lulucf and insights into the arwg

EMMER INTERNATIONAAL

LULUCF and insights into the ARWG

Igino Emmer


Contents

• ARWG• CDM A/R - State of affairs• Recent subjects• Tools and consolidation


ARWG

• Assignment for 2 years• Geographical spread• Backgrounds: economy, agronomy, forestry,

geography• 12 members including Chair and Co-chair

– Chairs are member of EB


ToR ARWG

• New Methodologies– Prepare recommendations on submitted proposals for new

baseline and monitoring methodologies for CDM AR project activities;

– Prepare draft reformatted versions of proposed new baseline and monitoring methodologies for CDM AR project activities approved by the EB;

– Prepare recommendations on options for expanding the applicability of methodologies for CDM AR project activities, if applicable, and develop tools to facilitate the selection of one approved methodology from among those of a similar nature by project participants. (Taram?)


ToR ARWG – cont.

• Recommendations for consideration and adoption by the EB:– Development and revisions of the PDD for CDM AR project

activities;– Guidance on identified modalities and procedures contained in

the modalities and procedures for CDM AR project activities;– Further work on items identified in Appendix C of the modalities

and procedures for CDM AR project activities, as appropriate. (Prepare ssc methodologies)

• The ARWG shall operate under the guidance of the Executive Board.


ToR ARWG – cont.

• Recent improvements:– Secretariat may directly approach PPs for further

clarifications (not anymore via DOE)– Secretariat has the lead in preparing

recommendations to the EB and reformatting NM


CDM A/R – State of affairs

• 10 Approved methodologies• 2 Methodologies under review• 3 Approved ssc methodologies (covering all 4 sectors

requested by COP)• 1 Project registered: "Facilitating Reforestation for

Guangxi Watershed Management in Pearl River Basin" AR-AM0001

• 0 Requesting registration• 6 AR-AM0001 under validation• 1 AR-AM0002/3/4/5 under validation• 0 AR-AM0006/7/8/9/10 under validation• 6 AR-AMS0001 under validation (public comments

requested) but there are more in the pipeline


Recent subjects

• New assessment protocol for NM• Technical guidelines for NM• New PDD formats• Various clarifications

– Bundling and PoA >– Project boundaries >– Request for revision of NM >

• Land eligibility tool >• Assessing methodologies• Preparing/amending small scale methodologies >• Tools and consolidation >


Forest definition – multiple storeys

• EB31: In response to a question raised by the DOE Forum, the Board clarified that in applying the A/R CDM definition of “forest” to stands with several storeys of trees differing in height, then the “forest” may comprise trees from different storeys that in combination meet both the crown cover (…) and height thresholds selected by the host Party and reported to the Executive Board through its designated national authority for the CDM.

• EB32: Further to the clarification by the Board at its thirty first meeting (paragraph 45 of the meeting report), the Board clarified that when the A/R CDM definition of forest is applied to stands with several storeys, then the trees selected from any storey to satisfy the crown cover threshold (…) must also be trees that have the potential to reach the height threshold at maturity in situ, where the crown cover and height thresholds referred to, are those selected by the host party and reported to the Executive Board through its designated national authority for the CDM.


Bundling of ssc CDM A/R projects(to reduce validation costs)

6/CMP.1 mentions the possibility of portfolio bundling with the aim to reduce validation costs. It says:

"11. Several small-scale afforestation or reforestation project activities under the CDM may be bundled for the purpose of validation. An overall monitoring plan that monitors performance of the constituent project activities on a sample basis may be proposed for bundled project activities. If bundled project activities are registered with an overall monitoring plan, this monitoring plan shall be implemented and each verification/certification of the net anthropogenic removals by sinks achieved shall cover all of the bundled project activities."


Bundling of ssc CDM A/R projects - cont.(to reduce validation costs)

EB32• 41. The Board considered a query by the DOE forum requesting clarification

on whether the provisions of the annex to decision 6/CMP.1 may be applied to bundles of small scale A/R project activities, created for the purpose of validation and specifically whether the limit for net anthropogenic greenhouse gas removals by sinks as defined in paragraph 1 (i) of decision 5/CMP.1 can be exceeded or whether the bundling principles provided in annex 21 to the report of the twenty first meeting of the Board are applicable to small scale A/R project activities being bundled for the purpose of validation.

• 42. The Board was of the view that the provisions of paragraph 11 of annex to decision 6/CMP.1 apply to bundles of small scale A/R project activities created for the purpose of validation. Hence the limit for net anthropogenic greenhouse gas removals by sinks as provided in paragraph 1 (a) of Annex to 6/CMP.1 shall not apply to paragraph 11. Consequently, the “General principles for bundling” (EB 21, annex 21) may not be applicable mutatis mutandis in the context of bundles of small scale A/R project activities created for the purpose of validation.


