Experts urge a new global agreement on carbon credit emission factors
The Project Developer Forum (PD Forum) and carbon specialists are urging the UNFCCC Clean Development Mechanism's (CDM) Board to examine the science behind the default Wood to Charcoal Conversion Factor (WCCF) and the charcoal emission factors used in carbon credit calculations.
WCCF measures how much wood is required to produce one tonne of charcoal, a key parameter for carbon credit accounting, as it determines the deforestation and emissions attributed to charcoal production. New scientific evidence suggests that the proposed 4:1 default value does not reflect real-world data and could potentially under-credit clean cooking projects across sub-Saharan Africa. Low emission factors would underestimate the deleterious impact of the charcoal industry on deforestation.
Field research suggests miscalculation
During a webinar hosted by PD Forum on 4 June 2025, Dr Nordica MacCarty of Oregon State University presented field research from Malawi and Ghana showing that actual WCCFs consistently exceed the current 4:1 default set by CDM Tool 30 and 33. Her study analysed 12 kiln runs in each country, measuring charcoal yield, distribution, and usage inefficiencies across the value chain.
'Our findings clearly show that the majority of emissions and material losses occur during charcoal production, primarily through the release of volatiles, water loss, fines, and wood left at harvest sites," said Dr MacCarty. "Actual WCCFs consistently exceeded the conservative 4:1 value. If the goal is accurate emissions accounting, these ground realities must be incorporated into default factors."
Nick Marshall, co-vice chair of PD Forum, said: "Under the disingenuous label of 'integrity', we are seeing the prioritisation of conservative carbon accounting over accuracy. The proposed WCCF default does not reflect sufficient accuracy in the accounting of clean cooking carbon project emissions, leading to an underestimation of their impact, which can undermine carbon finance flows to communities that need them most. We are urging the UNFCCC to review this parameter so that it reflects real-world conditions and ensures fair crediting for projects delivering climate solutions to low-income households.
'This is not only about carbon accounting - it's about fairness and equity. The communities adopting cleaner technologies deserve recognition for their contribution to global climate goals.'
Dr Rob Bailis from Stockholm Environment Institute added: "The 4:1 default is not based on actual field data, but rather a misreading of outdated IPCC text. Using 4:1 not only underestimates emissions, it also undermines project viability. If the goal is environmental integrity, we should follow the data. On that basis, 6:1 is a much more defensible default value."
Calling for alignment between emission factors and data
Nathan Gachugi, director of Carbon Operations Africa at BURN, explained how conservative defaults limit carbon finance potential: "At BURN, we are seeing firsthand how these conservative defaults are limiting the potential of carbon finance to transform the lives of hundreds of millions of low-income households in Africa. Revising the WCCF and the direct charcoal emission factors to reflect science-backed field data is critical to ensuring climate finance reaches the communities that need it most."
Traditional low-efficiency kilns in sub-Saharan Africa consume far more wood than current methodologies account for, yet outdated defaults remain in use. While methodologies like Verra's VMR0050 and the Clean Cooking Alliance's CLEAR methodology now recognise a 6:1 WCCF, the CDM Tool 33 and the ICVCM's Core Carbon Principles take the 4:1 value. This risks underestimating the emissions from upstream charcoal production, disincentivising investment in cleaner technologies and perpetuating unsustainable charcoal practices.
The PD Forum is circulating research to key stakeholders including UNFCCC, ICVCM, Gold Standard, Verra, ICAO, national carbon market authorities, and rating agencies, urging alignment of charcoal emission factors with empirical data.
All rights reserved. © 2022. Bizcommunity.com Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Zawya
2 days ago
- Zawya
Experts urge a new global agreement on carbon credit emission factors
The Project Developer Forum (PD Forum) and carbon specialists are urging the UNFCCC Clean Development Mechanism's (CDM) Board to examine the science behind the default Wood to Charcoal Conversion Factor (WCCF) and the charcoal emission factors used in carbon credit calculations. WCCF measures how much wood is required to produce one tonne of charcoal, a key parameter for carbon credit accounting, as it determines the deforestation and emissions attributed to charcoal production. New scientific evidence suggests that the proposed 4:1 default value does not reflect real-world data and could potentially under-credit clean cooking projects across sub-Saharan Africa. Low emission factors would underestimate the deleterious impact of the charcoal industry on deforestation. Field research suggests miscalculation During a webinar hosted by PD Forum on 4 June 2025, Dr Nordica MacCarty of Oregon State University presented field research from Malawi and Ghana showing that actual WCCFs consistently exceed the current 4:1 default set by CDM Tool 30 and 33. Her study analysed 12 kiln runs in each country, measuring charcoal yield, distribution, and usage inefficiencies across the value chain. 'Our findings clearly show that the majority of emissions and material losses occur during charcoal production, primarily through the release of volatiles, water loss, fines, and wood left at harvest sites," said Dr MacCarty. "Actual WCCFs consistently exceeded the conservative 4:1 value. If the goal is accurate emissions accounting, these ground realities must be incorporated into default factors." Nick Marshall, co-vice chair of PD Forum, said: "Under the disingenuous label of 'integrity', we are seeing the prioritisation of conservative carbon accounting over accuracy. The proposed WCCF default does not reflect sufficient accuracy in the accounting of clean cooking carbon project emissions, leading to an underestimation of their impact, which can undermine carbon finance flows to communities that need them most. We are urging the UNFCCC to review this parameter so that it reflects real-world conditions and ensures fair crediting for projects delivering climate solutions to low-income households. 