APRIL 2019

DEFINING CARBON
NEUTRALITY
FOR CITIES
& MANAGING
RESIDUAL EMISSIONS

CITIES’ PERSPECTIVE & GUIDANCE

WORKING GROUP
City of Boston

City of Copenhagen

City of Durban

City of London

City of Los Angeles

City of Melbourne

Mexico City

New York City

City of Paris

City of Stockholm

and C4O Cities Climate Leadership Group

WITH SUPPORT FROM

City of Austin ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability

City of Cambridge City of Oakland

City of Cape Town City of Portland

CDP Proyecto Mirador LLC

Cool Effect City of San Francisco

Climate Action Reserve City of Seattle

Ecosystem Marketplace Solar One

City of Edmonton City of Sydney

City of Fort Collins United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC)
 LIST OF ACRONYMS TABLE OF CONTENTS

AFOLU Agriculture, forestry, and other land use

List of acronyms 4
BAU Business-as-usual Table of contents 5
BECCS Bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration Background 7
Objectives 9
CAP Climate action plan(ning)
How to use this Guidance 9
CFCS Chlorofluorocarbons

CDM Clean Development Mechanism 1. Carbon Neutral Cities - Key Definitions and Approaches 11
CDR Carbon dioxide removal 1.2. Potential approaches 15

COF Carbon Offset Fund

2. Guidelines 17
CO2 Carbon dioxide 2.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 17
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent 2.2 Business-as-Usual (BAU) and GHG Emissions Reduction 18
Trajectory or Carbon Budget
DACS Direct air capture of CO2
2.3 Transparent Strategy for Addressing Residual Emissions: Limits, 20
ETS EU Emissions Trading System
Principles, Timing, and Benefits
GHG Greenhouse gas
2.3.1 Limits 20
GGR Greenhouse gas removal
2.3.2 Principles 20

2.3.3 Timing 21
GPC Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories

2.3.4 Carbon Credit Project Benefits 23
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
2.4 Reporting on Gross Emissions and Net Emissions 25
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPPU Industrial process and product use 3. Carbon Credits - Guidance and Environmental Integrity Principles 28
3.1 Guidance on Mechanisms, Eligible Projects and City Roles 28
LPAs London’s Planning Authorities

3.1.1 Mechanisms 28
Mwh Megawatt hour
3.1.1.1 Sequestration 28
mtCO2e Metric tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent 3.1.1.2 Avoidance 29
NDCs Nationally Determined Contributions 3.1.2 Carbon Offsetting - Eligible Projects 29
3.1.3 Projects outside the scope of this guidance document 31
NET Negative emissions technology

3.1.4 City Roles 32
OA Ocean acidification
3.2 Environmental Integrity – Key Principles and Methodologies 34

REC Renewable energy credit 3.2.1 Demonstrating Environmental Integrity Principles 37
REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation 3.2.1.1 Methodologies for Additionality 37
3.2.1.2 Permanence 40
RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
3.2.1.3 Unambiguously Owned and Transparent 41
SCS Soil carbon sequestration
3.3 Achieving Carbon Neutrality - Understanding the Use of Renewable 42
SR15 IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C Energy Credits (RECs)
SRM Solar radiation management
4. Negative Emissions Technologies 43
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

WCI Western Climate Initiative

5. Conclusions and Outstanding Issues 46

Annex A: Other Relevant Technical Definitions from IPCC SR 1.5 48
Annex B: Carbon Protocols and Standards reviewed for this document 54

5
 Background

In 2016, 175 Parties ratified the Paris Agreement. In doing so, they committed to keep global
average temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to
limit it to 1.5°C. The Paris Agreement was also a promise to increase nations’ resilience to the
impacts of climate change.

The Preamble to the Paris Agreement recognised the significant role of local governments in
tackling climate change. To be consistent with the objectives of the Agreement, cities need to
ramp up their collective ambition, driving rapid and systemic change on the ground. Cities
urgently need to position themselves on an ambitious emissions reduction (or peaking) trajectory
to achieve carbon neutrality and climate resilience by 2050, at the latest1 .

In October 2018 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the Special
Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15). This confirmed that current national government
commitments are inadequate; projecting a warming between 2.9 and 3.4°C by 2100. This scenario
has devastating implications for humanity and the planet, including to food and water security,
living standards and human health, and loss of ecosystem services.

Limiting warming to below 1.5°C imposes difficult challenges for current and future generations;
according to the SR15 reports if net zero is achieved by 2048 2 there is only a fifty percent chance
that warming will stay below 1.5°C. Achieving net zero by 2038 improves this chance to two thirds,
but global emissions must fall by up to seventy five percent (relative to 2017 levels) by 2030 3 .
Further, for every year of failed action the window to reach net zero is reduced by two years.

These figures highlight that for citizens, businesses and society to thrive, aggressive strategies are
needed to significantly mitigate GHG emissions, while towns, cities and regions need to prepare
for the impacts of a changing climate, including a worst case scenario of 2.9 - 3.4°C or more.

Critically, the SR15 report finds that staying within the 1.5°C limit is technically possible but will
require rapid behavioural and technological transformation at all levels - countries, cities, private
sector and individuals – to enable major emissions cuts ahead of 2030 and to achieve global net
zero emissions by 2050 or sooner.

If cities are to drive the rapid and systemic change The Paris Agreement prescribes, then it is
crucial there is a clear guidance for cities on what citywide carbon neutrality looks like and how to
implement and realise both interim milestones and carbon neutrality.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1
https://resourcecentre.c40.org/join-deadline-2020
2
Summary for Urban Policymakers, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/12/SPM-for-cities.pdf
3
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-2/

City6 of Boston Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance 7
Existing greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting and target-setting protocols make reference to terms Cities must act immediately and decisively on climate change. The longer cities wait, the more
such as “carbon neutrality” and “net zero,” but to date4 they do not clearly and consistently define expensive and difficult it will be to reduce emissions and, as a result, more natural and human
these terms. Nor do they provide the detailed guidance that cities need to develop citywide systems will be exposed to significant risk.
carbon neutrality implementation strategies. While leading cities agree that carbon neutrality
should be achieved at the citywide scale 5 , there is ongoing debate regarding how residual
emissions 6 should be defined (e.g. scopes, boundaries, sectors), cancelled out (e.g. with carbon Objectives
credits) or removed (e.g. with negative emissions technologies7 including Carbon Dioxide Removal
(CDR)) in order to achieve carbon neutrality. This initial guidance document for Cities aims to:

The immediate focus of cities should be on delivering transformational GHG mitigation action and 1. Establish a shared understanding of city carbon neutrality aligned with existing accounting
increasing resilience. However, medium-term planning will require careful consideration of protocols and emerging international consensus on carbon neutrality
additional mechanisms to realise cities’ carbon neutrality goals.
2. Identify common principles on:
8
All pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C in the SR15 include CDR measures , which vary
greatly in terms of maturity, scalability, costs, risks, co-benefits and trade-offs. Research on these • Mechanisms for addressing residual emissions, and
topics is still limited, with existing measures subject to multiple feasibility and sustainability • Measuring and reporting both gross and net emissions10 in cities, to ensure transparency,
constraints 9 . Further, while many carbon offset project protocols and standards have been environmental integrity, and alignment with emerging global mechanisms.
launched recently, few cities have offset their residual emissions. Carbon neutrality is still a new
and challenging topic for most cities. 3. Provide guidance, including through shared international best practices, on:

Securing support and partnerships for the required transformational action and accelerated • Timing of strategies, recommended limits to residual emissions and offsetting, and
delivery will entail actions beyond the experience of municipal governments, cities will need to transparency on the approaches taken to achieve carbon neutrality;
engage with internal and external stakeholders throughout the carbon neutrality planning and • Environmental integrity principles that should be exhibited when choosing projects to cancel
implementation processes. Effective communication, however, can be challenging when out residual emissions;
concerning the complex nature of climate change and carbon neutrality, and therefore must be • Residual emissions offsetting approaches (e.g. mechanisms, types of projects, roles for the city
explained using clear and simple words in ways that resonate. and partners, wider project benefits available to cities), and
• Reporting on progress.
Furthermore, experts use a significant amount of specialised vocabulary to talk about carbon
neutrality, climate action, and carbon offsetting, which can create communication challenges.
Formulating simplified definitions that the public will understand, including how those terms and How to use this guidance
concepts interrelate and how they relate to the local context, culture, and values will be essential.
Cities looking to understand the recommended definitions and minimum recommended guidelines
For these reasons, and in the context of the update of the Global Protocol for Community-Scale for carbon neutrality should read Section I and Section II. Section I provides key definitions for city
Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (GPC 2.0), this document provides guidance on different carbon neutrality. It also outlines the carbon neutrality process at a high-level and the potential
approaches that cities may take to achieve carbon neutrality. The intention is to update the guide roles cities may take to reduce residual emissions and achieve carbon neutrality. Section II includes
as new technologies and best practices emerge. The shared definitions, guidance, and best guidelines on how to plan, report on progress and achieve carbon neutrality.
practices in this document have been developed in collaboration with cities, civil society partners,
and expert organisations. These will help cities develop strategies for carbon neutrality and inform This guidance recognises that each city has its own individual context. The guidance outlines
cities engaging in the GPC update process. Essential elements of planning for and implementing carbon neutrality in cities, as well as Best
Practice elements to provide guidance on how to strengthen carbon neutrality strategies.

4
Annex B: Carbon Protocols and Standards reviewed for this document
Essential Strategies and practices that cities should adopt in the planning and
5
Not just at the municipal operations level but including all those who are responsible for emissions in the city such as the private sector, citizens and implementation of carbon neutrality
government institutions
6
Emissions remaining at the close of an accounting period after all technically and economically feasible mitigation opportunities have been implemented
7
The removal of GHGs from the atmosphere by deliberate human activities (i.e. in addition to the removal that would occur via natural carbon cycle processes). Best practice Strategies and practices that are highly recommended for cities in the
For CO 2 , negative emissions can be achieved with direct capture of CO 2 from ambient air and sequestration (DACS), bioenergy with carbon capture and
sequestration (BECCS), afforestation, reforestation, biochar, among others planning and implementation of carbon neutrality
8
To date, only a few published pathways include CDR measures other than afforestation and BECCS
9
IPCC SR15

10
Reporting gross vs. net emissions enables transparency regarding residual emissions cancelled out through mechanisms such as carbon credits

Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective and Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective and Guidance

8 9
Cities interested in learning about the practices of offsetting and employing negative emissions
technologies should refer to section III which provides guidance on offsetting, key principles and
1. Ca rb on Neutra l Cities - K ey Def ini ti ons and
methodologies, while section IV focuses on negative emissions technologies. To provide flexibility Ap p roa ches
to cities, and because some areas of practice have yet to be tested, these sections provide more
general guidance on specific factors to take into consideration in the decision-making process and
some of the options available to cities.
What is Carbon Neutrality for Cities? This guidance proposes the definition of a ‘carbon neutral’
This guidance focuses on achieving citywide carbon neutrality and can be used in the early stages city 11 , also referred to as an ‘emissions neutral’ city, as a city that has achieved and demonstrated
of climate action planning, i.e. in parallel to the climate action plan development, to help define in a given year12:
carbon neutrality, or to understand residual emissions and how and when to address them in the
climate action planning process. • Net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from fuel use in buildings, transport, and industry (scope 1);
• Net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from the use of grid-supplied energy (scope 2);
Cities can also use the guidelines as part of their efforts to achieve municipal carbon neutrality, or • Net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from the treatment of waste generated within the city
carbon neutrality for local government operations. The principles outlined in this guidance can be boundary (scope 1 and 3), and
tested by cities looking to compensate for residual emissions from local government operations. • Where a city accounts for additional sectoral emissions in their GHG accounting boundary, net
zero greenhouse gas emissions from all additional sectors in the GHG accounting boundary.
As different approaches are tested and shared across cities, this guidance document will be further
developed and updated. Alternatively, for cities that solely account for emissions using a consumption-based approach, a
‘carbon neutral city’ will have achieved and demonstrated net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from
It is expected that further rules will also be developed at the international level, as part of the all sectors in the GHG accounting boundary.
UNFCCC discussions on the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Article 6 focuses
on international cooperation mechanisms such as Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes Claims of carbon neutrality are time sensitive and must be continuously achieved by
(ITMOs), which allow for emission reductions from measures implemented in one country to be demonstrating net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in all relevant scopes and boundaries on an
transferred to and counted towards another country’s nationally determined contribution (NDC) annual basis.
to the Paris Agreement.
In alignment with “BASIC ”13 of The Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas
Emission Inventories (GPC), the scopes and sectors identified above represent the minimum
guidelines required for carbon neutrality goals. Where feasible, the definition of carbon neutrality
should also include minimised greenhouse gas emissions occurring outside the city’s geographic
boundary because of goods and services consumed by city residents, businesses and government
(scope 3). Consumption based inventories have uncertain and expansive boundaries that overlap
with production based approaches like Scope 1, 2, and 3. For this reason, cities must clearly define
their GHG accounting boundaries, and ensure they are aligned with minimum requirements and as
comprehensive as possible.

