applicant entities / designated operational entities different checkpoints for new methodologies
DESCRIPTION
Baseline Methodologies for LULUCF: Overview B. Schlamadinger * Joanneum Research, Austria [email protected] Training Seminar for BioCarbon Fund Projects Washington, 12-14 September 2005. Contents. Applicant entities / Designated operational entities - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Baseline Methodologies for LULUCF: Overview
B. Schlamadinger
* Joanneum Research, [email protected]
Training Seminar for BioCarbon Fund ProjectsWashington, 12-14 September 2005
Applicant entities / Designated operational entities Different checkpoints for new methodologies Baselines and additionality Results of methodologies submitted Reasons for rejection; recommendations for
the future When are projects different? Classification of methodologies for BioCF projects
Contents
Methodology submission through AE or DOE
AEs and DOEs submit new methodologies in the name of the project proponent.
AEs and DOEs are obliged to check the completeness of the proposed methodologies BUT do not check the correctness of the new methodology – in contrast to the process later on in validation with respect to the PDD
Hence, AEs and DOEs function more as a mailbox than being a first quality control.
Source: M. Rumberg, Tuev-Sued
Definition: Assessment of project feasibility and chances to generate emission reductions.
Basis: Project Design Document (PDD)
Assessment of the following parameters: Voluntary participation / DNA / Kyoto-Protocol Ratification Project design Additionality Emission reduction: Baseline-Study (Choice and application, crediting
period, leakage und project boundaries, calculation) Monitoring EIA Stakeholder process
Role of DOE in Validation
Qualitative Assessment Qualitative Assessment
Source: M. Rumberg, Tuev-Sued
AE / DOE CDM Team (UNFCCC Secretariat) AR WG Desk review by 2 external experts 2 AR WG members compile reviews by experts and their own opinions into
recommendation
Different stages of checking methodologies
Helps projects save time if there are obvious deficiencies Definitions – baseline removal by sinks, net removals, leakage, positive and negative Eligibility of land Determination of baseline (one of the three approaches) Non CO2 correctly calculated Project boundary National policies Additionality checked, quantitative and qualitative Leakage properly treated/all sources covered Conservative approach/assessment of uncertainties Monitoring meth follows the baseline meth?
AR WG checklist for baseline methodologies (no detailed checking, just compliance with 19/CP.9)
Preliminary rejection (after screening by AR WG member) is meant to help project proponents to avoid time loss.
A: accepted, further modifications exclusively by AR WG B: project participants get 2 weeks to address open issues (can be preferable to A, as participants have control over
modifications) C: Resubmission necessary (can help the project in the long term to save time)
NMB can be approved even if NMM is rejected NMM cannot be approved without NMB
Rating per AR WG recommendation to EB
ARNMBs proposed so farNumber, rating
Name Baseline approach
Additionality tool
Carbon pools
ARNMB0002Withdrawn?
AES-Tiete Reservoirs: Reforestation of grasslands with native species
C: likely, project start
Modified the A.T. from energy projects
All
ARNMB0003C
TIST: Smallholder A/R projects in areas undergoing continued
A: existing or historical
No (additionality check missing)
AGB, BGB
ARNMB0004C
Treinta y Tres: Afforestation on extensively grazed grasslands with livestock intensification
C: likely, project start
Own tool (add. test mixed with baseline determination)
All
ARNMB006B
Bagapelli: Small scale AR on degraded lands,grasslands and fallow lands
C: likely, project start
No All except dead wood
ARNMB007B
Moldova Soil Conservation Project: Restoration of degraded lands through AR
A: existing or historical
Yes (adapted) All
ARNMB0008In review
Kikonda Forest Reserve Reforestation Project: AR of degraded bush and woodlands in forest reserve areas
A: existing or historical
Yes (adapted) All
ARNMB0009In review
Rio Aquidaban Reforestation Project: reforestation of degraded bush and grassland
A: existing or historical
Yes (adapted) All
ARNMB010B
Facilitating Reforestation for Guangxi Watershed Managmt., Pearl River Basin, China
A: existing or historic
Yes AGB, BGB
ARNMB0011In review
Chocó-Manabí Corridor Reforestation and Conservation Carbon Project: additional due to financial barriers
B: Econ. attractive
Yes (adapted) All
ARNMB0012In review
Afforestation or reforestation project activity implemented on unmanaged grassland
C: likely, project start
Yes, self developed
AGB, BGB
ARNMB0013In review
The Mountain Pine Ridge Reforestation Project: AR with baseline control areas
B: Econ. attractive
Yes (adapted) All
Land eligibility (not forest in 1990) Baseline scenario, and GHG emissions / removals Project scenario, and GHG emissions / removals Additionality of the project scenario over and above the baseline scenario Leakage Estimation of the net GHG benefits resulting from the project, taking into account the
previous items.
