METHODOLOGY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF REDD ACTIVITIES IN LANDSCAPES AFFECTED BY MOSAIC DEFORESTATION AND DEGRADATION

Transcription

1 METHODOLOGY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF REDD ACTIVITIES IN LANDSCAPES AFFECTED BY MOSAIC DEFORESTATION AND DEGRADATION Developers of the Methodology GIZ India (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit IORA Ecological Solutions Private Limited

2 This methodology was developed by GIZ India and IORA Ecological Solutions GIZ India Contributing author: Mr. Kundan Burnwal IORA Ecological Solutions Contributing authors: Mr. Swapan Mehra, Mr. Ashwin A.S., Ms. Zainab Hassan, Dr. Isha Rana, Mr. Ankit Rawat 2

3 Title Methodology for Implementation of REDD Activities in Landscapes Affected by Mosaic Deforestation and Degradation Version Version 01.0 Date of Issue 15/05/2015 Type Sectoral Scope Methodology Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land-Uses (AFOLU) Project category: REDD and ARR Project types: AUDD, ARR Prepared By Contact Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH IORA Ecological Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH B-5/2, Third Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi Telephone: Website: IORA Ecological Solutions Private Limited 225 B, FF, Indraprastha Gyanmandir Complex, Lado Sarai Village, New Delhi Telephone: Website: 3

4 ABBREVIATION ACoGS AFOLU ALM AM ANR APDD AR-ACM AR-AMS ARR AUDD AWiFS CDM CFE CIFOR DBH Df Dg DoFC EF EVI FGD FSI GHG GOFC-GOLD GWP Ha IFM IPCC IRS ISFR JNR LASER LCM LIDAR LISS LtPF LULC MF MMU MSAVI NDVI NER Avoided Conversion of Grasslands and Shrublands Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Agricultural Land Management Approved Methodology Assisted Natural Regeneration Avoided Planned Deforestation and Forest Degradation Afforestation Reforestation Approved Consolidated Methodology Afforestation Reforestation Approved Small Scale Methodologies Afforestation Reforestation and Revegetation Avoiding Unplanned Deforestation and/or Degradation Advanced Wide Field Sensor Clean Development Mechanism Cook stove and Fuel Efficiency Center for International Forestry Research Diameter at Breast Height Deforestation Forest Degradation Drivers of Forest Change Emission Factor Enhanced Vegetation Index Focal Group Discussion Forest Survey of India Green House Gas Global Observation of Forest and Land Cover Dynamics Global Warming Potential Hectare Improved Forest Management Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Indian Remote Sensing India State of Forest Report Jurisdictional Nested REDD Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation Land Change Modeler Light Detection and Ranging Linear Imaging Self-Scanning System Logged to Protected Forest Land Use Land Cover Methodology Framework Minimum Mapping Unit Modified Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index Normalized Difference Vegetation Index Net Emission Reduction 4

5 NTFP PA PD PRA QA QC REDD RR RWE SAR SOC SOP tco2e tdm UNFCCC VCS VCU Ver. VM WRC Yr Non Timber Forest Produce Project Area Project Document Participatory Rural Appraisal Quality Assurance Quality Control Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation of Forest Land Reference Region Restoring Wetland Ecosystems Synthetic Aperture Radar Soil Organic Carbon Standard Operating Procedures Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents Total Dry Matter United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Verified Carbon Standard Verified Carbon Units Version Verified Methodology Wetlands Restoration and Conservation Year 5

6 Relationship to Approved or Pending Methodologies A detailed review of the approved and pending methodologies related to the methodology under development has been conducted. It is concluded that the methodology being developed is essential for kick starting development of REDD projects in forest areas that are facing localized pressures. The forests may or may not be under an established forest management framework, such as a state controlled forest management regime. As an example, it is observed that the forests in the Indian subcontinent face localized drivers of forest change. This methodology- - Includes both REDD and ARR component, which shall aid project developers who want to raise plantations in deforested area along with the REDD component. - Addresses localized drivers that lead to mosaic forest degradation and deforestation. - Cost effective - Project developers are given options to use data that is already available from sources such as nationally accepted forest maps, census, Forest Working Plans (WP), existing PRAs etc. The methodology also allows jurisdictional baseline to be adopted where applicable. - Supports community based monitoring which support and encourage community involvement, their safeguards and promotes livelihood development. Detailed analysis is given below. The following related methodologies from the VCS and CDM Programs have been identified for the analysis. Table 1: AFOLU methodologies under VCS and CDM and their status Sl. No. Reference number Name Program Status Type 1 VM0003 Methodology for Improved Forest Management through Extension of Rotation Age, Ver VM0004 Methodology for Conservation Projects that Avoid Planned Land Use Conversion in Peat Swamp Forests Ver VM0005 Methodology for Conversion of Low-productive Forest to Highproductive Forest, Ver VM0006 Carbon Accounting for Mosaic and Landscape-scale REDD Projects, Ver VM0007 REDD Methodology Modules (REDD-MF), Ver VM0009 Methodology for Avoided Ecosystem Conversion, Ver. 3.0 VCS Approved IFM VCS Approved REDD VCS Approved IFM VCS Approved REDD VCS Approved REDD VCS Approved REDD 6

