Refrigerants are the chemicals used in our air conditioning and refrigeration systems to keep people, food and medicine cool. In an increasingly warming world, they are being utilized more and more to help people adapt to rising temperatures.

Unfortunately, the most common chemical compounds we use as refrigerants, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), are extremely potent greenhouse gases (GHGs); many trap thousands of times more heat in the atmosphere than CO2 over a 100-year period. We also still face a serious legacy issue around older refrigerants like HCFCs and CFCs, which are also ozone depleting substances (ODS).

All told, these climate-warming refrigerants slowly leak into the atmosphere throughout production, use and disposal. Worse still, sometimes they are deliberately vented during servicing or disposal of equipment, although certain countries ban this practice. As equipment reaches end of life, there is dwindling use for the remaining refrigerants. Because destruction of the refrigerants is not mandated, unused supplies can be stockpiled for long periods, over which time the pollutants leak into the atmosphere.

It is estimated that across the U.S. the installed base of these super pollutants is equivalent to 3.6 billion metrics tons of CO2e emissions. Globally, it’s 24 billion metrics tons of CO2e. With increasing demand for air conditioners and refrigeration units, they could account for roughly 20% of global climate emissions by 2050. 

What’s being done about refrigerant climate pollution?

Under the Montreal Protocol, the production and consumption of CFCs has been phased out by all nations and HCFCs have been phased out by most developed nations. And a global phasedown of HFCs has recently begun under the Kigali Amendment to the Protocol. Its ratification by the United States will certainly have a significant impact on curbing the impact of these refrigerants on global warming. By reducing HFC emissions, it is estimated that up to 0.5°C of global warming could be avoided by 2100.

However, there’s much more that can be done. When it comes to ODS, many continue to be legally reclaimed and recycled for use in older equipment that is prone to more leaks. The Montreal Protocol also doesn’t address the millions of HFC units already being used and sold in today’s market. For example, by 2050, the current HFC phase down schedule will have allowed 3.6 billion CO2-equivalent metric tons to be sold into the U.S. market, effectively doubling the potential climate harm these super pollutants can cause in the coming decades.

What can be done to take refrigerants out of circulation today?

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has proposed a range of commonsense actions to improve lifecycle refrigerant management. Outlined in their 90 Billion Ton Opportunity Report, these actions focus on avoiding and reducing refrigerant leaks, promoting refrigerant recovery, and increasing reclamation rates to mitigate unnecessary refrigerant use and emissions.

These are all no-regrets, high-impact solutions that warrant immediate support, both in terms of regulation and voluntary action. However, in the absence of additional regulation, it all comes down to incentives. And the report overlooks a key ingredient that can help provide those incentives: carbon finance.

Simply put, carbon markets can be a powerful tool to catalyze and accelerate adoption of the actions recommended in the report. ACR’s ODS destruction, HFC reclamation, Advanced Foam Blowing Agent and Advanced Refrigeration System methodologies, for example, are already incentivizing and encouraging many of these actions.

What does this look like in practice? Take for example a joint initiative between Therm and the North American Sustainable Refrigeration Council (NASRC). Under this initiative, financing from the sale of carbon credits, using ACR’s Advanced Refrigeration Systems (ARS) methodology, is allowing mid-sized grocery retailers and foodservice providers to make the switch to more sustainable low-GWP refrigerant compounds cheaper, and therefore faster, than without the carbon market.

Destruction of ODS and HFC refrigerants is costly. Without revenue from the sale of carbon credits, there would be no sustainable source to finance destruction. This would lead to more stockpiling and eventual leakage of these high-GWP climate pollutants in the atmosphere. 

Another example comes from the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Refrigerant Management Program. This program requires companies to track and report their refrigerant emissions and incentivizes the use of more sustainable refrigerants through a credit trading system. Since its implementation in 2011, the program has helped reduce refrigerant emissions in California by more than 30%.

What can be done to grow the carbon market supply and demand for refrigerant credits?

Currently the carbon market for refrigerants faces several solvable challenges. These include inadequate capacity of infrastructure and associated trained workforce to help reclaim and destroy high-GWP pollutants. There are high capital costs to build the facilities and the train staff necessary to undertake this technical work. Additionally, there is a lack of awareness among buyers of carbon credits that these types of projects exist. To be frank, many buyers, when they think of carbon markets, think about renewable energy or forestry projects.

