Date post: | 24-May-2015 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | becky-laplant |
View: | 1,240 times |
Download: | 4 times |
John Gunn, Ph.D.Senior Program Leader
Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences
Brunswick, Maine
26 February 200804/12/23 1
Forest Carbon Offsets: A Scorecard for Evaluating Project Quality
Click here to offset your carbon footprint …
Forest carbon is clearly an important part of mitigating GHG emissions
What qualifies as a legitimate carbon offset?
The carbon market could be abusedRigor and transparency are critical to ensure that the buyer, and atmosphere, are getting the offsets expected.
04/12/23 2
OutlineOverview of forest carbon offsets and
affiliated jargon
The Manomet Forest Carbon Offsets Scorecard as a tool for evaluating offset projects
04/12/23 3
WHAT ROLE WILL MANAGED FORESTS PLAY IN FOREST
CARBON OFFSET MARKETS AND GHG MITIGATION?
04/12/23 4
Volatility in CO2e markets now – drop in price related to concerns over “additionality and permanence”
Carbon Equivalent ($/MTCO2e) Trading on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) from May 2008 – February 2009
04/12/23 5
When gas is expensive, energy producers rely more on coal, which emits higher levels of CO2 and boosts demand for carbon permits.
6
Global Voluntary and Regulatory Carbon Offset Market Value
OTC forest offset market with huge variation in price: $1.80/tCO2e to one transaction at $300/tCO2e.
How forests play a role in marketsAfforestationReforestation/restoration Avoided deforestation or conversion
Forest managementEnduring wood products/product
substitution
04/12/23 9
Forests and Carbon – Market Entry Requirements Emerging:
Demonstrate that entity-wide forest holdings are sustainably managed.
Demonstrate long-term commitment to maintain carbon stocks.
Use of approved methods to quantify carbon stocks.
Independent third-party verification of carbon stocks.
04/12/23 10
Some key concepts that will define available carbon markets for managed forests (voluntary vs. regulatory)
BaselinesAdditionalityLeakagePermanence
04/12/23 11
BaselinesThe bar you are measured againstBase YearPractices (project level)
“Business-as-Usual”, or BAURegulatory
Stocking (e.g., FIA mean)
04/12/23 12
Baseline Examples
BAU: Practices or
Regulatory
Additionality (real & measurable)Is CO2 really being sequestered
“additionally”?More than what would have happened in
absence of project or paymentOffsets for actual
carbon emissions
04/12/23 14
Additionality
LeakageInternal
Owner shifts activities within ownership
External Carbon practices displace activities to other forests (local, global)
Difficult to measure 04/12/23 16
Permanence (enforceable)Intentional Conversion or Natural
DisturbanceInsurance/ReservesLegal enforcementHow long?
04/12/23 17
Basic Elements of the Major Forest Carbon Offset StandardsStandard Baseline Additionality Permanence
CCX Base Year =Growth – Harvest 15 years
VCS 5-10 Years Prior
Practices Permanent
CCAR Regulatory Practices Perm. Easement
RGGI Proposed FIA mean > FIA mean 99 years
04/12/23 18
What Is the Scorecard?An easy-to-use tool for evaluating quality of forest projects.
43 questions addressing:
1. Contract structure2. Baselines3. Additionality4. Monitoring, measurement, reporting, and verification5. Permanence6. Leakage7. Transparency8. Co-benefits/costs
How Can It Help You?
Guides users in understanding and addressing key quality components of offsets.
Provides a standardized reference point in an unstandardized marketplace.
Who Should Use It?
Project developers, offset buyers and sellers, anyone interested in understanding what creates high-quality forest offsets.
How Was It Developed?
Extensive reviewed of GHG registries, GHG accounting protocols, program requirements, project design and certification standards, and reports analyzing carbon markets and offset providers.
We distilled and synthesized carbon offset “best practices.”
3. Additionality Yes No
3.1 Will the project exceed regulatory requirements or other legal mandates? ___ ___
3.2 Can it be demonstrated that carbon credits will not be generated retroactively from activities that have already occurred?
___ ___
3.3 Can it be demonstrated that the project will result in a net reduction of GHG levels in the atmosphere relative to the baseline?
___ ___
3.4 Can it be demonstrated that none of the project’s credits have been sold more than once? ___ ___
3.5 Can it be demonstrated that the project’s credits will be permanently retired once they are sold?
___ ___
Subtotal (out of 5)=
5. Permanence Yes No
5.1 Is maintenance of additional carbon stocks contractually required for: At least 20 years? At least 50 years? At least 100 years? In perpetuity?
____________
____________
5.2 Have all the project’s carbon risks been identified and risk management strategies been enacted to guard against carbon loss during the project’s contractual obligation?
___ ___
5.3 Must carbon stocks be restored or replaced if lost before the end of the project’s contractual obligation?
___ ___
Subtotal (out of 6)=
Uncertainty around these key concepts will define available carbon markets (voluntary vs. regulatory)In particular: BaselinesAdditionalityLeakagePermanence
04/12/23 26
For more information: www.manomet.org
Funded by: Merck Family FundRoy A. Hunt FoundationDavis Conservation FoundationHenry P. Kendall Foundation
Authors: Julie Beane, John Hagan, Andy Whitman, & John Gunn