7 Sl. No. Reference number METHODOLOGY: VCS Version 3 Name Program Status Type 7 VM0010 Methodology for Improved Forest Management: Conversion from Logged to Protected Forest, Ver VM0011 Methodology for Calculating GHG Benefits from Preventing Planned Degradation, Ver VM0012 Improved Forest Management in Temperate and Boreal Forests (LtPF), Ver VM0015 Methodology for Avoided Unplanned Deforestation Ver AR- AMS AR- AMS AR- ACM AR- AM0014 Afforestation and reforestation project activities implemented on wetlands, Ver. 3.0 Afforestation and reforestation project activities implemented on lands other than wetlands, Ver. 3.0 A/R Large-scale Consolidated Methodology: Afforestation and reforestation of lands except wetlands, Ver. 2.0 Afforestation and reforestation of degraded mangrove habitats, Ver AM0042 Grid-connected electricity generation using biomass from newly developed dedicated plantations, Ver Methodology for Improved Forest Management in Non-industrial Private Forests VCS Approved IFM VCS Approved IFM VCS Approved IFM VCS Approved REDD CDM Approved ARR CDM Approved ARR CDM Approved ARR CDM Approved ARR CDM Approved ARR VCS Under development (1 st assessment) IFM Avoiding Degradation through Fire Management VCS Under development (1 st assessment) REDD Methodology for Tidal Wetland and Seagrass Restoration VCS Under development (1 st assessment) RWE & ARR Reduced Impact Logging Practices that Reduce Carbon Emissions (RIL-C) Methodology VCS Under development (1 st assessment) IFM 7

8 Sl. No. Reference number METHODOLOGY: VCS Version 3 Name Program Status Type Reduced Impact Logging Practices that Reduce Carbon Emissions (RIL-C) Performance Method Module Protocol for the Creation of Forest Carbon Offsets in British Columbia VCS VCS Under development (1 st assessment) Under development (2 nd assessment) IFM IFM Baseline and Monitoring Methodology for the Rewetting of Drained Peatlands used for Peat Extraction, Forestry or Agriculture ALM Adoption of Sustainable Grassland Management through Adjustment of Fire and Grazing VCS VCS Under development (2 nd assessment) Under development (2 nd assessment) WRC ACoGS Avoiding Planned Deforestation of Undrained Peat Swamp Forests VCS Under development (2 nd assessment) REDD From the list above, the methodologies that have been selected for the comparison with this methodology which is being developed are listed below. Table 2: Selection of Similar Methodologies* Sl. No. Reference number Name AFOLU Project Category Analyzed (Yes/No) Justification 1 VM0003 Methodology for Improved Forest Management through Extension of Rotation Age, Ver VM0004 Methodology for Conservation Projects that Avoid Planned Land Use Conversion in Peat Swamp Forests, Ver VM0005 Methodology for Conversion of Lowproductive Forest to Highproductive Forest, Ver. 1.2 IFM No This methodology does not have baseline calculations on deforestation, forest degradation and ARR. Not considered for analysis. REDD Yes This methodology is on REDD. Hence this methodology has been considered for the analysis. IFM No This methodology does not have baseline calculations on deforestation, forest degradation and ARR. Not considered for analysis. 8

9 Sl. No. Reference number Name AFOLU Project Category Analyzed (Yes/No) Justification 4 VM0006 Carbon Accounting for Mosaic and Landscapescale REDD Projects, Ver VM0007 REDD Methodology Modules (REDD-MF), Ver VM0009 Methodology for Avoided Ecosystem Conversion, Ver VM0010 Methodology for Improved Forest Management: Conversion from Logged to Protected Forest, Ver VM0011 Methodology for Calculating GHG Benefits from Preventing Planned Degradation, Ver VM0012 Improved Forest Management in Temperate and Boreal Forests (LtPF), Ver VM0015 Methodology for Avoided Unplanned Deforestation, Ver. 1.1 REDD Yes This methodology is on REDD. Hence this methodology has been considered for the analysis. REDD Yes This methodology is on REDD. Hence this methodology has been considered for the analysis. REDD Yes This methodology is on REDD. Hence this methodology has been considered for the analysis. IFM No This methodology is on IFM and does not detail baseline development for deforestation, forest degradation and ARR. Not considered for analysis. IFM No This methodology is on IFM and does not detail baseline development for deforestation, forest degradation and ARR. Not considered for analysis. IFM No This methodology is on IFM and does not detail baseline development for deforestation, forest degradation and ARR. Not considered for analysis. REDD Yes This methodology is on REDD. Hence this methodology has been considered for the analysis. 11 AR- AMS0003 Afforestation and reforestation project activities implemented on wetlands, Ver. 3.0 ARR No This methodology quantifies baseline sequestration from projects implemented on wetlands only. Land areas that are classified as wetlands 9

