[section]

    [/section]
    [page_header style=»simple» text_color=»dark» align=»center» title=»El Informe de Carbon Market Watch no ha tenido en cuenta el contexto de los proyectos REDD+ en Colombia»]

    Recently, the Carbon Market Watch (CMW) published a report stating that the baseline of the Kaliawiri REDD+ conservation project, project registered under the ProClima carbon standard, might be inflated, and therefore the credits issued by the project do not correspond to real mitigation outcomes but to “hot air”.

    En respuesta, BioCarbon Registry considera que el informe no ha tenido en cuenta el contexto del proyecto, así como la normativa aplicable. In that sense, the claims made on the Kaliawiri project are false and irresponsible. They do serious harm not only to the project but all the initiatives that avoid deforestation in one of the most critical regions in Colombia.

    The report states that "the project area is fully covered by Indigenous People's territory, while the reference area is not." Although Indigenous People's territory partially covers the project area, the Project proponent does not deny its presence. In addition, neither the Colombian regulation nor the methodologies mention that in such a case the reference area must be totally covered by indigenous people's territory. Besides, even if it is true that the territory belongs to indigenous peoples, it is no secret that local governance is weak and that indigenous communities do not have the tools and resources to guarantee the integrity of the territory and their forests. A land title does not stop the deforestation threats nor the illegal actors that make a presence in the Amazon region.

    The CMW indicates that "The project area goes relatively deep into the forest, while the reference area includes a large frontier of deforestation at the edge of the forest…. the Project Design Document (PDD) does not compare the level of (road) access in the reference area with what could happen in the project area"

    The Project proponent argues that neither the regulation nor the methodologies of the standards point that the reference area must exclude areas with road access, nor that the level of roads in the reference area should be compared with the project area. Although it is not required, it would be expected that the areas would be as comparable as possible. Nevertheless, there are not similar areas meeting all criteria (coverage, threats, land ownership, accessibility) that are also in the vicinity of the project areas.

    Concerning FREL, the Project proponent used all the parameters available at the time of project design and provided by the SMByC, the national forest and carbon monitoring system, which is the designed source of information. Regarding the Maximum Mitigation Potential (MMP), the validation report was issued in 2020; therefore, all the claims related to the use of MMP in the Kaliawiri project contained within the Carbon Watch Report are inconsistent since Kaliaiwiri does not meet the conditions for the application of the MMP rule. In this regard, Resolution 1447, issued in 2018, points out:

    Art. 41, R.1447. Paragraph 1: The proponent of a REDD + Project that has validated its baseline prior to the issuance of this Resolution must abide by the provisions of Article 40 on the maximum GHG mitigation potential.

    In conclusion, there is no way to say that the Project baseline is inflated as the comparison between a FREL and a site-specific rate of deforestation is not correct.

    The report affirms that "The detailed geographic coordinates of the projects are only included in the Annexes to the PDDs, which are not public. This statement is not proper to reality as the public Registry of ProClima presents 1) the validation and verification reports, and the verification reports of new verification periods, 2) the summary of the Project with relevant information of each Project including owner/holder of the Project, location, participants, contact numbers, applied methodology, description of the Project, duration, a total of reductions/removals verified, validation and verification body, relevant dates, 3) pictures of the Project, and 4) a map with the coordinates, showing the area of the Project (for AFOLU projects) directly, as evidenced in the Registry of the Project available in the initiative page. 

    Also, in the Public Registry, the interested parties can consult all issued Verified Carbon Credits (VCCs), and the available and sold VCCs for each Project. In a third table of the Registry, the interested can explore and download reports of the canceled/retired VCCs and the destinations of those VCCs.

    El PDD no es público en el Registro BioCarbon Registry ya que el documento contiene información de «naturaleza confidencial». El proponente del proyecto manifiesta que la información del proyecto es parte del secreto comercial o empresarial del propietario de acuerdo con la normativa colombiana (artículo 1 de la Ley 1755 de 2015, artículo 24 de la Ley 1437 de 2011); por lo tanto, al ser de carácter reservado, su divulgación en la plataforma BioCarbon Registry no es adecuada. BioCarbon Registry compartirá el PDD con cualquier interesado bajo previa autorización del proponente del proyecto.

    Nevertheless, the PDD must be disclosed in the RENARE platform; therefore, the PDD may be available to the public in the RENARE. In that sense, it is not about ProClima rejecting to share the documentation but respecting the right of the project owner to not publish the PDD in a platform other than RENARE.

    BioCarbon Registry no tiene la intención de suspender el proyecto Kaliawiri en los registros, ya que los reclamos de CMW no consideran el contexto general del Proyecto y no evalúan los resultados dada la regulación nacional que se aplica al Proyecto.

    All the claims made by CMW´s report are based on assumptions that ignore the actual context of the application of Colombian law on the matter. It ignores the fact that, by the application of Decree 926, projects can establish their baseline going beyond the project area. They are also unaware that, in the case of Kaliawiri, the maximum mitigation potential does not apply because of the validation date.

    Si bien BioCarbon Registry considera que los esfuerzos de investigación de CMW son necesarios e importantes para ejercer vigilancia y presión sobre las partes interesadas (proponentes de proyectos, organismos de validación y verificación, estándares y gobierno) para asegurar la calidad de los resultados, el cumplimiento, la transparencia y la coherencia; también reconoce que la no causación del impuesto al carbono es un instrumento significativo, que promueve la inversión en proyectos de mitigación de cambio climático y fomenta el desarrollo local de las comunidades de pueblos indígenas, comunidades afrocolombianas y agricultores, y que deben realizarse todos los esfuerzos para garantizar su robustez y fiabilidad, incluidos los ajustes necesarios en todo el sistema.

    Reconociendo que toda la comunidad del mercado del carbono necesita reglas claras y consistentes, BioCarbon Registry se ha comprometido a desarrollar estándares y metodologías de alta calidad y tiene como objetivo seguir colaborando para la mejora continua.