'This is not only about carbon accounting - it's about fairness and equity. The communities adopting cleaner technologies deserve recognition for their contribution to global climate goals.' Dr Rob Bailis from Stockholm Environment Institute added: "The 4:1 default is not based on actual field data, but rather a misreading of outdated IPCC text. Using 4:1 not only underestimates emissions, it also undermines project viability. If the goal is environmental integrity, we should follow the data. On that basis, 6:1 is a much more defensible default value." Calling for alignment between emission factors and data Nathan Gachugi, director of Carbon Operations Africa at BURN, explained how conservative defaults limit carbon finance potential: "At BURN, we are seeing firsthand how these conservative defaults are limiting the potential of carbon finance to transform the lives of hundreds of millions of low-income households in Africa. Revising the WCCF and the direct charcoal emission factors to reflect science-backed field data is critical to ensuring climate finance reaches the communities that need it most." Traditional low-efficiency kilns in sub-Saharan Africa consume far more wood than current methodologies account for, yet outdated defaults remain in use. While methodologies like Verra's VMR0050 and the Clean Cooking Alliance's CLEAR methodology now recognise a 6:1 WCCF, the CDM Tool 33 and the ICVCM's Core Carbon Principles take the 4:1 value. This risks underestimating the emissions from upstream charcoal production, disincentivising investment in cleaner technologies and perpetuating unsustainable charcoal practices. The PD Forum is circulating research to key stakeholders including UNFCCC, ICVCM, Gold Standard, Verra, ICAO, national carbon market authorities, and rating agencies, urging alignment of charcoal emission factors with empirical data. All rights reserved. © 2022. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
Zawya
3 days ago
- Zawya
The Energy News Network (ENN): The New Independent Voice for Emerging Market Energy
The Energy News Network (ENN), a new independent platform dedicated to the stories behind energy in emerging markets, is now live. Covering corporate and public sector leaders, utilities, ministries, and regulators across Africa and beyond, ENN will track the policy shifts, investments, and diplomatic moves shaping the energy sector's evolution. Visit: Africa's energy demand is growing at twice the global average yet, with more than 600 million people still unable to access electricity, the continent needs some $25bn annually in energy investments to achieve universal access by 2030. ENN will delve into how the region can meet these ambitious targets, spotlighting the people, projects and policies defining the future of energy access, innovation, and impact. The platform features incisive editorial, expert opinion, and compelling human stories centred on Africa's 21st-century energy narrative. From renewables to mining, and from finance to frontier energy access, ENN provides independent, in-depth coverage of a sector critical to the continent's future. Current feature stories include: Exploring how Mission 300 is tackling Africa's energy access crisis and scaling clean energy solutions. A deep dive into Zambia's current energy challenges and opportunities. A profile of William Amuna, the new board chair of the Electricity Company of Ghana. Visit: Simon Gosling, founder of ENN, says: 'We're committed to telling the stories that matter most, combining expert insight with sharp analysis to shine a light on the forces shaping energy in emerging markets. Our goal is to bridge expertise with on-the-ground realities, giving voice to the people, projects, and policies driving energy transformation across Africa and beyond in the 21 st century.' Distributed by APO Group on behalf of EnergyNet Ltd..
Zawya
3 days ago
- Zawya
African Union agency says Fitch's downgrade of Afreximbank is 'flawed'
An African Union credit review body has questioned Fitch ratings agency's downgrade of Africa Export-Import Bank last week, saying it was based on a "flawed" categorisation of loans and calling for the decision to be reconsidered. Last Wednesday, Fitch downgraded Cairo-based Afreximbank's credit rating to BBB-, one notch above junk ratings, from BBB, citing high credit risks and weak risk management policies. Fitch calculated that the ratio of Afrexim's non-performing loans (NPLs) exceeded the 6% 'high risk' threshold outlined in the ratings agency's criteria. Afreximbank said in its first quarter operating results that the NPLs ratio stood at 2.44% at the end of March. The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), a body established by the African Union to do the groundwork for the launch of an African credit ratings agency later this year, contested Fitch's calculations and called for talks between Fitch, Afreximbank and other African institutions. "The APRM notes with concern Fitch Ratings' misclassification of Afreximbank's sovereign exposures to the Governments of Ghana, South Sudan and Zambia as NPLs," APRM said in a statement published late on Friday. "This classification raises critical legal, institutional and analytical issues which the APRM strongly contests." Fitch defended its rating decision, saying it operates on the basis of independent and timely analysis. "All Fitch's supranational rating decisions are taken solely in accordance with one globally consistent and publicly available rating criteria, with rating drivers and sensitivities clearly identified in our ongoing public rating commentary," the ratings agency told Reuters. The row over the rating, which determines the cost of credit for a financial institution, comes as Afreximbank seeks to protect its loans from restructuring in Ghana, Zambia and Malawi, saying that as a multilateral lender it has preferred creditor status. "The assumption that Ghana, South Sudan and Zambia would default on their loans to Afreximbank is inconsistent with the 1993 Treaty establishing the Bank to which Ghana and Zambia are both founding members, shareholders and signatories," APRM said. The founding treaty of the lender, whose mandate is to promote intra-Africa and extra-Africa trade, is legally binding on all members, APRM said, placing legal obligations on the bank's financial operations. Afreximbank has not commented on the downgrade by Fitch, but it has previously said it is not in debt restructuring talks with any of its member states. Afreximbank's loans to its member states are governed by "a framework of intergovernmental cooperation and mutual commitment, rather than typical commercial risk principles", shielding its loans from sliding into non-performance realm, APRM said. "Fitch's unilateral treatment of these sovereign exposures -as comparable to market-based commercial loans - despite their backing by treaty obligations and shareholder equity stakes, is flawed," APRM said. (Reporting by Duncan Miriri; Editing by Karin Strohecker and Susan Fenton)