“Baseline methodologies” are not only about baselines
Incomplete Not following 19 CP9 requirements IPCC Guidance not used Language (drafting) problems Scope and applicability (too broad/narrow) Data, equations (errors, lack of quality, not possible to monitor) Assumptions and parameters are not adequately chosen QA/QC procedures and transparency
Reasons for rejection of NMBs to date
NMB was main stumbling block so far. (NMM had IPCC GPG to build on) Process for selecting the most plausible scenario is not satisfactory Baseline was assumed to contain no tree planting, but this was not substantiated (background rate of AR) Baseline was solely based on activities occurring outside the project area No additionality tool was used additionality was understood as difference between project and baseline. Should be: project would not have occurred in absence of CDM funding. Baseline included non-CO2 gases baseline: control plots monitored during project, but model for determining baseline management not described Conflict of interest when project participants manage control plots (for baseline estimation)
Reasons for rejection of NMBs to date (baseline methodology, I)
Land eligibility not assessed, or improperly assessed Carbon pools not estimated separately GHG emissions estimation from project not complete (e.g., N2O from fertilizers) No prediction of baseline and project C stock changes Self developed additionality tool not adequate Uncertainties not assessed AND no conservative assumptions (at least one of the two is necessary) Leakage from displacing agricultural activities not assessed Positive leakage: must not be included (not a sole reason for rejection)
Reasons for rejection of NMBs to date (baseline methodology, II)
Avoid any of the above, learn from these mistakes Conservativeness may be easier to achieve than a detailed uncertainty analysis Use standard additionality tool cdm.unfccc.int/Panels/ar/Inputs_Afforestation_Reforestation/AR_Additionality_Tool.pdf
New version coming soon!
Use standard “land eligibility tool” as soon as it is available Consider EB clarifications on national / sectoral policies cdm.unfccc.int/EB/Meetings/016/eb16repan3.pdf To meet Dec 2005 deadline, could use “top down” small-scale methodologies (draft available, even simpler version coming soon) Keep the NMs short and concise, avoid repetition Consider teaming up with other projects (internal review among projects)
Some recommendations
Pre-project land use Land eligibility test Which carbon pools Generic vs. project specific Baseline approach (a, b, c) Additionality tool (standard / project specific) National policies addressed? Control plots for baseline? (only approach b) Way how leakage is addressed Activity displacement
What makes a baseline methodology different from another one?
Degraded lands with no attractive baseline use Little vegetation, hardly any trees (not likely to become forest) Lands in slash and burn cycle (could become a forest) Examples: China, Moldova
Projects on grazing lands (special leakage assessment for activity displacement), trees suppressed Examples: Albania, Ethiopia
Agro-forestry projects that avoid leakage by activity displacement Projects which may appear attractive even w/o CDM funding (e.g., timber plantations; timber market leakage needs to be checked) “Tree based” (rather than “ha based”) projects
Examples: TIST, Kenya
Possible classification of methodologies
Screen the existing NMBs If one is acceptable that is already published: use it (may require certain shortcuts, e.g., omit soil carbon, can save
costs and reduce risk on methods development) If one seems applicable but is not yet accepted consider contacting the proponent and ask for permission to use it If one is similar: use key concepts and ideas
Add modules as appropriate (more carbon pools, activity displacement, “background reforestation rate” for baseline
If none is similar: screen other upcoming projects and consider collaboration
If none of the above: new methodology
Steps for NMBs in BioCarbon Fund Projects
Projects should work together in drafting methodologies
Helps avoid future bottlenecks in CDM AR WG
Avoids future need of consolidation of methods
Increases the quality of methodologies
BioCarbon Fund projects of similar nature
Other AR projects
Other burning issues Next NM submission deadline around 5 October
Current rules: projects not registered by end of 2005 loose all benefits of AR to date
Only possible cure: COP11 decision
Asymmetrical treatment of non-CO2 gases
A clarification may be forthcoming soon
EU ETS review, 15 Sept deadline: www2.perseus.com/mckinsey/prod/eu/eumain.htm