VM0010 Improved Forest Management: Logged to Protected Forest

Updated 2026-11-02 · 3 min read · By the akar.earth specialist team

VM0010 IFM explained: how Verra credits stopping planned logging in a concession, the baseline and leakage rules, and how it fits Indonesian PBPH licences.

VM0010 is a Verra methodology for improved forest management (IFM) in which a forest that was legally designated for logging is instead protected. It credits the emissions avoided because planned timber harvest, and the damage that comes with it, no longer happens.

The methodology is often called “logged to protected forest” (LtPF). In Indonesia the obvious users are holders of natural forest timber licences, now issued as PBPH, who decide that protection is worth more than harvest.

What VM0010 credits

When a concession logs a tropical forest, emissions come from several sources:

• carbon in the harvested logs that leaves the forest;
• damage to remaining trees from felling;
• skid trails, roads and log landings;
• decay of residues and stumps left on site.

Under VM0010, the baseline is the logging that would have happened under the concession’s harvest plan or historical practice. The project scenario is a protected forest with no commercial logging. The difference, minus leakage and uncertainty, becomes Verified Carbon Units. Part of the carbon in harvested timber would have stayed stored in long-lived wood products, so that share is accounted for in the baseline rather than treated as an emission.

How VM0010 works step by step

1. Prove legal right and baseline intent. Show that the forest was legally designated for commercial harvest and that logging was planned. Approved harvest plans, annual cutting plans and past logging records are typical evidence.
2. Check applicability. The methodology targets forests where timber harvest is the baseline land use. It does not cover conversion to plantations or agriculture. That is a planned deforestation case.
3. Build the baseline harvest schedule. Use the approved plan or historical harvest rates for comparable areas. Volumes must be conservative and consistent with the permit.
4. Estimate emissions per unit harvested. Combine extracted volume with factors for felling damage and infrastructure. Field measurements in logged comparison areas are stronger than defaults.
5. Account for wood products. Track what share of harvested carbon would remain in long-lived products.
6. Deduct leakage. Apply the market leakage deduction and monitor activity shifting within the proponent’s other forests.
7. Assess permanence. Use the AFOLU non-permanence risk tool to set the buffer contribution.
8. Monitor. Show at each verification that no commercial logging occurred, and track natural disturbance and illegal logging.

Applying VM0010 in Indonesia

Indonesia’s natural forest concessions are a large potential pool for IFM. Many logged-over concessions in Kalimantan, Sumatra and Papua are under financial pressure, which can make protection an attractive alternative. The licensing system now runs through PBPH. Read PBPH licences for what a licence allows and how restoration or ecosystem service activities fit within it.

Key Indonesian questions:

• Does the licence permit carbon activities? Recent forestry regulation lets licence holders pursue multiple business activities, including carbon. Check the current Permenhut 6/2026 procedures and licence terms.
• Is the baseline harvest real? A concession that has been idle for years, or that holds only depleted stock, is a weak baseline. Verifiers will test whether logging was financially viable.
• What about illegal logging and encroachment? Protection must be real. Encroachment and fire risk are high in many lowland concessions.
• Registration. Exchange-traded units must be recorded in SRUK. International registration under Verra has its own requirements.

Pitfalls verifiers flag

• Overstated harvest volumes taken from optimistic plans rather than actual stock.
• Default damage factors where site measurements were possible.
• Weak leakage analysis, especially for concessions held by groups with other forest licences.
• Ignoring natural degradation and fire in monitoring.
• Unclear rights over carbon. Read carbon ownership in Indonesia.

Evidence pack for a VM0010 baseline

A strong evidence pack usually includes the licence and its boundaries, approved long-term and annual work plans, historical harvest records, timber cruise or inventory data, and a financial analysis showing logging was viable. Add maps of planned roads and cutting blocks. Verifiers compare these with satellite imagery of past logging to test whether the plan was realistic.

VM0010 vs other IFM approaches

VM0010 uses a static, plan-based baseline. Newer IFM approaches favour dynamic baselines that compare the project with matched control areas over time. See VM0045 for Verra’s dynamic matched baseline IFM methodology and improved forest management for a broader overview. Buyers increasingly favour dynamic approaches for integrity reasons, so plan for scrutiny of a static baseline.

For support on concession screening and baseline modelling, see feasibility and eligibility or return to the standards hub. The forest carbon hub covers the wider market.