Transcript CCB STANDARDS: climate ©2011 Rainforest Alliance Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance In-depth training OVERVIEW Climate Reqs Tools Auditing 1. Introduction to the CCB standard climate impact requirements 2.

CCB
STANDARDS:
climate
©2011 Rainforest Alliance
Climate, Community and
Biodiversity Alliance
In-depth training
OVERVIEW
Climate
Reqs
Tools
Auditing
1. Introduction to the CCB standard climate
impact requirements
2. Techniques and tools for climate impact
assessment
3. Auditing against the standard: understanding
the 4 key stages to climate impact
assessment for project development
2
© J.Henman
INTRODUCTION
3
STRUCTURE OF THE CCB CLIMATE SECTION
Concept: “The project must generate net positive impacts on atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) over the project lifetime from land use
changes within the project boundaries.”
CL1. Net Positive Climate
Impacts
CL2. Offsite Climate Impacts
(Leakage)
CL1.1 Net change in stocks
CL1.2 Net change in non CO2
emissions
CL1.3 Emissions from Project
activities
CL1.4 Demonstrate net positive
impact
CL 1.5 Double Counting
CL 2.1 Types of leakage
CL 2.2 Leakage mitigation
CL2.3 Quantify & subtract leakage
CL 2.4 Include non CO2 GHGs
CL3. Climate Impact Monitoring
CL 3.1 Initial Plan
CL 3.2 Commitment to full plan
4
CLIMATE IMPACT ASSESSMENT STAGES
Stage Brief description
Relevant CCB
indicators
1•
an accurate description of the project's boundaries and
physical and biophysical conditions at the start of the
project;
G1.1-4;
2
a projection of how those conditions would change, if the
project were never implemented (the “without-project”
scenario);
G2.1-3;
3
a description and justification of the likely [positive and
negative] outcomes after the implementation of the
project (the “with-project” scenario); description of how
negative impacts will be mitigated;
G3.1; 3.2; 3.4; 3.5;
3.7; CL1; CL2, CL3
4
design and implementation of a credible system for
monitoring climate impacts – known as the “climate
monitoring plan”
CL3
•
Climate
Reqs
Introduction
5
CLIMATE IMPACT REQUIREMENTS OF CCB
Projects must generate net positive impacts for the climate.
Carbon Stock
Project
Scenario*
Additional carbon
removed from
atmosphere
•- generic example for
carbon stock enhancement
Time
Climate
Reqs
Introduction
Baseline
Scenario*
6
THE CLIMATE IMPACTS OF CARBON PROJECTS:
CAMPO VERDE PROJECT
Possible positive climate results
• Net anthropologic GHG removals of 169,971
tCO2 (long term average )
• Making the area more robust in the face of
climate change by restoring natural forest
vegetation cover
Reforestation with Native Species Project
Campo Verde, Ucayali, Peru
Validated to the CCB Standards First Edition
PDD available at CCBA Web site
Possible negative climate results
• Leakage (activity displacement) from cattle
and lamb grazing may cause deforestation and
emissions outside the project area
• Emissions from project activities such as fuel
use for machinery and vehicles
© J.Henman
Climate
Reqs
Introduction
7
Project
Definition
of forest
Carbon Stock
-50
0
Carbon Stock
Afforestation
Extended Rotation
Project
Scenario
Av
Av
Logged to Protected Forest or
Avoided Deforestation (REDD)
Project
Scenario
Baseline
0
Time
Carbon Stock
Forest Cover
MORE EXAMPLES OF NET CLIMATE BENEFITS
Baseline
Low to High Productive Forest
Project
Scenario
Baseline
Forest Threshold
0
0
8
CCB STANDARDS AND CARBON ACCOUNTING
•
The CCB Standards are not a carbon accounting standard and
do not issue verified emissions reductions (VERs)
•
The CCB Standards are often combined with other carbon accounting
standards, such as the CDM or VCS.
•
If a project seeks certification under a carbon accounting standard, often
the methodology for that standard will be sufficient for the main
component of the ‘climate’ section in CCB Standards
•
A CCB label may be added to carbon credits listed on a registry from
projects successfully verified (not just validated) to both the CCB
Standards and a carbon accounting standard. The CCB label is a
permanent marker added to each credit’s unique carbon registry
identification code.
Climate
Reqs
Introduction
9
KEY CONCEPT: BEING CONSERVATIVE
When completeness or accuracy of estimates cannot be achieved, the
reduction of emissions should not be overestimated, or at least the risk
of overestimation should be minimized.
Examples
•
The project reports the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of
carbon stocks in each stratum of forest at risk for deforestation due to
high variation in sampling.
•
In the baseline scenario the highest carbon stock value and rate of
accumulation is used for projecting carbon stocks from regenerating treecover due to insufficient information.
