A lot is currently being discussed about bringing more transparency to the carbon credit space. Articles are questioning the veracity of GHG emission reductions actually taking place, over estimations, baseline figures, etc..
But how do we achieve reliable data to determine the quality of those carbon credits the Project Developers (PD) are delivering?
Let’s get to the root where everything starts. And that is at the project level. To quantify the impact achieved on the ground, the PD has to collect several indicators and report to the Certification Standard and the accredited auditors. Depending on the technology implemented, the PD uses a specific methodology to follow calculation approaches. These methodologies often provide different options when it comes to the continuous monitoring and reporting of the technology involved.
Nevertheless, the performance monitoring cannot be avoided. This involves tracking the overall performance of the appliance/technology to ensure that it is meeting all its reduction targets. And although a sampling or a census approach is currently allowed, let’s face it, most projects disseminating energy efficient and renewable energy appliances choose to sample their populations because it is cheaper, and because it is not mandatory to monitor the entire population.
There are many downsides to sampling, and that means leading to bias or inaccurate GHG emission reductions taking place. If we want more transparency, then it is time to question buyers of carbon credits too. Sampling is cheaper, and this leads to the scavengers of carbon credits using whatever technology, whatever the additionality, whatever the sustainable development impact(s) and whatever the monitoring approach to choose the cheapest offer out there.
