Scientists and industry clash over GHG Protocol forest carbon rules

The integrity of widely adopted accounting frameworks for greenhouse gas emissions is under scrutiny as a senior figure involved in setting standards for forest carbon emissions has resigned.

Tim Searchinger, technical director of land-related issues at the World Resources Institute (WRI), is leaving his role at the WRI this month. According to SourceMaterial, his reason for leaving was "developments with the Protocol" which undermined scientific integrity "in both substance and process, with large potential consequences". Searchinger reportedly said that he was "unable to correct" these issues.

This follows on from the resignation of Danny Cullenward, a climate economist, lawyer and senior fellow at the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, who stepped back from his role on the GHG Protocol's Independent Standards Board in June.

Cullenward wrote in a letter posted on BlueSky: "I no longer have any confidence in the Protocol's governance structure and strenuously object to your organisation's treatment of scientific information - and scientists themselves - in the deliberations over forest carbon accounting."

The disagreement surrounds how businesses might calculate their carbon emissions in relation to forest activity.

## The carbon sticking point

The disagreement centres on how to quantify the impact of forest activities on emissions. Objections have been raised that proposed industry-aligned rules could misrepresent the climate effects of timber harvesting and land use, potentially masking emissions as removals.

Under the proposed industry rule, aligned with the managed land proxy approach, all changes in forest carbon are attributed to humans, meaning that natural carbon sequestration that occurs as trees grow is counted as carbon removals.

Typically used to measure forest carbon nationally, the approach aims to calculate the overall net emissions generated or removed by an area.

As Cullenward pointed out, this approach could mean that companies that are actively harvesting trees could still report an overall carbon removal for an area, if tree growth outweighs felling.

"This is the opposite of what physically happens when a forest is cut down: forest harvests and wood consumption cause emissions, not removals. But under the industry rule, recycled paper would be counted as a climate harm while cutting down an old-growth forest to produce virgin paper would be counted as a climate benefit."

## Existing standard

The Land Sector and Removals Standard was published in January this year, with additional guidance published in June.

The Standard, which applies to companies with any significant land-sector activities in their operations or value chain that report in line with the GHG Protocol from 1 January 2027, provides a framework for calculating the emissions generated - and removed - by activities relating to agriculture and land use.

The Standard deliberately omitted guidance on forest-related carbon accounting, with the Protocol's team of experts noting that it is a complex field.

As such, in June, the GHG Protocol launched a Request for Information (RFI) to gather stakeholder input. The consultation period is open until 1 February 2027.

"Until the release of an updated LSR Standard that includes forest carbon accounting, companies choosing to disclose forest carbon impacts should be transparent about their chosen methodology," the Protocol advised.