© J.Henman
Climate
Reqs
Key Concepts
10
KEY CONCEPT: BEING CONSERVATIVE
An example of being conservative from the UNFCCC:
“
In case of uncertainty regarding values of variables and parameters ... the resulting
projection of the (baseline) does not lead to an overestimation of emission
reductions attributable to the … project activity (that is, in the case of doubt,
values that generate a lower (baseline) projection shall be used).
UNFCCC, EB 41, Annex 12, Part III, paragraph 4.
”
© J.Henman
Climate
Reqs
Key Concepts
11
© J.Henman
TECHNIQUES AND TOOLS
12
QUANTIFICATION OF CARBON STOCKS:
ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES
•
Needed for original conditions at the project site (G1.4)
•
Needed to estimate ‘with’ project carbon benefits (CL.1)
•
Can be useful in Baseline Projections ( G2.1)
•
Climate Monitoring Plan (CL.3)
© J.Henman
Tools
Introduction
13
LEVEL OF DETAIL
• The CCBS requires the use of IPCC good practice guidelines be followed
for climate impact assessment, or another robust methodology (G1.4)
• The IPCC has a ‘3 tier’ approach to represent different levels of
methodological complexity and accuracy in carbon accounting along with
decision-making guidelines and default factors.
• Other acceptable methodologies include those approved under CDM ,VCS,
Gold Standard or Plan Vivo technical specifications.
Tools
Introduction
14
WHAT WILL I LEARN IN CLIMATE IMPACT TECHNIQUES
AND TOOLS SECTION?
You will gain an understanding of:
1.
Quantification of GHGs from land use/land use change
2.
Carbon pools to be considered in carbon measurement
3.
Strategies for estimating biomass in different pools
4.
Stratification of land cover and vegetation
5.
Sampling methods and designs
Tools
Introduction
15
CONVERSION OF GREEN MASS TO CARBON
Biomass
Dry Biomass
Default method:
Divide fresh biomass
by 2.
Organic Matter is
c.50% water
(but varies significantly
by site & season)
Tools
1. Quantifying GHGs
Carbon
(C)
Default method:
Multiply by 0.47
Dry biomass
is 44-49% C (IPCC 2006)
Varies by species, and
component of plant.
Carbon Dioxide
(CO2)
Multiply by 44/12
or 3.667
CO2 has more atomic
Mass than C due to the
2 oxygen atoms
CONVERTING FROM BIOMASS TO CO2
The IPCC Guidelines identify dry
matter in terms of metric tons per
hectare.
How much carbon dioxide is there per
hectare in a tropical forest that has an
estimated average value of 107 tons of
dry matter per hectare?
Tools
1. Quantifying GHGs
ANSWER: 184 tons CO2/ha
47% of 107 tons dry matter/ha = 50.3 tons C/ha
50.3 tons of C/ha * 3.667 = 184 tons CO2/ha
Tools
1. Quantifying GHGs
NON-CO2 GHG EMISSIONS (G2.2, CL1.2, 1.4, 2.4, 3.1)
Potential sources:
• Site preparation
Methane (CH4)
• Fossil fuel consumption – most likely
from machinery/ vehicles
• Fertilizer
• Grazing animals ( e.g. cattle)
Nitrous Oxide
(N2O)
• Decomposition of N-fixing species
• Fire
Conversion factors called ‘Global Warming Potentials’ exist to convert from non CO2
GHG to CO2 equivalent
For a guide to other GHGs, see the IPCC’s Revised 1996 guidelines
Tools
1. Quantifying GHGs
19
FOREST CARBON POOLS: WHAT ARE THEY?
Can you list the different
carbon pools in a forest ecosystem?
© J.Henman
Tools
2. Carbon Pools
20
POSSIBLE FOREST CARBON POOLS
Note: diagram is not to scale
Harvested
wood
products
(HWP)
Live
Trees
Above Ground
Biomass
Live
woody
nontrees
Total
Carbon
Below
ground
Biomass
Tools
2. Carbon Pools
Standing
and
Lying
dead
wood
Leaf Litter
Organic
Soil
Carbon/
peat
Roots
MEASURING BELOW GROUND BIOMASS
• Roots!
• Difficult to measure – both costly and time consuming
• Acceptable to use default root to shoot ratios or regression equations based
on above ground biomass. (IPCC 2006)
• Example: Default value of 0.37 Root to Shoot Ratio, tropical trees
© SAEON NDLOVU NODE
Tools
2. Carbon Pools
22
IMPORTANCE OF EACH POOL
Which pools are most important?
• Those pools that are likely to undergo a change in the project scenario
compared to the baseline.
• The bigger the change the more important
• Pools can be conservatively ignored
What should be measured?