10 Sl. No. Reference number Name AFOLU Project Category Analyzed (Yes/No) Justification are not eligible project areas under this REDD methodology being developed. Hence not considered for analysis. 12 AR- AMS AR- ACM AR- AM0014 Afforestation and reforestation project activities implemented on lands other than wetlands, Ver. 3.0 A/R Large-scale Consolidated Methodology: Afforestation and reforestation of lands except wetlands, Ver. 2.0 Afforestation and reforestation of degraded mangrove habitats Ver. 3.0 ARR Yes Since this methodology details the Afforestation and Reforestation component, this methodology has been considered for the analysis. ARR Yes Since this methodology details the Afforestation and Reforestation component, this methodology has been considered for the analysis. ARR Yes Since this methodology details the Afforestation and Reforestation component, this methodology has been considered for the analysis. 15 AM0042 Grid-connected electricity generation using biomass from newly developed dedicated plantations, Ver Methodology for Improved Forest Management in Non-industrial Private Forests Avoiding Degradation through Fire Management ARR Yes Since this methodology details the Afforestation and Reforestation component, this methodology has been considered for the analysis. IFM No This methodology does not have baseline calculations on deforestation, forest degradation and ARR. The methodology is not considered for analysis. REDD No This methodology quantifies baseline to calculate emission reductions and removals resulting from the project s fire management activities; 10

11 Sl. No. Reference number Name AFOLU Project Category Analyzed (Yes/No) Justification however since other drivers are not considered, the methodology is not considered for the analysis Methodology for Tidal Wetland and Seagrass Restoration RWE & ARR No This methodology does not detail baseline development for deforestation and forest degradation, quantifies baseline emission only from restoration of Wetland. Not considered for analysis Reduced Impact Logging Practices that Reduce Carbon Emissions (RIL-C) Methodology Reduced Impact Logging Practices that Reduce Carbon Emissions (RIL-C) Performance Method Module Protocol for the Creation of Forest Carbon Offsets in British Columbia Baseline and Monitoring Methodology for the Rewetting of Drained Peatlands used for Peat Extraction, Forestry or Agriculture IFM No This methodology is on IFM and does not detail baseline development for deforestation, forest degradation and ARR. Not considered for analysis. IFM No This methodology is on IFM and does not detail baseline development for deforestation, forest degradation and ARR. Not considered for analysis. IFM No This methodology is on IFM and does not detail baseline development for deforestation, forest degradation and ARR. Not considered for analysis. WRC No This methodology does not have baseline calculations on deforestation, forest degradation and ARR and quantifies emission only from project activities implemented to rewetting of Peat lands that have been drained for forestry, peat extraction or agriculture, but where these activities are not or no longer profitable. Not considered for 11

12 Sl. No. Reference number Name AFOLU Project Category Analyzed (Yes/No) Justification analysis ALM Adoption of Sustainable Grassland Management through Adjustment of Fire and Grazing Avoiding Planned Deforestation of Undrained Peat Swamp Forests ACoGS No This methodology does not quantify baseline emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and quantifies baseline emission from grassland management. Not considered for analysis. REDD No In this methodology baseline calculation is only for deforestation of peat land. Not considered for analysis. * The methodologies in bold are analyzed and considered during the development of this methodology. The selected methodologies given in table 2 above are analyzed in detail, and compared to the methodology being developed. The summary of the analysis is given below. Table 3: Analysis of Similar Methodologies Methodology Title GHG Program VM0004 VM0006 Methodology for Conservation Projects that Avoid Planned Land Use Conversion in Peat Swamp Forests Ver. 1.0 Carbon Accounting for Mosaic and Landscape-scale REDD Projects Ver. 2.1 VCS VCS Comments This methodology quantifies baseline emissions only from planned deforestation activities on peat swamp forests. This methodology being developed does not consider emission reductions from wetlands in the project area. In fact, project implementation in wetlands is ineligible under this methodology being developed Hence, revision of adoption of VM0004 methodology will not be enough. 1. As per the methodology high resolution imagery of less than 5 metre spatial resolution is required for validation of land classification. The methodology being developed looks at RS imagery that can serve the same purpose, which are available. As example, RS imageries which are easily available in India are LISS III and LISS IV among which LISS IV is the multispectral image having spatial resolution 5.8 m. The LISS IV images are cost effective and easily available. IRS Satellites have another low resolution multispectral image, AWiFS, this image has a spatial resolution of 56m but it has 12