The GPC, the global standard for measuring GHG emissions from cities, defines carbon neutrality
goals as fixed-level14 goals designed to reach net-zero GHG emissions in a target year,
acknowledging that such goals often include the purchase and use of carbon credits to
compensate for emissions after annual reductions.

11
Definition adopted from the Climate Action Planning Framework. Please note that some cities’ inventory boundaries may go beyond the minimum
requirements for scopes and sectors identified in this definition, depending on the local context
12
The emissions inventory should include quantification of emissions sources that are significant in the city. In most cities, this will include as a minimum
stationary energy, transport, and waste. In some cities, agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU), or industrial process and product use (IPPU) may be
significant too
13
The BASIC level covers emission sources that occur in almost all cities (stationary energy, in-boundary transportation, and in-boundary generated waste)
14
Fixed level goals represent a reduction in emissions to an absolute emissions level in a target year (e.g. net zero emissions in 2040). Both fixed level goals and
base year emissions reduction goals (e.g. 90% GHG emissions reductions by 2040 compared to 2004 levels) can be used to support city planning for carbon
neutrality

City of Copenhagen

10 Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance 11
For the purposes of achieving city carbon neutrality, relevant terms and high-level definitions to Crediting period The period of time during which a carbon credit project generates verifiable
communicating, planning, and implementing for carbon neutrality include: and/or certifiable carbon credits. After the end of the crediting period, the
project can be re-evaluated against current standards for renewal,
TERM DEFINITION otherwise the project will cease to produce carbon credits

Emissions avoidance Emissions avoidance projects prevent, destroy, or reduce the emission or
BASIC The GPC BASIC reporting level covers scope 1 and scope 2 emissions from
release of GHGs into the atmosphere as compared to a baseline
stationary energy and transportation, as well as scope 1 and 3 emissions
from waste
Emissions Sequestration projects remove GHG emissions from the atmosphere as
sequestration compared to a baseline
BASIC+ The GPC BASIC+ reporting level covers the scopes included in the BASIC
definition, transboundary transportation, and additionally includes
Environmental integrity Environmental integrity is a principle that demonstrates how well a carbon
emissions from the Industrial Processes and Product Use (IPPU) and the
credit substitutes for a GHG reduction that would otherwise be made by the
Agriculture, Forestry, and Land Use sectors (AFOLU)
entity purchasing the carbon credit. See Section 3.2 for more on
environmental integrity principles
Carbon credit A carbon credit represents a metric ton of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e)
that is avoided or sequestered outside the GHG accounting boundary (or
Geographic boundary A city’s geographic boundary accounts for emissions activity occurring
geographic boundary as a proxy for GHG accounting boundary) and can be
within the city’s geographic borders
used to compensate for a metric ton of residual GHG emissions occurring
within the accounting boundary.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Identifies the gases, emissions sources, scopes, sectors and/or consumption
For the purposes of this guidance document, only project-based carbon accounting boundary categories, and time span covered by a GHG inventory
credits are considered; carbon credits associated with allowances in
compliance schemes (e.g. the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS)) are not Greenhouse Gas (GHG) A report that quantifies GHG emissions and sources
inventory
Carbon credit project Carbon credit projects generate carbon credits – tradeable units
representing a verified tonne of CO2e not released into the atmosphere or a Gross emissions Gross emissions include all relevant emissions in a GHG accounting
verified tonne of CO2e removed from the atmosphere boundary (e.g. Basic or Basic+ in the GPC) and excludes any GHG emissions
reductions from carbon credits purchased or sold
Carbon credit providers Carbon credit providers issue carbon credits for carbon credit projects and
track the transaction of credits over time Municipal emissions GHG emissions occurring within a city’s municipal GHG accounting
boundary
Carbon credit registry Formal validation and tracking of local, national or globally-sourced projects
that generate tradeable carbon credits from a registered/credible/ Negative emissions Negative emissions can be achieved through the removal of GHGs from the
established carbon credit provider. Carbon credit registries also oversee atmosphere by deliberate human activities (i.e. in addition to the removal
independent 3rd body verification to ensure that the assessment and that would occur via natural carbon cycle processes). Negative emissions
subsequent additionality designation was done correctly and in accordance are also referred to as ‘GHG emissions removal’. For CO2 in particular,
with the registry program standards and project-specific protocols negative emissions can be achieved through Carbon Dioxide Removal
measures such as direct air capture of CO2 from ambient air and
Carbon Dioxide Carbon Dioxide Removal measures refer to processes that remove CO2 from sequestration (DACS), bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration
Removal (CDR) the atmosphere by either increasing biological sinks of CO2 or using (BECCS), afforestation, and reforestation, among others
chemical processes to directly bind CO2. CDR is classified by the IPCC as a
special type of mitigation Negative emissions Negative emissions technologies remove CO2 from the atmosphere to be
technologies (NETs) sequestered
Citywide emissions GHG emissions occurring within the GHG accounting boundary used for the
city’s GHG inventory, in line with the minimum requirements for scopes and Net emissions Net emissions include the gross level of emissions less all applicable GHG
sectors identified in this document emissions reductions claimed from carbon credits retired outside the GHG
accounting boundary (or geographic boundary as a proxy), and adding
Consumption-Based A complementary approach to the sector-based approach to measuring city GHG emissions from carbon credits sold resulting from projects within the
GHG Accounting GHG emissions focused on the consumption of goods and services (such as GHG accounting boundary (or geographic boundary as a proxy). The
food, clothing, electronic equipment, etc.) by residents of a city, whereby reporting of net emissions is what allows cities to track progress against
GHG emissions are reported by consumption category their carbon neutrality (zero net emissions) goal
Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

12 13
 Net-zero emissions A state where annual residual GHG emissions are completely cancelled out
1.2 Potential approaches
through offsetting or removed through carbon dioxide removal (CDR) or
emissions removal measures. The achievement of net-zero emissions is also Cities should make efforts to update emissions reduction trajectories periodically, maintain an
referred to as carbon neutrality up-to-date estimate of target year residual emissions based on planned and implemented action,
and consider new mechanisms to maximise the effective reduction of gross emissions to stay on a
Offsetting A mechanism for cancelling out residual GHG emissions by developing, carbon neutrality pathway.
funding, or financing carbon credit projects (and retiring associated credits)
that avoid or sequester15 GHG emissions outside of the City GHG accounting
boundary and exhibit the environmental integrity principles outlined in this At a high-level, the process of achieving carbon neutrality should include the following steps:
document16. Cities must retain the beneficial ownership rights to the GHG
emission reductions claimed from the project, and those reductions must be • Develop an evidence-based climate action plan setting the city on a pathway to meeting
retired or otherwise cancelled, such that they may not be used again carbon neutrality by 2050 or earlier;

• Set an ambitious interim GHG emissions reduction target based on a robust GHG emissions
Performance Standard Performance Standards are an approved set of thresholds, requirements or
inventory, e.g. BASIC, BASIC+, a business-as-usual trajectory that accounts for projected
expectations a project must meet and gauge the additionality of a project
population and economic growth, and a breakdown of GHG emissions reduction
opportunities by sectors;
Project Protocols Project protocols are sector-specific guidance documents that provide
information including eligibility criteria, performance standards, GHG • Prioritise and accelerate transformational climate actions;
accounting equations and formulas, monitoring, procedures, and reporting
and verification requirements • Engage other governments, businesses and communities in the planning and delivery of
climate a
ctions to ensure fairness, accessibility, and equitable distribution of benefits;
Residual emissions Annual GHG emissions remaining at the close of the accounting period
• Establish, monitor, and update estimates of target year residual emissions in line with GHG
Scope 1 GHG emissions from sources located within the city’s geographic boundary17 emissions inventory updates and/or climate action plan progress reporting, and

Scope 2 GHG emissions that result from the use of electricity, heat steam and/or • Reduce or compensate for residual emissions to eliminate net emissions and achieve net-
cooling within the city’s geographic boundary zero emissions.

Scope 3 All other GHG emissions that occur outside the city’s geographic boundary
as a result of activities taking place within the city’s geographic boundary Cities have different powers and challenges, and thus will take different approaches to addressing
both overall emissions reductions and target year residual emissions to achieve carbon neutrality.
Given differences in city context (e.g. GHG reporting boundary, economic and technological
Target year The calendar year for which a city aims to achieve carbon neutrality
feasibility, procurement restrictions, city powers and portfolios), different approaches to
eliminating residual emissions may be taken, such as:
Transformational Actions which reshape whole systems so that they are decarbonised and
climate actions resilient to climate chang Transformational actions relate to decarbonising
the electricity grid, optimising energy use in buildings, enabling next-
generation mobility, and improving waste management.18

15
Emissions avoidance projects prevent, destroy, or reduce the emission or release of GHGs into the atmosphere as compared to a baseline. Sequestration projects
remove GHG emissions from the atmosphere as compared to a baseline

16
While individual cities may choose to use the term ‘offsetting’ to also refer to projects undertaken within the city GHG accounting boundary, GHG reductions from
those projects will be directly reflected in the citywide emissions inventory (e.g. reduced overall emissions) rather than used to cancel out citywide residual
emissions. For this reason, the term ‘offsets’ in this protocol will refer exclusively to projects that take place outside of the city GHG accounting boundary and
which aim to cancel out the city’s residual emissions

17
Definitions of Scope 1, 2 and 3 are taken from the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories
18
Further details can be found in the Focused Acceleration – A strategic approach to climate action in cities to 2030

City of Durban
Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

14 15
•

Catalyse additional climate action to reduce gross emissions, or emissions within the GHG
accounting boundary. This can be achieved by implementing climate actions within the city’s
2 . G uid elin es
powers and mobilising other parties (e.g. agencies, private stakeholders) to contribute to the
citywide carbon neutrality goal. Cities can advocate for carbon neutrality at higher levels of
government (e.g. regional, state level) and work with others to develop partnerships and
implement a shared carbon neutrality plan. Cities can also pursue extensive renewable energy
2.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
and energy efficiency policies and programmes;
An emissions inventory identifies the level and sources of emissions in a base year and within a
specific accounting boundary, while informing target-setting and enabling progress tracking,
• Employ carbon credits19 outside of the city GHG accounting boundary to cancel out residual
and serves as a necessary foundation for cities that pursue climate action.
emissions. Traditional projects that can generate carbon credits include afforestation,
reforestation, improved forest management, avoided conversion, and urban forestry.
The following guidance aligns with the scope framework of the Global Protocol for Community-

Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (GPC). Cities should report at either the BASIC or
Approaches include:
BASIC+ level within the GPC accounting standard 20 .

o Developing carbon credit projects outside of the city GHG accounting boundary
(including l ocal/regional projects that may or may not generate tradeable carbon credits)
Essential:
and taking responsibility for managing the project for the duration of its lifetime;

• A sector-level inventory should be developed, including details of, or references to, the
o Investing in carbon credit projects outside of the city GHG accounting boundary (e.g.
methodology used, including scope 1 emissions from fuel use in buildings, transport and
provide funding to enable a project to get underway or commit to purchasing a set quantity
industry; scope 2 emissions from grid-supplied energy; and scope 1 and 3 emissions from waste
of future vintages, thereby providing upfront funding for credit registration costs), and
generated within the city geographic boundary, in line with the GPC scopes framework;

o Purchasing carbon credits from outside of the city GHG accounting boundary (local,
• The inventory should be from a year to no more than 4 years prior to publication of the city’s carbon
national, o
r globally-sourced projects that generate tradeable carbon credits) from a
neutrality climate action plan 21 , and
registered/credible/established carbon credit provider e.g. Verra, American Carbon Registry,
Climate Action Reserve.
• The inventory should include Industrial Processes and Product Use (IPPU) and the Agriculture,
Forestry, and O
ther Land Use (AFOLU) emissions where a city’s economy contains strong
• Employ negative emissions technologies, taking deliberate action to remove GHGs from the
contributions from industrial and agricultural sectors.
atmosphere beyond those removals that would occur via natural carbon cycle processes. For
example, direct capture of CO 2 from ambient air (DACS), and bioenergy with carbon capture

Best practice:

• The inventory includes IPPU and AFOLU Scopes 1 and 2 emissions;

• The inventory is available for multiple years, including an assessment of and commitment to
tracking consumption-based emissions;

• The inventory includes consumption-based 22 or other scope 3 emissions (e.g. emissions from
sources such as food, aviation, shipping, construction), and

• Where carbon offset credits are either generated or purchased, care must be taken to avoid
double-counting, particularly for consumption-based emissions sources.

