CCBS v2 Climate - Amazon Web Services · •The CCBS requires the use of IPCC good practice...
Transcript of CCBS v2 Climate - Amazon Web Services · •The CCBS requires the use of IPCC good practice...
©2011 Rainforest Alliance
CCB STANDARDS:
climateClimate, Community and
Biodiversity Alliance
In-depth training
OVERVIEW
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
Auditing
Tools
Climate Reqs
INTRODUCTION
3
© J.Henman
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.”
4
CL1. Net Positive Climate
Impacts
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
CL2. Offsite Climate Impacts
(Leakage)
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
CLIMATE IMPACT ASSESSMENT STAGES
•
•
5
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
CLIMATE IMPACT REQUIREMENTS OF CCB
Projects must generate net positive impacts for the climate.
6
Additional carbon
removed from
atmosphere
Project
Scenario*
Baseline
Scenario*
Time
Carb
on
Sto
ck
Climate Reqs
Introduction
•- generic example for
carbon stock enhancement
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
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
THE CLIMATE IMPACTS OF CARBON PROJECTS:
CAMPO VERDE PROJECT
7
Reforestation with Native Species Project Campo Verde, Ucayali, Peru
Validated to the CCB Standards First Edition
PDD available at CCBA Web site
© J.Henman
Climate Reqs
Introduction
MORE EXAMPLES OF NET CLIMATE BENEFITS
8
Fore
st C
over
0
Definition
of forest
-50
Project
Afforestation
Time
Carb
on S
tock
0
Project
Scenario
Baseline
Logged to Protected Forest or
Avoided Deforestation (REDD)
Carb
on S
tock
0
Project
Scenario
Baseline
Extended Rotation
Av
Av
Carb
on S
tock
0
Project
Scenario
Baseline
Low to High Productive Forest
Forest Threshold
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.
9Climate
ReqsIntroduction
KEY CONCEPT: BEING CONSERVATIVE
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 tree-
cover due to insufficient information.
10
© J.Henman
Climate Reqs
Key Concepts
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.
KEY CONCEPT: BEING CONSERVATIVE
An example of being conservative from the UNFCCC:
11
“”
© J.Henman
Climate Reqs
Key Concepts
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.
TECHNIQUES AND TOOLS
12
© J.Henman
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)
13
© J.Henman
Tools Introduction
• 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.
LEVEL OF DETAIL
14Tools Introduction
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
15Tools Introduction
Biomass Dry Biomass Carbon(C)
Carbon Dioxide(CO2)
Default method: Divide fresh biomass by 2.Organic Matter is c.50% water(but varies significantly by site & season)
Default method:Multiply by 0.47Dry biomass is 44-49% C (IPCC 2006)Varies by species, and component of plant.
Multiply by 44/12or 3.667CO2 has more atomicMass than C due to the 2 oxygen atoms
CONVERSION OF GREEN MASS TO CARBON
Tools 1. Quantifying GHGs
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?
CONVERTING FROM BIOMASS TO CO2
Tools 1. Quantifying GHGs
47% of 107 tons dry matter/ha = 50.3 tons C/ha
ANSWER: 184 tons CO2/ha
Tools 1. Quantifying GHGs
50.3 tons of C/ha * 3.667 = 184 tons CO2/ha
Potential sources:
• Site preparation
• Fossil fuel consumption – most likely
from machinery/ vehicles
• Fertilizer
• Grazing animals ( e.g. cattle)
• Decomposition of N-fixing species
• Fire
NON-CO2 GHG EMISSIONS (G2.2, CL1.2, 1.4, 2.4, 3.1)
19
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous Oxide
(N2O)
For a guide to other GHGs, see the IPCC’s Revised 1996 guidelines
Tools
Conversion factors called ‘Global Warming Potentials’ exist to convert from non CO2
GHG to CO2 equivalent
1. Quantifying GHGs
FOREST CARBON POOLS: WHAT ARE THEY?
Can you list the different
carbon pools in a forest ecosystem?
