Attn : Scientific Committee
Proposals of IPS modifications, following public comments and
Scientific Committee of IPI of 27/02/2017
Comments and propositions from Althelia, Edit Kiss
Dear Tristan and Members of the Scientific Committee,
I would like to make a couple of comments on the latest version of the IPI
Programme standard which are key to be able to link REDD+ to insetting. Therefore I
would like to discuss these in the context of the work on the insetting REDD+ module
which Althelia has been engaging on.
Firstly, I think IPI should follow best practices with regards to the claims, as it
represents a reputational risk to use ex-ante emission reductions for carbon
neutrality claims. So only ex-post third party verified emission reductions should be
used for carbon neutrality claims. For insetting there could be a differentiation used
between "engaged in insetting/in process of insetting" vs "to be inset” (should only be
claimed upon ex-post verification). As a side point, in any case as we are entering
the phase of NDC implementation it will be difficult to claim carbon neutrality and
might need to redefine it to something else such as carbon contribution for example.
Secondly, with regards to climate change and biodiversity loss from deforestation
there is an issue of urgency so short-term action should be encouraged, which could
be done through complementing insetting with compensation through REDD+
credits. In order to be fully inset or be carbon neutral from year 1 of the insetting
programme given that planting trees will result in the total climate benefit over
approx. 10-20 years, 10-20x the amount of trees would need to be planted in year
1 so that every year the incremental carbon sequestration is equal to the carbon
footprint to be offset. This however might be technically a challenge as well as
become very capex intensive so complementing with offsets temporarily could be a
more cost effective solution.
But if a company decides to only engage in insetting (I.e. Planting the amount of
trees every year that will sequester the carbon footprint over 10-20 years) it should
be clearly communicated that the climate benefits will arise only in 10-20 years and
even if a company is engaged in tree planting every year, the yearly cumulative CO2
sequestration will be always lower than the actual yearly carbon footprint.
As I understand the IPI’s aspiration is to work at the landscape level, however, the
standard does not have any criteria around landscapes other than the double
counting criteria, so for designing an insetting project the additionality and feasibility
should be defined on the landscape level, requiring a complete analysis of drivers of
deforestation, HCV, socio-economic context etc. to make sure agroforestry is
implemented in a landscape context and not in isolation. Agroforestry is a very
important strategy to tackle the drivers of deforestation but it needs to be
implemented in line with the local socio-economic and environmental context.
A more progressive approach would be to include analysis of deforestation in the
supply chains of the company engaging in insetting overall which could be required
to be part of the global footprint analysis and if proven material insetting should be
done through REDD+ and landscape level. If this is challenging initially as it takes a
lot of time to properly map supply chains and scope 3 emissions, at least the
deforestation analysis should be done at the landscape where the insetting project is
proposed as explained above.
And finally, there is a huge opportunity to link to zero-deforestation commitments in
supply chains of CGF/TFA companies. Scope 3 emissions are the largest part of
GHG emissions and therefore efforts should be made to eliminate deforestation and
reduce emissions from supply chains over the longer term. So insetting should be an
interim step towards full action towards eliminating/mitigating emissions in scope 3
which should be the long-term objective of the IPI. Otherwise insetting might risk to
be viewn as a diversion rather than becoming a mean to achieve the zero
deforestation and the 2C climate targets which have been endorsed by governments,
thousands of companies and the international environmental community.
These are our basic recommendations on which we would like to seek clarity as this
will provide clarity on whether/how to proceed with the REDD+ inclusion into the
scope of IPI.
Edit
Following recommendation by Edit Kiss, Althelia
> Integration of a deforestation diagnostic in the Insetting Program Minimum
Requirements, of IPS. Shall it be a minimum requirement or progress criteria ?
Edit Kiss : Minimum requirement.
It has been stressed out in Materiality : need to map out drivers of deforestation,
actual impacts and risks. Then we could include a specific impact driver as Forest,
see hereafter, in the evolution of Impact drivers.
> Proposed integration in IPS Grid: The organization has mapped out the actual
impacts and risks of its activities on deforestation, including at suppliers' level, via a
landscape diagnostics of products sourcing area. Company has performed a study
on its impact on deforestation. The organization and the stakeholders of the value
chains have a management system in place to ensure zero net deforestation. > OK?
> Regarding ex-ante vs ex-post and carbon claims > For Claims of carbon neutrality
there must be a differentiation between "engaged in insetting/in process of insetting"
vs "to be inset” . Risk to claim carbon neutrality with ex-ante credits, especially in the
absence of a robust buffer - has to be clearly defined to avoid reputational risks
(backed by Marion Verles - GS). > Should only be claimed upon full ex-post verification > no consensus on this it
seems, as most members do forestry and in forestry ex-ante is widely accepted, if
not the norm. Yet, the claims shall explain that the carbon will be generated
throughout the development process of the project. For example: "The company X
insets its carbon footprint thanks to a reforestation / agroforestry project which will
sequester the equivalent of the carbon footprint of the company over a 40-year
project". > OK?