City of Stockholm
20
From GPC: “The BASIC level covers scope 1 and scope 2 emissions from stationary energy and transportation, as well as scope 1 and scope 3 emissions from waste.
BASIC+ involves more challenging data collection and calculation processes, and additionally includes emissions from IPPU and AFOLU and transboundary
transportation. Therefore, where these sources are significant and relevant for a city, the city should aim to report according to BASIC+. The sources covered in
BASIC+ also align with sources required for national reporting in IPCC guidelines”

21
This statement refers to the inventory year (i.e. data) and not the year the inventory is published
19
Any use of carbon credits should adhere to the environmental integrity principles outlined in this document. These principles are discussed in more detail later in 22
the guidance, along with case studies and guidance on relevant issues to consider when planning for carbon neutrality While consumption-based emissions accounting is an emerging field, if and where cities choose to pursue this approach, all sectors accounted for must achieve net
zero

Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

16 17

2.2 Business-as-Usual (BAU) and GHG Emissions Reduction
Best practice:
Trajectory or Carbon Budget
• The BAU trajectory incorporates sector-specific trends and considerations, appropriate to the local
The development of a robust business-as-usual (BAU) trajectory and a GHG emissions reduction context, including a
nticipated changes to sectoral energy intensity and to the carbon intensity of the
trajectory23 or carbon budget 24 will enable cities to determine the level of target year residual local electricity grid. The trajectory is provided in 10-year interval projections (or higher frequency)
emissions that will need to be addressed in order to reach a carbon neutrality goal. In order for a breakdowns. Multiple BAU scenarios are described based on varying plausible future factors;
city to be carbon neutral, it must ensure that all emissions reach net-zero regardless of control. A
list of essential elements and best practices a city should consider include the following: • The target trajectory incorporates estimated impacts of existing and planned policies. It
acknowledges the limits to the city’s own ability to reduce emissions within its boundary by including
Essential: the reduction that will be achieved through national policies at other levels of government (state,
national, etc.) 26 ;
• A plan for carbon neutrality should be supported by the BAU trajectory and GHG emissions
reduction trajectory or carbon budget; • The expected aggregate impact of specific major climate actions is projected against interim
milestones through 2050. G
aps between projections and targets and/or carbon budgets and
• The BAU trajectory must take into account the projected population and economic changes for milestones are publicly communicated and addressed via additional policies and programmes;
the city to 2050. The methodology is documented, with transparency on the inputs and
assumptions used; • Where possible, sectoral targets are set, which - after accounting for any residual emissions
- should s um to the citywide carbon neutrality scenario;
• The GHG emissions reduction trajectory or carbon budget to achieve carbon neutrality should
outline an accelerated but r ealistic reduction (decline or peaking) in total GHG emissions • Carbon budgets and milestones are identified for specific major climate actions, sectors or city
through to carbon n
eutrality by 2050 or earlier; projects and programmes, and

• An ambitious interim target and milestones should be set based on the city’s GHG emissions • Where possible, carbon budgets are used that are aligned with a global carbon budget that has the
inventory and modelling, and potential to limit global t emperature rise to 1.5 degrees27 28 .

• Target year residual emissions should be identified in the trajectory, once city action is
maximised and external actions included. Emissions reduction trajectories, including estimate of
target year residual e
missions, should be updated every 5 years and informed by the best available.
science 25 .

An example of a typical emission reduction trajectory

60

50
Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent

BUSINESS AS USUAL
40
(MtCO2e)

30

ACC
EL ER A
20 T ED
PAT
H TO 8
0X
50

10
80 x 50 TARGET
CARBON NEUTRALITY
Develop strategies to address
remaining emissions

2005 2010 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050

23 26
For more resources, see C40 Climate Action Planning Resource Centre While resources on forecasting state and national trends to 2050 are limited, best practice for forecasting should entail an assessment of the impact of the home
country’s Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement through 2050
24
The carbon budget approach involves setting an amount of permissible emissions over a period of time to keep within the 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature 27
threshold. The budget and actions are distributed across cycles (e.g. 3-year or 5-year cycles), sectors, and institutions, and updated on a regular basis, in line with Using a “contraction and convergence” carbon budgeting approach, Deadline 2020 established C40 cities’ shares of overall global carbon budgets, following 3
monitoring and evaluation. Carbon budgets allow a greater level of precision than a target-based goal in creating necessary emissions trajectories, targets, and principles: equality, responsibility, capacity. See Deadline 2020 Appendix for more information. Carbon budgets are more stringent than set date targets because
milestones they ensure a set amount of carbon is not surpassed over a multiple year period rather than ensure reductions to a specific amount in a single year period (target)

25 28
C40 Climate Action Planning Framework For more information on 1.5°C-compatible city carbon budgets, see Deadline 2020 – How Cities Will Meet the Paris Agreement:
https://resourcecentre.c40.org/join-deadline-2020

Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

18 19
2.3 Transparent Strategy for Addressing Residual Emissions:
Carbon Dioxide Removal technologies should not be undertaken without careful consideration of
Limits, Principles, Timing, and Benefits
the potential ecological and ethical impacts. These principles and considerations are defined and
detailed in section 4. Negative Emissions Technologies.
Aggressive emissions reductions are required in the near term in order to align with the Paris
Agreement, acknowledging that different cities will have different peaking and reduction
timeframes according to their circumstances (e.g. development status). Cities should work to
2.3.3 Timing
directly reduce emissions within their control as well as work with others to address emissions
Depending on different powers and constraints within which they operate, cities may decide to
sources not directly controlled. These reductions, and all climate actions, should be conducted
wait until close to the target year before carbon offsetting (‘Late Carbon Credit’ scenario) or start
with integrity and in a manner that is transparent to the general public.
offsetting ahead of their target year (‘Early Carbon Credit’ scenario). Similarly, cities may consider
testing new negative emissions technologies to drive their availability and scalability through and
A city should similarly pursue a publicly available strategy to address residual emissions and work
beyond the target year. There are a series of potential benefits and disadvantages or risks to both
towards a carbon neutrality goal.
approaches and cities should carefully consider the approach that works best for them, depending
on their local and regional context. The table below provides examples of factors to consider when
2.3.1 Limits
assessing different timing approaches. The list is not exhaustive, and impacts will vary from city to
city. Some of these factors are specific to carbon offsetting (marked with an *) or negative
When using or planning for the use of carbon credit projects to cancel out residual emissions, a
emissions technologies (marked with an **), while others may apply to both carbon offsetting and
limit on the maximum quantity of credits used should be defined by the city for the purposes of
negative emissions technologies.
prioritizing and maximizing direct reductions in gross emissions. Specifically, the number of
credits should be reduced year over year as the city implements additional greenhouse gas
Table 1: Examples of factors to consider when assessing different timing approaches:
mitigation strategies. Below are best practice limits for the use of carbon credits that cities may
consider setting in order to ensure that gross emissions reductions are prioritised and maximised:

• An absolute emissions level for which carbon credits can be used to compensate, e.g. 5 million TIMING POTENTIAL BENEFITS POTENTIAL RISKS
tCO 2 e;
Late Carbon Credit/Negative More time to make the most Limited ability to test
• A level set using base year emissions, e.g. maximum percentage of base year emissions that can Emissions Deployment of the available mitigation effectiveness of approach
be offset, such as achieving at least 80% reductions in gross emissions by 2050 and pursuing opportunities ahead of implementation
carbon credits to fill the gap to net zero;
More technologies may Potential reputational and
• A level based on performance, e.g. if the city achieves emissions reductions by X%, then it can become available enabling ethical issues (i.e. if residual
offset up to Y tons of emissions, such as for every 10% of gross emissions reduced over a base further mitigation in areas emissions are high and cannot
year, an additional 5% can be compensated for via carbon credits; currently difficult to be reduced over time, or if
mitigate technologies fail, city may be
• A level based on climate spend, e.g. for every dollar spent on local climate action to reduce gross seen as irresponsible with
Ability to capitalise on other consequences to be borne by
emissions, X dollars may be spent on carbon credits to facilitate additional net emissions
cities’ lessons future generations)
reductions, or alternatively, for every dollar spent on carbon credits, X dollars must be spent on
local climate action to reduce gross emissions, and Ability to source funding to Net benefit to global climate
enable offsetting or change mitigation won’t be
• A level based on the emissions reductions needed in order to align with a city’s set emissions negative emissions realised as early as it could be
reduction trajectory or carbon budget, e.g. carbon credits are used to fill the gaps until adequate technologies later on and the global carbon budget
gross emissions reductions can be achieved.
may be surpassed
Better understanding of
2.3.2 Principles feasibility, costs, risks and Potential market risk –
trade-offs of negative uncertainty regarding the cost
In order for carbon credits to contribute to a city’s carbon neutrality goals, the following emissions technologies** and availability of carbon credit
environmental integrity principles are essential and should be demonstrated: real, additional, projects in the future*
permanent, measurable, independently audited and verified, unambiguously owned and
transparent. These principles are defined and detailed in section 3.2 Environmental Integrity – Key
Principles and Methodologies.

Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

20 21
 TIMING POTENTIAL BENEFITS POTENTIAL RISKS 2.3.4 Carbon Credit Project Benefits

Early Carbon Credit/ Negative More time for testing of Risk of focus shifting away from When considering the range of carbon offsetting options available, cities may choose to prioritise
Emissions Deployment approach and input into a mitigation certain projects over others, in line with their priorities, procurement requirements, and the level of
long-term strategy around buy-in from local stakeholders.
managing carbon credits Possible drain on resources as
(investing, developing, steep decline may materialise All carbon credit projects must meet the following standards:
purchasing) or negative due to technological
emissions breakthrough • Projects are verified and/or validated 29 under rigorous standards by reputable, certified third-
party auditors.
Ability to facilitate early Potential pushback from
action. Many types of carbon community if strategy is not Cities may choose to prioritise:
credit projects have a longer clearly outlined and rationale,
time horizon for mitigating including benefits, are not • Local projects (within the home region or country but outside the city’s accounting boundary)
climate change than in explained projects that deliver local/regional jobs and other benefits such as improved resiliency, air
reverse (emitted GHGs take quality, and health outcomes;
High upfront cost – negative
effect faster than
emissions technologies may • Sustainable development projects in developing contexts in line with climate solidarity
sequestered carbon)
end up being implemented on a principles g
iving consideration to potential risks to local and indigenous populations; or
Advantageous market prices
regional or national scale which
and more availability of high-
may be more cost-effective** • Projects (independent of location) that provide carbon mitigation and additional benefits
quality carbon credit
projects to choose from* including improved equity, resilience, biodiversity and health outcomes.
High upfront cost – carbon
credit project development if a
Ability to secure early input The following guiding questions may be used to compare and prioritise different carbon credit
City chooses to develop the
from stakeholders regarding providers and types of projects to invest in:
project
their financial responsibility
for offsetting* • Does the provider source credits by reputable/established Carbon Credit Registries whose
standards reflect the environmental integrity principles outlined in section 3.2 of this document?;
Ability to keep investment
and revenue local for those • Does the provider develop regional based projects in the local area, and can the provider sell
cities developing carbon from projects based in the local area?;
credit projects*
• How many credits can be provided or supplied? A portfolio of projects provides diversification
Ability to get early input into
to protect against the failure of an individual project;
feasibility, costs, risks and
trade-offs of negative
• Does the provider support sustainable development in the Global South through carbon credit
emissions technologies**
projects? (This ensures compatibility with climate solidarity principles);

• Do projects have wider benefits including improved equity, resilience and health outcomes?;

• Does the project type have a strong history of additionality and quality, or have projects of this
type suffered from questions about their climate benefit or detrimental environmental or social
impacts (e.g. flooding valleys associated with large scale hydro power)?, and

• What is the cost of the carbon credits?