Carbon credits generated from the management of high-GWP refrigerants are of high quality because they are proven to be highly additional and permanent. These high-quality credits demand higher carbon prices to motivate maximum action from manufacturers and companies involved in servicing, reclaiming, and destroying these refrigerants. With many high-GWP refrigerants also being short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), paying higher prices for refrigerant carbon credits, is also justified by their higher contribution to reducing GHG emissions (and hence global warming) in the near term (by mid-century) which aligns with most net-zero targets. Higher carbon prices for high-quality refrigerant carbon credits would help significantly lower GHG emissions and provide the volume of credits needed by buyers to offset emissions to meet mid-century net zero targets.

High-GWP refrigerants should be replaced with low-GWP alternatives, recycled and reclaimed for reuse, or destroyed. No high-GWP refrigerant should be allowed to leak into the atmosphere due to lack of incentive to do so. This would be too costly for the planet. At the moment, the rates at which high-GWP refrigerants are being replaced with lower GWP alternatives in most end-uses like supermarkets and grocery stores, and HVACs, reclamation of used High-GWP refrigerants, and destruction of High-GWP refrigerants are all very low. Buyers of carbon credits need to realize this massive climate problem associated with the continued use and leak of High-GWP refrigerants. The carbon market can provide the much-needed incentive to motivate action to lower use and leak of these super pollutants. At adequate carbon prices, emissions reduced from increased refrigerant management can be a significant source of high quality, highly additional and permanent carbon credits that can help buyers meet their net zero and other climate targets by the midcentury.

With carbon markets expected to grow significantly, there are positive signs that these challenges can be overcome. Higher demand and prices for carbon credits will increase the attractiveness of financing the recovery, reclamation and destruction of high-GWP refrigerants. It would benefit stakeholders in the carbon market space and those who care about the climate impact of refrigerant compounds to look more closely at how carbon markets can be an effective tool to motivate action.

As a mission-driven organization focused on sustainable international and domestic development, Winrock International recognizes the massive amount of work that lies ahead to fill the estimated investment gap between where the world is, today, and the amount of money needed in order to hit the goals set in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. I’ve written previously about the specific challenges in climate financing and will come back to that theme in the examples below.

To begin filling that overall development financing gap, one global organization that crunched the numbers has calculated that we’ll need to invest an estimated $4.2 trillion per year, an amount exacerbated by COVID and its related (and continuing) economic fallout. It’s an enormous figure – but with commitment and a mix of smart financial strategies, we can get there. Impact investing is one class of investments that is uniquely positioned to meet the development financing challenges ahead.

Impact investments are designed to generate positive and measurable social and environmental impacts alongside financial returns. According to the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) ─ a respected international think tank that seeks to accelerate development through focused leadership and collective action ─ the total size of the global impact investing market was around $1.2 trillion in 2021, an astonishing 60% increase compared to 2020.

While this uptick is a very positive indicator of impact investing’s huge potential to close the development finance gap, it also brings growing pains. One such issue is the perceived ─ and, in many cases, real ─ lack of transparency and integrity in the way impact outcomes are measured and managed. “Impact washing” is a term now used widely to describe rising concerns stakeholders have about the veracity of impact claims. These concerns can dampen investor enthusiasm, provide fodder for those seeking to prolong the status quo, and muddy the waters even for those who are truly committed to putting in the work – and the capital – needed to achieve real progress toward our Sustainable Development Goals.

To make the impact investing landscape more transparent for all and to facilitate additional financing, Winrock works with a wide range of stakeholders and peers both up and down the value chain of impact investing (from the communities and local partners who need investment all the way up the chain to the investors) and across the transaction life cycle from concept development to post-investment monitoring. The goal is to help the impact investing sector to reach its true potential. Here are two specific ways Winrock is doing that, both of which strengthen financing for climate-focused action.