Edit Kiss: Yes this is OK. Also note though that it is possible to use ex-post verified
credits from land use sector so if a company uses ex-post method, it should be able
to claim the claim has inset its emissions through agroforestry / reforestation / forest
conservation.
> In any case as we are entering the phase of NDC implementation it will be difficult
to claim carbon neutrality and might need to redefine it to something else such as
carbon contribution for example.
> There is as well a potential key new orientation on this, which is to consider all
carbon impacts as reductions and not compensation or reduction/avoidance. Hence
claims of neutrality are not based on compensations and certified ex=ante / ex-post
credits, but as actual reductions (some parts of the value chain can have negative
footprints, hence they compensate the supply chain or even more, but via reductions
only).
This is a very important decision to make and can be key for the future of Insetting
and as well the relation with the carbon standards and certification process.
What are your views on this? OK to consider compensations & reductions as
reductions only?
Edit Kiss: Yes, agree to call reduction any mitigation activity within scope1,2 and 3 as
companies need to have zero net emissions in all scopes by 2050 to be aligned with
science based targets. Also, if a company is eliminating deforestation from its supply
chains that should qualify as reduction although might not be possible to quantify
this.
> Proposition by Althelia to integrate REDD+ credits / landscape approaches
especially in the begining to offset what can't be insetted. > All agree on the fact that
indeed it is always good to offset when you can't inset but priority given to insetting.
Ok for a landscape approach to consider to offset with a project from another
landscape, but can't be called insetting > OK?
Edit Kiss: As discussed on the call, we are going to propose a simple methodology
on what would qualify REDD+ /forest conservation as insetting. So using REDD+ in
line with that methodology should qualify as insetting and not offsetting
 In general IPI should not allow any kind of offsetting but should encourage the
use of offsets from projects that also address their broader environmental
footprint- what do you think?
 As discussed we agree to add deforestation footprint in the materiality
analysis and also forest in the impact. One question is the baseline, when it
comes to deforestation footprint what baseline should corporates use? This
might be also a question for the scientific committee as with deforestation the
historical responsibility is quite important, so it cannot just be forward looking
and that could be another angle for REDD+ (in an extreme scenario a coffee
farm could have been forest 10 years ago then should the company
compensate the forest footprint of that farm through protecting the equivalent
hectares of forests?)
Contribution by Kering, Baptiste Cassan-Barnel
Première chose je suis impressionné par l’exhaustivité et la qualité des standards et
de la grille d’audit.
Je joins mes commentaires sur ces documents (en commentaire sur le word et en
commentaires sur certaines cellules de l’excel). Prenant un peu le train en marche, il
y a peut-être parmi mes commentaires des points déjà évoqués…
De plus j’ai quelques remarques un peu plus générales :
-
Le choix des impact factors pourrait être sectoriel, c’est-à-dire cohérent entre
deux entreprises d’un même secteur.
Je rajouterais la pollution de l’air comme un impact factor.
Ce n’est pas le cas de Kering, mais certains groupes industriels auront une
telle empreinte à reduire/insetter qu’ils devront aussi considérer les phases
avales de leurs value chain. Par exemple j’imagine qu’un producteur de pneu
voudra compenser ses émissions par la vente de pneus qui font moins
consommer de carburants aux véhicules. Ce cas peut-il être considéré ? Si
-
non j’ai peur que cela freine les groupes industriels.
Pour les impacts non carbone je conseillerais d’inciter à suivre les framework
natural capital protocol et social capital protocol pour les étapes 1-baseline
evaluation ; 4-outputs et 5-outcomes de chaque impact chapter.
A dispo pour échanger sur le sujet.
Propositions of modifications following Kering recommendations
> Choose Impact drivers by sector of activity > all the same of each sector of activity
?, among the existing ones + SDG's or even free to choose any impact indicator,
most relevant and material ones ?.. > OK?
> Air has been added in the impact drivers. > OK?
> actions done within scope 3, downstream the value chain (with customers, endusers) can already be considered as insetting. > OK?
> Integrate Natural Capital Protocol Framework to assess impact drivers? > OK?
So we get rid of theory of change and follow only NCP framework or mix the 2? >
OK ?