• Depends on impact of the carbon project strategy and the rules of the
accounting methodology.
• If the project activity is not expected to have a “large” or “significant” negative
impact on a particular carbon pool it does not have to be measured
• CCBS suggests if emissions are below 5% of the total those sources need not
be monitored. CDM significance tool is listed as an option (CL3.1)
Tools
2. Carbon Pools
23
EXAMPLE OF CARBON POOL INCLUSION IN VCS V3
Tools
2. Carbon Pools
24
METHODS FOR ESTIMATING TREE BIOMASS
Good practices or methods that are assumed in the CCB Standard,
applicable to G1.4, G2.3, CL1.1, CL3.1
1.
Biomass regression equations
(allometric equations)
2.
Biomass expansion factors
3.
Destructive sampling of individual tree
Example Regression Equation
(from Chave et al, 2005)
© J.Henman
Tools
3. Estimating Biomass
25
BIOMASS REGRESSION EQUATIONS
Good practices or methods that are assumed in the CCB Standard,
applicable to G1.4, G2.3, CL1.1, CL3.1
Biomass regression equations are mathematical equations that represent the
relationship between one variable (x) and observed values of the other (y).
•
•
•
Equations:
- Often rely on diameter at breast height (DBH) to predict total tree biomass
- Can incorporate tree height, wood density, and canopy diameter
- Some exist which use tree biomass to predict root biomass
Can be found in the scientific literature – generated through destructive sampling
Two types: species-specific, or mixed-species by forest type
Tools
3. Estimating Biomass
26
BIOMASS REGRESSION EQUATIONS (BREs)
Dry, wet and moist BREs for the tropics:
same dbh, different biomass
Tools
3. Estimating Biomass
BIOMASS EXPANSION FACTORS (BEF)
Good practices or methods that are assumed in the CCB Standard,
applicable to G1.4, G2.3, CL1.1, CL3.1
•A biomass expansion factor is applied to a specific volume to produce whole
tree biomass (and, therefore, an estimate of the tree’s carbon content).
•Typically used on timber volume data where only merchantable timber volume
is known.
•You need to know volume and wood density to use this method.
BEF
Tools
3. Estimating Biomass
28
CHOOSING EQUATIONS
Good practices/or methods that are assumed in the CCB Standard,
applicable to G1.4, G2.3, CL1.1, CL3.1
• Available in:
– Scientific literature
– IPCC documentation
– Carbon accounting methodologies
• Choose the best suited equation for your species/region.
• Search for species-specific, or forest-type biomass relationships based on local
data, if none, evaluate regional, national, or biome-level relationships
29
CHECKING BREs AND BEFs
Good practices or methods that are assumed in the CCB Standard,
applicable to G1.4, G2.3, CL1.1, CL3.1
What to check for in choice of biomass regression equations and
biomass expansion factors:
• Is the equation/expansion factor appropriate for the population of interest
(species or forest type)?
• Is the equation applicable to project area location (climate, growing
conditions, etc.)?
• How high is the r2?
• Is the equation for a limited range (ex. diameter, height)?
• For BEF, check if it applies to volume estimates calculated from
commercial height or total height
• Is the equation used to estimate biomass beyond the range of values used
to derive it?
Tools
3. Estimating Biomass
30
CHECKING BRE’s and BEF’s: DESTRUCTIVE
SAMPLING
Good practices/or methods that are assumed in the CCB Standard,
applicable to G1.4, G2.3, CL1.1, CL3.1
Validate the regression equation
results (if resources permit)
• Confirms the use and applicability of an
existing equation or expansion factor
• Used to create a new biomass regression
equation or expansion factor
- A sample of trees across the DBH range
must be used to generate or check the
regression equation
© M. Delaney
Tools
3. Estimating Biomass
THINGS TO WATCH FOR WITH PLOT DATA
Sort the data by DBH to confirm data range
is appropriate and values are plausible
Confirm that the equations are appropriate to the
species in the inventory and yield plausible results
Examine the R2 values of the equations
Make sure plot results seem plausible
Auditing
Impact Monitoring
32
!
STRATIFICATION OF THE PROJECT AREA
Applicable or relevant to G1.4, G2.1, G2.3, G3.3, CL1.1, CL3.1
“
Why stratify?
To facilitate fieldwork and increase the accuracy and precision of measuring
and estimating carbon, it is useful to divide the project area into subpopulations or “strata” that form relatively homogenous units……
The stratification should be carried out using criteria that are directly related to
the variables to be measured and monitored – for example, the carbon pools
in trees……
The purpose of stratification should be to partition natural
variation in the system and so reduce monitoring costs.
