5. Link to the Nature Climate Standard
Previous4. Safeguarding in terms of Environment and Social AspectsNext6. Quantification of Climate Impact
Last updated
Last updated
(ISO 6.2 + 6.11, 6.12)
The project operator should describe the project and its context, taking into account the following points:
The type of project is the biological sequestration of carbon in the forest through afforestation, improved management, and/or renunciation of use (afforestation/reforestation, improved forest management IFM, 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 clear identification and description of the specific extent of the project.
A project usually involves the entire forest area of a forest owner. Differentiation by operational classes is possible. Previously existing fallow lands or unproductive areas are excluded from the project. Large-scale damage areas after 1998 can be excluded from the project area as a separate operational class. New forest reserves can also be geographically defined as independent projects on partial areas of an owner.
Areas may be excluded from the project for specific reasons, such as areas in marginal yield situations for which there may be no inventories, or areas intended for sale. Leakage must be excluded when excluding areas.
Leakage (German: Leckage) are negative external effects. This means that reduced use in the forest at one location must not be offset by increased use at another location. Internal leakage concerns the forest owner themselves. External leakage, usually referred to as market leakage, can also occur geographically further away. The project area (forest ownership, reserve) must be clearly defined in location and size. Evidence can include: land register entries (list of parcels), operational plans, other area evidence. Usually, the entire forest of an owner is to be considered.
The conditions before project start should be described. The forest is managed within the framework of legal requirements. Forest owners are free to manage within this legal framework. In principle, there is no obligation to manage. Small private forests are often underutilised. Larger areas are generally managed according to a plan. In the ideal case, usage should equal the amount that regrows. Depending on the distribution of stocks by age, it can be a build-up, a reduction operation, or an operation in balance. Depending on economic conditions or calamities, the felling may temporarily move above or below the cutting rate. The forestry's strategy can change if framework conditions such as timber prices or harvesting costs change.
For a project area, the historical and current situation regarding inventory, growth, cutting rate, other relevant forest functions such as protection against natural hazards, recreation, biodiversity should be described.
Forestry operations or operational classes that are significantly understocked and building up stock can account for sink capacity only from a normal stock level or another justified stockholding reference value 
It is to be described by which (partial) renunciation of use in managed forest the inventory and thus the carbon store is increased or secured. It must be determined how precisely biomass stock development in the forest is managed through appropriate planning and execution of timber use, particularly through the intensity of timber use in relation to growth.
Technology is the biological sequestration of CO₂ with the forest. Products are tradable verified emissions reductions (VER). This involves increasing and/or securing the carbon inventory in the existing forest as well as plantings and growth. This is achieved through appropriate consideration in the planning and implementation of timber harvesting measures.
For the project area, the prospective additional sink performance in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (tCO₂e) is estimated, which arises due to the owner's commitment. A reference scenario and a project scenario of inventory management are presented, and a sink performance is derived from the difference. Foundations can be the cutting rates or other planned uses. In the managed forest, at least two inventories with defined accuracy take place during the accounting period.
The risks of the project, which may significantly affect carbon storage, must be described. This particularly concerns risks from calamities such as drought or bark beetle infestation.
This methodology stipulates that there is no risk deduction in sink calculation. However, 15% of the sink performance is placed in the NCS risk buffer.
Tasks and responsibilities must be described, including the contact information of the project owner or operator, other project participants, responsible monitoring authorities, and/or heads of climate protection programmes to which the climate protection project belongs;
Will be covered in Chap. 4.
A chronological plan must be created that contains the following information:
Start date of project activities
Project duration (baseline)
Project completion date
The monitoring period (one or more annual reports)
Frequency of validation and verification (1-2 annually)
See also Chapter 6.4
Information applicable to multiple projects of a programme can be retained by the programme organisation and does not have to be collected anew for each project.
The standard ISO 14064-2 (2019) with external certification is applied.
An on-site audit takes place at the beginning of the project and subsequently at least every five years, as well as when there is a change of VVB. Shorter intervals are at the discretion of the VVB or the project owner.
A basic requirement for the application of the method is that the project operator is the owner of the relevant forest or has been granted the authority to implement the climate protection project by the forest owner. The transfer of authority must be recorded in a contract. Area verifications can include the following documents: land registry entries (list of parcels), forest management plans, operational plans or other area verifications.
According to the legal assessment by Zimmermann (Ref. 11) using Switzerland as an example, the sink performance of a forest a priori belongs to the forest owner and not the state. The same conclusion is reached by Ref. 68 for Germany.
The Additionality of the project is based on the voluntary commitment of the forest owner to reduce timber use over a long period of time to secure or increase the timber stock.
The baseline scenario corresponds to usual practice in forest management. The alternative to the project is not to undertake any commitment.
Methods for determining additionality:
Determination of Alternatives (CDM Tool Ref. 21)
Legal or regulatory additionality analysis
Analysis of Barriers (CDM Tool Ref. 21)
Analysis of Common Practice (CDM Tool Ref. 21)
Investment, cost, or other financial analyses (CDM Tool Ref. 21)
Performance standards/benchmarks
Methods 1-5 are used to demonstrate additionality.
