GHG Protocol clarifies that forest carbon accounting methodology remains unresolved
GHG Protocol has not approved either proposed forest carbon accounting method. Its October clarification explains what remains unresolved and why reporting teams should check their disclosure language.
Source published: 2026-10-02
Audience / jurisdiction: Global accounting context; relevant to organisations and practitioners preparing forest-carbon disclosures, not a jurisdiction-specific legal mandate.
A clarification, not a new accounting rule
GHG Protocol has clarified that it has not selected a forest carbon accounting methodology. Its October 2, 2026 statement explains that two proposals considered by its Independent Standards Board still require further methodological development, testing and stakeholder input. The announcement is a clarification of ongoing standard-setting, not the adoption of a new accounting requirement.
For sustainability managers and greenhouse gas reporting teams, the immediate issue is how to describe work that remains unresolved. A proposal under consideration should not be presented as an approved GHG Protocol method. Teams reviewing forest-related disclosures can use the clarification to check whether their reporting language accurately reflects the status of the approaches they discuss.
Sources: [1]
Neither proposed approach has been selected
The two proposals are Managed Land Proxy Plus, known as MLP+, and Activity-Based Accounting, or ABA. According to GHG Protocol, neither has been approved. The Independent Standards Board concluded that more work was needed before a methodology could move forward.
That distinction matters when reviewing internal presentations, methodological summaries and public claims. Saying that an approach was considered by the board is different from saying that the board selected it. As a suggested control, reporting teams could check references to MLP+ and ABA across their documents and remove wording that implies approval. This is a practical response to the clarification, rather than a newly announced compliance obligation.
Sources: [1]
Keep the standard’s scope clear
An accompanying FAQ dated October 1, 2026 explains that the current Land Sector and Removals Standard does not include forest carbon accounting requirements. It attributes that exclusion to the insufficient development of the proposed quantification methodologies.
The scope of that statement is important. It concerns forest carbon accounting requirements; it does not establish that the entire Land Sector and Removals Standard is suspended. Management-system practitioners should preserve that distinction when briefing colleagues or updating issue registers. A useful internal note would identify the unresolved forest-accounting topic specifically, rather than treating it as a general halt to land-sector accounting.
Sources: [2]
Review disclosure language and supporting records
The clarification offers a reason to review the evidence behind existing forest-carbon disclosures without assuming that a replacement methodology is ready. Suggested first steps are to identify the disclosures being made, record the methods supporting them, and distinguish calculations already used by the organisation from proposals still being developed through GHG Protocol’s process.
For example, a team preparing a sustainability report could maintain a short methodology record beside each forest-carbon figure. That record could describe the approach used, its assumptions and limitations, the responsible owner, and the wording approved for publication. Such a record would help reviewers understand the basis of a disclosure without implying that GHG Protocol has endorsed the calculation.
Teams could also separate a method’s technical rationale from its formal approval status. An internal assessment may explain why an approach was chosen, but that assessment should not be confused with issuer approval. These are suggested reporting controls, not requirements established by the October statement or FAQ.
Monitor the process without inventing a timetable
GHG Protocol describes further development, testing, public review and Independent Standards Board approval as necessary steps for a future methodology. The October clarification therefore should not be read as a final decision on which approach will ultimately be adopted.
For planning purposes, reporting teams can treat the issue as an open standards-development item. A suggested monitoring record would capture the current status, the disclosures potentially affected and the person responsible for reviewing future issuer updates. Avoid assigning a transition date on the basis of this clarification: the opened evidence does not establish one. The practical priority is accurate communication now, while leaving room to assess any approved methodology when it becomes available.
Sources: [1]
Sources
- Forest Carbon Accounting: Where the Process Stands and What Comes Next
- Forest Carbon Accounting: What You Need to Know
Your experience
How does your team distinguish the methodology used in a forest-carbon disclosure from its formal approval status?
Originally published by AdviseISO, a knowledge-sharing initiative of W3 Solutionz.