Propositions by Marion Verles, The Gold Standard Foundation
GS is about to issue a global manual on "Corporate best practice for Climate" which
propose a 4 steps approach:
1-measure and disclose
2- Reduce scope 1+2 using science based targets (2 degrees)
3- Finance the transition towards zero net carbon economy
4- Advocate for climate action
Chapters 1, 3 and 4 are dealt by the IPS but not 2, which is not considered as
Insetting (happening in scope 1 + 2), yet, for now we mention that actions done
within scope 1 and 2 can be indicated in IPS to give a full picture of reductions done
by the company. Shall we insist more on this part? And shall we recomend or impose
that companies shall follow science based targets for scope 1+2 emissions
reductions, to be in line with the GS Best Practices guidelines?
Do we impose as well that companies engage in climate advocacy (step 4) or is it
just a progress criteria?
> Opportunity to be aligned with GS recommendations and see equivalences and
bridges between the GS new Standard and the IPS. Please answer in the
questionnaire.
The new GS Standard for climate projects is based on valuing climate benefits and
SDGs benefits, so choosing the SDGs as impact drivers or at least with a table of
equivalences, could link the IPS with this new project standard from GS.
> Recommendations on this? OK to integrate Science based targets and SDGs in
the IPS for impact drivers?
Other recommendations by Marion Verles (expressed during the SC)
-
Make comments public > OK under way
WRI, WWF
- ISEAL
- CDP
- BSR > should be consulted > OK, under way
(Guy Morgan and Tristan)
Recommendation to give equivalences with SDGs for Impact Drivers and that Air and
Forest be integrated in the impact drivers, whether individually or part of another
impact driver
Contribution by WWF France, Jean Bakouma
Tout d’abord je rejoins complètement les commentaires fait par la dame de Althea.
En fait ces faiblesses qu’elle souligne sont dues à la méthodologie employée pour
faire le standard IPI et aux questions préliminaires que l’équipe de rédaction s’est
posée. Je vais donc suggérer quelques questions qui vont peut-être aider.
. Pourquoi faut-il un standard IPI ? pour répondre à quoi ? à quel besoin, à quelle
demande ?
. Pour qui faut-il un standard ? pour quelle partie- prenante et pour en faire quoi ?
. Quels sont les principes (les valeurs) qui sous un tel standard
. Quel type de standard IPI veut être ? un standard basé sur les performances ou
bien sur les procédures ? pourquoi ?
. Quelle est la valeur ajoutée du standard IPI comparativement aux standards
existants VCS, Gold standard etc.
. Quelle est la valeur ajoutée et la solidité de IPI par rapport aux engagements Zérodéforestation qui sont de plusieurs sortes : HCS, HCV, FPIC, certification,
traçabilité etc.
. Quels sont les IPI-KPI (key perfomance indicators)
. IPI veut se placer au niveau du « landscape ». C’est quoi pour vous un
« sustainable landscape » que pourrait incarner IPI.
. Qu’est ce qui fait la crédibilité du IPI, en termes d’impact, en termes de
gouvernance ?
. Quelles sont les bases scientifiques qui servent de fondement au standard IPI.
La réponse à ces questions devrait aider à trouver des choses qui vont bien et
d’autres qui le sont moins. En lisant le texte, on est un peu gêné par la déclaration
que IPI va au-delà de la certification ? mais quelle certification ? le principe de la
certification en tant que tel, ou bien les certifications existantes ? Pourquoi alors au
final IPI se base sur les certifications existantes comme inVivo, VCS, Gold standard
etc pour délivrer ? Il y’a là une contradiction.
Je pense qu’il faut faire attention avec ce genre de déclaration à la TFT. Celui-ci ne
trouve pas de place pour se positionner comme un standard de certification, il tape
donc sur la certification afin de faire son business en vendant ses services
d’accompagnement adossés sur les exigences des ONGs. (Cela ne veut pas dire
que la certification n’a pas de faiblesses, mais ces celles-ci sont connues et
acceptées par les parties prenantes).
Le point positif que j’ai relevé est de reconnaître que IPI est un système de rating. De
mon point de vue c’est exactement sur ce terrain que IPI peut trouver sa voie à
condition.
Voila ma modeste contribution
Jean
Propositions of modifications following WWF recommendations
> All these questions asked by WWF and need for clarifications are presented in the
questionnaire, please answer to them and tell us if you feel as well we need to work
on this and clarify. Using the Natural Capital Protocol both to design the IPS and the
Insetting programs of each company, shall help in that sense as well (ie asking
ourselves the right questions, to avoid creating issues along the road…
> Recommendations on this? OK in the way we translated the questions in the
questionaire? Please answer in particular the comment on "Beyond Certification" and
on IPS being a rating system or a certification standard. (last 2 questions of the
questionnaire).
>>>> Document open for additional public comments. Please do not hesitate.
Thank you,
The IPI Coordination Team.