29
Not all programmes undergo a separate validation step

Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

22 23
 • All else equal (e.g. quantity of emissions offset or removed), sectors and project types are prioritised that
The following is a non-comprehensive list of existing standards for carbon credit projects (these
standards have not been qualified and should be assessed for suitability by cities): can create significant wider benefits for the habitats and communities where projects take place,
whether local, regional or globally-sourced, and
• Carbon Registry;
• Clean Development Mechanism; • Regional partnerships are considered for achieving carbon neutrality on a wider scale, going beyond the
• Climate Action Reserve; city geographic boundary.
• Gold Standard;
• Verified Carbon Standard, and
• Verra. 2.4 Reporting on Gross Emissions and net Emissions

The following existing protocols and standards may be of use in providing relevant additional To ensure transparency and enable meaningful and accurate reporting of progress made towards
benefits criteria (these standards have not been qualified and should be assessed for suitability by their carbon neutrality goal, cities should separately report both net and gross emissions. Gross
cities): emissions include all relevant emissions in all covered scopes (e.g. BASIC or BASIC+ in the GPC),
and do not take into account any GHG emissions reductions from carbon credits retired or sold.
• Climate, Community and Biodiversity (CCB) Standards; Net emissions are equal to the gross level of emissions less all applicable GHG emissions
• Forest Stewardship Council certification; reductions claimed from carbon credits purchased and retired from projects outside the city’s
• SOCIALCARBON Standard, and GHG accounting boundary (or geographic boundary as a proxy), and adding GHG emissions from
• Others: W+ standards, Water benefits standards, Fairtrade Standards, etc. carbon credits sold from within the city’s GHG accounting boundary (or geographic boundary as a
proxy). The reporting of net emissions is what allows cities to track progress against their carbon
neutrality goal. There are currently limitations to international reporting as gross and net
Guidance for Transparent Strategy for Addressing Residual Emissions disclosure is not always an option. This limitations in reporting must be resolved for cities to be
able to claim carbon neutrality.

Essential:

• S
teep and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions - recognizing that different cities will have ACHIEVING CITYWIDE CARBON NEUTRALITY
various peaking and reduction timeframes 30 - are necessary for the attainment of carbon neutrality in
all cities by 2050 in order to achieve the goals outlined in the Paris Agreement. For the purposes of
transparency and clear communication, cities will develop and make public a strategy for their GHG
emissions reduction targets, including the short, medium and long-term actions they will be taking to
meet their goals and prioritizing transformational actions for immediate delivery;

DIRECT
• If applicable, the strategy should communicate the rationale for the use of carbon offsetting or carbon
REDUCTION
removal on the path to carbon neutrality including limits set, environmental integrity principles and
ethical considerations, and their timing, and
GROSS DIRECT
• Cities should consider all direct and indirect social and environmental impacts of a carbon credit project, EMISSIONS REDUCTION
along with potential educational, economic development, and resiliency benefits. Any harmful impacts
from projects should be avoided or mitigated.

Best practice: NET
EMISSIONS GROSS
EMISSIONS
• Targeted communications are developed which focus on the city’s carbon neutrality goals and
milestones, in order to engage different communities and groups, and raise awareness on the potential
opportunities and challenges from the use of offsetting or negative emissions measures including
NET
carbon dioxide removal mechanisms; CARBON
CARBON ZERO
CREDITS
CREDITS EMISSIONS

BASE YEAR INTERMEDIATE TARGET YEAR

YEAR
30
As outlined in C40’s Deadline 2020 Programme

Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

24 25
 City of London
The table below illustrates reporting of gross versus net emissions, depending on whether carbon
credits are only purchased or also generated through the development of local carbon offset
projects.

APPROACH GROSS EMISSIONS NET EMISSIONS

(tCO2e) (tCO2e)

Carbon credits purchased and 40,000,000

retired from outside the 40,000,000
geographic boundary (5,000,000)
(mtCO2e): 5,000,000
35,000,000

No credits generated within the

geographic boundary

Carbon credits purchased and 40,000,000

retired from outside the
geographic boundary 40,000,000 (5,000,000)
(mtCO2e): 5,000,000
500,000
Carbon credits generated
35,500,000
within the geographic
boundary and sold outside the
boundary (mtCO2e): 500,000

Essential:

• Gross emissions levels are reported separately from any reductions achieved through the purchase and
retirement of carbon credits, following international best practice standards for quantification, monitoring
and reporting of GHG emissions reductions or removals. Any GHG carbon credits sourced from projects
located within a GHG accounting boundary and retired to offset emissions in a different geographical
boundary should not be considered when calculating the source region’s gross inventory. To calculate net
emissions31 , any GHG carbon credits sourced from projects within an GHG accounting boundary and
retired to offset emissions in a different geographical boundary should be accounted for by adding those
emissions back into the city’s net emissions to avoid double-counting the reductions.

Cities should separately provide a short overview of all carbon credit project(s) developed or invested in
including information on the type and location, unique ID, credits sold or claimed (tCO2e), vintage year,
and verification date and verifier.

Best practice:

• Verified and public reporting of gross and net emissions on a sectoral basis, and

• Creating a registry for the city to understand offsetting activities at different levels within the city (e.g. by
private companies or individuals) and an explanation of how those activities have or have not been
factored into the city’s gross and net emissions reporting.
31
Net emissions cannot include reductions from carbon credits claimed by another city and thus these must be added back to the net emissions

Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

26 27
 3.1.1.2 Avoidance
3 . Ca rbo n C r e dit s - G u i d a n ce a n d
Avoidance includes the prevention, reduction or destruction of GHG emissions released into the
Enviro n m e n t al I n te g r i ty P r i n ci p l e s atmosphere compared to a baseline.

Avoidance may be through GHG reduction or destruction. Projects may include:

3.1 Guidance on Mechanisms, Eligible Projects and City Roles • Destruction of industrial pollutants or agricultural by-products (i.e. manure management with
anaerobic digesters, destruction of landfill methane and others);
3.1.1 Mechanisms
• Destruction of ozone depleting substances and/or hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in countries that
Offsetting with carbon credits can take many forms in the context of addressing GHG emissions. have halted their production under the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol32;
More detailed definitions of offsetting with carbon credits as a sequestration and/or avoidance
mechanism are provided below, as well as examples of projects that a city may choose to pursue • Renewable energy (hydro, solar, tidal, wind, biomass, geothermal) 33 . With renewable energy
that fall under each category of carbon credits. Carbon credits associated with sequestration projects, it is important to consider only carbon credits expressed on a tCO 2e basis, and not
projects, which remove greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere against a baseline, and zero carbon electricity on a MWh basis, which are addressed later in this document (see section
greenhouse gas destruction projects are preferred to carbon credits that avoid greenhouse gas 3.3 Achieving Carbon Neutrality – Understanding the Use of Renewable Energy Credits). Cities
emissions through reduction against a baseline, as these approaches reduce the risk of double should understand when existing renewable portfolio standards, binding emissions caps (e.g.
counting emissions reductions. To properly account for net emissions without risking double the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) or the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) in the
counting avoidance projects, cities need a more robust system for tracking carbon credits both United States), or other programs would call into question the ownership of any electricity-
purchased and/or retired and sold in their jurisdiction. Section 3.1.2 provides information on types related emission reductions;
of offsetting that are beyond the scope of this guidance document—chiefly, those types of
offsetting projects that were not developed, funded or financed to cancel out citywide residual • Energy efficiency (fuel switching, energy efficiency supply/demand side, transport modal
emissions. shift);

3.1.1.1 Sequestration • Reduced emissions from changes in agricultural management (change in nitrogen use, rice
cultivation practices, and livestock management to reduce enteric fermentation);
Sequestration includes the removal (or uptake) of GHG emissions from the atmosphere and long-
term storage in carbon sinks (such as oceans, forests or soils) through physical or biological • Changes in organic waste management;
absorption or sequestration, resulting in a net removal of CO 2 from the atmosphere.
• Avoided emissions of biological carbon through changes in land use, such as avoided
Sequestration projects may include: conversion o
f grassland or forestland to crop cultivation, along with the associated avoided
direct GHG e
missions from cultivation activities;
• Afforestation (planting new forests on lands that historically have not contained forests or
restoring tree cover in minimally covered area); • Avoided deforestation (avoiding the conversion of forest to non-forest), and

• Reforestation (planting of forests on lands that have previously contained forests but that have • Circular Economy investments as an avoidance measure (reducing emissions both from end
been converted to some other use); use w
aste and upstream emissions from transport).

• Improved forest/urban management (change in management/harvesting practices that

maintain and/or increase the stocking rate of carbon in the forest over a long time frame (e.g., 3.1.2 Carbon Offesetting - Eligible Projects
100 years) by increasing a forest’s age or productivity;
The projects available for cities that can generate carbon credits and be used towards a carbon
• Agricultural and land management strategies increasing soil carbon sequestration (land neutrality goal will partly depend on the GHG accounting boundary that the city adopts (e.g.
management changes which increase the soil organic carbon content), and BASIC versus BASIC+ for the GPC). To avoid double counting, only carbon credits originated
outside of the city’s GHG accounting boundary can be used to reduce net emissions. Where it is
• Mass timber in construction. not possible to track carbon credit movement into and out of the GHG accounting boundary, a
city’s geographic boundary may be used as a proxy. A few example scenarios are provided below:

32
The Kigali protocol replaced the Montreal Protocol in 2016

33
These projects are less likely to be additional, irrespective of whether they involve an increase in renewable energy

Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

28 29
City A is reporting at the GPC BASIC level (excludes IPPU and AFOLU and scope 3 emissions from 3.1.3 Projects outside the scope of this guidance document
stationary energy and transportation).
In certain instances, individual cities have used the term ‘offsetting’ to refer to projects undertaken
City B is reporting at the GPC BASIC+ level (including scope 1 IPPU and AFOLU, as well as scope 3 within the city’s GHG accounting boundary. Any such projects that take place within the city’s GHG
emissions from stationary energy and transportation). accounting boundary cannot reduce net emissions nor cancel out a city’s residual emissions;
instead, these projects impact the level of gross emissions reported in the citywide emissions
Both City A and City B can purchase carbon credits from globally-sourced projects outside their inventory. In other words, wherever there are exchanges of carbon credits within the city’s
GHG accounting boundary to reduce their net emissions, such as: geographic or GHG accounting boundary that use the term ‘offset’ or ‘carbon credit’ these will not
impact gross-to-net calculations. Examples of such projects that take place within the city GHG
• Landfill gas capture/combustion project; accounting boundary are:

• Rice cultivation projects; • C40 Cities Climate Positive Development Programme34: large-scale urban communities
projects that have net-negative operational GHG emissions associated with energy, waste and
• Destruction of ozone depleting substances such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); transportation. ‘Offsetting’ is mainly by investing in projects that reduce emissions in
neighbouring communities (e.g. better transit or lower carbon energy). Climate Positive
• Livestock projects: capturing and destroying methane from manure management systems ‘Credits’ are awarded as part of the programme, and
through the installation of a biogas control system on dairy cattle and swine farms;
• City carbon ‘offset’ funds that result in direct emissions to gross reductions within the city GHG
• Carbon sequestration through afforestation and reforestation, and accounting boundary.