Developing new tools and intel to boost climate investment in partnership with GIIN

The GIIN, as part of its role in championing the impact investment sector, provides a free, publicly available resource called IRIS+ that makes it easier for investors to translate their impact intentions into impact results. IRIS+ does this by increasing data clarity and comparability, and it provides streamlined, practical, how-to guidance that impact investors need, all in one easy-to-navigate system. Since its launch, the IRIS+ framework has published 16 strategic goals for investors seeking to finance sectors including water, energy, health and others. Winrock, in fact, is honored to partner with GIIN to develop content for a new strategic goal: climate adaptation and resilience (CAR). This goal will support investments and investors in channeling increased resources to achieve these climate-focused outcomes. Considering that the total global investment needed for climate adaptation is around $240 billion per year by 2030, and the climate knock-on effects of adaptation investments (or lack thereof) on other SDGs, this strategic goal is of utmost importance to the impact investing sector.

Winrock’s exciting new partnership with GIIN kicked off in January at a launch event that involved nearly 30 stakeholders from across the impact investing sector. We look forward to working with this high caliber group as we develop further content for the IRIS+ framework related to the CAR theme. When the final text for the CAR strategic goal is published on IRIS+ ─ expected in June 2023 – it will become a new and leading source of information, tools and intelligence for the global impact investing community, and for other investors exploring investments to create real and positive climate adaptation and climate resilience impact.

Helping investors analyze potential climate-related benefits and risks

Moving over to another part of the value chain of impact investing, Winrock also works directly with impact investors to design, share and implement bespoke tools that leverage global best practices and cutting-edge science. To provide just one example, Winrock is currently partnering with the Acumen Resilient Agriculture Fund, a $58 million impact fund and the world’s first equity fund designed to build the climate resilience of smallholder farmers. ARAF supports smallholder farmers in Africa by investing in early and early-growth stage agribusinesses that enable them to anticipate, weather, and bounce back from climate events, resulting in increased yields and incomes.

Given the impact intentionality of ARAF, Winrock recognized the importance to the fund’s sponsors and investors ─ which include the likes of The Green Climate Fund, The Ikea Foundation and others ─ of ensuring that climate resilience elements are incorporated in the due diligence process for targeted investments. To achieve this, Winrock designed a tool called WinRes that complements ARAF’s wider set of due diligence activities, to build understanding of exposure to climate risks, resulting climate resilience benefits, and any unintended maladaptation that could result from targeted investments.

Winrock is building on this experience to create WinRes 2.0, currently in development, for impact investors that in addition to strengthening pre-investment processes, will also help in unlocking value post-investment in two ways. First, it will facilitate alignment of products and service offerings of portfolio companies to align with climate resilient net-zero pathways. Secondly, it will articulate the climate benefit both at the impact fund level and at the investee-level, to unlock higher valuations or achieve a lower cost of capital.

Those are just two examples on the climate front of Winrock work that support accelerated and expanded impact investment.

Beyond our own contributions, we are keenly watching several developments that could further strengthen the impact investing sector’s ability to effect change on the ground across development sectors. One is implementation of the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation in the European Union, which among other things, standardizes the disclosure and transparency requirements for financial market participants and financial advisors that structure, market and manage sustainable finance products. While the immediate fallout of the introduction of such regulation in 2022 was the “sustainability downgrading” of a few self-proclaimed impact funds, in the long-term the impact investing and sustainable finance marketplace should be strengthened and inspire more confidence amongst all stakeholders.

Another is the integration of nature with finance – both in the form of natural capital emerging as an asset class in itself, and through the internationalization of an investment’s impact on nature and vice versa in global financial systems. The latter part is significant because even though our real economic systems are physically intertwined with nature (i.e., the World Economic Forum estimates that over half of global GDP is moderately or highly dependent on nature), our financial systems neither recognize nor value this linkage, which makes it difficult for natural capital investing to gain a foothold. The emergence of a variety of tools and disclosure frameworks, like the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, arm impact investors with the capabilities needed to ensure that not only are they avoiding doing harm to our natural capital, but that they design investment vehicles that improve our natural capital in a measurable, methodical manner.

Making money while doing good is never going to be as easy as doing just one or the other. But for those who are willing to put in the hard work and stick to the principles of impact investing, the world is becoming a better place for them to make the world a better place.

