Session summary: INFORMA at the European Carbon Farming Summit
By Simon Martel, I4CE
At the European Carbon Farming Summit 2026, our INFORMA partners I4CE and Climate KIC organized a session on Improved Forest Management in Europe: project-based evidence on economics and MRV to incentivize resilient forests through the EU Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming Framework (CRCF).
As Europe’s forest carbon sink shows serious signs of decline, promoting resilient forest management practices will become essential. While the development of an improved forest management (IFM) methodology under the CRCF will begin in 2026, it would make sense to focus this methodology on practices that improve forest stands resilience. This session therefore aimed to highlight existing project initiatives including:
- an overview of the IFM methodologies developed under the INFORMA project;
- the French MELBAC methodology (enrichment planting of natural regenerations vulnerable to climate change), currently being finalised for the Label Bas-Carbone (LBC); and
- an Austrian methodology led by ECS Climate Solutions, which aims to adapt forests by promoting the more resilient and eco-rich, but often less profitable, species through successive thinning operations.
In addition to methodological feedback, the development of an economic study on the profitability of carbon credits in Italy was presented, along with an innovation in MRV using drone-based lidar developed in Finland.
From the session, three recommendations were put forward:
#1
Context: The decline of Europe’s forest carbon sink is now a reality, and projections suggest that this trend could accelerate. Therefore, IFM projects should incentivise practices that make forests more resilient compared to the business-as-usual situation (the baseline scenario). However, reviews of existing IFM methodologies highlight baselines as a weak point of this type of project, which could lead to significant over-crediting. Therefore, quantifying and projecting the dynamics of forest decline in a business-as-usual scenario poses a real challenge.
Recommendation: Baselines for CRCF IFM projects need a coherent narrative and robust scientific evidence to describe forest decline. To this end, they must incorporate the varying probabilities of dieback and decline in relation to different risks (drought, fire, storms, etc.), which mainly depend on tree species and local conditions. To account for the very high spatial heterogeneity of forest conditions in Europe, the tools provided by science and the available local and independent data must be used to design baselines. Similarly, baselines must consider the fact that forest managers are already incorporating adaptation measures into their management practices. The implementation of dynamic baselines in the EU has raised scepticism among some experts. Beyond technical considerations, the narrative of the CRCF EU baseline would only be robust if it were based on extensive consultation with various stakeholders.
Target audience: DG Clima, CRCF forestry expert
#2
Context: Monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) is more challenging for IFM projects since it should detect changes in already high carbon stock levels. Moreover, behind the term IFM, very diverse types of practices are implemented: extension of rotation age, set aside areas, thinning, enrichment plantations, conversion of coppices, natural regeneration, restoration of degraded forests, improved harvest planning, brush clearing, etc.
Recommendation: There is no one-size-fits-all approach to MRV for IFM projects in Europe. MRV tools must be adapted to the heterogeneous practices for IFM across Europe. It is important to ensure that transaction costs, particularly those associated with MRV, do not undermine the economic viability of projects and remain moderate in relation to the cost of implementing the practices. The potential of innovation must also be considered: although remote sensing and new technologies can be advantageous, they are not always sufficiently accurate. Where short measurement intervals would increase uncertainty, carbon extrapolation via high-quality, third-party verified data of carbon growth and loss, anchored between detailed inventories, is advised.
In the coming years, it will be important to share examples of transparent cost allocation business models to scale up the implementation of the CRCF.
Target audience: DG Clima, MRV providers.
#3
Context: Debates on the financing of carbon farming are finally gaining momentum. Whilst value chain financing is already established in agriculture, there are few examples of this in forestry. Furthermore, forestry initiatives are hampered by the time lag between the need for investment (today) and the realisation of climate benefits (often several decades later).
Recommendation: A forest-specific economic model within the CRCF must be found to enable projects to develop. The time lag can be taken into account by, for example, assigning a value to commitments to issue credits (e.g. ‘pending units’). It is also important to highlight the numerous co-benefits provided by carbon forest projects. Finally, a business case that combines various incentives will be crucial for scaling up projects.
Target audience: DG Clima, researchers, intermediaries.
The session was organised by Simon Marteland Corentin Khosrovaninejad (I4CE); Mohua Karim and George McLoughlin (Climate KIC)
Warm thanks to the speakers: Soisick Figueres(CNPF); Vincenz Fürstenberg (ECS Climate Solutions); Martina Agosta (CREA); Ville Hietalahti (Luke)