owners that they can react to market changes and can intensify timber use if demand increases, and they would do so. Revenues from timber sales continue to form the main income of forest management (Ref. 31).
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.
Investment, Cost or Other Financial Analyses (Profitability Analysis)
The medium to long-term developments of timber prices and harvesting costs and thus the intensity of use are not reliably predictable (Ref. 36).
The uncertainty is evident, for example, in the forecast of the sink performance of the Swiss forest for the period 2008 - 2012 (Ref. 36). The forecast estimated a sink capacity of 0.3 - 0.7 million. tCO₂ per year, with the warning that the forest could also become a source. However, the actual sink effect, which was also accounted for, was 1.6 million. tCO₂ per year. Timber usage had, contrary to the forecast, significantly declined (Ref. 40).
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.
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.
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.
Uncertainties are described, as applicable.
The documentation of the project is publicly available. Exempt from this are information that is confidential under data protection, operational, or personal reasons.
In accordance with the requirements of , a consultation must be conducted if environmental and social risk assessments identify risks for the local population or Indigenous peoples. If no risks are identified, then no consultation is required.
Validation and verification are carried out according to the conditions of NCS , which takes into account the relevant ISO standards.
The project applicant ensures that the validation or verification meets the principles and requirements of ISO 14064-3. According to the requirements of NCS . The VVB usually declares this in the offer.
The determination of additionality occurs under the conditions of the NCS chapter. .