---

When most people envision forests, they imagine sweeping terrestrial landscapes, such as the massive Boreal Taiga of Siberia, the Amazon rainforest, or the majestic redwoods of California. These vital and diverse landscapes around the world are cherished for their beauty and the benefits they provide. Much of our work at Winrock focuses on addressing the threats these forests face and in developing financing opportunities to protect at-risk forests and address climate change. We are proud to be a part of these invaluable efforts, which are vital to build a more sustainable future.

But what often surprises folks is that some of the most remarkable forests in the world — and those most valuable for combating climate change — are in fact located in aquatic systems. These forests are populated by trees known as mangroves, a name for the approximately 80 woody plant species that are capable of living in the ever-shifting coastal saltwater zones across the world’s tropical and subtropical zones.

Mangroves thrive in tidal mudflats and grow upwards. After their flowers are pollinated, their seeds immediately germinate into seedlings, called propagules; they then fall off and are swept away by currents. Mangroves are easily identified by their distinctive mesh of aboveground “breathing” roots, called pneumatophores, that resemble knees. These roots, which have pores that allow oxygen to enter underground tissues, provide valuable environmental services. They thickly and deeply penetrate the coast around them, protecting the land from storm surges and coastal erosion while providing valuable nursing habitat for the juveniles of any number of aquatic animals and nesting habitat for birds, insects, and more. The U.S. alone has roughly 800 square miles of mangroves, largely in the Everglades National Park in South Florida.

Mangroves are fascinating species. They exist in the nexus between land and sea and are capable of filtering salt out of the water and into their roots. In fact, they’re treated almost like supermarkets by the communities that live near them, due to their ability to help produce fish, shellfish, timber, charcoal, honey and more. Research shows that even a few mangrove clusters can help prevent coastal erosion.

Mangroves, however, are often misunderstood by the general public. The lands they occupy are often very productive or in valuable coastal locations, and so are often targeted for conversion to aquaculture and other uses. In his book “The Log from the Sea of Cortez,” author John Steinbeck wrote that despite being fascinating to look into, “…We felt that we were watching something horrible. No one likes the mangroves.” Now, this is a shame for a great many reasons, not the least of which is that mangrove forests are invaluable for efforts to fight climate change. On average, they store 3-4 times more carbon as terrestrial tropical forests. They  also sit upon valuable peat soils which, when wetted, store more carbon per hectare than any other landscape in the world. The economic benefits of restoring or strengthening mangrove ecosystems are difficult to overstate, yet for years they remained vastly undervalued for the services they provide. Early Florida settlers considered the Everglades to be swamp land, and targeted them for conversion to farmland by digging canals that drew off the flow of water from further north. More recently, residential development has drawn off further water supply.

Fortunately, though, the U.S. Congress authorized creation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan in 2000, with the goals of restoring and protecting freshwater delivery that the mangroves require to maintain a vibrant and healthy ecosystem. Guided by a unique federal-state partnership, the freshwater access CERP will ensure over the next few decades is intended to restore the Everglades ecosystem to a more natural state and reverse some of the negative ecological effects of the intense hydrological alteration that occurred in the 20^th century.

The Everglades Carbon Assessment

To contribute to restoration of the ‘Glades, as they are known regionally, Winrock’s Ecosystem Services team is collaborating with The Everglades Foundation on a complex but important project. It involves estimating the total carbon emissions and removals associated with the greater Everglades region, along with the impacts that CERP-related work will have. Currently in its second phase, our Winrock team is now calculating the benefits of carbon storage that will directly result from the restored freshwater access CERP will provide.

We recently traveled to South Florida ─ and boated through a tiny sliver of the Everglades backcountry ─ to take a first-hand look at this remarkable ecosystem and to deepen our collaboration with key researchers at a workshop hosted by Florida International University in Miami. In addition to conducting a site visit into the park, we participated in an important workshop with researchers on mangroves, including Winrock’s partners, The Everglades Foundation and FIU.

