Recent news articles have raised concerns about the scientific basis of potential forest carbon accounting approaches and whether industry interests have unduly influenced their development. These questions deserve a clear explanation of where the process stands, how decisions are made and what happens next.  

Importantly, no forest carbon accounting (FCA) approach has been selected by Greenhouse Gas Protocol.  

The full Independent Standards Board (ISB) considered two proposed approaches and didn't approve either, and as a result, in July, we launched a public Request for Information to gather more evidence and perspectives on this important topic. The consultation period is open until February 1, 2027 and we encourage all interested stakeholders to participate. Responses will inform the ISB and Steering Committee's decision on how to move forward. 

What’s the issue? 

Forest carbon accounting raises a complex question: when a company owns, manages or sources products from forestland, which carbon emissions and removals are attributable to the reporting company and should appear in its greenhouse gas inventory? 

Forests both emit and remove carbon. Those changes can result from harvesting and forest management practices, as well as natural processes and other factors. The challenge is therefore not simply measuring whether the carbon stored in a forest went up or down. It is determining which emissions and removals are attributable to human activity and how those changes should be represented in a corporate greenhouse gas inventory. 

Different accounting choices can produce different pictures of a company's emissions and removals and affect corporate decisions, climate targets and claims. Any future approach therefore needs careful scrutiny of both its scientific basis and its implications in practice. 

There are substantive disagreements within the scientific and practitioner communities about how human-caused emissions and removals from managed forests should be defined and accounted for.  This is part of the process, and our responsibility is to evaluate the evidence, understand the implications and be transparent about unresolved questions. 

What has happened to date? 

A dedicated Forest Carbon Accounting Technical Working Group (FCA TWG) was convened in 2025 to develop potential approaches. The group developed two proposals, Managed Land Proxy Plus (MLP+) and Activity-Based Accounting (ABA). 

Both were preliminary proposals, rather than fully developed, tested methodologies. They were considered by GHG Protocol’s Independent Standards Board, which is the decision-making body responsible for approving GHG Protocol standards. 

The ISB concluded that further methodological development, testing and stakeholder input were needed before a decision could be made.  Neither proposal was approved, and no approach has been selected. 

Did the process give greater weight to industry perspectives? 

No. GHG Protocol follows a multi-stakeholder standard development process. The FCA TWG membership was composed of approximately one-third each from civil society, academia and business. The FCA TWG membership is publicly available on our website.  

GHG Protocol’s Steering Committee Chair decided to commission an independent third party to review the Forest Carbon Accounting process, which found no material breach of its Terms of Reference or due process. It also found no evidence of bias or undue influence on ISB decision-making.  

What happens next? 

The current Request for Information is an opportunity for researchers, environmental organizations, businesses and other stakeholders, including those critical of the process or the proposals, to contribute evidence, identify limitations and suggest alternatives. 

That input, which will be made publicly available per our standard procedures, will help inform the next stage of the work. Any future approach will need to be evaluated against the evidence and the GHG Protocol decision-making criteria including scientific integrity, climate impact and feasibility, and follow GHG Protocol’s established governance due process. This mitigates against any individual participant, company or organization from determining the outcome.  Any future methodology must go through development, testing and public review, and secure approval from GHG Protocol’s ISB. 

GHG Protocol standards are used globally and must reflect the best science and reflect feasible practices.  Our responsibility is to develop a scientifically sound standard through a transparent and rigorous process. That means taking criticism seriously, making room for new evidence and addressing unresolved questions before an approach is approved. 

See our Q&A here for further information.