Practical Permanence is Important
A group of over 40 climate scientists recently published an open letter to the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) and Article 6 Supervisory Board cautioning against roadblocking climate action and investment into natural carbon solutions (NCS) projects by adopting exceedingly rigid and ultimately impractical definitions of permanence (e.g. 1,000+ years) for emerging carbon credit frameworks and guidance [1]. The variability of permanence time horizons in NCS projects has led some to incorrectly assume that they are of lower quality than technology-based carbon removal projects. The contention that carbon removals with 1,000+ year permanence periods are the only way to ensure adequate durability is false. Considering the nascent state of engineered carbon removal technologies it’s also clear that geologic carbon storage cannot deliver the immediate large-scale climate benefits that nature can today. Failing to recognize that natural climate solutions can be managed to provide durability, risks severely derailing the market’s ability to deliver urgently needed finance to stabilize our global carbon system now.
“Natural ecosystems play a crucial role in regulating the climate, storing more carbon than all fossil fuel reserves combined” [2]. A newly published study estimates that anthropogenic land-use conversion has depleted 24% of global terrestrial carbon stocks, with agricultural expansion and forest management being the primary drivers of natural carbon sink depletion.
Natural climate solution projects already account for permanence and some new and practical ideas are being discussed to provide even better guarantees. For example, the ICVCM released its first report focused on how permanence and reversal risk requirements vary across registries and project types. As part of the ICVCMs Continuous Improvement Work Programs (CIWPs) the goal of the report was to develop recommendations for future refinement of the CCPs and Assessment Framework, and to explore ways of building upon existing mechanisms for managing liability and compensation for carbon project types with higher risk of reversal. As defined in the report, permanence and durability refer to how long each ton of CO2e reduced or removed stays out of the atmosphere – acknowledging the varying degrees of reversal risk that exist across the spectrum of GHG mitigation projects [3]. Contemplating permanence of natural carbon sinks, the report discussed the potential strengths of issuance-based permanence monitoring periods that would enable all vintages to receive a uniform duration of post-issuance monitoring (instead of being tied to the crediting period start). In practice, this would be similar to the approach used by the Climate Action Reserve, where on-going monitoring for reversals is required for at least 100 years after each credit is issued [4]. Another potential innovation suggested by the report is the creation of a “Permanence Fund” made possible by a per-credit fee added to programmatic buffer pool contributions, where cumulative funds would be managed as a programmatic trust. In a hypothetical example, at the end of a crediting period by the registry/project proponent, permanence liability would then be transferred to the trust, at which point the trust assumes responsibility of compensating for reversals over a designated time period (for example 100 years post issuance).
Natural climate solution finance is needed now. As permanence standards evolve, they must remain practical to deliver real-world solutions.