Mangroves are complex systems that vary in size, density and species throughout the park, and every bit of information gathered, we felt, could prove critical to our work. On a hot and sunny February morning, we travelled with Foundation staff to some key sites around the park by boat, launching from the northern coast of Key Largo – a large island on the northern end of the Florida Keys – and motoring north to Joe Bay and the Taylor River. In this part of the park, mangrove trees have a shorter, shrubbier appearance. Many are no taller than six or seven feet. This is the result of many factors, including a lesser flow of freshwater delivered from the north, but also fascinatingly, because the southern tip of the ‘Glades ─ on the Florida Bay end, near the Keys ─ is better protected from hurricanes, which deposit large amounts phosphorus on the ecosystem than the more exposed side that fronts the Gulf of Mexico. As our boat took us around the southern tip of Florida and north into the depths of the Shark River, we were overwhelmed by how much taller the trees were, even in comparison with the same species we saw further east. Some trees in this area were over 60 feet tall. It was striking to be in such a dense forest yet surrounded by wetlands and rivers all around us.

As experts in quantifying the benefits of ecosystem services, taking this opportunity to understand the variation and diversity in the size and structure of the mangrove forests proved invaluable for our analysis. Our site visit also afforded us the opportunity to see dozens of animal species from dolphins to manatees, crocodiles and pelicans. After a brief detour to visit an eddy flux tower used to measure carbon dioxide in the air, we returned to Key Largo and finalized our preparatory work for the FIU workshop the next day.

Blue Carbon Research: Sharing and Learning

While the field visits were important, the main event of our trip was a mangrove workshop hosted by FIU. The university’s campus is situated on the eastern edge of the Everglades, so it’s perhaps no surprise that the school is home to some of the world’s most renowned mangrove researchers. Our workshop also attracted top mangrove researchers from other Southern universities and organizations, ranging from Tulane University to East Carolina University and the South Florida Water Management District. These experts joined us to share their knowledge and collaboratively develop a plan for quantifying the carbon benefits of the huge and ongoing CERP endeavor. Discussions touched on key variables influencing mangrove reach and growth, and, perhaps most importantly, provided us with the foundational knowledge and data we need to complete this project. Key takeaways from our perspective included:

• The need to incorporate carbon stocks, sequestration rates, and fluxes into our analysis to account for the complex exchange of greenhouse gases that takes place in wetland systems;
• The importance of considering spatial scale and uncertainty/variability of data in our results;
• The need to consider the variability of soil conditions, mangrove composition and freshwater flow across different spatial gradients within the Everglades; and
• The importance of considering external influencers such as sea level rise and severe storms, as well as the potential for mangrove recovery in our projection of future mangrove trends.  

After almost five hours of intense discussions, we did it: We left with a draft roadmap for collaboratively tackling the carbon measurement problem, along with reams of data to help us achieve our goal of tallying the mangrove-specific carbon impacts of CERP.

Winrock’s work, combined with that of other experts undertaking mangrove research around the world, ultimately will help us provide an accurate analysis of the benefits from CERP. That in turn, will contribute further data- and science-based evidence of the wondrous benefits provided by those very trees that Mr. Steinbeck once disparaged. We are proud to contribute one component of a solution to address the role of forests in climate change mitigation.

The forest carbon market quantifies and monetizes the climate benefits of preserving and growing healthy forest ecosystems. The industry has seen rapid growth in recent years and is demanding quality and scalability. Standards bodies, such as the American Carbon Registry (ACR), the world’s oldest private greenhouse gas (GHG) registry, are gatekeepers for quality assurance and rigor in this system. Anyone familiar with the forest carbon market would agree that projects must jump through many “hoops” and meet rigorous criteria to get credits issued.

Offset buyers have always demanded rigor and integrity, and the basis for determining what makes a high-quality, fully vetted forest carbon project merges several branches of science, such as forest ecology, economics, and statistics. The increasing relevance of carbon credits in a global economy weening itself off fossil fuels has put forest carbon projects under a microscope, with more and more credit rating agencies and academics now dedicated to reviewing forest carbon claims. By and large, the forest carbon market has responded by tightening its requirements ever more in an earnest effort to continuously improve, albeit too slowly for some critics.