13 Methodology Title GHG Program Comments good temporal resolution and is available without any cost. CARTOSAT (Earth observation satellites series) has high resolution mono-spectral images having 2.5 m and 0.8 m spatial resolution. Although the images are costly but they can be procured from the apex body, NRSC. Hence the new methodology will use the RS databases which are used as standard data source by the National Institutions. (e.g SFR RS Sensor used was LISS III, which is of m pixel size, MMU 1 ha and with accuracy from 85% to 95%). This shall help the project developers in quicker and easier GIS analysis. 2. Reference Region (RR) and its comparison to the PA is made in such a way that is easier for migration into jurisdictional approach. VM0007 REDD Methodology Modules (REDD-MF) Ver. 1.4 VCS One of the major issues of forest loss in India is unplanned degradation caused by various reasons and not only because of fuelwood or charcoal. Hence applicability of this methodology is very limited in India or in other countries in which the drivers for unplanned degradation are also other than fuelwood and charcoal collection. Hence the two methodologies are not comparable. VM0009 Methodology for Avoided Ecosystem Conversion Ver. 3.0 VCS The methodology consists of both planned and unplanned deforestation and forest degradation and also ACoGS. The proposed methodology attempts to align the REDD monitoring process in line with the forest management practices on ground. The monitoring process of the existing methodology cannot be easily replicated in line with the forest management practices on ground in a country like India. This will help when nested projects are developed within a jurisdiction. VM0015 Methodology for Avoided Unplanned Deforestation, Ver. 1.1 VCS The eligible activities are only Avoided Unplanned Deforestation and Improved Forest Management activities. The eligibility criteria do not include all the components within the proposed methodology, especially regarding degradation in forest lands. Hence the two methodologies are different. 13

14 Methodology Title GHG Program AR-AMS0007 AR-ACM0003 AR-AM0014 AM0042 A/R Small-scale Methodology: Afforestation and reforestation project activities implemented on lands other than wetlands, Ver A/R Large-scale Consolidated Methodology: Afforestation and reforestation of lands except wetlands, Ver Afforestation and reforestation of degraded mangrove habitats, Ver. 3.0 Grid-connected electricity generation using biomass from newly developed dedicated plantations, Ver. 2.1 CDM CDM CDM CDM Comments The applicable activities under this methodology are Afforestation and Reforestation and the project shall be small scale i.e. expected removals of net anthropogenic GHG by sinks shall be less than 16 kilotons of CO2e per year and is under the CDM regime. Hence cannot be compared with the proposed methodology. The applicable activities under this methodology are Afforestation and Reforestation. Hence the two methodologies are not comparable. The applicable activities under this methodology are Afforestation and Reforestation. Hence the two methodologies are not comparable. The methodology is applicable for those project activities that involve forestry plantation which are earmarked as biomass to be used in electricity production which shall be fed into the grid. This is a planned activity, and is not considered to be undertaken in this methodology. Hence the two methodologies are not comparable. 14

15 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Sources Summary Description of the Methodology Definitions Applicability Conditions Project Boundary Spatial boundary Temporal boundary Carbon Pools GHG boundary Grouped Project Baseline Scenario Additionality Quantification of GHG Emission Reductions and Removals Baseline Emissions (BE) Selection of Project Boundary Selection of Reference Region Selection of Data set for Historical Change Analysis Analysis of LULC data and the Change over Time Analyzing Drivers of Forest Change (DoFC) Quantification of carbon stock changes Emissions from Deforestation Emissions from Degradation of Forest Lands Quantification of Emission Reductions Project Emissions (PE) Leakage (LE) Assessing uncertainties related with project accounting Net GHG Emission Reduction and Removals Monitoring Data and Parameter Available at Validation Data and Parameters Monitored Description of the Monitoring Plan The monitoring plan Methods of Monitoring Monitoring report components Monitoring steps Procedures for managing data quality