”
Pearson et al, 2005
Tools
4. Stratification
33
MAPPING: STRATIFICATION OF THE PROJECT AREA
Applicable or relevant to G1.4, G2.1, G2.3, G3.3, CL1.1, CL3.1
• Project area is normally stratified for the purpose of baseline sampling and
monitoring
• Forest carbon projects, particularly REDD projects are large in size and scope
so stratification essential component of sampling
• Useful tools for defining strata include ground-truthed maps from satellite
imagery, aerial photographs and maps of vegetation, soils or topography.
• Remote sensing technologies are commonly employed to build base maps,
assist with identifying forest types & stand boundaries. Alternatively ground
surveys can be used to map and stratify the project boundary
Tools
4. Stratification
34
EXAMPLES OF STRATIFICATION
Scrubland
Pasture
Cropland
Mapping of the pre-project carbon stocks for tree planting project
Tools
4. Stratification
35
EXAMPLES OF STRATIFICATION - BASELINE
Mapping of the pre-project carbon stocks in forests
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/3/034009/fulltext
36
STRATIFICATION: CHECKING THE QUALITY OF LAND
COVER MAPS
!
Applicable or relevant to G1.4, G2.1, G2.3, G3.3, CL1.1, CL3.1
What to look out for?
Was the remote sensing data the appropriate resolution to properly detect
different strata?
Has the land cover map been ground truthed/ does it reach appropriate
precision criteria?
Has the map been geo-referenced properly?
Do the boundaries on the stratification map correlate with boundaries on the
ground?
Note: the accuracy of the land cover map is paramount to the
accuracy of the carbon modeling as carbon estimates (normally per
hectare) are multiplied by area
Tools
4. Stratification
37
SAMPLING FRAMEWORK – KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable or relevant to G1.4, G2.1, G2.3, G3.3, CL1.1, CL1.2, CL2.1, CL3.1
• Efficient
• Ground truthed
• Accurate
Stratification
• Area of plot ( lots of small,
or a few big plots?)
• Round or rectangular
• Nested?
Plot size and
shape
Carbon pools
Tools
Location of
plots
• What to measure
• What can be
conservatively neglected
5. Sampling
Number of
plots
Quality
control
• Random
• Systematic
• Degree of Bias
• Equation for estimating no.
of plots needed
• Has target precision level
been met
• Standard operating
procedures
• Staff training
• Repeat measurements
• Data storage
For more detailed guidance on sampling frameworks: see: Sourcebook
for Land38
Use, Land Use Change and Forestry, Pearson et al , 2005
FURTHER RESOURCES ON ESTIMATING
CLIMATE IMPACTS
•
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2006. Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories Volume 4 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html
•
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM) has published approved methodologies for land use baselines:
http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/ARmethodologies
•
The Verified Carbon Standard ( VCS) has published approved methodologies for forestry
carbon projects (including IFM and REDD) http://www.v-c-s.org/
•
Pearson et al, 2005, Sourcebook for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry, Winrock
International/ BioCarbon Fund
•
Methodologies from other standards
Tools
Further Resources
39
© J.Henman
EVALUATION AGAINST THE
STANDARD
40
OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION SECTION
This section covers the following elements, to which auditors and
developers should pay particular attention:
1.Estimate the current carbon stocks in the project area (G1.4)
2.How to make and evaluate baseline projections (without project scenario)
(G2.3)
3.Establishing net climate impact (with project impacts) (CL1.)
4.Leakage (CL 2.)
5.Monitoring climate impacts (CL3.)
6.Gold-level impacts (GL.1)
41
G.1 ORIGINAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA
• What does the standard require? Original conditions of the project area
(including the surrounding area) before the project commences must be
described.
• Why? Provides the core information for establishing a baseline of future
carbon stocks either with or without the project.
Auditing
1. Original Conditions
42
G.1 ORIGINAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA
Requirements:
Climate Information
• Assessment of the carbon stocks in the project area (G1.4)
Auditing
1. Original Conditions
43
G1.4 ASSESSMENT OF THE CARBON STOCKS IN THE PROJECT
AREA
Current carbon stocks within the project area(s), using stratification by land-use or
vegetation type and methods of carbon calculation (such as biomass plots, formulae,
default values) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2006
Guidelines for National GHG Inventories for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land
Use5 (IPCC 2006 GL for AFOLU) or a more robust and detailed methodology.
Auditing
1. Original Conditions
44
G1.4 ASSESSMENT OF THE CARBON STOCKS IN THE
PROJECT AREA Conformance
• The project area is appropriately stratified and the different strata are
clearly described and justified, and the land cover map meets necessary
precision criteria.
• Identify and justify selected carbon pools per land use/land cover type
• Appropriate biomass regression equations are selected and applied
• Appropriate conversion factors and other default factors (e.g. root:shoot
ratios) are selected and applied.
Common Pitfalls
• Biomass regression equations are not applied correctly, or are not suitable for
the project zone.
