Padrões (Standards) para Projetos Florestais de Carbono Olaf Zerbock CI-Climate Change Initiatives
Projetos Florestais de Carbono: Uma variedade de objetivos Projetos de carbono podem ser elaborados com uma variedade de objetivos em mente Alguns são elaborados somente para gerar créditos de carbono E quanto a outros objetivos ambientais Proteção da biodiversidade, melhoria do solo, manejo de recursos hídricos, recuperação de floresta nativa etc ou objetivos sociais Melhorar as condições de vida, objetivos comunitários Como garantir que um projeto em especial pode atender todos esses objetivos?
Projetos florestais de carbono: requisitos básicos Demonstrar benefícios climáticos reais e adicionais Demonstrar a permanência do carbono Mitigar riscos de perda de carbono Quantificar e mitigar fugas Isso é alcançado ao: - Aplicar uma metodologia aprovada - Validar que a metodologia foi corretamente aplicada - Verificar que as reduções de emissão de GEE foram alcançadas
Metodologias e padrões Metodologias especificam como calcular reduções de GEE, as variáveis que o projeto deve monitorar etc Um standard verifica se o projeto Usou uma metodologia aprovada e aplicou-a corretamente Implementou as atividades e verificouas de acordo com o plano Auditores indepedentes validam um projeto de acordo com critérios padronizados aprovado ou certificado
O que significa se um projeto é aprovado segundo certo padrão? Significa que o projeto: Usou uma metodologia corretamente e de forma conservadora Que reservatórios foram medidos, tipos de fuga considerados Estabeleceu diretrizes gerais para monitoramento e verificação Seguiu um cronograma de monitoramento e freqüência da verificação Foi auditado por uma entidade independente aprovada pela organização dos padrões Alguns padrões focam principalmente no cálculo de reduções de carbono Outros estabelecem requisitos adicionais para benefícios colaterais Envolvimento de stakeholder Impactos ambientais Benefícios para comunidades Benefícios para biodiversidade
Padrões com credibilidade: Benefícios para doadores e compradores/investidores Redução do risco: Reduções de emissões são claras de início Linhas de base, e planos metodológicos são claramente identificados CO2 No mercado, compradores e investidores podem se sentir seguros de que o projeto: Resulta em benefícios permanentes para o clima Evita impactos sociais e ambientais negativos Apresenta uma história interessante para contar Satisfaz objetivos múltiplos de responsabilidade social empresarial
Padrões com credibilidade: Benefícios para quem desenvolve o projeto Estimula recursos para elaboração do projeto em estágios iniciais Atrai compradores de carbono interessados em benefícios múltiplos Atrai cofinanciamento para benefícios para a comunidade e a biodiversidade (ex: do pais hospedeiro, de agências estrangeiras de desenvolvimento, ONGs) Pagamento de prêmio no preço por créditos de carbono
Projetos de uso da terra no Mecanismo de Desenvolvimento Limpo (MDL) Thorough and rigorous baseline, carbon accounting and monitoring methodologies reviewed by DOEs generally high confidence in ERs DNA Project DOE Credits issued by CDM for forest projects are temporary eventually need to be replaced not permanent like other CDM credits CDM tcer lcer
Land use projects in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Afforestation and Reforestation are only approved land-use project types no REDD, Improved Forest Management, etc. 10 approved AR methodologies, and only one AR project registered to date - many more landbased projects in the voluntary market than in regulatory Basic minimums for stakeholder involvement, community and environmental benefits Requires compliance with host-country rules through Designated National Authority (DNA) approval Stakeholder consultations Environmental Impact assessment (EIA)??
