Many project developers inquire about the differences between the
CarbonFix Standard and other standards. These differences will be
identified in the following:
There have been several comparisons which have evaluated the different forest carbon standards.
Pros & Cons
A/R CDM
Practicability - The A/R CDM mechanism of the UN has set the
methodological basis to measure carbon reductions in forestation
projects. The carbon reductions from a forest project differ however by
factors such as the tree species, the soil conditions, climatic
conditions, etc. By including all these potential parameters, the
application and documentation of these formulas is very extensive. As a
result, most project developers have costly consultants to undertake the
documentation for them.
PRO CarbonFix - The CarbonFix Standard
solves this problem by simplifying the documentation and calculation
process, so that 'normal' foresters can do this work. The standard is
simplification as a result of restricting the standard to certain types
of forestation - e.g. projects can not apply the CarbonFix Standard when
they plant their trees on a wetland.
Presently, experts believe that approximately 70% of all potential
A/R CDM projects would be eligible to apply the CarbonFix Standard.
CarbonFix's methodology is only 7 pages long and includes all parameters
of the A/R CDM framework (CO2-fixation, Baseline, Leakage and Project
emissions) as well as the selection of the carbon pools.
CONTRA CarbonFix - Due to CarbonFix
Standard's requirements, not all types of forestation projects are
accepted. For these projects which do not fulfill the CarbonFix Standard
requirements, we recommend using the VCS AFOLU.
Temporary certificates - Projects certified according to A/R
CDM generate temporary certificates (tCERs or lCERs). These types of
credits are not currently accepted under the world's largest official
emission trading system - the EU ETS. Therefore, there is no available
market for these certificates.
PRO CarbonFix - The CarbonFix Standard
enables project developers to sell their certificates on the voluntary
carbon market. On this market, projects must illustrate that they
generate their certificates on a permanent basis and have major social
and ecological co-benefits. All these aspects are covered by the
criteria of the CarbonFix Standard.
Registration process - Past experience indicates that the
validation and registration process for an A/R project ranges from 3 to 5
years. This is a long and costly process during which no direct revenue
can be expected.
PRO CarbonFix
- Due to its simple documentation process and simplified methodology,
it takes in average of 6 to 12 months to prepare project documentation
and complete the certification process according to the CarbonFix
Standard.
VCS AFOLU
Practicability - similair to A/R CDM, the VCS
allows to apply different methodologies to determin the net carbon
fixation of a project. Hereby, currently no other methodologies than the
ones of A/R CDM are accepted.
Ex-post certificates - projects certified according
to the VCS AFOLU program can only account for the ex-post certificates
(the amount of carbon which is already stored by the trees). This
fosters the use of fast growing plantations, which are in most cases
planted with exotic tree species.
PRO CarbonFix - With the CarbonFix Standard, projects can generate their carbon certificates in both ways ex-post and ex-ante. Selling CO2certificates in an ex-ante way allows project developers to use also slower growing native tree species.
CONTRA CarbonFix
- In contrast to ex-post certificates, ex-ante credits carry the risk
of delivery. Therefore, the CarbonFix Standard must ensure that the
projects are set-up in sustainable way - to deliver the certifcates and
store the carbon long-term.
Why does the risk of ex-post and ex-ante credits not differ?
In contrast to ex-post certificates the risk of ex-ante credits have the additional risk from the 'Time of delivery'.
Regarding the formula above, the key parameter is the 'Long-term permanence'.
The longer you see the carbon to be stored, the less the different
credits types differ in their risk. When the carbon shall be stored on a
permanent base, the risks do not differ.
Additionality - carbon certificates can only be
generated by a project, when evidence is given that only the sale of
these carbon credits has made the implementation of the project
feasable. In contrast to technical climate projects, forestation
projects often have a much longer time span in which the carbon fixation
is taking place.
Taking into account that VCS AFOLU only enables the sale of ex-post
certificates, projects applying this standard, must base its revenue
streams also on other commodities produced by the forest (usually
timber). Again, this favors fast growing plantations.
PRO CarbonFix
- The ex-ante approach increases highly the additionality effect of
projects and enables them to cover its high initial planting costs.
CONTRA CarbonFix - See 'Ex-post certificates'.
Co-benefits - to secure long-term sustainable
projects, especially the socio-economic characteristics must be taken
into account. As VCS AFOLU does not have own criteria which cover these
aspects, it refers to other certification schemes - such as the CCBS or
FSC.
PRO CarbonFix
- In contrast to this, the CarbonFix Standard also takes these aspects
into account and requires that all stakeholder groups are involved and
support the project from the beginning.
Story behind the credits - for the voluntary carbon market 'a ton of CO2' is not just a 'ton of CO2'.
Buyers which balance their emissions with carbon credits want to know
the story behind their credits and also communicate this to their
customers.
PRO CarbonFix - Unlike VCS, the CarbonFix Standard requires its projects to make use of the ClimateProjects platform, which enables buyers to get a detailed overview on the projects acitivites.
Fees - to ensure contiuous improvement of the
standards criteria and their work in supporting the project developers,
the organisations behind these criteria charge fees based on the amount
of CO2certificates.
PRO CarbonFix
- While the VCS charges its fees at the point of issuance - right after
the certification has finished - CarbonFix only charges project
developers after they have sold a certificate.
CONTRA CarbonFix
- CarbonFix charges a much higher price for its certificates than the
VCS. CarbonFix = € 50 Cent per certificate sold, VCS = US$ 4 Cent per
certificate issued.
We justify this higher fee due to our prosvision of additional services:
Free registration of certificates in the carbon registry of Markit
Free account on the ClimateProjects platform
Cooperation with the greenEye platform (from mid 2010 on)
Quality support to clarify questions of project developers
All these services allow project developers to gain higher prices
for their carbon certificates. As in the voluntary carbon market these
prices vary largely (in 2009: from € 2 up to over € 20 per certificate) the higher fees charges by CarbonFix are easily compesated.
CCBS & FSC
No CO2-certificates - as both
of these standard do generate carbon certificates themselves, the must
always be applied with a so-called 'carbon accounting standard'. These
standards can be any of the other standards, inclusing CarbonFix.
PRO CarbonFix
- To ease project developers to apply both standards, the CarbonFix
Standard accepts the CCBS and FSC certification in order to replace
certain criteria of its own standard.
Co-benefits - CCBS as well as FSC have their expertise in ensuring the socioeconomic and ecological benefits of projects.
PRO CarbonFix
- As both of these standard are backed by big international NGOs (the
CCBS by Conservation International, the FSC by WWF), the application of
one or both of these standards in combination with the CarbonFix
Standard may lead to an increase in price of the carbon certificates
which are genered.
