There is a variety of critical aspects related to carbon credits and reforestation. In this interview from MORFO 's white paper on The Future of Reforestation Carbon Credits, Pierre-Alexandre Jivoult explores EcoTree 's impact-focused approach to growing forests, emphasizing the importance of sustainable forestry management and the distinct characteristics of their carbon credits. As Head of Product & Innovation, he explores the evolving landscape of the carbon offset system, the importance of considering a project's broader social and environmental impacts, and the need for a holistic approach in the fight against climate change. Jivoult’s insights provide valuable guidance for companies considering investments in reforestation carbon credits and emphasize the importance of quality and integrity in the carbon offset market.
Can you introduce yourself?
I joined EcoTree in 2021. As Product & Innovation Manager, I'm responsible for improving existing offerings and exploring new development opportunities, with a focus on carbon credits and biodiversity measures.
Can you give a brief overview of EcoTree and the projects you're undertaking to develop forests?
EcoTree is a provider of nature-based solutions for businesses and individuals committed to taking action to support the fight against climate change, loss of biodiversity and to protect our ecosystems. EcoTree is a B-Corp™ certified company and thereby meets high standards of verified social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency.
EcoTree offers a broad variety of high-quality solutions in Europe to capture CO2 and preserve biodiversity – from tree ownership and biodiversity sponsorship to custom-made projects within sustainable forestry and ecosystem restoration. All with the aim to positively impact people and the planet. Their projects accommodate multiple Sustainable Development Goals and as a member of UN Global Compact, they are committed to responsible business practices.
More than 1,300 companies and 58.000 individuals have already engaged with EcoTree and are making a positive impact on climate and nature. EcoTree was founded in France in 2016. The company is now also present in the UK and Ireland, Nordic and Baltic, and the Benelux region in Europe. With more than 1,200 hectares of land under management, they grow sustainable forests and restore ecosystems.
EcoTree produces quality carbon credits. What are their characteristics?
EcoTree is specialized in mixed species, continuous cover forestry management, which means, in essence, that in addition to diversifying the species of trees in our forests to make them more resilient, we never do any clear-cuts, which can negatively impact the whole ecosystem.
As there is currently no methodology that reflects these sustainable forestry management practices, EcoTree has decided to build its own methodology. This methodology is based on the "Afforestation Method" of the Label Bas Carbone, which was itself inspired by the Verra methodology that introduced the concept of "Long-Term Average” (LTA), but adapted to EcoTree’s forestry management plans.
The "Long Term Average" is the amount of carbon sequestered on the forest plot "permanently". Since the amount of carbon captured on the plot can obviously vary over the years, this concept allows us to estimate how many tonnes of CO2e are present on the plot "on average".
For example, if on a given plot there are 0 tonnes in year 0, 50 tonnes in year 15 and 100 tonnes in year 30, then the average stock associated with this project could be considered to be 50 "permanent" tonnes as there is an average of 50 tonnes of carbon on the plot over this period. To ensure the permanence of the credits, one would only need to repeat this cycle ad infinitum. However, if that works mathematically, this implies that the carbon stock is down to 0 every 30 years – meaning that if these methodologies do not explicitly encourage clear-cutting, they do not exclude it, by taking into account only the first years of the forest’s life in the calculation. It also creates an incentive to select tree species based only on their growth rate in order to maximize the number of carbon credits issued, without taking other factors into consideration.
With EcoTree’s approach, the forest is continuously covered with trees, and even ends up reaching a steady state, where all of the carbon that is taken out of the forest as wood products is naturally regenerated. This is how permanence is ensured:
We can use the analogy of a beehive: a bee lives on average 3 to 4 weeks, which means that between spring and autumn, all the worker bees will have been replaced by new ones, but it will still be the same colony, in the same hive. Similarly, in one and the same forest, all the trees will eventually be replaced by new ones.
This means that the LTA only takes into account the stationary state of the forest, favoring a long-term management of the forest, as well as the integration of deciduous tree species with a slow growth rate but a high sequestration port that are often forgotten
In a nutshell, with this methodology, EcoTree not only reduces the reversal risk by making forests more resilient in the long run, but also ensures that these forests can perform other crucial functions, beyond carbon removal, for biodiversity and society.
Regarding reforestation, how has the carbon offset system evolved in the last few years? How do you think it will evolve in the future?
The Guardian’s article at the beginning of the year has clearly slowed things down, but probably for the better. Carbon credits buyers have become more cautious, and are now more aware of the differences between avoidance and removal for instance. In addition – and even if it is still quite rare – there is an increasing number of buyers that have understood that preventing biodiversity loss is at least as important as fighting climate change, so they now have a more holistic view on reforestation projects, favoring other co-benefits rather than only carbon capture.
I believe that this trend will go on in the future, especially with new regulations such as the CSRD, and that it will be increasingly important for companies to report about their impacts on climate, biodiversity, society, etc.
I also think and hope that we will move from Net Zero objectives based on offsets to a logic of contribution to global neutrality – the quality of the projects would be more important than the number of tonnes of CO2e captured.
Which carbon credits should companies avoid?
If carbon credits have become an essential tool in the fight against climate change, it is above all because they are based on a universal measure shared by all players in the voluntary carbon market. However, while one carbon credit always corresponds to 1 tCO2e, we have seen a wide variety of emission reduction projects, and not all credits are equal. Each carbon project is unique, with its characteristics, challenges and social and environmental impacts.
Carbon projects can take different forms, such as reforestation efforts in the Amazon, installation of wind farms in Europe, capturing methane from landfill sites in Asia, energy efficiency initiatives in African industries, etc. Hence, there is a need to adopt distinct approaches to quantification. This is why there are so many different methods for quantifying carbon.
To identify the most reliable credits, it is therefore essential to rely on the expertise of independent certification authenticators. These authenticators’ impartial verification of carbon credits ensures the authenticity of project declarations in terms of capture or avoidance - whatever the methodology used. This avoids conflicts of interest and any potential overestimation or manipulation of results.
Overall, independent verification ensures transparency, promotes quality and strengthens the integrity of the carbon offset market, making it an indispensable part of the global fight against climate change.
Focusing solely on optimizing CO2 avoidance or capture however, without considering the other aspects of the project, presents several risks, both from an environmental and a socio-economic point of view.
For example, as mentioned, the desire to maximize the carbon sequestration of a forest stand over the medium term may favor monoculture plantations, where a single fast-growing tree species is planted on a large scale. Such monocultures can seriously compromise local biodiversity, losing various plant and animal species and reducing the resistance of ecosystems to disease and pests.
Buyers should not fall for the trap that makes them believe that planting a tree is enough – without management and monitoring on a forest level and in the long run, there is no point. As a tree has a limited lifespan, it can only be considered as a temporary, reversible carbon stock: indeed, whether dead wood is abandoned in the forest or used as timber, it will eventually decompose or be burnt anyway, in the more or less long term. A carbon credit cannot therefore be linked to specific trees, only to a sustainably managed forest.
Do you have any recommendations or advice for a company looking to invest in reforestation carbon credits?
An approach focused solely on quantifying additional CO2 could divert attention and resources from other crucial social and environmental challenges, such as preserving biodiversity, sustainable management of water resources, atmospheric pollution, soil degradation, the local economy, etc. Under no circumstances should the fight against climate change be pursued to the detriment of other issues. That is why it is essential to adopt a holistic and integrated approach to designing and implementing carbon-related projects, considering all the environmental, social and economic implications.
