Verification plays a crucial role in ensuring the integrity and credibility of emissions reduction claims. Organizations such as Verra, Climate Action Reserve (CAR), and American Carbon Registry (ACR) serve as standard-setting bodies, establishing rigorous methodologies and criteria for project validation, monitoring, and credit issuance. These entities provide the framework within which carbon credit projects operate, defining the rules and requirements that must be met. Distinct from these organizations are third-party auditors, independent entities tasked with the actual verification process. These auditors, such as First Environment or SCS Global Services, conduct thorough assessments of project documentation, perform on-site visits, and validate emissions reduction claims against the standards set by the aforementioned organizations. This two-tiered system of standard-setters and independent verifiers aims to maintain transparency and reliability in the carbon credit market. From a biodiversity perspective, this verification process is particularly significant as standard setting bodies often do not include assessments of a project's impact on local ecosystems and wildlife.

IFM involves enhancing carbon stocks in existing forests through practices like extended rotation periods, reduced-impact logging, and fire management. While IFM can increase carbon sequestration, its impact on biodiversity varies; some practices may benefit certain species by creating more diverse forest structures, while others might negatively affect species adapted to specific forest conditions. In some cases, IFM projects have also resulted in a tradeoff between carbon storage and biodiversity, with projects that highly value carbon sequestration efficacy negatively affecting biodiversity.

Monoculture (-) vs. Polyculture(+): Carbon removal through nature-based strategies involves using plants to sequester carbon. The range of plant diversity varies from project to project and has biodiversity implications for the area. Projects that utilize diverse plant species in operations instead of singular species may potentially uplift biodiversity.

Presence (-) vs. absence (+) of Invasive Species: Specific species selection for nature-based carbon credit projects also has biodiversity implications. While there has not been a clear divide between native and non-native species' effects on biodiversity, presence of invasive species are shown to impact biodiversity negatively.

Extractive (-) vs. Non-extractive(+): Extractive activities in addition to generation of carbon credits, such as the timber, agricultural, or mining operations pose a threat to biodiversity due to its disruptive nature.

NCP copy for Bandai Hills

Copy for additionality