Development

We are committed to improving and developing the Woodland Carbon Code.

If you have any suggestions, we would love to hear from you. Please email us at info@woodlandcarboncode.org.uk

If you would like to propose a new methodology which could be included in the code, please follow the process set out in our new methodology development framework below. 

We are working with a range of partners to explore new methodologies which could be included in the code.  

• Trialling drones for year five verification

We are working on a range of development and improvement projects to support users of the code.

Use of remote sensing for monitoring

Through the CivTech process, we’re working with two companies to investigate the use of satellite-based data and low-cost sensors to help improve the frequency, accuracy and transparency of our monitoring protocols. 

Biomass carbon

Forest Research is working on an updated version of the model that supports the carbon calculator. This will provide improved predictions based on the best available and more comprehensive data sources. The updated model will allow for predictions for a wider range of spacings up to five metres (400 stems per hectare) for all species. Predictions will also be supported by indications of levels of supporting data, confidence and uncertainty.

In addition to improving models to predict woodland carbon sequestration, we will review and make data available on the carbon stock of other types of non-tree vegetation.

Soil carbon

With the support of our project developers and landowners, Forest Research has collected soil carbon data at more than 140 Woodland Carbon Code projects, comparing a ‘control’ site (the previous land use) with new planting aged 1 to 20 years old. This work is ongoing.

Forest Research is collating this information with other studies to create a library of soil carbon measurements for all scenarios of planting method, soil type, forest management type and tree species. We hope to develop a more detailed soil carbon calculator, like the biomass carbon calculator, based on this data.

Through the CivTech project, we are also investigating the use of low-cost sensors to give information on changes to soil carbon and would like to develop a soil carbon measurement methodology. 

Improved registry and workflow management

We are currently re-tendering for a provider for the UK Land Carbon Registry and hope to improve the functionality of the system in the next iteration. We plan to go live with the new registry in summer 2026. 

Through the CivTech process, we are also working with a company to provide improved and streamlined workflow management tools. This should reduce the administration burden for preparing documents and having them validated and verified. It will also provide a platform to visualise remotely sensed monitoring data. We will continue to develop the workflow management tools during 2025 and 2026.

Small woods 

We made changes to the small woods process in version 3.0 of the standard. This includes increasing the ‘threshold’ for being able to use the small woods process to ten hectares. We will continue to look for further options to improve accessibility for small woods. 

Clarity over buffer rules

Over the last year, we have created template agreements for buying and selling carbon units. These will improve confidence among buyers and sellers, helping them to understand the risks and liabilities. 

Next, we plan to review and improve our guidance on the Woodland Carbon Code buffer and how reversal of carbon sequestration is accounted for when things do not go to plan with woodland carbon projects.

Models for investment in Pending Issuance Units

We are aware of various proposals to develop and encourage infrastructure for early and credible investment in Pending Issuance Units. We plan to investigate this further with academics and interested investors.

Community engagement and benefits

During 2024 and 2025, a Facility for Investment Readiness in Scotland project developed requirements projects could use to quantify the level of community engagement and community benefit they provide. Scottish Land Commission has also published a community benefits routemap. We will review this work and consider whether it is appropriate to incorporate into the standard.

There are a number of steps involved in including a new methodology in the Woodland Carbon Code. This pilot framework (version 0.2) provides information on the process. We would expect new proposals to follow this process, although there is some flexibility.

This framework will be piloted with new methodologies and revised as necessary following testing and feedback.

The Woodland Carbon Code executive board reserves the right to reject or suggest amendments to any proposed methodology at each of the key decision points.

Any method already established/developed for another ICROA endorsed standard could potentially skip some of the stages in the process, provided it is proven that there is sufficient evidence it can be applied to the UK context.

1. Concept note

The method developer initially submits a ‘concept note’ to the Woodland Carbon Code secretariat at info@woodlandcarboncode.org.uk.

2. Concept note decision

The secretariat will review the concept note and submit it to executive board with recommendations to either:

• Approve the method to be developed as proposed
• Suggest amends or suggest solutions where there are potential overlaps with other methodologies already implemented or under consideration
• Reject the request for methodology development

If endorsed by the Executive Board, it will be submitted to the Nature Markets Strategy Board for approval.

3. Draft method development

If approved, the method developer develops methodology and submits it to the secretariat which includes the main criteria to be addressed in the review. See the list of issues to be considered in a new methodology proposal (pdf).

4. Draft method decision

The secretariat will review the proposed methodology and submit it to executive board for approval to move to the next stage.

5. Consultation

The secretariat will lead consultation with the following groups/organisations:

• The Woodland Carbon Code Advisory Board.
• Accredited validation/verification bodies and United Kingdom Accreditation Service. If the method is simple, this can be done during regular meetings. If it is more complex, the validator/United Kingdom Accreditation Service review may incur a charge to the methodology developer.
• Registry provider (S&P Global) to ensure new project/methodology type is accommodated.
• Other experts. We will form a working group or engage other experts as necessary depending on methodology proposed. Technical review could incur a cost from experts.
• Other stakeholders through public consultation.

During this process the secretariat will liaise with the methodology developer to incorporate comments/recommendations.

6. Pilot method decision

The secretariat will review the developed ‘pilot-stage methodology’ with the executive board to ensure they are happy that it moves to the ‘pilot’ stage.

7. Pilot stage

There are two stages:

1. The methodology developer will trial the validation of an agreed number of project(s) using the new methodology with an agreed validator.
2. Feedback from the validator/the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, registry provider and secretariat are incorporated into the ‘final methodology’.

8. Final decision

The secretariat will share the final methodology proposal with the Executive Board and then the Nature Markets Strategy Board for final approval.

9. Final methodology publication/incorporation

There are two stages:

1. The secretariat will incorporate the new methodology into the Woodland Carbon Code website, the code and the guidance at the next regular update to the code.
2. The methodology will then be open for use by other interested project developers.

We review our methodologies regularly to ensure they are conservative and additional. If we believe that any methodology does not meet these criteria, we will propose to the Executive Board its immediate suspension.

If further investigation of available evidence confirms the methodology is not conservative or additional, we will either

1. Amend the methodology through our methodology development framework so that both criteria are met or
2. Seek the endorsement of the Executive Board and approval of the Nature Markets Strategy Board to withdraw the methodology from use under the Woodland Carbon Code.