20
© J.Henman
Tools 2. Carbon Pools
Total
Carbon
Above Ground
Biomass
Organic
Soil
Carbon/
peat
Live
Trees
Live
woody
non-
trees
Leaf Litter
POSSIBLE FOREST CARBON POOLS Note: diagram is not to scale
Tools 2. Carbon Pools
Roots
Below
ground
Biomass
Harvested
wood
products
(HWP)
Standing
and
Lying
dead
wood
• 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
MEASURING BELOW GROUND BIOMASS
22Tools 2. Carbon Pools
© SAEON NDLOVU NODE
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)
IMPORTANCE OF EACH POOL
23Tools 2. Carbon Pools
EXAMPLE OF CARBON POOL INCLUSION IN VCS V3
24Tools 2. Carbon Pools
1. Biomass regression equations
(allometric equations)
2. Biomass expansion factors
3. Destructive sampling of individual tree
METHODS FOR ESTIMATING TREE BIOMASS
25
© J.Henman
Tools 3. Estimating Biomass
Example Regression Equation
(from Chave et al, 2005)
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
BIOMASS REGRESSION EQUATIONS
26Tools 3. Estimating Biomass
Good practices or methods that are assumed in the CCB Standard,
applicable to G1.4, G2.3, CL1.1, CL3.1
Dry, wet and moist BREs for the tropics:
same dbh, different biomass
BIOMASS REGRESSION EQUATIONS (BREs)
Tools 3. Estimating Biomass
BIOMASS EXPANSION FACTORS (BEF)
•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.
28
BEF
Tools 3. Estimating Biomass
Good practices or methods that are assumed in the CCB Standard,
applicable to G1.4, G2.3, CL1.1, CL3.1
CHOOSING EQUATIONS
• 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
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?
CHECKING BREs AND BEFs
30Tools 3. Estimating Biomass
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
CHECKING BRE’s and BEF’s: DESTRUCTIVE
SAMPLING
© M. Delaney
Tools 3. Estimating Biomass
Good practices/or methods that are assumed in the CCB Standard,
applicable to G1.4, G2.3, CL1.1, CL3.1
THINGS TO WATCH FOR WITH PLOT DATA
32
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
Sort the data by DBH to confirm data range
is appropriate and values are plausible
!
Auditing Impact Monitoring
STRATIFICATION OF THE PROJECT AREA
To facilitate fieldwork and increase the accuracy and precision of measuring
and estimating carbon, it is useful to divide the project area into sub-
populations 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
33
“
”Tools 4. Stratification
Why stratify?
Applicable or relevant to G1.4, G2.1, G2.3, G3.3, CL1.1, CL3.1
MAPPING: STRATIFICATION OF THE PROJECT AREA
• 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
34Tools 4. Stratification
Applicable or relevant to G1.4, G2.1, G2.3, G3.3, CL1.1, CL3.1
EXAMPLES OF STRATIFICATION
35
Scrubland
Cropland
Pasture
Mapping of the pre-project carbon stocks for tree planting project
4. StratificationTools
EXAMPLES OF STRATIFICATION - BASELINE
36http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/3/034009/fulltext
Mapping of the pre-project carbon stocks in forests
STRATIFICATION: CHECKING THE QUALITY OF LAND
COVER MAPS
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
37
!
Tools 4. Stratification
Applicable or relevant to G1.4, G2.1, G2.3, G3.3, CL1.1, CL3.1
SAMPLING FRAMEWORK – KEY CONSIDERATIONS
38For more detailed guidance on sampling frameworks: see: Sourcebook
for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry, Pearson et al , 2005Tools 5. Sampling
Stratification
• Efficient
• Ground truthed
• Accurate
Plot size and shape
• Area of plot ( lots of small, or a few big plots?)
• Round or rectangular
• Nested?
Carbon pools
• What to measure
• What can be conservatively neglected
Location of plots
• Random
• Systematic
• Degree of Bias
Number of plots
• Equation for estimating no. of plots needed
• Has target precision level been met
Quality control
• Standard operating procedures
• Staff training
• Repeat measurements
• Data storage
Applicable or relevant to G1.4, G2.1, G2.3, G3.3, CL1.1, CL1.2, CL2.1, CL3.1
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.ipcc-
nggip.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
39Tools Further Resources
EVALUATION AGAINST THE
STANDARD
40
© J.Henman
OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION SECTION
41
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)
• 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.