• There is a bias in the sampling design
• Remote sensing data resolution is not high enough to detect different strata
with confidence.
• Sampling design is inadequate and does not provide a statistically valid
assessment or confidence in the data set
• Scale of baseline land cover map is misaligned with project-scenario maps
Auditing
1. Original Conditions
45
G.2 BASELINE PROJECTIONS
• What does the standard require? Baseline conditions of the project area
(including the surrounding area) in the absence of project activities.
• Why? Project impacts will be measured against this ‘without-project’
reference scenario.
Auditing
2. Baseline Projection
46
G.2 BASELINE PROJECTIONS
Requirements:
Climate Information
• Calculation of the estimated carbon stock changes associated with the
‘without-project’ scenario (G2.3)
Auditing
2. Baseline Projection
47
G2.3 WITHOUT PROJECT SCENARIO EFFECT ON
CARBON STOCKS
Summary of points from G2.3:
1. Estimation of carbon stocks for each of the land-use classes of concern.
2. A definition of the included carbon pools
3. Timeframe for the analysis (project lifetime, GHG accounting period)
4. Estimate of non-CO2 gases if significant (greater than 5% of total
emissions
5. Analysis of relevant drivers and rates of deforestation and description and
justification of approaches used (REDD)
Auditing
2. Baseline Projection
48
G2.3 BASELINES
• Can be relatively simple for tree planting (i.e. continued pasture or crop land)
• More complex to predict deforestation/degradation baselines
Regional-level estimates can be used at the project planning stage
-50
Auditing
Afforestation
Project
Definition
of forest
0
Logged to Protected Forest or
Avoided deforestation (REDD)
Project
Scenario
Baseline
0
Time
2. Baseline Projections
Carbon Stock
Forest Cover
Or use more detailed models……
49
G2.3 BASELINES: OPTIONS FOR REDD
Baseline Derivation
Historical Average
Historical regression
Method
Remote sensing analysis:
- Satellite data
- Spatial analysis model/tool
Driver based projection
- Research and Spatial
analysis model/tool
Documented Plans
Company/Government
Records
Auditing
2. Baseline Projections
50
Methodologies
Unplanned deforestation
methodologies.
-See VCS website
- Plan Vivo technical
Specifications
Planned deforestation
methodologies.
-See VCS website
G2.3 ESTIMATED CARBON STOCK CHANGES IN THE
BASELINE SCENARIO
Conformance
• Drivers and agents of deforestation/degradation or barriers to regeneration are
identified and described as completely as possible
• Exhibit well-documented causal relationships for drivers and agents of
deforestation/degradation or barriers to regeneration
• Dynamics of selected carbon pools are modelled accurately and conservatively
• Land use scenarios and rates of change are presented clearly and justified
•
•
•
•
•
•
Auditing
Common Pitfalls
REDD: Land use/land use change model assumptions, inputs, and outputs are
not clear or well justified
Insufficient documentation of key drivers/agents data (population changes,
mobility, customary land use agreements, etc.)
Inappropriately or insufficiently validated baseline models
Land use/land use transition classes miss accuracy/precision targets
REDD: Post-deforestation carbon stocks are not accurate or conservative
AR: growth rates not conservative or grounded in regional conditions
2. Baseline Projections
51
CL1. NET POSITIVE CLIMATE IMPACTS – The project scenario
• What does the standard require? The standard requires that the project
generate net positive impacts on the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs
from land use change
• Why? Projects must ensure that they will contribute to mitigate the impacts
of climate change
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
52
CL1. NET POSITIVE CLIMATE IMPACTS
Requirements:
• Change in carbon stocks (CL1.1)
• Change in non CO2 GHG emissions (CL1.2)
• Estimate other GHG emissions (CL1.3)
• Net positive climate impact (CL1.4)
• Double counting (CL1.5)
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
53
CL1.1 CHANGE IN CARBON STOCKS
Key points from CL1.1
1. Estimate the change in carbon stocks in the with-project scenario
2. Calculate net change. Carbon stocks in project scenario minus
baseline scenario over GHG accounting period.
3. Use IPCC values and guidelines or another detailed methodology
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
54
CL1.1 CHANGE IN CARBON STOCKS
Conformance
• An appropriate methodology is described and applied
• A clear calculation is presented with well documented assumptions
• The excel or other model is clearly explained/labelled and
accessible for a third party to review
• Relevant sources that justify assumptions must be accessible for the
third party
Common Pitfalls
• Methodology used not followed in full and clearly referenced
• Lacking demonstration that values selected are conservative
in the face of uncertainty
• Error with units, and general calculations
• Project activity descriptions and locations lack specificity and
justification
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
55
CL1.1 CARBON STOCK CHANGE - Growth Rate Projections
For A/R and restoration projects carbon rate of sequestration (growth)
calculations are needed
Over long periods of time (100 years) most planted trees will follow a classic
“S” shaped pattern of growth rate (asymptotic)
Rates of growth tend to be relatively
flat in the initial years after trees are
planted, until the root systems develop
enough to support shoot growth
Project must present a realistic and referenced growth model, or default
growth value appropriate for the species
Auditing
3. Project Scenario
56
CL1.1 CARBON STOCK CHANGE – REDD Models
Some REDD methodologies require spatial
analysis for deforestation risk.
