Yes, this is a requirement for all AFOLU projects.

The project would only be permitted to claim carbon credits from the area of land which exceeds the mandatory activities / area / regulatory frameworks (e.g. 90 ha of project area restored).

Under this scenario the project must demonstrate that the native vegetation cover is unlikely to naturally regenerate without the project’s intervention, or will naturally regenerate at a slower rate when compared to the expected results of the project. In addition, the project must evidence that at least 50% of the project activities cannot be financed without carbon funding.

In the event that the project’s location resides within a jurisdictional REDD+ programme and the project itself if focused on reducing the consumption of non-renewable wood fuel (wood or charcoal), the project is not permitted to issue carbon credits under the SOCIALCARBON Standard due to the double counting risks.

A jurisdictional REDD+ programme will monitor emission reductions through a different approach to this methodology. This makes it unfeasible to nest this project type within the jurisdictional REDD+ programme.

If a jurisdictional programme is implemented impacting the project after the project start date, the project must only monitor the emission reductions achieved prior to the jurisdictional REDD+ programme’s start date.

For example, if a project has been operational since the January 2022 and a jurisdictional REDD+ programme begins on the 1st of July 2023, the cookstove project is only permitted to monitor the emission reductions up until the 1st July 2023. Afterwards, not further emission reductions can be claimed.

Exemption:

If the jurisdictional REDD+ programme does not account for deadwood in its carbon pools, and the cookstove project can demonstrate that a percentage of the wood fuel (excluding Charcoal) consumed is deadwood, then the project is permitted to quantify the emission reductions from the reduced consumption of deadwood. The emission reductions shall be calculated by following the procedures outlined in the methodology and then discounting the net emission reductions by the percentage of wood fuel that is sourced from deadwood.

Note: the start of the jurisdictional REDD+ programme shall be considered the date in which the jurisdictional REDD+ programme’s PDD is validated.

Only belowground biomass of grasslands can be considered. This carbon pool offers long term permanence of sequestered carbon. Aboveground biomass on the other hand is vulnerable to herbivore consumption and fires, and therefore cannot be considered a permanent carbon pool.

Grazing may be implemented in the project area, however the project must exclude both the aboveground and belowground biomass of the grassland from the project’s measured carbon pools. Whilst grazing reduces fire risk, grazing exclusion has been shown to significantly increase carbon stored in aboveground biomass, litter mass, belowground biomass and soils. The only exemption to this requirement is if the grazing is limited to once every 5 years or more - under this scenario the belowground biomass of the grassland can be monitored as a carbon pool by the project.

In all scenarios, if livestock grazing is present in the project area, the project proponent must provide evidence that the livestock have not caused any direct negative impact on the project area’s biomes and their carbon stocks. Failure to manage the livestock and the subsequent degradation of the biomes within the project area will result in the project no longer remaining eligible for certification.

(Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.06.124)

A detailed description of the additionality assessment to be completed by projects can be found in the methodology.

In summary, project activities must exceed the requirements for legal reserves / APPs by Brazilian law and common practice e.g. , including fire management, fencing (provided it does not impact biodiversity movements), biodiversity monitoring, vegetation conservation and monitoring, species enrichment etc. Evidence must be provided to prove that the project activities are additional and meet the requirements of the methodology and SOCIALCARBON Standard.

If you can demonstrate that a fire has resulted in more than 60% of the forest biomass being lost, then the area can be considered a secondary formation.

No, this is not eligible. Doing so raises issues related to additionality and also the gerrymandering of project areas to maximize carbon credit generation.