Beyond the CDM other standards Description Land-based project types? Carbon verification Environmental and social benefits Notes CDM Kyoto-compliant scheme Full offset standard A/R Yes - CERs Basic Few AFOLU projects to date Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) Carbon verification standard for voluntary market A/R, REDD, Agriculture, IFM Yes- VCUs No Buffer scheme for AFOLU permanence Gold Standard (GS) Full carbon offset standard No Yes Better No AFOLU projects VER+ (TuV SuD) Full certification for offsets All land-based projects (with buffer approach) Yes No Similar to CDM without limitation to non-annex 1 Voluntary Offset Standard (VOS) Offset screening for projects adhering to CDM, JI, and GS methodologies CDM A/R CDM or GS No New - In development Climate, Community and Biodiversity (CCB) Multiple-benefit project design standard All land-based projects No Better Project design standard for co-benefits California Climate Action Registry A registry protocol Forestry Yes No California only Plan Vivo Project development support for rural multiple-benefit projects Forest and agriculture projects Yes monitoring required Better Third-party verification optional Social Carbon Methodology and certification for multiple-benefit land-based project All land-based projects In development Better (social) South America and Portugal to date CarbonFix (CFS) Project standards designed to promote sustainable forest management AR Yes Basic New- launched December 2007
Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) 2007 Developed as an alternative to the CDM for the voluntary market Created by the International Emissions Trading Association, the Climate Group, and World Business Council for Sustainable Development Widely expected to grow to be a major voluntary standard - covers all traditional GHG project types Carbon accounting methodologies with validation and verification
Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) 2007 CDM and JI methodologies are accepted, plus others New methodologies must be doubleapproved by two different evaluators Smaller projects can be grouped into a single Project Document (PD) Requires projects to identify potential negative social and environmental impacts, but not mitigate them
Methodologies for AFOLU Afforestation and Reforestation (AR) All CDM and JI methodologies accepted REDD Evaluating the World Bank BioCF methodology Improved Forest Management (IFM) Allowed, but no method approved yet Agricultural Land Management (ALM) Guidance document on AFOLU describes principles for new methodologies New methodologies have to be validated by two approved auditors
Non-permanence risk and leakage in the VCS Unlike the CDM, VCS forestry credits are permanent Buffer Mechanism: Projects are evaluated against risk criteria Risk determines % of project credits to be held in a buffer Buffer credits cancelled if a project fails or under-performs
Example REDD project risk analysis Risk determines buffer withheld Pooled Buffer Buffer credits held in a portfolio buffer with credits from other projects If a project fails or under-delivers over time, credits are cancelled from the pooled buffer If a project does well, credits are released from the buffer over time
Verification of VCS projects Verification every 5 years 15% of projects buffer credits released Credits can be sold by project developer Failure to verify: Within 5 years of last verification lose 50% of buffer credits Another 5 years lose 100% of buffer credits 15 years All project credits are cancelled from portfolio buffer (assumes project failure)
Beyond carbon social and environmental benefits CDM and VCS are strong standards expected to assure rigorous carbon accounting Do not specify how projects should contribute to livelihoods Carbon REDD?? Reforestation Do not require projects to explicitly maintain or improve wildlife habitat, soils, or water quality What about co-benefits?
Multiple-benefit land based projects Well designed forest carbon projects could also contribute to: Biodiversity conservation Watershed & soil protection Agricultural productivity enhancement Sustainable livelihood creation Ecotourism opportunities
Climate, Community, and Biodiversity (CCB) Standards Created by the Climate Community and Biodiversity Alliance, a group of companies, NGOs and research organizations Go beyond the requirements of CDM and VCS for co-benefits Certify that land-based projects are designed specifically with community livelihoods and ecosystem benefits in mind
CCB Standards are project design standards and are applied up front Show that a project will generate positive social and biodiversity impact Require a net positive climate benefit, but are not a carbon accounting standard or project design methodology Should be used in conjunction with other carbon accounting standards or methodologies, e.g. CDM, VCS
How do the CCB standards work? Projects are certified by third-party auditors 15 required criteria, 8 optional ones Evaluate based on criteria in 4 sections - General, Climate, Community and Biodiversity Project information posted on internet for public comment 21 days