Bundling of ssc CDM A/R projects – cont.(to reduce validation costs)

EB33• The Board considered the draft procedures as prepared by the

secretariat, to operationalize the bundling of several SSC-AR project activities for the purposes of validation only. It agreed that project participants could effectively reduce costs by registering such activities as small scale CPAs under a PoA, using a SSC-AR methodology and therefore encourages project participants to take advantage of this opportunity.


Project boundaries(AMs not in compliance with M&P)

EB36• 37. The Board approved the following guidance, (…), on the application of

the definition of the project boundary of A/R CDM project activities, in according to decision 5/CMP.1:(a) The “project boundary” geographically delineates the afforestation or reforestation project activity under the control of the project participants. The A/R CDM project activity may contain more than one discrete area of land. At the time the PDD is validated the following shall be defined:(i) Each discrete area of land shall have a unique geographical identification.(ii) The project participants shall describe legal title to the land, rights of access to the sequestered carbon, current land tenure, and land use for each discrete area of land.(iii) The project participants shall justify, that during the crediting period, each discrete area of land is expected to be subject to an afforestation or reforestation project activity under the control of the project participants.


Project boundaries – cont.(AM not in compliance with M&P)

EB36• 39. The Board approved the revision of approved methodology AR-

AM0004 (…), replacing the current description of the application of the definition of the project boundary in approved methodology. The Board requested the secretariat to revise in the same fashion, the following approved methodologies, which also require the clarification in paragraph 32 above: AR-AM0003, AR-AM0007, AR-AM0008 and AR-AM0010.

• PoA!


Programme of Activities

• PoA: Programme of Activities• CPA: CDM Programme Activity• Coordinating/managing entity of the PoA• A CPA can be included in a registered PoA at any time during the

duration of the PoA.• Boundary of PoA is fixed• CPAs have same baseline and monitoring methodology

– Comply with applicability criteria

• Dedicated CDM-POA-DD-AR / SSC-AR (with typical CPA)• Dedicated CDM-CPA-DD-AR / SSC-AR• Statistically sound sampling method/procedure or assess each CPA• Debundling rules apply


Request for revision(instead of submitting NM)

EB31• Noting that project participants tend to submit

new methodologies, where in some instances the request for a revision to an approved A/R methodology would be more appropriate, the Board encouraged project participants to consider submitting requests for revisions of approved methodologies if their project activity is broadly similar to the project activities to which the approved methodology is applicable. <http://cdm.unfccc.int/goto/ARrev>


Land eligibility

• EB35: “Procedures to demonstrate the eligibility of lands for AR CDM project activities”

• For reforestation project activities, demonstrate that the land was not forest by demonstrating that the conditions outlined under (a) above also applied to the land on 31 December 1989.

• Removed: “The land has not been forest land at any time since 1 January 1990, that is, there is no time since 1 January 1990 at which woody vegetation on the land has met the thresholds adopted for the definition of forest by the host country.”


Small scale methodologies

• Simplified baseline and monitoring methodologies for small-scale AR project activities under the CDM implemented on:– grasslands or croplands – AR-AMS0001 v4– settlements – AR-AMS0002– wetlands – AR-AMS0003


Simplifying features of ssc methodologies

• Only a/g and b/g woody biomass (settlements and wetlands: only tree biomass)

• No project emissions (except N2O from N fertilisation)

• Baseline changes zero if <10% (of ex-ante actual net)• Simplified leakage assessment

– No deforestation or no significant biomass; zero leakage– <10% displacement: zero leakage– >50% displacement: ssc meth not applicable– Otherwise leakage = 15% (of ex-ante actual net)


Improvements in AR-AMS0001 v3/v4

• Added: no soil preparation disturbance > 10% of area• Baseline trees are included (v3)• “Significant changes in baseline” defined at >10%• More robust equations for a/g and b/g biomass (v3)

• Added: N2O emissions from N fertilisation

• Leakage:– Displacement better specified– No deforestation or no significant biomass: zero leakage


Ssc methodology Wetlands

• Only degraded wetlands– Baseline changes zero conservatively

• Change of hydrology not allowed– Avoid enhancing CH4 emissions

• Pre-project agriculture >10% not allowed• Organic soils: no site preparation allowed• Leakage: slightly deviating from 0001 and 0002

– <15% grazing displacement: zero leakage– >0% <10% agriculture: leakage = 20%


THANK YOU

lulucf and insights into the arwg

Documents