•Ensure model is permissible (no “black-boxes”)
•Peer reviewed models meet methodology
requirements
•Review inputs and assumptions of model – clarity,
transparency, appropriateness.
•Ground-truth model predictions of risk!
Auditing
3. Project Scenario
57
CL1.2 CHANGE IN NON CO2 GHG EMISSIONS
Estimate the net change of non-CO2 GHG gases if they are significant (>5% of
monitoring period emissions)
© J.Henman
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
58
CL1.2 CHANGE IN NON CO2 GHG EMISSIONS
Conformance
• Scientific assessment and presentation of likely changes in non CO2
GHG emissions resulting for the ‘with’ and ‘without’ project
scenarios
• Clearly presented methodology for calculation of changes in nonCO2 GHG emissions
• Justification for deeming changes insignificant (less than 5%)
Common Pitfalls
• Claiming these gases are insignificant without justification
• Error in calculation
• Not identifying a key source in either ‘with’ or ‘without’ project
scenario
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
59
CL1.3 ESTIMATE OTHER GHG EMISSIONS
.
Estimate
any other GHG emissions resulting from project activities.
Emissions sources include, but are not limited to, emissions from biomass burning
during site preparation, emissions from fossil fuel combustion, direct emissions
from the use of synthetic fertilizers, and emissions from the decomposition of Nfixing species
© J.Henman
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
60
CL1.3 ESTIMATE OTHER GHG EMISSIONS
Conformance
• Emission sources are clearly listed
• Utilize appropriate assumptions and values
• CDM tools or other best practise methodologies are applied to
quantify them
Common Pitfalls
• Significant and likely sources of emissions are ignored or omission is
not sufficiently justified
• Emissions are not estimated using an appropriate methodology
• Emission estimates are not transparently documented
• Error in units
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
61
CL1.4 NET POSITIVE CLIMATE IMPACTS
Demonstrate that the net climate impact of the project is positive.
The net climate impact of the project is the net change in carbon stocks plus net
change in non-CO2 GHGs where appropriate minus any other GHG emissions
resulting from project activities minus any likely project-related unmitigated
negative offsite climate impacts (see CL2.3).
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
62
EXAMPLE: NET POSITIVE CLIMATE IMPACTS (CL1.4)
Net carbon stock changes from project activity
Baseline minus project emissions
Net change in non-CO2 GHG emissions with the project
Emissions without the project minus emissions with the project
Net carbon stock changes from project activity
10,000 t CO2
Net change in non-CO2 GHG emissions with the project
500 t CO2
GHG emissions from project activity
300 t CO2
Unmitigated Leakage (10% of net C stock changes)
1,000 t CO2
Net Climate Impact
8,200 t CO2
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
63
CL1.5 DOUBLE-COUNTING
Specify how double counting of GHG emissions reductions or removals will be
avoided, particularly for offsets sold on the voluntary market and generated in a
country with an emissions cap.
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
64
CL1.5 DOUBLE COUNTING
•
There is a specific CCB Standards policy announcement published in
relation to double counting
•
Projects must specify if there is an emissions cap in the implementation
country, and if so how the project stands in relation to that
•
Projects should make a statement on how credits will be traced, ‘tagged’,
registered or sold.
–
Auditing
Normally a database is kept
Net Positive Impacts
65
CL1.5 DOUBLE-COUNTING
Conformance
• Description of national GHG programs or national emission
caps
• Evidence reductions/removals will not be used in a national
emissions reduction trading scheme or to comply with binding limits
• Disclose any presales that have occurred prior to
validation/verification
Common Pitfalls
• Failure to mention or describe existing national, jurisdictional
or sectoral GHG programs or national emission caps that are
applicable in the project area
• No evidence provided to show how project avoids double counting
with an existing GHG program
• Pre-sales are not disclosed and/or properly deducted
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
66
CL2. LEAKAGE
• What does the standard require? The standard requires that the project
quantify and mitigate increased emissions outside of the project’s area as result
of the project activities
• Why? Decrease the potential for increasing GHGs emissions around the
project area, that reduce the impact of the project.
