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
