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

https://s3.amazonaws.com/CCBA/Projects/Reforestation_with_Native_Commercial_Species_on_Degraded_Lands_for_Timber_and_Carbon_Purposes_in_Campo_Verde_Ucayali-Peru/CCBA_PDD-Campo+Verde_02Sep10.pdf

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


47% of 107 tons dry matter/ha = 50.3 tons C/ha

ANSWER: 184 tons CO2/ha


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


EXAMPLE OF CARBON POOL INCLUSION IN VCS V3


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



Dry, wet and moist BREs for the tropics:

same dbh, different biomass

BIOMASS REGRESSION EQUATIONS (BREs)


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




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,


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



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


Good practices/or methods that are assumed in the CCB Standard,


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


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

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/3/034009/fulltext

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


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

http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/ARmethodologies

http://www.v-c-s.org/

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)


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)


© 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


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


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


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).


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


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.


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

http://www.climate-standards.org/pdf/Policy_announcement_CCB_Standards_CL1_5_double_counting_02-17-10.pdf

• 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


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)


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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

CCBS v2 Climate - Amazon Web Services · •The CCBS requires the use of IPCC good practice...

Documents

Transcript of CCBS v2 Climate - Amazon Web Services · •The CCBS requires the use of IPCC good practice...