42Auditing 1. Original Conditions
G.1 ORIGINAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA
G.1 ORIGINAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA
43Auditing
Requirements:
Climate Information
• Assessment of the carbon stocks in the project area (G1.4)
1. Original Conditions
G1.4 ASSESSMENT OF THE CARBON STOCKS IN THE PROJECT
AREA
44Auditing 1. Original Conditions
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.
• 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.
45
Common Pitfalls
Conformance
Auditing 1. Original Conditions
G1.4 ASSESSMENT OF THE CARBON STOCKS IN THE
PROJECT AREA
• 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
• 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.
46Auditing 2. Baseline Projection
G.2 BASELINE PROJECTIONS
47Auditing
Requirements:
Climate Information
• Calculation of the estimated carbon stock changes associated with the
‘without-project’ scenario (G2.3)
G.2 BASELINE PROJECTIONS
2. Baseline Projection
G2.3 WITHOUT PROJECT SCENARIO EFFECT ON
CARBON STOCKS
48Auditing 2. Baseline Projection
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)
• 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
Or use more detailed models……
G2.3 BASELINES
49Auditing 2. Baseline Projections
Fo
rest C
over
0
Definition
of forest
-50
Project
Afforestation
Time
Carb
on S
tock
0
Project
Scenario
Baseline
Logged to Protected Forest or
Avoided deforestation (REDD)
G2.3 BASELINES: OPTIONS FOR REDD
50
Historical Average
Historical regression
Driver based projection
Documented Plans
Remote sensing analysis:
- Satellite data
- Spatial analysis model/tool
- Research and Spatial
analysis model/tool
Company/Government
Records
Unplanned deforestation
methodologies.
-See VCS website
- Plan Vivo technical
Specifications
Planned deforestation
methodologies.
-See VCS website
Baseline Derivation Method Methodologies
Auditing 2. Baseline Projections
• 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
51
Common Pitfalls
Conformance
Auditing 2. Baseline Projections
G2.3 ESTIMATED CARBON STOCK CHANGES IN THE
BASELINE SCENARIO
• 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
• 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
52Auditing
CL1. NET POSITIVE CLIMATE IMPACTS – The project scenario
3. Net Positive Impacts
53Auditing
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)
3. Net Positive Impacts
CL1. NET POSITIVE CLIMATE IMPACTS
CL1.1 CHANGE IN CARBON STOCKS
54Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts
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
• 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
55
Common Pitfalls
Conformance
Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts
CL1.1 CHANGE IN CARBON STOCKS
• 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
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
56Auditing 3. Project Scenario
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!
57Auditing 3. Project Scenario
CL1.2 CHANGE IN NON CO2 GHG EMISSIONS
58Auditing
Estimate the net change of non-CO2 GHG gases if they are significant (>5% of
monitoring period emissions)
3. Net Positive Impacts
© J.Henman
• 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 non-
CO2 GHG emissions
• Justification for deeming changes insignificant (less than 5%)
59
Common Pitfalls
Conformance
Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts
CL1.2 CHANGE IN NON CO2 GHG EMISSIONS
• Claiming these gases are insignificant without justification
• Error in calculation
• Not identifying a key source in either ‘with’ or ‘without’ project
scenario
60Auditing
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 N-
fixing species
3. Net Positive Impacts
CL1.3 ESTIMATE OTHER GHG EMISSIONS
© J.Henman
.
• Emission sources are clearly listed
• Utilize appropriate assumptions and values
• CDM tools or other best practise methodologies are applied to
quantify them
61
Common Pitfalls
Conformance
Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts
CL1.3 ESTIMATE OTHER GHG EMISSIONS
• 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
62Auditing
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).
3. Net Positive Impacts
CL1.4 NET POSITIVE CLIMATE IMPACTS
EXAMPLE: NET POSITIVE CLIMATE IMPACTS (CL1.4)
63
Net carbon stock changes from project activity
Net change in non-CO2 GHG emissions with the project
GHG emissions from project activity
Unmitigated Leakage (10% of net C stock changes)
Net Climate Impact
10,000 t CO2
500 t CO2
300 t CO2
1,000 t CO2
8,200 t CO2
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
Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts
64Auditing
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.
3. Net Positive Impacts
CL1.5 DOUBLE-COUNTING
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.
