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