AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool and Buffer Contributions

Updated 2026-11-02 · 4 min read · By the akar.earth specialist team

The Verra AFOLU non-permanence risk tool explained: how internal, external and natural risks set a project's buffer contribution, with Indonesian risk factors.

The AFOLU non-permanence risk tool is Verra’s method for scoring the risk that carbon stored by a forest or land project will be released again. The total risk score sets the percentage of each verification’s credits that must go into the Verra buffer pool, which covers losses across all projects.

Every VCS AFOLU project, from ARR and REDD+ to IFM and wetland restoration, completes the tool at validation and updates it at every verification. A lower score means more credits available to sell.

The three risk groups

Each factor has defined scores. Natural risks are assessed by likelihood and significance, with credit for mitigation. Political risk draws on governance indicators for the host country. The tool combines the scores into an overall rating that becomes the buffer percentage. If the total risk is too high, the project fails the assessment and cannot be credited until risks are reduced.

There is a minimum buffer percentage regardless of score. Check the current version of the tool for exact scores, the minimum and the failure threshold. Verra issued VCS Standard v5.0 on 16 December 2025, and associated tools may change with it.

How to complete the tool step by step

1. Collect evidence early. Gather tenure documents, community agreements, financial statements and hazard data before drafting.
2. Score internal risks. Project management experience, cash flow, the profit from alternative land uses and how long the project commits to maintain carbon.
3. Score external risks. Tenure security and disputes, quality of community engagement and benefit sharing, and the host country’s governance.
4. Score natural risks. For each hazard, estimate how often it occurs and how much carbon it would affect. Use historical data, such as fire hotspots, storm tracks and pest outbreaks.
5. Document mitigation. Fire brigades, firebreaks, monitoring systems, insurance and diversification all count where evidenced.
6. Calculate the rating. Sum the scores to reach the buffer percentage.
7. Write the risk report. Include it with the project description at validation and update it with each monitoring report.
8. VVB review. The validation and verification body tests each score against the evidence.

Indonesia and Southeast Asia risk factors

Indonesian projects tend to score on several factors:

• Fire. Peat and lowland forests in Sumatra and Kalimantan burn in dry years, especially in El Niño years. Hotspot history counts. Read permanence and reversals.
• Tenure. Overlapping claims between the forest estate, concessions, customary land and villages are common. Social forestry permits and recognised customary forests can improve tenure evidence. Permenhut 6/2026 names social forestry, customary forests and communities as legitimate participants in forestry carbon trading.
• Opportunity cost. Oil palm, pulpwood and mining create high opportunity costs on many sites.
• Political risk. Scored from national governance indicators. Regulatory change, such as the move to Perpres 110/2025 and SRUK, adds uncertainty that projects should describe.
• Coastal hazards. Mangrove projects face storms, erosion and sea-level rise.

Pitfalls verifiers flag

• Low scores without documentary evidence.
• Fire risk scored without using historical hotspot data.
• Community engagement scored as strong with no records of consultation or benefit sharing.
• Project longevity commitments not backed by legal agreements.
• Risk report not updated at verification after a major event.

Evidence checklist for a lower score

Collect signed land agreements or permits, community consultation records and benefit-sharing agreements, audited accounts or funding commitments, a fire management plan with equipment lists and training records, historical hotspot and disturbance maps, and legal commitments on project longevity. Keep each item referenced to the factor it supports.

Revisiting the score at each verification

Risk changes over time. A new road, a fire season, a change of government or a tenure dispute can raise the score. Mitigation that has matured, such as a trained fire brigade or a newly issued social forestry permit, can lower it. Review every factor at each verification, not only the ones that changed, and explain the evidence for each change in the updated risk report.

Getting it right

The buffer percentage directly affects revenue. A project that cuts real risk, and documents it, keeps more credits. Our validation and verification support prepares risk evidence packs, and our DMRV implementation builds fire and disturbance monitoring into the project. For the registration sequence, see VCS registration process, or the standards hub.