– Normally a database is kept
65Auditing Net Positive Impacts
• 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
66
Common Pitfalls
Conformance
Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts
CL1.5 DOUBLE-COUNTING
• 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
• 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.
67Auditing
CL2. LEAKAGE
4. Leakage
68Auditing
Requirements:
• Types of leakage (CL2.1)
• Leakage mitigation (CL2.2)
• Subtracting unmitigated negative impacts (CL2.3)
• Including non-CO2 gasses (CL2.4)
CL2. LEAKAGE
4. Leakage
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
69Auditing 4. Leakage
CL2.1 TYPES OF LEAKAGE
70Auditing
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.
4. Leakage
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF LEAKAGE (CL2)
71
List three
possible types of
activity shifting
leakage
© J.Henman
Auditing 4. Leakage
• 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
72
Common Pitfalls
Conformance
Auditing 4. Leakage
CL2.1 TYPES OF LEAKAGE
• 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)
CL2.2 LEAKAGE MITIGATION
73Auditing
Document how any leakage will be mitigated and estimate the extent to which such
impacts will be reduced by these mitigation activities.
4. Leakage
• 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
74
Common Pitfalls
Conformance
Auditing 4. Leakage
CL2.2 LEAKAGE MITIGATION
• 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
75Auditing
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).
4. Leakage
CL2.3 SUBTRACTING UNMITIGATED NEGATIVE IMPACTS
• The carbon model correctly deducts anticipated unmitigated
leakage
• Excel sheet/model labelled appropriate
• Excel sheet/model transparent
76
Common Pitfalls
Conformance
Auditing 4. Leakage
CL2.3 SUBTRACTING UNMITIGATED NEGATIVE IMPACTS
• Unmitigated leakage is omitted from calculations
• Unmitigated leakage is not quantified correctly
• Error with units
77Auditing
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.
4. Leakage
CL2.4 INCLUDING NON-CO2 GASES
• All non-CO2 gases emitted from leakage are quantified using
appropriate methodologies
78
Common Pitfalls
Conformance
Auditing 4. Leakage
CL2.4 INCLUDING NON-CO2 GASES
• Non-CO2 gases are ignored offsite.
• Incorrect methodologies are followed
• Default values are incorrect
• 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
79Auditing
CL3. CLIMATE IMPACT MONITORING
5. Impact Monitoring
80Auditing
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)
5. Impact Monitoring
CL3. CLIMATE IMPACT MONITORING
81
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 leakage-
causing activities have taken place
•Develop full monitoring plan within six months of project start or 12
months after validation
5. Impact Monitoring
CL3.1 MONITORING POOLS AND FREQUENCY
Auditing
• 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
82
Common Pitfalls
Conformance
Auditing 5. Impact Monitoring
CL3.1 MONITORING POOLS AND FREQUENCY
• 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
• QA/QC measures are omitted or inadequate
83
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.
5. Impact Monitoring
CL3.2 COMMITING TO A FULL MONITORING PLAN
Auditing
• Description of when the full monitoring plan will be developed
• Dissemination strategy for the full monitoring plan and
communication of its results
84
Common Pitfalls
Conformance
Auditing 5. Impact Monitoring
CL3.2 COMMITING TO A FULL MONITORING PLAN
• 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
GL1. CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION BENEFITS (OPTIONAL)
85Auditing 6. Gold Status
• 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.
86Auditing
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)
6. Gold Status
GL1. CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION BENEFITS
(OPTIONAL)
Identify likely regional climate change and climate variability scenarios and
impacts, using available studies, and identify potential changes in the local land-
use 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
• 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
88
Common Pitfalls
Conformance
Auditing 6. Gold Status
GL1.1 REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIO AND
IMPACTS
• Climate model applied is not suitable for the region
• Projections are not based on defendable assumptions
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
• 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
90
Common Pitfalls
Conformance
Auditing 6. Gold Status
GL1.2 RISK TO THE PROJECT’S BENEFIT
• Risks are omitted
• The risk mitigation strategy is not-robust, or does not address all
risks
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
• 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
92
Common Pitfalls
Conformance
Auditing 6. Gold Status
GL1.3 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ON PROJECT ZONE
• Linkages between climate change and projected impacts on
communities/biodiversity conservation are not explained
PHOTO COPYRIGHT AND RE-USE
93
© J.Henman
• 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