Additionality

International Law (UNFCCC)

Kyoto Protocol Land use, Land-use Change and Forestry

There is no specific additionality requirement. However, decision 2/CMP.7 requests the SBSTA “to initiate a work program to develop and recommend modalities and procedures for applying the concept of additionality”.

Joint Implementation (JI) Kyoto Protocol

Additionality is required. As long as the host country of a project meets eligibility requirements to participate in Track 1 it may verify removals as being additional. For Track 2, verification of additionality must occur through a procedure under the Article 6 Supervisory Committee (which implies determination by an Accredited Independent Entity) and include provision of traceable and transparent information showing that the baseline was identified on the basis of conservative assumptions, or the application of an approved CDM tool for additionality.

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

The CDM requires the demonstration of additionality.  It has developed two tools for assessing the additionality of different project types, the ‘Tool for the Demonstration and Assessment of Additionality in A/R CDM Project Activities’ and the ‘Combined Tool to Identify the Baseline Scenario and Demonstrate Additionality in A/R CDM Project Activities’ (see External Links). The methodology used determines the tool chosen. Additionality can be demonstrated via barrier analysis, investment analysis, and common practice analysis.   

Social and Environmental Standards

SocialCarbon

Socialcarbon relies on the methodologies of the GHG accounting standard applied to the project to evaluate additionality of GHG reductions or removals. For social and other environmental factors the “point zero” baseline provides a ‘snap shot’ of the six evaluated resources during the project’s first stage (see Reference Levels).  

Climate, Community, & Biodiversity (CCB) Standards

Additionality is assessed as part of the baseline measurement and projection (see Reference Levels). Project proponents must “document the project benefits that would not have occurred in the absence of the project, explaining how existing laws, regulations and governance arrangements, or lack of laws and regulations and their enforcement, would likely affect land use and justifying that the benefits being claimed by the project are truly ‘additional’ and would not have occurred without the project”. Any distinct climate, community and biodiversity benefits intended for use as offsets must be identified and additionality must be established for each of those benefits. Finally, project proponents must demonstrate that project activities would not have been implemented under business as usual due to significant financial, technological, institutional or capacity barriers.

Donor Financed Initiatives

Germany's REDD+ Early Movers Programme

REM seeks to internalise additionality through conservative baseline setting and carbon content estimates that allow the assumption that emission reductions achieved are additional. Furthermore, the requirement that participating countries or jurisdictions need to contribute significantly to emission reductions from REDD through an “own contribution” (see Leakage and Permanence/Reversals) underlines REM's conservative approach.

Forest Carbon Partnership Facility’s Carbon Fund

Additionality is primarily addressed through conservative approaches to setting Reference Levels (e.g., including existing and clearly funded programs or activities within the Reference Level), rather than through additionality tests.

Developing Country Programmes

Brazil | The Amazon Fund

It is assumed that additionality is captured in the construction of a conservative reference emission level, and also in the use of a conservative biomass index. 

Voluntary Carbon Standards

Verified Carbon Standard

The methodologies provide procedures for the demonstration and assessment of additionality. Methodologies use either a project method, performance method and/or activity method to determine additionality – they may refer to an appropriate additionality tool developed under the VCS or an approved GHG programme, develop a full procedure within the methodology itself or develop a new separate tool.

For example, the Tool for the Demonstration and Assessment of Additionality in VCS AFOLU Project Activities (Version 3.0) is adapted from the CDM A/R Additionality Tool. This includes four steps, (i) identification of alternative land use scenarios, (ii) investment analysis, (iii) barriers analysis, and (iv) common practice analysis.

Verified Carbon Standard | Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ (VCS JNR)

Additionality is assumed to be factored into the jurisdictional baseline. Nested projects do not need to demonstrate additionality if they have adopted a spatially explicit jurisdictional baseline under JNR scenario two. In scenario one the project must demonstrate additionality following the procedures to do so in the project level methodology being applied.

Climate Action Reserve: Mexico Forest Protocol

Additionality is a requirement of the MFP. Projects must demonstrate that emissions removals would not have otherwise occurred in a conservative business-as-usual scenario. The protocol includes a legal requirement test, such that GHG reductions or removals must be above and beyond any GHG reductions or removals that would result from compliance with any federal, state, or local law, statute, rule, regulation, or ordinance and a risk-based performance test indicating that the project goes beyond business-as-usual as defined in the protocol.

The Gold Standard Land Use and Forests Framework

The Gold Standard A/R Requirements provides two options for demonstrating additionality. The first option is to use the CDM A/R additionality Tool which includes conducting a (i) barrier analysis, (ii) investment analysis, and (iii) common practice analysis. The second option is to ensure that the project complies with the Gold Standard Positive List, which lists minimum requirements that needs to be met in order to demonstrate the additionality of the project.

Plan Vivo Standard

Projects must be able to demonstrate that the climate and ecosystem services that they generate are additional and would not have happened in the absence of the project. This includes demonstrating that: a) the project is not the result of existing legislation or regulation, unless it can be shown that these are not enforced in practice; b) there should be no financial, social, cultural, technical, scientific or institutional barriers preventing the project from taking place. Approved third-party tools may be used to demonstrate this.

Natural Forest Standard

The Natural Forest Standard requires projects to demonstrate that the proposed activities and resulting outcomes are additional as the consequence of the application of the Natural Forest Standard and would not have occurred in the absence of this intervention. This includes demonstrating that the project is not the result of existing policies, laws or regulations unless it can be shown that these are not enforced or are insufficient in practice and that the forests are at risk of deforestation and degradation.

Developed Country Programmes

California | U.S. Forestry Offset Projects (AB 32)

Additionality is required by general California regulatory requirements, as well as additional requirements contained in the approved Compliance Offset Protocol. The California regulation requires: (i) a regulatory surplus test; (ii) demonstration that emission reductions would not otherwise occur in a conservative business-as-usual scenario; (iii) demonstration that the project commencement date is not earlier than 31 December 2006; and (iv) that emission reductions exceed the baseline calculated in accordance with the relevant Compliance Offset Protocol. The U.S. Forest Offset Protocol, in turn, requires a two-part additionality test including (i) legal requirement test, such that GHG reductions or removals must be above and beyond any GHG reductions or removals that would result from compliance with any federal, state, or local law, statute, rule, regulation, or ordinance, including any court order or other legally binding mandates including management plans (such as Timber Harvest Plans) that are required for government agency approval of harvest activities, and (ii) a performance test indicating that the project goes beyond common practice or business-as-usual as defined in the protocol for different project types. 

Australian Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI)

Additionality is a requirement of all offset schemes in Australia, i.e. carbon credits cannot be used for business-as-usual activities. The CFI includes a list of eligible activities (the "positive list") that are not common practice and are deemed to be additional.  In addition, the CFI requires a regulatory additionality test, to ensure the project is not required by law and must also use an approved methodology that establishes a baseline that represents what is likely to happen in the absence of the CFI project.