• Soil carbon sequestration through agricultural management practices.

The 2016 London Plan includes a London-wide zero carbon standard for residential and
Both cities are also able to use regionally-sourced (i.e. outside the city’s geographic boundary but non-domestic major developments. The zero carbon standard includes a required 35%
within the region) projects such as: on-site carbon reduction target beyond Building Regulations. Since some buildings find it
easier than others to achieve this 35% reduction, any shortfall is made up as a cash-in-lieu
• Methane recovery associated with food produced regionally and imported by the city (e.g. payment from the developer to the relevant planning authority offset fund. London planning
recovery and destruction of manure and wastes from agricultural activities at rural households/ authorities (LPAs) are r equired to establish a CO 2 ‘offset’ fund (COF) and identify suitable
small farms located within the wider city region e.g. installation of domestic biogas digester), projects to be funded.
and
Cambridge has adopted a carbon neutral target for 2050 and is considering a similar
• Soil carbon sequestration through regional agricultural management practices that reduce approach to London. To achieve their targets, buildings will have the option to either take
emissions and increase food productivity. reduction measures (e.g. energy retrofits and upgrades) or to temporarily buy “offsets” by
paying into a citywide carbon fund operated by a third-party administrator35 . Cambridge
Both cities can use carbon credits related to any other emissions occurring outside the geographic intends to use the carbon fund to finance or subsidise building energy efficiency upgrades to
boundary as a result of city activities. enable expensive retrofits or upgrades to happen sooner than market factors would
otherwise dictate. The cost of purchasing “offsets” from the fund will increase over time,
Only City A who does not include IPPU and AFOLU in their GHG accounting boundary (BASIC) is with the city intending to eventually phase out this option entirely36 .
able to consider the use of carbon credits from projects that are within the city’s geographic
boundary, but outside the city’s GHG accounting boundary, for example from carbon
sequestration projects from urban forests in their own city. If City B, who does account for IPPU
and AFOLU, were to pursue the same projects, the associated emissions removals or reductions
would be accounted for in their gross emissions reporting. If City B attempted to use these credits
towards their net emissions reporting, they would be double counting.

34
https://www.c40.org/other/climate-positive-development-programme

35
http://sites.bu.edu/cfb/files/2018/06/MIT-S-Lab-Final-Report.pdf
36
For more information about the Cambridge Local Carbon Fund concept and the Net Zero Action Plan it is part of, see www.cambridge.gov/netzero

Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

30 31
3.1.4 City Roles
Develop Carbon Credit Projects
As discussed in the background section, a city may take various approaches to carbon offsetting
(e.g. purchase, invest, develop). The case studies below illustrate these approaches and the key The City of Austin is running a pilot city tree canopy project, partnering with
considerations for deciding what role a city should take in a carbon credit project. a non-profit organisation, City Forest Credits38, that is generating funding
from private companies and individuals that wish to offset their carbon
emissions by buying credits for tree planting or preservation. The projects
39
were verified per International Standards Organisation 14064-3 .

Mexico City registered a forest carbon project that is located within the city.
Purchase Carbon Credits While the property is ejido (community)-owned, the City played a big role in
getting the project underway. Where emissions from forests are not
In 2007, the City of Austin set a goal to achieve carbon neutral municipal
accounted for in the GHG accounting boundary, they can be counted toward
operations37 by 2020. While the City has been implementing different
net emission reductions.
strategies, achieving a 75% reduction in emissions, analysis showed that it
would not be able to eliminate all emissions sources associated with its Where cities generate, own, and retire carbon credits from projects outside of
municipal operations by 2020. To meet the carbon neutrality goal, the City their GHG accounting boundary, they are able to include those in their net
began purchasing carbon credits (removals/avoided emissions) in 2013 to emissions inventory.
compensate for 5% of municipal operations emissions per year. The City
established a scoring matrix to assess third-party-verified carbon credit
opportunities that gave priority to offset projects that are closest to Austin
and provide additional benefits for the City.

When deciding whether to be a purchaser of credits, investor or a project developer, a city should
consider the following:

• The time horizon available for the project review process; cities bound by stricter timelines
may b e more inclined to purchase credits available from an externally-developed project;

• The intended geographical sourcing for projects; cities may decide to pursue a more active
role i n developing projects that are undertaken closer in proximity to the city itself;
Invest in Carbon Credit Projects

The City of Palo Alto entered into a carbon credit purchase agreement with • The capital costs applicable to the project developer versus the capital costs applicable
an improved forest management project in its sister city, Oaxaca, Mexico, to to the credit’s purchaser;
purchase carbon credits that were pending registration by a Carbon Offset
Registry. The purchase agreement provided financial confidence for the • The level of experience and capabilities that the city has in developing projects; less experience
project to move forward with verification and subsequent issuance of credits, may mean that cities are willing to outsource development of the project to a qualified third-
a key cost consideration for carbon credit projects. The City retired credits party vendor;
purchased from this project to offset carbon dioxide emissions associated
with the City-owned utility’s natural gas portfolio, in line with its Carbon • The availability of existing project protocols (guidance documents that provide information
Neutral Natural Gas Plan. Additional benefits associated with the carbon including eligibility criteria, performance standards, GHG accounting equations/formula,
project included training activities that raised awareness about climate monitoring, procedures, and reporting and verification requirements), if any, that apply to
change and technical capacity building for members of the community- projects under consideration by the city; if such standards already exist, the city may find it
owned forest, leading to 5 full time positions and just over 20 part-time easier to take on a project developer role, and
support staff to enable the project administration and monitoring over the
longer term.

37
While this case study talks about offsetting in the context of achieving carbon neutral municipal operations, the principles applied (e.g. purchase of credits) are the
same as those required for compensating for citywide residual emissions

38
https://www.Cityforestcredits.org/
39
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57fd78d18419c2d82f727dca/t/5c365dec352f53699ea8cef5/1547066861785/App.+C+Verification+for+Planting+Pr
ojs +V7+20181214.pdf

Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

32 33
• If engaging in sequestration project types, cities should have a clear understanding of
responsibilities associated with the permanence requirement for such project types,
depending o n which market role the city may take on. Project owners are responsible for PRINCIPLE DEFINITION
ensuring the p ermanence of reductions credited for in these project types, through ongoing
monitoring, periodic reporting and verification activities. Any losses to reductions already
credited for (i.e. due to wildfire or intentional over-harvesting) need to be compensated for by Measurable Carbon credit projects must have the ability to be verified in a scientifically-
the project owner, and that cost can sometimes shift to the purchaser via a higher price per credible way and accurately quantified relative to a transparent and robust
credit. baseline scenario. Quantification and monitoring must be transparent,
conservative, and follow established project accounting standards (e.g.
World Resources Institute’s Greenhouse Gas Protocol for Project
3.2 Environmental Integrity – Key Principles and Methodologies Accounting; International Standards Organisation 14064-Part 2), ensuring
reproducible results.
In order for carbon credits to contribute to a city’s carbon neutrality goal, projects must exhibit
environmental integrity. To ensure environmental integrity, a city’s emissions should be offset on a Independently audited Carbon credit projects must be verified by an independent, qualified, third-
tonne for tonne basis – every tonne of avoided or sequestered emissions from eligible GHG carbon party verifier subject to an established accreditation system. Where both
credit projects is used to cancel out a tonne of emissions that is produced in the city (i.e. emissions validation40 and verification41 are undertaken for a project, these two
reported in the city’s GHG inventory). The following principles indicate the environmental integrity, assessments must be conducted by separate entities. Verification will be on
and thus the eligibility, of carbon credit projects. Under this guidance, it is a requirement that these an ex post basis, verifying emissions reductions that have already occurred.
principles be met for any carbon credits to be used to meet a city’s carbon neutrality target.
Unambiguously owned Carbon credit projects must have clear documentation of ownership rights,
Specific methodologies and guidance on how to apply or test for these principles will be discussed maintained on a secure registry, with no more than one credit associated
in greater detail in Section 3.2.1. Section 3.3 additionally explains the differences between carbon with a unit of GHG emission avoidance or sequestration. Acquisition of these
credits and renewable energy credits (RECs), and the applicability of each about a carbon neutrality ownership rights by the party looking to offset GHG emissions must occur
goal. unambiguously and without contest. Once transferred, all other parties (e.g.
project developer, governmental authority/jurisdiction under which the
PRINCIPLE DEFINITION project was developed, credit seller) cede all rights to claim future credit for
the same offset in order to refrain from double-counting. Ownership rights
and transfer is clear by contractual assignment, being tracked and listed in a
Real Carbon credit projects must result in absolute net reductions of citywide publicly available registry.
GHG emissions because of actual project activity and not as artefacts of
inaccurate, incomplete accounting or double-counting. Note: The distinction between citywide carbon neutrality and municipal
carbon neutrality is important: Carbon credits used for citywide emissions
For the purposes of this guidance document, only project-based carbon
may not be able to meet the same ownership criteria as carbon credits used
credits are considered; carbon credits associated with allowances in
for municipal emissions. While local government has the ability to influence
compliance schemes (e.g. the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS)) are not.
gross and net emissions within the city through regulation, local government
only has direct control over gross and net emissions within its municipal
Additional Carbon credit projects would not have been realised without the city’s boundary. If a local business purchases carbon credits to reduce their
investment (or investment by another entity on behalf of the city) in these residual emissions, the city would have limited insight into those claims and
projects and are beyond any reductions required or incentivised through would not be able to account for those claims in a citywide net emissions
any city or higher-government commitments and regulation or any action inventory, unless those claims were tracked in a global registry. More on this
achieved in a business-as-usual scenario (e.g. changes in standard market in section 3.2.1.3.
practice due to financial, economic, social, and technological drivers). In
other words, there must not be any legal requirement for the existence of
Transparent Carbon credit projects and their associated ID number must be publicly and
the project and the project must require the revenue from the sale of the
transparently registered. Credits should have unique serial numbers and the
carbon credit in order to be self-sustaining.
crediting process should be clearly documented (e.g. issuance, retirement,
Permanent Carbon credit projects should be irreversible and continuously monitored project ownership) and GHG emissions quantification methodology.
(e.g. monitoring of sinks and ensuring appropriate contracts are in place to Information on the project validation (where applicable), verification,
cover instances of emissions released back into the atmosphere from a monitoring and enforcement arrangements (e.g. type of project, duration,
particular project). If a project includes an avoidable or unavoidable location, validated project plan and verification reports for each vintage
potential for reversal(s), a mechanism to compensate for any/all possible year, standards used, enforcement mechanism) must also be made publicly
reversals should be clearly identified at the project outset. available.

Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

34 35
 3.2.1 Demonstrating Environmental Integrity Principles
PRINCIPLE DEFINITION
Ensuring the environmental integrity of carbon credit projects is important for upholding the
ability of associated carbon credits to be an effective mechanism in meeting a carbon neutrality
Address leakage: Carbon credit projects must account for and avoid potential leakages over goal. Current methodologies and general market practices for additionality, permanence,
the life of a project - increases in GHG emissions that occur outside of the unambiguous ownership and transparency are discussed in greater detail below. Further,
project’s emissions boundary as a result of the project’s implementation additional detail on project registries is presented below as well.
(e.g. shift in forest harvesting due to avoided deforestation). Any material
and avoidable or unavoidable increases in GHG emissions – leakages - must 3.2.1.1 Methodologies for Additionality
be deducted from the abatement that would otherwise be counted
towards the project’s carbon credit(s). Carbon credit projects should demonstrate additionality under the most stringent requirements in
order to count towards cities’ carbon neutrality goals. Existing methodologies for testing
additionality can be divided into three broad approaches:
Where feasible, cities are also recommended to follow the principles below:

• Programmatic Approach / Uniform Assessments / Top-down - this approach assesses projects

based on whether a specific threshold is reached or exceeded. This threshold is established
PRINCIPLE DEFINITION based on aggregate data of general project and/or technology attributes;

• Single-Project Assessments / Bottom-up – this approach assesses projects on an individual

Synchronous Carbon credit projects are only considered valid if they are based on a basis, and often relies on some combination of the below tests to prove additionality, and
valid baseline scenario timeframe. Credits can only be used to cancel out
unavoidable or residual GHG emissions occurring during a distinct • A combination approach
period of time that is reasonably close to the period of time during which
the GHG emission avoidance or sequestration will take place.
ADDITIONALITY TOOL DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE
Enforceable Carbon credit projects should be backed up by enforceable contracts ASSESSMENT
incorporating the environmental integrity principles discussed in this
section and in line with the other criteria or recommendations set out Programmatic Approach / Benchmarks Compare projects For a particular project
in this guidance document. Uniform Assessments under review to a type such as landfill gas
previously capture, a minimum
established required project efficiency
baseline for the rate may be established
relevant project
type

Positive Outline specific Power plant cogeneration

technology lists technologies that technologies may be on
have been deemed positive technology lists in
additional if regions where use is
installed in a currently rare
certain geographic
boundary

40
A process to determine that the baseline established, and methodologies used for a project are legitimate

City of Los Angeles 41

An assessment providing the necessary quantifiable evidence that claimed offsets are real and additional when compared to the baseline scenario

Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

36 37
 Programmatic approaches incorporate the tools utilised in single-project assessments, below, into A number of issues are important to deliver additional emission reductions 43:
determinations for benchmarks and positive technology lists 42 .
• The length of crediting period;
ADDITIONALITY TOOL DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE • Criteria for the renewal of the crediting period;
ASSESSMENT • Approaches for determining indirect emission effects, such as leakage effects;
• The way in which perverse incentives 44 for both project developers and policy makers are
Single-project Legal and Ensure that the project is Landfill gas capture addressed;
assessments regulatory not already mandated by a mandated by law in a • The extent to which double counting of emission reductions within the mechanism and with
tests law or regulation within the certain jurisdiction would other mechanisms and pledges is avoided. This is particularly important in the context of
jurisdiction prevent such projects renewable energy projects e.g. double counting as a result of the sale of both RECs and carbon
from passing this test credits;
• Whether potential non-permanence of emission reductions is sufficiently addressed;
• Whether monitoring provisions are appropriate, and
Financial Check that the project Certain energy efficiency • The effectiveness of the regulatory framework for third-party validation and verification.
investment would not have been projects that already have
tests financially attractive significant cost savings Some projects are likely to have better additionality than others 45 . While additionality will
without the revenue without sale of carbon ultimately depend on the local conditions and protocols used to certify projects, some general
generated from the sale of credits would not pass this recommendations are provided below based on a review conducted by the European Commission
carbon credits test of CDM projects 46 .

Barriers Test whether there are one Local resistance, skill • Methane projects (landfill gas, coal mine methane) have a high likelihood of being additional.
analysis or more non-financial limitations, and However, both project types face issues with regard to the determination of baseline emissions
barrier(s) prohibiting institutional obstacles may and perverse incentives 47 and may lead to over-crediting.
implementation of the serve as legitimate non-
project under a project financial barriers • Industrial gas projects (HFC-23, adipic acid, nitric acid) may be additional as long as the
BAU scenario mitigation is not otherwise promoted or mandated through policies. These projects rely on an
end-of-pipe abatement technology solution and do not normally generate significant revenues
other than from the sale of credits.

• Biomass power projects have a medium likelihood of being additional overall because the
Stipulates that the main Certain energy efficiency assessment of additionality very much depends on the local conditions of individual projects
Common
technology/technologies projects already very (e.g. domestic incentive scheme for increased use of biomass in electricity generation; markets
practices
employed in the project is/ common might not pass where biomass power is already competitive with fossil fuel generation). However, where these
assessment
are not already commonly this test conditions are not prevalent, projects can be additional, particularly if credits for methane
used avoidance can be claimed. Biomass projects also face other issues, in particular with regard to
demonstrating that the biomass used is renewable.

• Most energy-related project types (wind, hydro, waste heat recovery, fossil fuel switch and
Advantages and disadvantages of top-down and bottom-up methodologies depend partly on the
efficient lighting) are unlikely to be additional, irrespective of whether they involve the increase
role that the city chooses to take in the project - purchaser of credits or project developer - and
of renewable energy, energy efficiency improvements or fossil fuel switch. These types of
the type of project concerned.
projects tend to have a high investment cost and the revenue from the sale of the carbon
credits is likely to be small compared to the other project revenue streams. Efficient lighting
Most project protocols available on the market will rely on a combination of uniform assessments
projects using small-scale methodologies are highly unlikely to be additional because in many
and single-project assessments in order to test for project additionality.
host countries the move away from incandescent bulbs is well underway. Cook stove projects
tend to generate revenues that are insufficient to cover the project costs or make it
Whether utilising uniform assessments, single-project assessments, or some combination of the
economically viable. These projects are also likely to over-estimate the emission.
two, testing additionality requires the calculation of baselines and modelling the expected
business-as-usual scenario. 43
Öko-Institut, Stockholm Environment Institute and INFRAS, 2016
44
For instance, perverse incentives for policty makers in host countries not to implement policies or regulations to address GHG emissions - since this would reduce
the potential for international crediting
45
42
The legal and regulatory tests, financial investment tests, barriers analysis, and common practices assessments are all part of the process used when developing a The above list of considerations for additionality is based on a study of the Clean Development Mechanism. The list does not fully encompass the variety of
standardised (top-down) protocol. So, the difference is not in the use of those tests, it is in the point of application. In a bottom-up approach, general guidance is voluntary methodologies available
given for each of those tests, and the individual projects must provide evidence/rationale for how they meet that general guidance. In a top-down approach, the
tests are applied to an entire sector during protocol development, resulting in very prescriptive guidance, resulting in less flexibility around eligibility, but also far 46
less work for the individual projects to demonstrate eligibility. So, the benchmarks and positive technology lists are a result of the application of the tools listed Öko-Institut, Stockholm Environment Institute and INFRAS, 2016
under “single project assessments
47
For instance, perverse incentives for policy makers in host countries not to implement policies or regulations to address gross GHG emissions – since this would
reduce the potential for international crediting

Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

38 39
3.2.1.2 Permanence 3.2.1.3 Unambiguously Owned and Transparent

Permanence is an essential environmental integrity principle for any carbon credit but should not Mechanisms to prevent double-counting may be implemented by various parties, from offset
be confused with a “permanence” in achieving carbon neutrality. That is, even if a city reaches net- protocol developers and carbon registries, to the entities purchasing the carbon credits and
zero emissions in a given year through the use of carbon credit projects, that city should be governments (subnational, national, or international level), or a combination of them. These
mindful of the need to reduce residual emissions generated in the subsequent year through mechanisms include:
additional gross emissions reductions or with carbon credits.
• A registry that lists the quantity, status (cancelled, retired, or banked), ownership, location,
Existing offsetting protocols provide varying levels of guidance for project permanence and o
rigin of carbon credits held by a jurisdiction, company or individuals regardless of
methodologies. Recommendations and implications for cities are provided below based on market boundary, s ector or scheme;
practice:
• A transaction log that records the details of each transaction between registry accounts,
• Sequestration projects should have a lifespan of at least 100 years 48 to be classified as including the issuance, holding, transfer, and acquisition of the carbon credits. These are not
permanent; typically made public by private parties, but cities should endeavour to make transactions
• Avoidance projects do not necessarily have one specific minimum lifespan and can range from transparent wherever possible;
40 to 100 years. Cities should make a determination of what lifespan length achieves the
principle of permanence based on the best available information; • Agreements between buyers and sellers that specify which party has the exclusive right to
• All projects should be re-evaluated on a regular basis to ensure that a project continues to claim e
ach unit and specifies what percentage, if any, is shared;
display permanence over its intended lifespan;
• If there is potential for reversal before the set number of years, the project must have • Legal mandates that disallow double-counting and employ penalty and enforcement systems;
guarantees to ensure that any losses are minimised and compensated for through insurance
mechanisms. These mechanisms may include: • Information sharing to identify units that are already registered in other programmes;
- Buffer accounts or reserve pools, in which a certain percentage of carbon offset credits that
a project produces are withheld, and these credits are only used as compensation in the event • Industry guidelines to specify commonly agreed rules for avoiding double counting. For
that previously verified, or future expected, credits are eventually negated. instance, the four major voluntary carbon registries have recently been working together with
- Legal mechanisms, such as deed restrictions and conservation easements, which help to environmental NGOs and industry representatives to develop common practices and
ensure that the geographic area in which the project takes place continues to be protected, guidelines for the avoidance of double-counting through double-claiming, double-issuance
and and double registration, and
• Specific rules and conditions for reversal compensation are detailed in individual project
protocols available on the market. Regardless of which insurance mechanism(s) is (are) chosen, • A blockchain that stores information about transactions and identifies dates, times,
project permanence guarantees that an equivalent amount of reductions will be replaced by participants, and credit status.
these mechanisms in the event that some or all reductions are lost. In addition, contracts
should clarify which party (i.e. the project developer or the credits purchaser) is responsible to Project registries used by cities for projects that address residual emissions should adhere to the
compensate for any/all losses of expected credits should the project fail to meet its following quality and integrity standards:
permanence criteria.
• GHG emissions must be publicly and transparently registered with unique serial numbers to
clearly document the offset crediting process (e.g. generation, transfer, retirement,
cancellation, ownership) and GHG emissions quantification methodology, and

• The project monitoring and enforcement arrangements (e.g. type of project, duration,
standards used, tests done, measurement, location, price, enforcement mechanism) must also
be made publicly available.

48
Under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) sequestration projects are time-limited and have to be replaced periodically

City of Melbourne
Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

40 41
3.3 Achieving Carbon Neutrality – Understanding the Use of
Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) 4. Neg a tiv e E mis s ion s T ech nolog ies
As a city pursues carbon neutrality, it will need to consider a wide variety of available instruments.
Carbon credits are one such mechanism described in this guidance document for the specific
In addition to the sequestration projects generating carbon credits discussed in section 3.1.1
purpose of cancelling out a city’s residual emissions. Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) represent
Mechanisms, other sequestration technologies exist which are commonly referred to as negative
a separate mechanism available to cities in the pursuit of carbon neutrality, however it is important
emissions technologies (NETs) 50 .
to note that RECs can only be used to address Scope 2 emissions as described in the GHG Protocol
Scope 2 Guidance of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol49 . RECs are a different tool from carbon credits and
These technologies are largely yet to be tested and proven, none have been adopted at large
the two should not be conflated nor considered interchangeable.
scale. Caution should be taken regarding potential ecological and ethical risks of these
technologies until further research and testing on proves them to be effective and safe.
RECs are measured in megawatt hours (MWh) and incremental purchases of RECs, year over year,
can show up as reductions in a city’s emissions inventory. Critically, RECs do not require
Examples of these technologies:
additionality. They do provide the possessor of the REC with the ability to claim ownership of the
environmental attribute – the renewable aspect (low-emissions or emissions-free) – of a MWh of
• Direct air capture and sequestration (DACS): chemical process by which CO 2 is captured
electricity being supplied to the grid. Individual programs specify the list of requirements that a
directly from the ambient air, with subsequent storage.
facility must meet to produce recognised RECs; general practice includes that (i) the electricity
sector not be under a cap-and-trade scheme and (ii) there be assurance that the RECs have not
• Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): applying carbon dioxide capture and
been double-counted.
storage (CCS) technology to a bioenergy facility. Depending on the total emissions of the
BECCS supply chain, carbon dioxide may be removed from the atmosphere.
To understand why RECs and offsets are not interchangeable, cities should note the following
differences regarding:
• Adding biochar51 to soils as opposed to burning as a fuel.