Increased rigor and integrity, however, come at a cost. The more checkboxes there are, the more expensive each forest carbon project becomes. This has proved frustrating to many interested in quickly scaling the market to achieve the pace necessary to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. There have also been long-standing demands to increase accessibility to carbon finance for all landowners, particularly small family forestland owners who own a majority of private forestlands in the United States. While ACR has taken steps to alleviate barriers to traditionally excluded landowners (such as developing a forest carbon methodology specifically for small landowners), market access and scientific rigor can still sometimes seem at odds. Perhaps complexity and expense come with the territory of high-quality forest carbon projects. More optimistically, perhaps innovation can help deliver high-quality carbon projects with reduced barriers to entry.

A myriad of remote sensing technologies has recently emerged, offering the promise to transform the forest carbon space by taking measurements at scale for a fraction of the cost of traditional measurements. Scientists and entrepreneurs alike are realizing the potential of these technologies, such as light detection and ranging (Lidar) and high-resolution satellite imagery, often paired with machine learning algorithms, to measure forests and their climate benefits. Many new companies are looking to deploy remote sensing to develop carbon offset projects.

Historically, forest carbon projects have relied on foresters to visit field plots and measure tree heights and diameters, which are used to calculate carbon. While foresters can’t feasibly measure every tree in the forest, there are tried and true statistical approaches that allow us to estimate a land’s total carbon from a set of plots with a known degree of certainty. The more area measured and the less variable the measurements, the more certain we are of the final carbon estimate. With this approach, uncertainty can be quantified and used to reduce the number of credits earned by a project, if it doesn’t meet a certain threshold. In fact, quantifying and deducting for uncertainty has become a basic tenet of forest carbon projects, preventing over-crediting and providing carbon offset buyers assurance that their credits are having the climate impact they claim.

Another basic tenet of the carbon market is verification by a reliable third-party expert. For decades traditional forest carbon verifications have involved visiting a subset of field plots and checking their independent measurements against the forester’s original measurements. The project’s inventory is only accepted if it is statistically equivalent to the verifier’s remeasurements. In addition to replicating field measurements, verifiers check each and every aspect of a project that affects the legitimacy and accuracy of their final carbon claim. This system provides carbon offset buyers yet another layer of quality assurance.

If the carbon market has come to expect third-party verification and uncertainty deduction as guarantors of carbon credit quality, then logically we must find a way to apply them to remotely sensed forest carbon projects too. But, there are serious complexities with verifying remotely sensed forest inventories and quantifying their uncertainty. In fact, a standardized approach is yet to emerge.

The most common means of leveraging lidar and satellite measurements in the carbon market involves a process of modeling, often calibrated by pairing imagery or remotely sensed estimates with a limited set of field plots. Techniques from each company are unique and are more often than not proprietary. Carbon from the same forest can be calculated ten different ways. Who is to say which is the “correct” answer?

We can’t expect verifiers to have the technical knowledge, or the time needed to understand and proof each company’s proprietary model, let alone troubleshoot it. Following the calculations from end to end means not only understanding the satellite or measurement technologies, but more dauntingly, understanding the computer programming that compiles raw measurement data into project-wide carbon estimates. To verify the process such that raw data can be traced to final carbon calculations would be essentially learning a new software product for each company. This firmly falls outside of the wheelhouse and duties of the already busy forest carbon verification industry. Even if verifiers could fully grasp a company’s technique, a standardized way of assessing its appropriateness and legitimacy is yet to emerge.

It also seems inappropriate for standards bodies to give single companies their universal stamp of approval. Just like the verifiers, the standards bodies cannot possibly take the time to vet each proprietary technique (and further have no agreed upon criteria to base such an assessment). Approving individual companies would give unfair market access at the expense of their competitors, effectively picking winners and losers.  

By its very nature, a proprietary technique leaves some component of the carbon quantification undisclosed. This means offset buyers and watchdogs are left in the dark on specifics of how the final carbon estimates are calculated. That’s no way to facilitate an open market. What’s needed is a framework for objectively assessing remotely sensed carbon estimates against an accepted source of truth that ideally could be universally applied and compared regardless of the technological approach.

ACR is developing just such a framework right now. We envision two pathways for verifying remotely sensed carbon estimates: through field measurements, or through a publicly available “benchmarking” platform. First, let’s discuss field measurements.

