Plan Vivo’s carbon crediting program is known for its focus on supporting smallholder agriculture and community forestry projects. As part of our effort to cover a broader spectrum of afforestation-reforestation (AR) projects, we set out to assess projects under Plan Vivo.

Throughout our assessment, we encountered an issue that bedevils many credits that are currently available: projects operate under legacy methodologies and standard rules. In many cases, these rules are improving over time due to the pressures of market scrutiny and efforts to improve integrity from bodies such as the ICVCM.

Sometimes, a legacy framework means that credits have lower quality than they would if the project were to begin today. The latest version of the Plan Vivo Carbon Standard (PV Climate V5), released in 2022, meets our standard-level screening criteria. However, earlier versions (V3 and V4) do not.

The pitfalls of outdated standards

The Plan Vivo AR projects that are currently issuing credits were all certified under V3 and V4. A key difference between these earlier versions and V5 lies in restrictions placed on credit issuances and retirement. This plays out in two ways, which we describe below.

#1 – Verification after issuance

Under PV Climate V3 and V4, credits can be issued and retired before being verified (i.e., before a third party has verified the project’s monitoring and emission reduction claims for a specific period). While these credits may be issued after the climate benefit has been delivered, issuing credits that have never been audited carries a significant amount of risk. Third-party verification is a critical safeguard in the voluntary carbon market (VCM).

#2 – Ex-ante credit retirement 

PV Climate V4 allowed a project to select between an ex-ante or ex-post crediting system at the time of validation. Ex-post Plan Vivo Certificates (PVCs) represent emission reductions (removals) that have already occurred by the time the credits are issued. Credits are commensurate with the amount of tree growth that has occurred. Ex-ante PVCs, on the other hand, are credits that represent emission reductions that have yet to occur. Credits are issued for expected, or promised, tree growth in the future. A project may choose to use one or both crediting systems throughout its lifetime.

Furthermore, under V4, ex-ante credits could be retired. Ex-ante issuances can be a valuable tool for projects to mobilize upfront financing for smallholder-based interventions. Such sales can also allay many concerns about the risk of non-additionality by demonstrating how carbon finance is critical for project implementation. However, ex-ante credit issuances that are eligible to be retired (i.e., claimed as offsets) represent a significant risk to buyers who are claiming the retirement as an “offset” for their emissions, since the credit does not (yet) represent a benefit to the atmosphere.

Plan Vivo Climate V5

The newest version of the Plan Vivo standard does not allow retirement of unverified or ex-ante credits. PV Climate V5 introduced critical distinctions among three types of credits that represent outcomes at different stages of the project. V5 generates future (fPVCs), reported (rPVCs) and verified (vPVCs) Plan Vivo Certificates, and only allows verified certificates to be retired. 

The types of PVCs are summarized below:

For AR projects, fPVCs are future credits expected to be generated over the entire crediting period. Up to 90% of this type of credit can be claimed at any time during the crediting period. In contrast, rPVCs are credits quantified during a monitoring period and then reported. They have not, however, been independently verified. A project is allowed to claim rPVCs through the issuance of Annual Reports. Finally, vPVCs represent the only type of credits that are independently verified. These credits represent measurable and delivered emission reductions that can be sold and retired.

Calyx Global has reviewed 30% of Plan Vivo AR projects (including agroforestry, assisted natural regeneration and traditional AR). We have not formally rated the integrity of the credits for any thus far. This is because, of the projects reviewed, all have one or more of the credit types explained above, but the credits are not clearly labeled. Therefore, we are unable to distinguish which are ex-ante versus ex-post units, or verified versus unverified. Calyx Global only rates ex-post units because our ratings are on verified mitigation claims. We plan to evaluate credits verified under the Plan Vivo Carbon Standard V5 as projects migrate to the newest standard version. 

We see this issue in other project types as well, operating under other registries. Projects are often encouraged to update to the most recent standards and protocols but are not required to do so. Ratings are a way to reward actors that move more quickly to best practices. Therefore, we encourage carbon project developers operating under older versions of methodologies – especially those with demonstrated issues – to update sooner rather than later.

Reach out to learn more about current and upcoming ratings.