Auditing
4. Leakage
67
CL2. LEAKAGE
Requirements:
• Types of leakage (CL2.1)
• Leakage mitigation (CL2.2)
• Subtracting unmitigated negative impacts (CL2.3)
• Including non-CO2 gasses (CL2.4)
Auditing
4. Leakage
68
LEAKAGE EXAMPLE: CAMPO VERDE PROJECT, PERU
•
Cattle and lambs which were grazing in the project area pre-project
belonging to local farmers will be displaced
•
A survey was carried out with cow and lamb owners at the project
site to quantify the number of cows and lambs grazing there and
what would happen to them once the project started, and there
were moved off
•
136 animals found to be grazing in the project area on 302 ha in the
project area, equating to a grazing area of 0.45 ha per animal
•
Survey also found the farmers have 220 ha of available pasture land
to relocate the animals to and this is enough given the grazing
capacity using the traditional system
•
The 220 ha have been mapped, and will be monitored during the
first 5 years of project implementation
•
Emissions from grazing displacement are estimated to be zero
Auditing
4. Leakage
69
CL2.1 TYPES OF LEAKAGE
Determine the types of leakage that are expected and estimate potential offsite
increases in GHGs (increases in emissions or decreases in sequestration) due to
project activities. Where relevant, define and justify where leakage is most likely to
take place.
Auditing
4. Leakage
70
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF LEAKAGE (CL2)
List three
possible types of
activity shifting
leakage
© J.Henman
Auditing
4. Leakage
71
CL2.1 TYPES OF LEAKAGE
Conformance
• Description of all significant and applicable types of leakage
• Use of appropriate methodologies to assess leakage such as
social impact assessment and consultations
• Discussion of market effects if applicable
Common Pitfalls
• Applicable types of leakage are missed or not described
• Appropriate methodologies are not applied to assess leakage
thoroughly
• Mechanisms of leakage inadequately understood (drivers, mobility,
land tenure)
Auditing
4. Leakage
72
CL2.2 LEAKAGE MITIGATION
Document how any leakage will be mitigated and estimate the extent to which such
impacts will be reduced by these mitigation activities.
Auditing
4. Leakage
73
CL2.2 LEAKAGE MITIGATION
Conformance
• A clear leakage plan addressing each type of leakage
• Linkages to Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) results for activity
shifting leakage mitigation strategy
• A leakage mitigation strategy based around participatory
consultation
• Market leakage is addressed or estimated using best practise
approaches
Common Pitfalls
• Leakage plan doesn’t address significant types of leakage identified
• Leakage mitigation measures are inappropriate or insufficient
• Inadequate description/justification of how effective leakage
mitigation might be implemented
Auditing
4. Leakage
74
CL2.3 SUBTRACTING UNMITIGATED NEGATIVE IMPACTS
Subtract any likely project-related unmitigated negative offsite climate impacts from
the climate benefits being claimed by the project and demonstrate that this has
been included in the evaluation of net climate impact of the project (as calculated in
CL1.4).
Auditing
4. Leakage
75
CL2.3 SUBTRACTING UNMITIGATED NEGATIVE IMPACTS
Conformance
• The carbon model correctly deducts anticipated unmitigated
leakage
• Excel sheet/model labelled appropriate
• Excel sheet/model transparent
Common Pitfalls
• Unmitigated leakage is omitted from calculations
• Unmitigated leakage is not quantified correctly
• Error with units
Auditing
4. Leakage
76
CL2.4 INCLUDING NON-CO2 GASES
Non-CO2 gases must be included if they are likely to account for more than a 5%
increase or decrease (in terms of CO2-equivalent) of the net change calculations
(above) of the project’s overall off-site GHG emissions reductions or removals
over each monitoring period.
Auditing
4. Leakage
77
CL2.4 INCLUDING NON-CO2 GASES
Conformance
• All non-CO2 gases emitted from leakage are quantified using
appropriate methodologies
Common Pitfalls
• Non-CO2 gases are ignored offsite.
• Incorrect methodologies are followed
• Default values are incorrect
Auditing
4. Leakage
78
CL3. CLIMATE IMPACT MONITORING
• What does the standard require? Clear process for measuring the
impacts of the project on climate in the project zone.
• Utilize a well-designed sampling framework,
•The project must also monitor and quantify any leakage off-site, non-CO2
emissions and significant emissions resulting from project activities.