ACR is currently working to establish specifications for field data collection within a carbon project specifically tailored to assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed carbon estimates. Our framework will specify the statistical tests and thresholds for accepting or rejecting remotely sensed carbon estimates. We envision this would involve evaluating the actual output of each remotely sensed model, rather than simply assessing model fit with more commonly used “leave-one-out” model validation approaches. After all, we’re concerned with the “final answer” that determines crediting, not just the interim steps involved to develop and train each model. The idea is that if field measurements within a carbon project are reasonably aligned with a project’s remotely sensed output, then we can reach sufficient assurance that the remote sensing technique for that project is valid.

Next, let’s discuss the concept of a publicly available benchmark. Unlike proprietary techniques that are often a “black box”, what if a public entity, such as a US federal agency, maintained a fully transparent, scientifically vetted platform for remotely estimating carbon across the country? This could provide another accepted source of truth, or benchmark, that could be used to estimate carbon within each project. The benchmark could theoretically be used on its own, or as a comparison tool to evaluate the efficacy of other proprietary approaches. Just like for field measurements, we envision a framework that would set statistical criteria for accepting or rejecting the project’s remotely sensed carbon estimates. While such a benchmarking platform doesn’t exist yet, ACR is engaging with stakeholders and researchers to help make it a reality.

Through this framework, we’ll offer equal footing to all market participants who wish to utilize remote sensing in forest carbon projects. Verifiers won’t be expected to learn the ins and outs of each proprietary technique, and instead they can continue doing what they do best: objectively assessing forest carbon inventories with statistical tests and evaluating critical components of carbon projects first-hand. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, this will allow for scaling the market while still offering offset buyers the assurance of knowing that each carbon claim adheres to a commonly accepted threshold of accuracy.

And, what about deducting for uncertainty? While the uncertainty of “traditional” field sampling of forest inventory plots is statistically proven, the uncertainty associated with remotely sensed carbon estimates is fundamentally different. In fact, we’ve observed that there is not yet clear consensus on estimating “uncertainty” in the remote sensing industry and approaches often vary from technique to technique. Until clear scientific consensus emerges, we plan to explore indisputably conservative approaches to mitigate the uncertainty of remotely sensed carbon estimates. Several carbon methodologies have used such conservative measures to provide confidence in their final carbon estimates when uncertainty quantification just isn’t possible. Determining exactly how to treat the uncertainty of remotely sensed estimates is a major focus of our framework development process.

As a standards body, ACR could take the easy path of one-off approval of remote sensing companies for carbon project development. This is tempting, because it’s truly stunning what emerging technology is capable of, which is becoming less expensive and more commercially available every year. There really are existing ways to estimate forest carbon from space and from planes, and they’re ready to be deployed. But tech solutions in the carbon space deserve the same level of rigor and transparency expected in other areas of the market. ACR is committed to opening the door to remote sensing technologies, while creating a level playing field for all actors, maintaining market integrity, and providing the quality assurance that ACR has worked towards for decades.

If you share our vision and would like to contribute your expertise in remote sensing, forest carbon, or statistics, please reach out. ACR is seeking partners to provide input as we develop our remote sensing framework.

Valentine’s Day wouldn’t be as sweet without chocolate. And though cocoa is native to South America, nowadays, the world’s two largest chocolate producers are in West Africa. In fact, my home country, Ghana, is the world’s second-biggest cocoa producer, just after our next-door neighbors, Ivory Coast.  

So when a colleague invited me to write about the MATE MASIE project, and to describe how we’re partnering with community groups, farmers and government to help eliminate child labor in the cocoa industry in Ghana, I couldn’t resist. I like chocolate, too, and will be giving some to my wife and son today. And I won’t be alone in doing so. Chocolate is an enormous industry, with annual global sales estimated at around $46.6 billion, and consumption spikes around the holidays. Just ask your favorite AI chatbot and you’ll learn that more chocolate is purchased for Valentine’s Day than any holiday except Easter and Christmas.