• Project type: RECs originate from generators of renewable electricity, whereas carbon credits
• Enhanced weathering: enhancing the removal of CO 2 from the atmosphere through dissolution
originate from qualifying projects that avoid and/or sequester GHG emissions – which may
of silicate and carbonate rocks by grinding these minerals to small particles and actively
include renewable energy projects;
applying them to soils, coasts or oceans.

• Unit of measurement: RECs are measured in MWh, whereas carbon credits are measured in
• Plant engineering: selectively breeding certain plants for traits that increase CO 2 storage in
metric tonnes of CO 2 avoided and/or sequestered;
soil.

• Additionality requirement: There is no additionality requirement for RECs but there is an

additionality requirement for carbon credits), and
Ecological and ethical considerations:
Cities should consider any and all potential ecological and ethical side effects resulting from the
• Claims: Owners use RECs to claim possession of a certain amount of low-emissions or
adoption of NETs based on the best available information at the time. For example, direct air
emissions-free electricity supplied to the grid, whereas owners use offset credits to claim
capture and storage (DACS) requires a lot of energy which would have to come from renewable
possession of a certain amount of CO 2 emissions avoided and/or sequestered.
sources in order to be deployed on a large scale. General safety and ethical concerns are included
below. This list is not exhaustive and impacts may vary across cities and regions.
The following practices are recommended regarding the use of RECs:

• RECs represent a powerful tool that a city may use to reduce their gross Scope 2 emissions, but
this tool cannot be used to address overall residual emissions;

• RECs may not be classified as carbon credits, and

• If a specific energy generation project (e.g. wind generation) satisfies the requirements for
carbon credits as well as RECs, that facility may produce both carbon credits and RECs, but
not for the same MWh of electricity produced. A single MWh can either be claimed as a REC or
the GHG reductions associated with it can be claimed towards carbon credits, if the applicable
requirements for REC or carbon credit generation are met. Other projects such as landfill gas
projects may similarly generate both carbon credits by capturing methane and RECs, or 50
NETs are not to be conflated with solar radiation management (SRM), which is a category of methods that aim to reflect some amount
of incoming light from the sun using particles injected into the atmosphere. Although NETs and SRM are commonly grouped together
Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs), that are associated with energy produced from the under the category of geoengineering, the NETs listed in section explicitly deal with the intentional removal of CO2 from the
the atomosphere while SRM does not deal with CO2 removal
captured methane. 51
Stable, carbon-rich material produced by heating biomass in an oxygen-limited environment. Biochar may be added to soils to improve soil functions and to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from biomass and soils, and for carbon sequestration.This definition builds from IBI (2018)
49
https://ghgprotocol.org/scope_2_guidance

Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

42 43
Mexico City

PO T E NT IAL IMPACT S

Ecological impacts According to many models, the level of scaling up of NETs required to keep
warming below 2°C by 2100 would require managing a carbon sink that is
larger than the entire land sink today (12 gigatons per year compared with 11
gigatons per year)52. It is thought that this could possibly lead to issues such
as triggering the melting of permafrost53. Moreover, given that carbon
storage is not necessarily permanent, carbon in soil may be released as the
climate changes.

Displacement of food Afforestation, reforestation and bioenergy are land intensive methods. If
production scaled up, they could result in less land to produce more food for a growing
population. This may lead to food shortage and/or increases in food prices.

Disruption of natural Large-scale incentives for bioenergy may convert natural ecosystems to
ecosystems commercial energy or monoculture plantations in ways that do not provide
a broader set of services.

Potential increase in There is a risk that resources from government, corporate and/or
global emissions philanthropic resources may be diverted to NETs rather than emission
reduction actions. These techniques may not work at the required scale,
potentially leading to an overall increase in global GHG emissions.

Cities should also consult the best available research on emissions-removal potentials for various
NETs.

52
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06695-5

53
Ground (soil or rock and included ice and organic material) that remains at or below 0°C for at least two consecutive years

Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

44 45
5 . C onclus io n an d Ou ts ta n d i n g I s s u e s

The decisions we make today matter. To limit warming below 1.5°C, global emissions must fall
dramatically by 2030 and reach net-zero as soon as possible. To achieve this ambitious and
necessary goal, effective communication and engagement with internal and external stakeholders,
throughout the carbon neutrality process is crucial, in addition to a clear representation in realising
citywide carbon neutrality.

In collaboration with cities, civil society partners, and expert organisations this document has
attempted to provide guidance on how to achieve citywide carbon neutrality. It established a
shared understanding of city carbon neutrality, identified common principles on emissions
reporting and emission reduction mechanisms, transparency and environmental integrity, and
provided an overall guidance, including through shared international best practices. There is,
however, further work required to strengthen the workability of this guidance.

Below is a list of the outstanding topics that need to be researched and further developed in this
guidance, or elsewhere to further the efforts of cities to achieve citywide carbon neutrality:

1) Additional guidance on effective communications and stakeholder engagement on municipal

and citywide carbon neutrality.

2) A global registry that can identify the ownership and status of carbon credits, along with
geographic data points on project locations and credit retirement locations, will be necessary for
cities to track carbon credit activity (purchases, sales, and retirements) in their cities in order to
properly account for citywide net emissions. It will be important for such a registry to be created
so that cities can understand offsetting activities at different levels within the city (e.g. by private
companies or individuals), providing clarification in terms of how those activities have/have not
been, o r should/should not be factored into the city’s citywide inventory. Such a registry
should be d eveloped and managed by an unbiased global-reaching organisation. It could be
developed by p artnering with and drawing on existing carbon credit registries.

3) Updates to current international reporting that do not currently offer gross and net disclosure
options.

4) Additional guidance on the costs of carbon credits.

5) Additional guidance on the ethical implications of different types of carbon credit projects.

6) Additional guidance on the role of carbon credits from allowances in compliance markets in
citywide carbon neutrality, if any.

7) Additional guidance on sequestration with appropriate accounting methodologies, e.g. urban

forests, and use of mass timber in construction.

8) Additional research on best practices for alignment with emerging global mechanisms, e.g.

City of Paris
internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs) in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.

Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

46 47
 Carbon dioxide (CO 2): A naturally occurring gas, CO 2 is also a by-product of burning fossil fuels (such as oil,
Annex A : Ot h e r Re lev a n t T e ch n i ca l De f i n i ti ons gas and coal), of burning biomass, of land use changes (LUC) and of industrial processes (e.g., cement
production). It is the principal anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) that affects the Earth’s radiative
f rom IPCC SR 1 . 5 balance. It is the reference gas against which other GHGs are measured and therefore has a Global Warming
Potential (GWP) of 1.

Anthropogenic emissions: Greenhouse gases (GHGs), precursors of GHGs and aerosols caused by human
Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS): A process in which a relatively pure stream of carbon dioxide
activities. These activities include the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, land use and land use changes
(CO 2 ) from industrial and energy related sources is separated (captured), conditioned, compressed and
(LULUC), livestock production, fertilisation, waste management, and industrial processes.
transported to a storage location for long-term isolation from the atmosphere. Sometimes referred to as
Carbon Capture and Storage. See also Carbon dioxide capture and utilisation (CCU), Bioenergy with carbon
Anthropogenic removals: The withdrawal of GHGs from the atmosphere as a result of deliberate human
dioxide capture and storage (BECCS), and Sequestration.
activities. These include enhancing biological sinks of CO 2 and using chemical engineering to achieve long
term removal and storage. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) from industrial and energy-related sources,
Carbon dioxide capture and utilisation (CCU): A process in which CO 2 is captured and then used to
which alone does not remove CO 2 in the atmosphere, can reduce atmospheric CO 2 if it is combined with
produce a new product. If the CO 2 is stored in a product for a climate-relevant time horizon, this is referred
bioenergy production (BECCS).
to as carbon dioxide capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS). Only then, and only combined with CO 2
recently removed from the atmosphere, can CCUS lead to carbon dioxide removal. CCU is sometimes
Baseline scenario: In much of the literature the term is also synonymous with the term business-as-usual
referred to as Carbon dioxide capture and use.
(BAU) scenario, although the term BAU has fallen out of favour because the idea of business as usual in
century-long socio-economic projections is hard to fathom. In the context of transformation pathways, the
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR): Processes that remove CO 2 from the atmosphere by either increasing
term baseline scenarios refers to scenarios that are based on the assumption that no mitigation policies or
biological sinks of CO 2 or using chemical processes to directly bind CO 2 . CDR is classified as a special type
measures will be implemented beyond those that are already in force and/or are legislated or planned to be
of mitigation.
adopted. Baseline scenarios are not intended to be predictions of the future, but rather counterfactual
constructions that can serve to highlight the level of emissions that would occur without further policy effort.
Carbon neutrality: Achieving net zero carbon dioxide emissions at a global scale through the balance of
Typically, baseline scenarios are then compared to mitigation scenarios that are constructed to meet
residual carbon dioxide emissions with the same amount of carbon dioxide removal.
different goals for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, atmospheric concentrations or temperature change.
The term baseline scenario is often used interchangeably with reference scenario and no policy scenario.
Carbon price: The price for avoided or released carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) or CO 2 -equivalent emissions. This may
refer to the rate of a carbon tax, or the price of emission permits. In many models that are used to assess the
Biochar: Stable, carbon-rich material produced by heating biomass in an oxygen-limited environment.
economic costs of mitigation, carbon prices are used as a proxy to represent the level of effort in mitigation
Biochar may be added to soils to improve soil functions and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
policies.
biomass and soils, and for carbon sequestration. [Footnote: This definition builds from IBI (2018)].

Carbon sequestration: The process of storing carbon in a carbon pool.

Bioenergy: Energy derived from any form of biomass or its metabolic by-products. See also Biomass and
Biofuel.
Carbon sink: See uptake.

Biofuel: A fuel, generally in liquid form, produced from biomass. Biofuels currently include bioethanol from
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): A mechanism defined under Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol through
sugarcane or maize, biodiesel from canola or soybeans, and black liquor from the paper manufacturing
which investors (governments or companies) from developed (Annex B) countries may finance greenhouse
process.
gas (GHG) emission reduction or removal projects in developing countries (Non-Annex B) and receive
Certified Emission Reduction Units (CERs) for doing so. The CERs can be credited towards the commitments
Biomass: Living or recently-dead organic material.
of the respective developed countries. The CDM is intended to facilitate the two objectives of promoting
sustainable development (SD) in developing countries and of helping industrialised countries to reach their
Bioenergy with carbon dioxide capture and storage (BECCS): Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS)
emissions commitments in a cost-effective way.
technology applied to a bioenergy facility. Note that depending on the total emissions of the BECCS supply
chain, carbon dioxide can be removed from the atmosphere. See also Bioenergy, and Carbon dioxide capture
Zero emissions commitment: The zero emissions commitment is the climate change commitment that
and storage (CCS).
would result from setting anthropogenic emissions to zero. It is determined by both inertia in physical
climate system components (ocean, cryosphere, land surface) and carbon cycle inertia.
Carbon budget: This term refers to three concepts in the literature: (1) an assessment of carbon cycle
sources and sinks on a global level, through the synthesis of evidence for fossil-fuel and cement emissions,
Climate neutrality: Concept of a state in which human activities result in no net effect on the climate system.
land use change emissions, ocean and land CO 2 sinks, and the resulting tmospheric CO 2 growth rate. This is
Achieving such a state would require balancing of residual emissions with emission (carbon dioxide) removal
referred to as the global carbon budget; (2) the estimated cumulative amount of global carbon dioxide
as well as accounting for regional or local biogeophysical effects of human activities that, for example, affect
emissions that that is estimated to limit global surface temperature to a given level above a reference period,
surface albedo or local climate.
taking into account global surface temperature contributions of other GHGs and climate forcers; (3) the
distribution of the carbon budget defined under (2) to the regional, national, or sub-national level based on
considerations of equity, costs or efficiency.

Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

48 49
Climate target: Climate target refers to a temperature limit, concentration level, or emissions reduction goal Enhanced weathering: Enhancing the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through dissolution
used towards the aim of avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. For of silicate and carbonate rocks by grinding these minerals to small particles and actively applying them to
example, national climate targets may aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a certain amount over a soils, coasts or oceans.
given time horizon, for example those under the Kyoto Protocol.
Fossil fuels: Carbon-based fuels from fossil hydrocarbon deposits, including coal, oil, and natural gas.
CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 -eq) emission: The amount of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emission that would cause the
same integrated radiative forcing or temperature change, over a given time horizon, as an emitted amount of Geoengineering: In the IPCC report, separate consideration is given to the two main approaches considered
a greenhouse gas (GHG) or a mixture of GHGs. There are a number of ways to compute such equivalent as ‘geoengineering’ in some of the literature: solar radiation modification (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal
emissions and choose appropriate time horizons. Most typically, the CO 2 -equivalent emission is obtained by (CDR). Because of this separation, the term ‘geoengineering’ is not used in the IPCC SR15.
multiplying the emission of a GHG by its Global Warming Potential (GWP) for a 100 year time horizon. For a
mix of GHGs it is obtained by summing the CO 2 -equivalent emissions of each gas. CO 2 -equivalent emission Global warming: An increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) averaged over a 30-year period,
is a common scale for comparing emissions of different GHGs but does not imply equivalence of the relative to 1850-1900 unless otherwise specified. For periods shorter than 30 years, global warming refers to
corresponding climate change responses. There is generally no connection between CO 2 -equivalent the estimated average temperature over the 30 years centred on that shorter period, accounting for the
emissions and resulting CO 2 -equivalent concentrations. impact of any temperature fluctuations or trend within those 30 years.

Deforestation: Conversion of forest to non-forest. For a discussion of the term forest and related terms such Greenhouse gas (GHG): Greenhouse gases are those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural
as afforestation, reforestation and deforestation, see the IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use and anthropogenic, that absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of terrestrial
Change, and Forestry (IPCC, 2000). [Footnote: See also information provided by the United Nations radiation emitted by the earth’s surface, the atmosphere itself, and by clouds. This property causes the
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 2013) and the report on Definitions and greenhouse effect. Water vapour (H 2 O), carbon dioxide (CO 2), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), methane (CH4) and
Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and ozone (O3) are the primary GHGs in the earth’s atmosphere. Moreover, there are a number of entirely human-
Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types (IPCC, 2003).]. made GHGs in the atmosphere, such as the halocarbons and other chlorine- and bromine-containing
substances, dealt with under the Montreal Protocol. Beside CO 2 , N 2 O and CH 4 , the Kyoto Protocol deals with
Decarbonisation: The process by which countries, individuals or other entities aim to achieve zero fossil the GHGs sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs).
carbon existence. Typically refers to a reduction of the carbon emissions associated with electricity, industry
and transport. Greenhouse gas removal (GGR): Withdrawal of a GHG and/or a precursor from the atmosphere by a sink.

Direct air carbon dioxide capture and storage (DACCS): Chemical process by which CO 2 is captured Land use: The total of arrangements, activities and inputs undertaken in a certain land cover type (a set of
directly from the ambient air, with subsequent storage. Also known as direct air capture and storage (DACS). human actions). The term land use is also used in the sense of the social and economic purposes for which
land is managed (e.g., grazing, timber extraction, conservation and City dwelling). In national greenhouse
Emission scenario: A plausible representation of the future development of emissions of substances that are gas inventories, land use is classified according to the IPCC land use categories of forest land, cropland,
radiatively active (e.g., greenhouse gases (GHGs), aerosols) based on a coherent and internally consistent set grassland, wetland, settlements, other.
of assumptions about driving forces (such as demographic and socio-economic development, technological
change, energy and land use) and their key relationships. Concentration scenarios, derived from emission Land-use change (LUC): Involves a change from one land use category to another.
scenarios, are often used as input to a climate model to compute climate projections.
Mitigation scenario: A plausible description of the future that describes how the (studied) system responds
Emissions trading: A market-based instrument aiming at meeting a mitigation objective in an efficient way. to the implementation of mitigation policies and measures.
A cap on GHG emissions is divided in tradeable emission permits that are allocated by a combination of
auctioning and handing out free allowances to entities within the jurisdiction of the trading scheme. Entities Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs): A term used under the United Nations Framework
need to surrender emission permits equal to the amount of their emissions (e.g., tonnes of CO 2). An entity Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) whereby a country that has joined the Paris Agreement outlines
may sell excess permits to entities that can avoid the same amount of emissions in a cheaper way. Trading its plans for reducing its emissions. Some countries NDCs also address how they will adapt to climate change
schemes may occur at the intra-company, domestic, or international level (e.g., the flexibility mechanisms impacts, and what support they need from, or will provide to, other countries to adopt low-carbon pathways
under the Kyoto Protocol and the EU-EUTS) and may apply to carbon dioxide (CO 2), other greenhouse gases and to build climate resilience. According to Article 4 paragraph 2 of the Paris Agreement, each Party shall
(GHGs), or other substances. Emission trajectories A projected development in time of the emission of a prepare, communicate and maintain successive NDCs that it intends to achieve. In the lead up to 21st
greenhouse gas (GHG) or group of GHGs, aerosols, and GHG precursors. Conference of the Parties in Paris in 2015, countries submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contributions
(INDCs). As countries join the Paris Agreement, unless they decide otherwise, this INDC becomes their first
Emission trajectories: A projected development in time of the emission of a greenhouse gas (GHG) or group Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC).
of GHGs, aerosols, and GHG precursors.
Negative emissions: Removal of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from the atmosphere by deliberate human
activities, i.e. in addition to the removal that would occur via natural carbon cycle processes. For CO 2 ,
negative emissions can be achieved with direct capture of CO 2 from ambient air, bioenergy with carbon
capture and sequestration (BECCS), afforestation, reforestation, biochar, ocean alkalinisation, among others.

Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

50 51
Net negative emissions: A situation of net negative emissions is achieved when, as result of human activities, Reforestation: Planting of forests on lands that have previously contained forests but that have been
more greenhouse gases are removed from the atmosphere than are emitted into it. Where multiple converted to some other use. [Footnote: For a discussion of the term forest and related terms such as
greenhouse gases are involved, the quantification of negative emissions depends on the climate metric afforestation, reforestation and deforestation, see the IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change,
chosen to compare emissions of different gases (such as Global warming potential, Global temperature and Forestry (IPCC, 2000), information provided by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
change potential, and others, as well as the chosen time horizon). Change (UNFCCC, 2013), the report on Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from
Direct Human-induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types (IPCC, 2003).].
Net-zero CO 2 emissions: Conditions in which any remaining anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions
are balanced globally by anthropogenic CO 2 removals. Net-zero CO 2 emissions are also referred to as carbon Remaining carbon budget: Cumulative global CO 2 emissions from the start of 2018 to the time that CO 2
neutrality. emissions reach net-zero that would result in a given level of global warming.

Net-zero emissions: Are achieved when emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere are balanced by Scenario: A plausible description of how the future may develop based on a coherent and internally
anthropogenic removals. Where multiple greenhouse gases are involved, the quantification of net zero consistent set of assumptions about key driving forces (e.g., rate of technological change (TC), prices) and
emissions depends on the climate metric chosen to compare emissions of different gases (such as Global relationships. Note that scenarios are neither predictions nor forecasts but are used to provide a view of the
warming potential, global temperature change potential, and others, as well as the chosen time horizon). implications of developments and actions.

Ocean acidification (OA): Refers to a reduction in the pH of the ocean over an extended period, typically Sequestration: See Uptake.
decades or longer, which is caused primarily by uptake of carbon dioxide (CO 2) from the atmosphere but can
also be caused by other chemical additions or subtractions from the ocean. Anthropogenic ocean Sink: A reservoir (natural or human, in soil, ocean, and plants) where a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a
acidification refers to the component of pH reduction that is caused by human activity (IPCC, 2011, p. 37). precursor of a greenhouse gas is stored. Note that UNFCCC Article 1.8 refers to a sink as any process, activity
or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas from the
Ocean fertilisation: Deliberate increase of nutrient supply to the near-surface ocean to enhance biological atmosphere.
production through which additional carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is sequestered. This can be
achieved by the addition of micro-nutrients or macro-nutrients. Ocean fertilisation is regulated by the Soil carbon sequestration (SCS): Land management changes which increase the soil organic carbon
London Protocol. content, resulting in a net removal of CO 2 from the atmosphere.

Paris Agreement: The Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): The UNFCCC was adopted in May
(UNFCCC) was adopted on December 2015 in Paris, France, at the 21st session of the Conference of the 1992 and opened for signature at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. It entered into force in March 1994
Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC. The agreement, adopted by 196 Parties to the UNFCCC, entered into force on and as of May 2018 had 197 Parties (196 States and the European Union). The Convention’s ultimate objective
4 November 2016 and as of May 2018 had 195 Signatories and was ratified by 177 Parties. One of the goals of is the “stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
the Paris Agreement is “Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre- dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. The provisions of the Convention are
industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”, pursued and implemented by two treaties: the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.
recognising that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. Additionally, the
Agreement aims to strengthen the ability of countries to deal with the impacts of climate change. The Paris Uptake: The addition of a substance of concern to a reservoir. See also Carbon sequestration and Sink.
Agreement is intended to become fully effective in 2020.

Pre-industrial: The multi-century period prior to the onset of large-scale industrial activity. The reference
period 1850-1900 is used to approximate pre-industrial global mean surface temperature (GMST) in this
report.

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+): An effort to create financial
value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from
forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development (SD). It is therefore a mechanism
for mitigation that results from avoiding deforestation. REDD+ goes beyond deforestation and forest
degradation, and includes the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of
forest carbon stocks. The concept was first introduced in 2005 in the 11th Session of the Conference of the
Parties (COP) in Montreal and later given greater recognition in the 13th Session of the COP in 2007 at Bali
and inclusion in the Bali Action Plan which called for ‘policy approaches and positive incentives on issues
relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD)
and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stock in
developing countries’. Since then, support for REDD has increased and has slowly become a framework for
action supported by a number of countries.

Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

52 53
A nne x B : C ar bo n P r oto co l s a n d S ta n d a r d s
revie w e d fo r t h is docu me n t

Special Report: Global Warming of https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary/#article

1.5 °C Glossary

Climate Action Reserve http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/protocols/

Verified Carbon Standard http://www.v-c-s.org/project/vcs-program/

California Offset Program - Air https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/offsets/offsets.htm

Resources Board (ARB)

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative https://www.rggi.org/ and https://www.rggi.org/design/overview

Gold Standard https://www.goldstandard.org/globalgoals

Climate, Community and Biodiversity http://www.climate-standards.org/

(CCB) Standards

National Carbon Offset Standard http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/

(Australian Government) government/carbon-neutral/ncos

Natural Capital - Carbon Neutral https://www.naturalcapitalpartners.com/

Protocol solutions/solution/carbon-neutrality

UNFCCC Clean Development https://cdm.unfccc.int/about/index.html

Mechanism (CDM)

Green-e Climate https://www.green-e.org/programs/climate

Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative https://sustainability.duke.edu/offsets/about

South Pole Group Offsets https://www.southpole.com/sustainability-solutions/carbon-offsets

Social Carbon www.socialcarbon.org

International Carbon Reduction & https://www.icroa.org/rresources

Offset Alliance (ICROA)

The Nature Conservancy Carbon https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/

Offset Programme global-warming-climate-change/help/carbon-offset-program-
frequently-asked-questions.xml?redirect=https-301#1

American Carbon Registry https://americancarbonregistry.org/

I Tree Tools https://www.itreetools.org/

Defining Carbon Neutrality for Cities & Managing Residual Emissions – Cities’ Perspective & Guidance

54 55
©Colton Duke, Unsplash

NYC Mayor’s Office of Sustainability

253 Broadway, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10007
www.nyc.gov/sustainability

C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group

3 Queen Victoria Street
London EC4N 4TQ
United Kingdom
www.resourcecentre.c40.org

56 Focused acceleration: A strategic approach for climate action in cities