• Why? Essential in order to quantify the actual climate impacts of the project
in terms of actual net GHG changes
Auditing
5. Impact Monitoring
79
CL3. CLIMATE IMPACT MONITORING
Requirements:
• Develop an initial plan for selecting carbon pools and non-CO2 GHGs to be
monitored (CL3.1)
• Commit to developing and disseminating a full monitoring plan (CL3.2)
Auditing
5. Impact Monitoring
80
CL3.1 MONITORING POOLS AND FREQUENCY
Key Points from CL3.1
•Select carbon pools and non-CO2 GHGs to be monitored
•Determine frequency for monitoring
•Include pools expected to decrease due to the project
•Develop a Plan for leakage monitoring, lasting 5 years after leakagecausing activities have taken place
•Develop full monitoring plan within six months of project start or 12
months after validation
Auditing
5. Impact Monitoring
81
CL3.1 MONITORING POOLS AND FREQUENCY
Conformance
• Appropriate protocols described to monitor all carbon pools
which are expected to decrease in the project scenario
• Frequency of monitoring for pools clearly described and in
compliance with the methodology/best practise guidance
• Monitoring plan includes leakage and offsite climate impacts
• QA/QC protocols described
• Adequate sampling framework to meet precision criteria
Common Pitfalls
• Underdeveloped monitoring implementation plan
• Sampling design is biased or inadequate to meet required
accuracy/precision levels
• Selected carbon pools misaligned against baseline assessment
• REDD: inadequate measures for degradation during project
Auditing
• QA/QC measures are omitted or inadequate
5. Impact Monitoring
82
CL3.2 COMMITING TO A FULL MONITORING PLAN
Commit to developing a full monitoring plan within six months of the
project start date or within twelve months of validation against the Standards
and to disseminate this plan and the results of monitoring, ensuring that they
are made publicly available on the internet and are communicated to the
communities and other stakeholders.
Auditing
5. Impact Monitoring
83
CL3.2 COMMITING TO A FULL MONITORING PLAN
Conformance
• Description of when the full monitoring plan will be developed
• Dissemination strategy for the full monitoring plan and
communication of its results
Common Pitfalls
• There is not a plan for developing the full monitoring plan
• Monitoring plan does not include roles and responsibilities,
standard operating procedures.
• The linking of different monitoring strategies is not clearly
established
• Insufficient dissemination and knowledge of monitoring results to
stakeholders
Auditing
5. Impact Monitoring
84
GL1. CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION BENEFITS (OPTIONAL)
• What does the standard require? The project must provide significant
support to assist communities and/or biodiversity in adapting to the impacts
of climate change
• Why? Anticipated local climate change and climate vulnerability within the
project zone could potentially affect communities and biodiversity during the
life of the project and beyond.
Auditing
6. Gold Status
85
GL1. CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION BENEFITS
(OPTIONAL)
Requirements:
• Identify likely regional climate change scenarios and impacts (GL1.1)
• Identify risk to the project’s benefits (GL1.2)
• Demonstrate that climate change will have an impact on the project zone
(GL1.3)
Auditing
6. Gold Status
86
GL1.1 REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIO AND
IMPACTS
Identify likely regional climate change and climate variability scenarios and
impacts, using available studies, and identify potential changes in the local landuse scenario due to these climate change scenarios in the absence of the
project.
Auditing
6. Gold Status
GL1.1 REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIO AND
IMPACTS
Conformance
• Description of anticipated climate change impacts in the
project region based on suitable models and studies
• Identification of future land cover based on climate change
projection models in the project region
Common Pitfalls
• Climate model applied is not suitable for the region
• Projections are not based on defendable assumptions
Auditing
6. Gold Status
88
GL1.2 RISK TO THE PROJECT’S BENEFIT
Identify any risks to the project’s climate, community and biodiversity benefits
resulting from likely climate change and climate variability impacts and explain how
these risks will be mitigated.
Auditing
6. Gold Status
GL1.2 RISK TO THE PROJECT’S BENEFIT
Conformance
• A risk analysis is performed and documented
• All serious risks to the projects benefits are identified
• A risk mitigation strategy based on causal links is presented
Common Pitfalls
• Risks are omitted
• The risk mitigation strategy is not-robust, or does not address all
risks
Auditing
6. Gold Status
90
GL1.3 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ON PROJECT ZONE
Demonstrate that current or anticipated climate changes are having or are likely to
have an impact on the well-being of communities and/or the conservation status of
biodiversity in the project zone and surrounding regions.
Auditing
6. Gold Status
GL1.3 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ON PROJECT ZONE
Conformance
• Current or projected climate change impacts on both
communities and biodiversity conservation are documented or
described
• Types of impacts on community/biodiversity are clearly described
linked to specific climate change effects and documented
through a causal model
Common Pitfalls
• Linkages between climate change and projected impacts on
communities/biodiversity conservation are not explained
Auditing
6. Gold Status
92
PHOTO COPYRIGHT AND RE-USE
•
•
•
All photos are copyright to Jenny Henman and/or Leo Peskett
Written permission is required for re-use of photos outside of these training
materials from Jenny Henman ([email protected])
Any re-use must acknowledge on the photo Jenny Henman and/or Leo Peskett as
per the current copyright
© J.Henman
93