But if you want to be sweet and ethical, you should ensure the chocolate you buy is produced responsibly, without child labor. If you do, you’ll become part of a smart, informed, socially conscious consumer base that is growing in size and influence. Many resources now exist online to help consumers learn more; there’s even a Chocolate Scorecard that grades companies on a range of criteria including child labor and deforestation. Other resources include the Child Labor Coalition’s Child Labor Tools for Consumers Apps and USDOL’s  ILAB Child Labor in the Production of Cocoa page. Check them out! 

For about a decade, I’ve worked in Ghana’s cocoa sector on different development initiatives, but mostly with farmers and their families on efforts to reduce and prevent child labor. I’m currently leading MATE MASIE, a project implemented by Winrock in Ghana since 2020 with funding from the U.S. Department of Labor. The name is an acronym for “Making Advances To Eliminate Child Labor In More Areas With Sustainable Integrated Efforts,” but the words also have meaning in Asante: “What I hear, I keep.” A big part of our approach involves sharing information and raising awareness.

I’ve learned through my work how complex the issue of child labor is, and how it calls for a multifaceted and comprehensive approach. One of MATE MASIE’s goals is to increase the number of cocoa cooperatives in Ghana that actively work to reduce child labor. To do that, we must first acknowledge the need for effective structural support systems to end child labor, while improving the accountability of cooperatives to monitor themselves. We’ve built up good communication and trust with a range of important partners, including the cooperatives themselves and Ghanaian law enforcement agencies. 

Our approach also includes supporting the establishment and training of Community Child Protection Committees, which now exist in 20 communities. These committees encourage engagement with cooperatives for social mobilization and awareness-raising. They help to organize and galvanize community action around child labor prevention, while also ensuring that stakeholders address root issues such as poverty and access to education that perpetuate child labor and supporting reporting and referrals of child labor cases to authorities.

Learning by doing, MATE MASIE recognizes the need for improved monitoring of child labor, both to keep an eye on at-risk children (i.e., those most vulnerable to child labor) as well as those already engaged in child labor. The project is helping to design and pilot a low-cost, effective Child Labor Monitoring System, collaborating with stakeholders to set it up and begin using it. The CLMRS will serve as an effective tool, collecting data on children either engaged in or at risk of becoming involved in child labor. Those kids (and their communities) are then linked to a grant fund available to cocoa cooperatives for remediation and social protection and support. As part of this initiative, we selected and trained 36 community monitors to assist with data and to document monitoring activities to ensure the system runs effectively. 

At the government level, our project helped create Municipal and District Child Protection Committees in each of the four project target districts. This involved providing awareness and training on combatting child labor to representatives from agencies including the departments of social welfare and labor, the Ghana Education Service, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, the Ghana Police Service’s Domestic Violence and Victims Support Unit, the Ghana Health Service, the National Commission for Civic Education, and municipal and district planning officials – all of whom must remain constantly informed, involved, connected and committed to sharing information with each other in order to eliminate child labor. This work is in line with the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goal 8.7, which references the “elimination of all forms of child labour as an essential step to achieving decent work for all.” Working to build stronger monitoring systems, and ensuring the sustainability of support structures and systems to prevent child labor in the cocoa sector is a step toward that goal in Ghana.

The message is being heard. Examples abound, but I want to highlight one example in a community called Essongkrom, which has taken bold steps to improve access to education and secure a better future.

Winrock conducted and shared the results of a household vulnerability assessment there, which revealed low school attendance in the district where Essongkrom is located ─ an area lacking its own school. Following meetings with MATE MASIE, Essongkrom began mobilizing to build one, themselves. They identified resources to start construction, and the project connected community leaders to a philanthropist, who donated materials including cement to make classrooms conducive for teaching and learning. The community also built sanitation facilities, and two teachers volunteered and received funding to travel for pedagogical training in the district capital. MATE MASIE also helped the community to prepare and submit an application to the Ministry of Education for approval for government takeover of the school. 

In Essongkrom, as in other communities where our project works, the principle of Mate Masie is embodied: “What I hear, I keep.” On this sweetest of days, I hope you keep what you hear, too.

Funding is provided by the United States Department of Labor under cooperative agreement number IL-35537-20-75-K. One hundred percent of the total costs of the project are financed with USG federal funds for a total of $4,000,000 dollars. This material does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the United States Department of Labor, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the United States Government.