General requirements for the CCB G1. Original Conditions at Project Site G2. Baseline Projections G3. Project Design & Goals G4. Management Capacity G5. Land Tenure G6. Legal Status G7. Adaptive Management for Sustainability G8. Knowledge Dissemination Required Required Required Required Required Required 1 point 1 point Baseline (without-project) conditions must describe not only the GHG baseline, but also the biodiversity and community situation in the absence of the project
Demonstrating Biodiversity benefits All projects will: Have net positive impacts on biodiversity and monitor those impacts inside and outside of the project area Gold Standard projects will: Improve soil and water resources as well as biodiversity Use only native species in all aspects of restoration
Demonstrating Climate benefits All projects will: Have and monitor net positive impacts on climate (reduce emissions) and consider leakage issues Gold Standard projects will: Consider and promote climate adaptation Withhold their credits from sale in the regulatory markets
Demonstrating Community benefits All projects will: Have and monitor net positive impacts on local communities and livelihoods Gold Standard projects will: Build capacity among stakeholders Use best practices in community engagement and participation
CCB today Project Development: Five projects validated: China, Panama, Indonesia, Nicaragua, UK Four more posted for public comment; Tanzania, India, Brazil, China Around 90 projects planning to use CCBS Demand: Major portfolio investors: World Bank BioCF, EcoSecurities, Merrill Lynch, Equator Environmental Carbon retailers: Carbon Neutral Company, The CarbonFund, 3 degrees, First Climate, Cantor Major corporations + carbon tenders: Dell, Marriott, Ricoh, United, Either prefer CCB or increasingly require CCB for forest carbon Currently greater demand than supply for CCB carbon
CCB Standards - New version in development New version expected mid-2008 Public comment period late May or early June 2008 Future projects likely only Approved or Gold Will include more emphasis on indicators of adaptation to climate change Many formerly optional criteria will be required - Gold indicators will identify truly excellent projects
More information on standards CDM: www.unfccc.int VCS: www.v-c-s.org CCBS: www.climate-standards.org Making Sense of the Voluntary Carbon Market: A Comparison of Carbon Offset Standards Discusses: Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Gold Standard (GS) Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) VER+ The Voluntary Offset Standard (VOS) Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) The Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standards (CCBS) Plan Vivo System ISO 14064-2 WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol for Project Accounting http://assets.panda.org/downloads/vcm_report_final.pdf
Obrigado!
CCB Validation process Internal desk review Contract 3 rd party validator (CDM or FSC accredited) and provide docs PDD and supporting docs posted to CCBA website for 21 day public comment period Validator site visit Audit report may require changes to PDD or further documentation Improved PDD/documents submitted as required Validator issues statement of compliance and level (approved, silver or gold)
CDM and VCS for land-based projects CDM VCS Markets Project types Methodologies accepted Type of credit Crediting periods Credits permanent? Validation Verification Transaction Costs Social requirements Environmental requirements Regulatory, voluntary Afforestation, reforestation Currently 10 AR plus XX small-scale Temporary (tcers and lcers) 3 x 20 years, or 1 x 30 years No Required for registration Required every 5 years Higher Stakeholder process documented and concerns incorporated into PDD Impacts documented in PDD; host country may require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIA) Voluntary Afforestation, reforestation, REDD, Improved Forest Management, Agricultural Land Management All CDM and JI, plus others under development Permanent 20 years (minimum) to 100 years (maximum) Yes -First time can be simultaneous with first verification -Subsequent verifications recommended every 5 years Lower Stakeholder concerns incorporated into PDD Comply with host country laws, including need for EIA
The CCB Standards - validation procedure Internal desk review Contract 3 rd party validator (CDM or FSC accredited) and provide docs PDD and supporting docs posted to CCBA website for 21 day public comment period Validator site visit Audit report may require changes to PDD or further documentation Improved PDD/documents submitted as required Validator issues statement of compliance and level (approved, silver or gold)
The CCB Standards progress on adoption Project Development: Five projects validated: China, Panama, Indonesia, Nicaragua, UK Four more posted for public comment; Tanzania, India, Brazil, China Around 90 projects planning to use CCBS Demand: Major portfolio investors: World Bank BioCF, EcoSecurities, Merrill Lynch, Equator Environmental Carbon retailers: Carbon Neutral Company, The CarbonFund, 3 degrees, First Climate, Cantor Major corporations + carbon tenders: Dell, Marriott, Ricoh, United, Either prefer CCB or increasingly require CCB for forest carbon Currently greater demand than supply for CCB carbon