Designing a robust carbon certification methodolgy for forest management in Europe
An Improved Forest Management (IFM) methodology has been initiated under the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming regulation (CRCF), alongside a near-finalised afforestation methodology. As concerns grow over the declining capacity of Europe’s forests, determining which forest management practices should be incentivised through carbon certification is far from straightforward.
No one-size-fits-all solution exists for IFM in Europe
A risk-based framework is needed to account for disturbances and to tailor eligible practices to biogeographical regions and local conditions.
Defining the baseline scenario is central to the credibility of IFM carbon methodology
It should incorporate scenarios reflecting expected future disturbances affecting European forests.
Beyond methodological design, financing remains the critical challenge.
Voluntary demand alone will not scale up EU carbon forestry, which requires upfront investments today for climate benefits that materialise only over decades.
This policy brief highlights that the diversity of European forests excludes a one-size-fits-all list of IFM practices. A risk-based framework is needed to account for disturbance and to tailor eligible practices to biogeographical regions and local conditions. In low-risk contexts, conservation-oriented practices (e.g. extension of rotations period) can increase carbon stocks. In higher-risk contexts, adaptive management approaches (e.g. species diversification, fire management) may be preferable to ensure long-term resilience benefits.
A credible baseline is essential, as baseline setting remains the main source of over-crediting in IFM projects. This is particularly challenging because quantification must incorporate disturbance risks and demonstrate that project activities deliver greater resilience than the baseline scenario. While emerging concepts such as dynamic baselines may offer useful guidance, they will need to be adapted to the European context to ensure practical applicability.
Beyond methodological design, financing remains the critical challenge. Forestry projects require long-term investment, while costs are largely upfront and carbon benefits materialise only over decades. The EU buyers’ club could help bridge this gap, provided it supports specific long-term investment use cases. It is also essential to provide market visibility on the gradual integration of compliance-based incentives, complementing voluntary carbon finance, to unlock Europe’s full forest mitigation potential.
