methodologies for moldova soil conservation project arnm0007 rama chandra reddy july 12, 2005
TRANSCRIPT
Methodologies for Moldova Soil Conservation project
ARNM0007
Rama Chandra Reddy
July 12, 2005.
OutlineOutline
Project
Carbon pools
Baseline assessment
Baseline approach
Additionality
Leakage
Meth panel preliminary recommendations
Outstanding issues
Moldova Soil Conservation ProjectMoldova Soil Conservation Project
Problem: Soil erosion and landslides major factors affecting public lands
Objectives: Restoration of degraded lands Improvement in the supplies of forest products Employment generation Contribution to GHG removals Biodiversity conservation
Project area: Degraded lands and pastures – 14,494 ha
ProjectProject
Project participants: PCF and Moldsilva Stakeholders: Moldsilva – State Forest Agency of Moldova
150 Local Councils Project boundary: 1890 individual plots distributed
throughout the country in 289 Mayoralities (local councils) Species planted: Quercus sp, Robinia sp, Poplar sp, Pinus
sp and other local species Use of CO2FIX model for initial projections Net anthropogenic GHG removals of the project :
2,479,568 t CO2e
Carbon PoolsCarbon Pools
Carbon pools considered in the project Above ground biomass Below ground biomass Deadwood Litter Soil carbon
Major pools in the baseline: Soil carbon and litter Biomass pools are negligible because of continuous land degradation
Baseline Scenario Baseline Scenario Soil Erosion, Land SlidesSoil Erosion, Land Slides
Physical featuresPhysical features
Land slides 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Avg
No. of activated land slide reports
13 57 121 126 268 98 65 107
Administrative regions 8 10 14 14 14 12 5 11
Carpathian mountains influence the geology
Average precipitation – 560mm in north and 380 mm in south
Soil erosion and land slides are the major factors
Baseline Approach Baseline Approach
Baseline – paragraph 22(a) a) Existing or historical, as applicable changes in the
carbon pools within the project boundary
Net negative baseline removals will lead to further loss of carbon
Average annual pre-existing A/R area to be deducted from the project area
Baseline AssessmentBaseline Assessment
Identifying the most likely prospective land use
Approach to baseline assessment Identification of current land use/land-use trends Analysis of national A/R policies and regulation on public lands Assessment of likely trends in land use without intervention Identification of the baseline scenario Choice of carbon pools for assessment Stratification, sampling, and measurement strategies Calculation of carbon stocks of the baseline land use Assessment of likely emissions from the baseline land use, and
whether these activities will be displaced as result of the project Assessment of the possibilities of natural regeneration Assessment of the net GHG removals under the baseline scenario
Land-use classArea(ha)
Carbon in vegetation
(t C/ha)
Soil carbon
(C t/ha)
Total Carbon stock (t)
Carbon Dynamics (t/ha/yr)
Degraded lands 3,905.4
Humified and moderately humified soils
3,191.8 0.1 96.9 309,605 - 0.6
Slightly humified soils
713.6 0.1 49.7 35,537 - 0.5
Pastures 10,588.5 0.2 85.7
Humified and moderate humified soils
9,385.7 0.2 96.5 907,597 - 0.5
Slightly humified soils
1,202.8 0.2 64.5 77,821 - 0.4
Totals 14,493.9 1,330,560
Baseline ScenarioBaseline Scenario
Soil Carbon Status under Baseline Scenario
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Year
Soil
carb
on (t
/ha)
Total soil carbon per ha Net soil carbon loss per ha
Soil Carbon Baseline EvolutionSoil Carbon Baseline Evolution
Baseline MethodologyBaseline Methodology
Baseline scenario =
Project scenario =
Leakage = a) Staff Travel b) Socioeconomic indicators – alternative grazing, return of
plantations to local councils, employment, fuelwood supplies,
Net anthropogenic removals =
02 eCOBR
neCOPRn
eCO APECPR *)}12/44(*{ 212
001.0**** EFFCNDPLK
eCOeCOeCO tBRtPRtNR 222 )()()( 0)( 2 eCOtBR
eCOeCOeCO tBRtPRtNR 222 )()()(
0)( 2 eCOtBR
with
with
Monitoring MethodologyMonitoring Methodology
No baseline monitoring – will result in the saving of monitoring costs
Project scenario monitoring Biomass monitoring at 5 year intervals Soil carbon monitoring at 20 year intervals
Delineation of project boundary and its monitoring
Stratification, sampling, and data collection
Estimation of biomass equations using destructive sampling
Updating CO2FIX model projections with actual data from field measurements at each time interval
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
AdditionalityAdditionality
Identification and assessment of plausible scenarios Identification of the project scenario Comparison of carbon removals of baseline & project scenarios Application of additionality tools
Early start project (step 0) Legal and regulatory framework (step 1) Investment (financial/economic) analysis (step 2) Barrier analysis (step 3) Impact of CDM registration (Step 5)
Establishment of additionally Financial and economic additionality Investment barriers and common property issues Lack of awareness to soil erosion costs
LeakageLeakage
Staff travel outside the project boundaries
Activity shifting due to displacement of socioeconomic activities Displacement of grazing Fuelwood collection
Measures against Non-permanencyMeasures against Non-permanency
Crediting period and lCERs Renewable – 20 year period, twice renewable
Contractual agreements Contractual agreements between Moldsilva and 150 local
councils Moldsilva will manage the sites until establishment
Uncertainty assessment Scenario analysis – Worst Case, Normal, and Best Case Risk discounting – to account for fire, grazing, and other risks
Meth Panel Preliminary RecommendationsMeth Panel Preliminary Recommendations
Applicability and non-applicability conditions
Positive change in baseline carbon and baseline re-evaluation at the end of 1st crediting period
Treatment of pre-existing afforestation
Assessment of leakage – activity displacement and market impacts
Uncertainty assessment
Other Issues CommentedOther Issues Commented
National policies
Definition of project boundaries and monitoring
Baseline approach
Additionality
Leakage
Stakeholder issues
Uncertainty – fire
Outstanding issuesOutstanding issues
Baseline re-evaluation under positive baseline at the end of first crediting period
Quantification of leakage due to activity shifting
Common practice test
Extent of detail in the monitoring methodology