Abstract:As efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions ramp up under net zero emissions commitments and other voluntary and regulated climate efforts, debate is intensifying over what constitute legitimate GHG reduction credits or 'offsets' [1, 2]. Interest and skepticism over offsets are both soaring. Standards that can differentiate credible reductions while harnessing the benefits of market approaches will be pivotal to the success of global climate efforts. To build consensus around high-integrity approaches and resolve misconceptions over the relative merits of fossil versus terrestrial emissions reductions [3, 4], policy makers need to recognize that robustness of net CO2 reductions critically depends on scale of actions and policies.The next Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in November 2021 will again take up the contentious issues of developing rules on international emissions transfers under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, including around the potential transition of approaches from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the carbon offsetting system developed under the Kyoto Protocol. What types of emission reduction credits are acceptable is central to these negotiations. Such criteria are also essential for regulated market systems such as the program to cap emissions for international aviation known as CORSIA, California's cap-and-trade program, and China's national carbon market launched this year; as well as for an increasing number of private companies and individuals pursuing voluntary climate goals.An effective emission reduction crediting system rewards either reductions in the flows of carbon and other GHGs to the atmosphere and/or increases in removals (negative emissions) through enhancement of carbon stocks. Both fossil and terrestrial carbon mitigation can either reduce flows (e.g. from fuel combustion or deforestation) or enhance stocks (e.g. via direct air capture or forest restoration). Rewarding fossil and terrestrial mitigation through carbon credits or other finance may appear different but raise analogous estimation and certification challenges.Various carbon crediting standards are in use across voluntary and compliance carbon markets [5]. These standards seek to ensure climate benefits by addressing issues of monitoring, reporting and verification, 'leakage' (whether emissions reductions in one place cause increases in another), 'additionality' (whether reductions would have happened even without a particular project or program) and 'permanence' (whether a reduction at one point in time is reversed at another). Until recently, these approaches have neglected a central determinant of the environmental integrity of emissions reductions—the scale at which reductions are achieved and quantified.In the first instance, 'scale' refers to whether emissions reductions are managed and results quantified according to the boundaries of a large political jurisdiction with administrative ability to formulate and effect climate policy, rather than at the level of a stand-alone project. 'Jurisdictional' emissions reduction crediting approaches quantify emissions reductions relative to a baseline for an entire economy or economic sector across a political jurisdiction, such as nation, state, or province. Any crediting for smaller-scale activities or projects—e.g. on specific areas of land, industrial facilities, or smaller administrative units—is integrated or 'nested' within the larger jurisdictional accounting. Jurisdictional approaches have emerged for programs to reduce emissions from deforestation, stemming from long-standing concerns with the integrity of reductions from land-based activities [3]. In the second instance, 'scale' refers to how long emission reductions are managed for.Historically most emissions reduction credits have been generated through stand-alone projects, particularly under the CDM. While the CDM excluded efforts to reduce deforestation, the Paris Agreement, adopted by 196 countries in 2015, reaffirmed support for public and private finance for reducing and reversing forest loss at jurisdictional scales, under the framework known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+). Standards for compliance markets and public sector results-based payments for reducing deforestation have adopted this jurisdictional approach. In November 2020, the governing council of the International Civil Aviation Organization approved two jurisdictional tropical forest protection standards for use within CORSIA—the first time such standards have been adopted under an internationa -Abstract Truncated-

Deforestation – a call for consistent carbon accounting

Net carbon accounting and reporting are a barrier to understanding the mitigation value of forest protection in developed countries

Towards a unified carbon accounting landscape

Supplementary Material to "mapping Land-Use Fluxes for 2001–2020 from Global Models to National Inventories"

Harmonising the Land-Use Flux Estimates of Global Models and National Inventories for 2000–2020

Reporting Carbon Fluxes from Unmanaged Forest

Contrasting Climate and Carbon-Cycle Consequences of Fossil-Fuel Use Versus Deforestation Disturbance

Spatial predictions and uncertainties of forest carbon fluxes for carbon accounting

Reviewing Differences and Uncertainties in Land-Use CO2 Flux Estimates

A consistent budgeting of terrestrial carbon fluxes

Environmental integrity of emissions reductions depends on scale and systemic changes, not sector of origin

Carbon accounting for sustainability and management. Status quo and challenges

Microsoft Word-nwaa145.docx

Pantropical CO2 emissions and removals for the AFOLU sector in the period 1990–2018

Carbon Footprint Accounting for General Goods—A Comparison

Harmonising the Land-Use Flux Estimates of Global Models and National Inventories for 2000-2020: Background Data

Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes

Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation

Forest carbon storage: ecology, management, and policy

Back in the Driver's Seat: How New EU Greenhouse-Gas Reporting Schemes Challenge Corporate Accounting

Reducing Deforestation and Trading Emissions: Economic Implications for the Post-Kyoto Carbon Market