Purchase carbon credits from Katingan REDD+ Forest Protection
Reducing Indonesia’s emissions by protecting and restoring 149,800 hectares of peatland ecosystems
Accepted CCB

Katingan REDD+ Forest Protection

Reducing Indonesia’s emissions by protecting and restoring 149,800 hectares of peatland ecosystems

VCS1477
·
REDD+
·
Avoidance
+5 more
Description
Read More

Technology and mechanism

REDD+
Incentivizing communities in developing countries to keep their forests standing and adopt sustainable forest management techniques.
Mechanism
Avoidance
Durability
Permanence: 60+ years
The durability of this project is 60 years, based on its crediting period. This crediting period is extendable to 100 years. However, the project benefits are expected to extend beyond this time scale. The effective protection status of the forest and peatlands is anticipated to be maintained and extended, either through a further concession license or directly under state ownership as the global importance of the stored carbon stocks and biodiversity are fully recognized as a result of the project.
Citation: Section 1.7 in PDD

Ratings

AA

VCS1477

Credits from this project have a Very High likelihood of achieving a full tonne of CO2e avoidance or removal.

Provided on Mar 18, 2025. Read methodology

Katingan REDD+ Forest Protection

VCS1477

BeZero Carbon Rating (BCR) and rating scale

The BCR expresses BeZero's opinion that a given carbon credit represents one tonne of CO2e avoided or removed. Making this assessment requires analysing the risks a project is exposed to and how they impact the carbon efficacy of the credits issued. The full details of how the BCR assessment is conducted can be found in the BCR methodology document.

The multi stage process of assessing a credit's carbon efficacy culminates in an analytical view of the likelihood it achieves a tonne of carbon avoided and/or removed. This view is expressed through the rating definition, i.e. the range of likelihoods assigned, and reflected in the rating scale.

The BeZero Carbon Rating follows a robust analytical framework involving detailed assessment of six critical risk factors affecting the quality of credits issues by the project.

Leakage

Leakage is risk that emissions avoided or removed by a project are pushed outside the project boundary.

Leakage is weighted at 10% for determining the final BeZero rating.

Political Environment

Political Environment is risk that the policy environment undermines the project's carbon effectiveness.

Political Environment is weighted at 5% for determining the final BeZero rating.

Additionality

Additionality is risk that a credit purchased and retired does not lead to a tonne of CO2e being avoided or sequestered that would not have otherwise happened.

Additionality is weighted at 50% for determining the final BeZero rating.

Over-crediting

Over-crediting is risk that more credits than tonnes of CO2e achieved are issued by a given project due to factors such as unrealistic baseline assumptions.

Over-crediting is weighted at 20% for determining the final BeZero rating.

Perverse Incentives

Perverse Incentives is risk that benefits from a project, such as offset revenues, incentivise behaviour that reduces the effectiveness.

Perverse Incentives is weighted at 5% for determining the final BeZero rating.

Permanence

Permanence is risk that the carbon avoided or removed by the project will not remain so for the time committed.

Permanence is weighted at 10% for determining the final BeZero rating.

You can learn more about the BeZero rating scale on the BeZero website.

VCS1477

Katingan REDD+ Forest Protection

VCS1477

Sylvera Rating Categories

Sylvera Rating Categories are a top-level view of a carbon project's claims.

Tier 1 indicates that there is little risk that the claims of a project are overstated.

Tier 2 indicates that the claims may be overstated and that the buyers should analyze the project and carbon credit costs in detail when considering investment.

Tier 3 indicates that there is very high risk that the claims of a project are inaccurate.

Co-benefits

Sylvera measures community Co-benefits using the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. When assessing biodiversity impacts, Sylvera evaluates species richness, regional threats to biodiversity, and project actions to reduce pressure on biodiversity. Co-benefits are scored separately, because the primary objective of Sylvera’s overall rating is to evaluate the project claims of GHGs being avoided or removed. For example, a high co-benefits score could inflate a rating, which would be an issue particularly if a project is underperforming in other key areas like carbon, additionality, and permanence. Sylvera’s Co-benefits scores are on a scale of 1 - 5.

Indicates exceptional progression of targeted SDGs, as well as extraordinary species richness and high quality activities to reduce pressure on biodiversity.

Example: The project implements a broad range of SDG activities with extensive reach in the community, operates in a biodiversity hotspot and successfully reduces pressures on the ecosystem.Indicates very limited progression of targeted SDGs, as well as very low species richness and deficient activities to reduce pressure on biodiversity.

Indicates strong progression of targeted SDGs, as well as high species richness and quality activities to reduce pressure on biodiversity.

Indicates average progression of targeted SDGs, as well as average species richness and adequate activities to reduce pressure on biodiversity.

Example: The project implements SDG activities with moderate reach in the community, has average species richness, and takes acceptable action to reduce pressures on biodiversity.Indicates very limited progression of targeted SDGs, as well as very low species richness and deficient activities to reduce pressure on biodiversity.

Indicates narrow progression of targeted SDGs, or low species richness and limited activities to reduce pressure on biodiversity.

Indicates very limited progression of targeted SDGs, as well as very low species richness and deficient activities to reduce pressure on biodiversity.

Example: The project implements limited SDG activities with limited reach in the community, while not taking meaningful action to reduce pressures on biodiversity or its species diversity is low and possibly under low threat.

Provided on Sep 26, 2024.

Sylvera disclaimer

You can learn more about the Sylvera rating scale on the Sylvera website.

Rating category
Co-benefits

Tier 1 indicates that there is little risk that the claims of a project are overstated.

Provided on Sep 26, 2024. Read methodology

Sylvera disclaimer

Project details

Emissions reduced or carbon removed on an annual basis
7,451,846 tonnes
How the project approaches risk of reversal
The project mitigates reversal risk through the use of a buffer pool.
What actions would be taken by the project developer if anticipated emissions reductions do not take place, or if carbon removal is reversed in the future?
In the event of a potential reversal, the carbon losses are covered through the cancellation of an equivalent number of buffer credits from the VCS AFOLU buffer pool. The buffer pool approach for this project is outlined on page 37 of the VM0007 methodology. A risk analysis was performed using the most recent VCS AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool (Version 3.2). With this tool, a risk factor of 10% was established, along with a corresponding buffer pool.
What calculation methods are used to independently reproduce and verify the carbon impact of the project?
Please refer to pages 32-37 of the methodology document.
Citation: Methodology
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
Good Health and Well-Being
Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
Gender Equality
Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
Clean Water and Sanitation
Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
Affordable and Clean Energy
Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
Decent Work and Economic Growth
Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

Project certifications

Patch requires projects to have methodology, design, and outcomes verified by an approved third party. Learn more here.

Certifier

Verra

Standard

Verified Carbon Standard

Registry ID

VCS1477

Crediting period term

Nov 1, 2010 - Oct 31, 2070

Project methodology

VM0007 REDD+ Methodology Framework (REDD-MF) | Version 1.5

Updated Mar 9, 2015
Verified by Environmental Services, Inc. and DNV GL

Project design document (PDD)

PDD: Katingan REDD+ Forest Protection

Updated May 11, 2016
Verified by SCS Global Services

Current verifier of project outcomes

Aster Global Environmental Solutions, Inc.
South Kalimantan, Indonesia
REDD+
Meets Verified Carbon Standard standards
$7.92 per tonne
1t
2t
5t
Custom
$7.92
1t of CO2e avoidance