Determination of alternatives
Alternative one is the reference scenario. The reference scenario is determined in the form of the "normal reserve" or another reserve (e.g. nature-oriented businesses) according to usual practice.
Alternative two is securing or accumulating stock above that of the reference scenario.
In accordance with scientific and legal frameworks, starting from the inventory at the beginning of the project, an inventory management is assumed that includes a conservative buffer, aiming for a realistic value at the end of the project term. In the commitment, the project owner fundamentally distinguishes themselves from forest owners who do not take on this commitment and who use the forest "normally" (as in the reference scenario). For the duration of the commitment and to the committed extent, they forego wood utilisation, even if the wood price were to rise and the wood utilisation should yield more than the sink capacity. The extent of the commitment to wood stocking can be freely chosen by the forest owner.
Analysis of legal or regulatory additionality
The project owner is under no legal obligation to implement the project.
Analysis of Barriers
A project with commitment means a restriction in the freedom of management, especially timber use, over a very long period. For example, rising energy wood prices make the use of otherwise lower quality wood assortments interesting again.
Forest owners are therefore not readily willing to undertake a long-term commitment regarding inventory management (Ref. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34). It is also to be expected that in this environment, forest owners, if at all, will undertake moderate forest CO₂ sequestration projects in order to keep the restriction on management freedom caused by the obligation as small as possible. The reluctance of the forest owners is evident in the fact that the establishment of legally secured "non-use areas" is far behind political objectives despite subsidies. Example Germany: Less than half of the politically targeted 5% reserve area of the total forest has been achieved (Forest Report of the Federal Government 2017). Example Switzerland: The reluctance of forest owners is evident in the fact that the only larger CO₂ sequestration project in Switzerland has found no imitators for many years, despite its success. The establishment of reserves is also far behind political targets, despite subsidies. Only half of the politically targeted 10% reserve area of the total forest is achieved (Ref. 18, 45). The mentality of the forest owners is somewhat against a long-term commitment.
The obstacles mentioned for the project are generally valid. They do not need to be presented at the project level as part of the method.
Analysis of Common Practice
The current usual practice of inventory management is diverse. In forests with medium-term planning, an inventory is generally aimed at where use and growth are balanced. In the mountains, wood stocks increase due to high harvesting costs, also in small private woods in general due to low economic significance. However, high inventories are reversible should the harvest-free revenues from timber sales rise again, whether because prices themselves rise or because harvesting technology becomes more efficient, or due to both. The usual practice is diverse, but all forest owners have in common that they can respond to market changes and would intensify timber use accordingly if demand increases. Revenues from timber sales continue to constitute the main income of forest management (Ref. 31).
In contrast, the commitment of forest owners in a climate protection project represents a situation not corresponding to usual practice.
The usual practice corresponds to the reference scenario and is depicted using usual model stocks.
Investment, cost, or other financial analyses (Economic 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 sequestration performance of the Swiss forest for the period 2008 - 2012 (Ref. 36). The forecast estimated a sequestration performance of 0.3 - 0.7 million. tCO₂ per year, with a warning that the forest could also become a source. The actual sequestration performance, which was also credited, then amounted to 1.6 million. tCO₂ per year. Timber use had declined significantly against the forecast (Ref. 40).
The uncertainties are very large, and a medium to long-term wood market forecast is hardly possible. The Net Present Value method (Net-Present-Value-Method) is typically applied for plantations and for periods of 5-21 years
The Net Present Value method calculates all costs and revenues of the reference scenario and the project scenario over the project duration and discounts them to the starting point.
This does not make sense for longer periods. Economic considerations are not suitable in view of the long-term nature of forest sink projects to demonstrate additionality. It is assumed that CO₂ emissions will generally increase in price in connection with the measures taken by states against climate change. This leads to energy-intensive building materials like steel, concrete, and aluminium becoming more expensive, thus making wood as a building material significantly more important. In perspective, a forest sink project is therefore uneconomic.
An economic analysis is not required as part of the methodology.
Performance standards/benchmarks
Forest management depends on natural conditions, silvicultural practice or the individual objectives of the forest owner and is therefore very diverse. 
An assessment of the project according to performance standards/benchmarks is not applied.
A quality management procedure must be defined and applied for managing data and information, including the assessment of uncertainty regarding the project and the reference scenario. As far as practically possible, uncertainties associated with the quantitative determination of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or increases in removals should be reduced.
Uncertainties are described insofar as applicable.
The project documentation is publicly available. Exempt from this are the information which is legally, operationally, or personally confidential.
In accordance with the requirements of , a consultation must be conducted if, during the assessment of environmental and social risks, such risks are identified 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 the NCS , which consider the relevant ISO standards.
The project applicant ensures that validation or verification complies with the principles and requirements of ISO 14064-3. In accordance with the requirements of NCS . This is usually declared by the VVB in the offer.
The determination of additionality is done according to the conditions of NCS Chapter. .