Appel à l’UE pour qu’elle rejette les compensations carbone après le scandale survenu chez le plus grand certificateur volontaire de compensations carbone

En novembre 2022, la Commission européenne a présenté une proposition de règlement de l'Union européenne (UE) sur la certification des activités qui éliminent le carbone de l'atmosphère, qui comprenait des normes minimales volontaires pour les entreprises certifiant les compensations volontaires de carbone. Moins de deux mois plus tard, une enquête menée par l'hebdomadaire allemand Die Zeit et le journal britannique The Guardian, avec le soutien de l'organisation non gouvernementale (ONG) SourceMaterial, a montré une fois de plus à quel point le marché de la compensation volontaire des émissions de carbone est défectueux. Une enquête menée par l'ONG néerlandaise de recherche "Follow The Money" a souligné l'ampleur des défaillances en montrant comment l'opérateur de l'un des plus grands projets de compensation sur le continent africain avait été autorisé à poursuivre la vente de crédits de compensation alors que le vendeur savait que le projet surestimait la prétendue réduction des émissions. L'enquête s'est concentrée sur les crédits de compensation pour "déforestation évitée" qui ont fait l'objet d'un audit dans le cadre du Verified Carbon Standard (VCS). Le VCS est administré par Verra, un concepteur de normes de compensation carbone dont les normes sous-tendent 75 % de toutes les compensations carbone vendues sur le marché volontaire du carbone. Continuer en anglais ...    L'UE devrait considérer l'échec du modèle commercial de Verra comme une indication de la nécessité de cesser de promouvoir les compensations comme une forme valable d'action climatique. A global team of academic researchers assessed 29 projects that claimed to have saved a total of 89 million carbon credits, equivalent to the annual emissions from Greece and Switzerland combined. The researchers found that over 90 per cent of the credits were based on implausible claims that emissions had been avoided - making them, in the words of the journalists, "a heap of junk". The investigations found numerous examples of project developers interpreting methodologies in their favour and auditors approving carbon credits based on hugely inflated estimates of how many emissions were avoided. The mass generation of junk credits doesn't come as a surprise to many in the offsetting industry, with a broker noting that “methodologies have been so flexible that anything goes…[y]ou could choose the best option to maximise your profit.” How is it possible for such an obvious scam to go on for well over a decade? One of the researchers, who has been a long-time observer of the offset market explained: “There is simply nobody in the market who has a genuine interest to say when something goes wrong”. Reacting to the investigations, rating agencies and a representative of the GoldStandard pointed out that 'avoided deforestation' projects are not the only type of project whose methodologies create 'junk credits' due to inflated calculations of alleged emission reductions. The co-founder of carbon offset rating agency Calyx Global, Donna Lee, noted that her team has assessed nearly 70 Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) projects and that "for many project types we find high variability in our ratings. This is true for everything from landfill gas and cookstoves to forest carbon credits”. These problems continue despite the fact that all these offset projects have been assessed against carbon standards like Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), VCS or GoldStandard, and received the stamp of approval following third-party audits of offset methodologies. Voluntary standards have been part of international carbon markets for as long as they have existed. They have prevented neither the massive generation of junk credits, nor human rights abuses, environmental harms, and land conflicts. The problem has been particularly stark in connection with 'avoided deforestation' and tree planting offset projects. Nothing in the European Commission’s proposed voluntary EU certification framework would fare better than past failed attempts to elaborate rules for "an industry where, for many, flaws have become the norm." Given the numerous problems even within projects certified by Verra, no offset certifiers should be endorsed by EU climate policy. There is a danger that certification would imply that such offsets were “high quality”, legitimising a failed attempt to address the climate crisis. Pushing ahead with a proposal that is likely to incentivise generating even greater volumes of climate-damaging junk credits is reckless, particularly given the urgency with which we must reduce emissions this decade. Offsets are not equivalent to reductions. The latest media investigations have reiterated that even after 20 years of carbon markets, there is nothing that can be done to stop the generation of meaningless offset credits. If averting uncontrollable climate chaos is the objective, offsets have no place in the policy toolbox. We therefore demand that the European Commission does not legitimise a market whose holes are so deep they can never be filled. Signed Fern Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy Carbon Market Watch Climate Action Network Europe Ecoropa Friends of the Earth Europe Corporate Europe Observatory European Coordination Via Campesina - ECVC ClientEarth ECOS WeSmellGas Real Zero Europe Food and Water Action Europe Global Forest Coalition ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability Indigenous Peoples Global Forum for Sustainable Development Women's Environment and Development Organization Envol Vert Friends of the Earth International Women's Earth and Climate Action Network ActionAid Changing Markets Foundation Indigenous Environmental Network Center for International Environmental Law Corporate Accountability Stay Grounded Forests of the World NOAH Friends of the Earth Denmark Finnish Association for Nature Conservation CCFD - Terre Solidaire Canopée Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren Aktionsgemeinschaft Solidarische Welt e.V. ASW ARA FDCL - Center for Research and Documentation Chile-Latin America FIAN Deutschland German Environmental Action (Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V.) BUNDjugend (Young Friends of the Earth Germany) Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND e.V.) Iceland Nature Conservation Association Recommon Leefmilieu Landelijk Netwerk Bossen- en Bomenbescherming.nl Federatie tegen Biomassacentrales De Klimaatcoalitie Comité Schone Lucht Social Tipping Point Coalitie Feedback EU ZERO - Associação Sistema Terrestre Sustentável Reformaten Protect the Forest Klimataktion Skiftet Fridays For Future Sweden Friends of the Earth Sweden Biofuelwatch Feedback Global Gladstone Conservation Council Environment East Gippsland Victorian Rainforest Network Environment East Gippsland inc The Australian Rainforest Conservation Society Association pour l'Integration et le Developpement Durable au Burundi (Indigenous Forum in the UN ECOSOC status) Climate Action for Lifelong Learners (CALL) Nature Nova Scotia AbibiNsroma Foundation Coorg Organisation for Rural Development UNISC International Biodiversity Conservation Center Family Farm Defenders The New School Olympia Movement for Justice and Peace Pivot Point RACE Global Justice Ecology Project Rainforest Action Network - RAN Global Justice Ecology Project Peter Somerville, University of Lincoln Diego Portugal - NbS Consultant   source: FERN