Organizations like Ecosystem Restoration Standard are at the forefront of a global movement to combat climate change, uplift biodiversity, and improve livelihoods through nature-based ecosystem restoration projects. In an exclusive interview for MORFO 's white paper on The Future of Reforestation Carbon Credits, Thibault Sorret, Co-founder and CEO of Ecosystem Restoration Standard, shares insights into the company’s certification approach, the significance of public consultations in shaping their standard, and the role of reforestation carbon credits in a rapidly evolving landscape of climate action.
Can you introduce yourself?
My name is Thibault Sorret. I'm a co-founder and CEO of Ecosystem Restoration Standard.
What is the Ecosystem Restoration Standard?
Ecosystem Restoration Standard (ERS) is a new certification for nature-based restoration projects on the Voluntary Carbon Markets. It is designed to empower restoration efforts that combat climate change, uplift biodiversity, and improve livelihoods.
By integrating next-generation Digital Monitoring, Reporting & Verification (dMRV) into the Standard we are able to continuously track progress across multiple baselines, providing greater traceability and transparency for project developers and buyers.
How do you get involved in carbon projects related to reforestation? What's the ERS role?
Carbon standards are central to the operation of the voluntary carbon market (VCM). Carbon standard organizations provide and administer the rules and requirements for VCM projects and programs, certify and issue carbon credits.
As a carbon standard, our role is to set the rules, procedures, and methodologies according to which certified carbon credits are generated and issued.
Why did you choose to go through a public consultation process to create your standard? Were there other ways to do it?
Public Consultations are a hallmark of standard setting. To establish a credible standard, one must take broad stakeholder inputs into consideration. By engaging key actors and the general public in the consultation process, the standard is more likely to be widely adopted and positively impact the ecosystem restoration initiatives and projects it aims to support.
What was the outcome of this public consultation?
The market seems to welcome the active participation of ERS in the monitoring, reporting, verification (MRV) of projects on a regular basis. To occupy that role, we had to completely rethink the business model of a standards body on the carbon markets. It was a risky move, because it differs so much from the norm, but the feedback was overwhelmingly positive.
Traditionally, carbon standards charge per issuance (i.e., per ton). Their active involvement in MRV is hampered because they have a vested interest in the issuance of credits. By moving towards an annual, per hectare fee, we’ve aligned our interest with providing ongoing monitoring of certified projects.
What surprises emerged?
We thought the market would welcome attempts to monitor biodiversity directly, even if imperfectly. To our surprise, many market participants preferred that we use proxies, like habitat capacity, rather than attempting imperfect direct measurements.
Following the consultation, we’ve revisited our ecosystem assessment and biodiversity monitoring tools and protocols to better align with these market expectations.
Why should a company invest in carbon credits linked to reforestation rather than other types of carbon credits?
First and foremost, more companies need to take climate action, period. We’re big fans of the “everything, everywhere, all at once” mantra.
According to the IPCC we need to remove 2 to 6 GtCO2e annually by 2050 to stay within the Paris agreement targets.
With 2 billion hectares of degraded land, of which more than 900 million can be reforested without competing with agriculture, we believe that reforestation is a largely under-utilized and under-funded solution for achieving global climate goals.
That being said, today, most of the resources in the VCM have historically been tied to “avoidance” type credits. Just 3% of credits remove carbon from the atmosphere, and almost all of them come from ARR projects.
As a standard, we’re focused on ARR projects (specifically ecosystem restoration projects that positively impact biodiversity and local communities) because we believe that there is a major supply gap that needs to be addressed.
How do you see the current situation for reforestation carbon credits?
Of the 334 ARR projects actively delivering credits on the top 5 registries, many rely on the intensive cultivation of non-native species, often planted as monocultures. These forests sequester carbon, but little else.
We believe more effort needs to be put into the design of projects that positively impact ecosystem recovery, carbon, biodiversity and local livelihoods. By designing a standard that assesses and monitors impact across four pillars, we believe we can help nudge supply in a more holistic direction.
Do you have any recommendations or advice for companies wishing to invest in reforestation carbon credits?
If you can, invest directly in a project. Get to know the project developer. Do project-level due diligence. A stamp by a third-party standard is necessary, but not sufficient.