16 10. References APPENDIX I: Performance METHOD APPENDIX II: Activity Method Appendix III: Summary of Case Study: Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in India List of Tables Table 1: AFOLU methodologies under VCS and CDM and their status... 6 Table 2: Selection of Similar Methodologies*... 8 Table 3: Analysis of Similar Methodologies Table 4: List of drivers considered Table 5: Approaches for demonstrating additionality and crediting baseline Table 6: Eligible project categories and activities Table 7: Points of comparison between Project Area and Reference Region Table 8: GHG emissions from carbon pools to be included or not for GHG assessment Table 9: Approach for assessing and evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of REDD Table 10: Tools which can be used to calculate PE Table 11: Market Leakage Discount Factors Table 12: Tools which can be used to calculate LE Table 13 : Forest cover in India Table 14: Major drivers of forest change Table 15: Carbon stock in Indian forests Table 16: Mmanagement regime and land tenure of Indian forests Table 17: Forest protection and conservation policies in Indian forests List of Figures Figure 1: Project Area inside the Reference Region Figure 2: Project Area and Reference Region that do not share boundary Figure 3: Discrete parcels of Project Area and Reference Region Figure 4: Procedure to determine baseline scenario and emissions Figure 5: An illustrative example of procedure to be followed in LULC analysis Figure 6: A framework of different types of variables affecting deforestation (adapted from: (Kaimowitz, 1998)

17 1. SOURCES This methodology refers to the following approved methodologies: VM0006 Carbon Accounting for Mosaic and Landscape-scale REDD Projects Ver VM0009 Methodology for Avoided Ecosystem Conversion Ver A/R Small-scale Methodology: Afforestation and reforestation project activities implemented on lands other than wetlands, Ver The proposed methodology also refers to the latest version of the following approved tools, modules and VCS Guidance Documents 4 Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality in VCS Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) project activities, VT0001, Ver Tool for testing significance of GHG emissions in A/R CDM project activities Ver. 01 Estimation of carbon stocks and change in carbon stocks of trees and shrubs in A/R CDM project activities Ver Estimation of non-co2 GHG emissions resulting from burning of biomass attributable to an A/R CDM project activity Ver Tool for estimation of change in soil organic carbon stocks due to the implementation of A/R CDM project activities Ver Procedure to determine when accounting of the soil organic carbon pool may be conservatively neglected in CDM A/R project activities Ver Calculation of the number of sample plots for measurements within A/R CDM project activities Ver A/R Methodology Tool, Estimation of direct nitrous oxide emission from nitrogen fertilization. Ver A/R Methodology Tool, Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, Ver A/R Methodology Tool, Estimation of the increase in GHG emissions attributable to displacement of pre-project agricultural activities in A/R CDM project activity, Ver The latest versions of tools must be used

18 VCS Program Guide, Ver VCS Standard, Ver VCS AFOLU Requirement, Ver VCS REDD JNR Requirements, Ver VCS Program Definitions, Ver VCS Methodology Approval Process, Ver AFOLU Guidance: Additional guidance for VCS Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation projects using CDM Afforestation/Reforestation Methodologies 20 Estimation of emissions from activity shifting for avoided unplanned deforestation (LK- ASU), VMD0010 Ver pdf

19 2. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODOLOGY This proposed methodology is developed for accounting reduced GHG emissions from mosaic unplanned deforestation and forest degradation. Unplanned mosaic deforestation and associated forest degradation are usually associated with pressures on forests from localized agents which poses unique socio-economic dimensions and opportunities in developing emission reduction projects. This methodology can be applied in landscapes facing mosaic deforestation and forest degradation and also has an option to include ARR activities and measure the carbon sequestration from such activities. It is observed that in areas where the forest area has a clear land tenure and is controlled legally by a specific body such as the Government, there is a possibility of ARR being taken up in areas which are already deforested. To accommodate REDD and ARR components under the same project design, this proposed methodology also includes an ARR component. This methodology cannot be applied for stand-alone ARR projects, and ARR shall be an activity only along with the REDD activity. This methodology allows the project developer to conduct monitoring and recoding with the help of local community which shall also help in better and direct benefits from REDD projects. This is approach will help successful rolling out of a jurisdictional approach in countries such as India. Drivers and localized agents that are active in forest areas facing pressure were shortlisted based on literature review, focal group interviews and stakeholder consultation. Different landscapes in India were chosen as pilot study sites for analyzing driver dynamics. Choosing Indian sites for the study was important because: 1. India, having a large geographical area, and a forest cover of 21.5% 22 and more than 300 million forest dependent people (including around 87 million tribal) 23 is an ideal candidate to study mosaic deforestation and degradation of forest lands under varied drivers. 3. The management regime and land tenure is different from state to state, and so is a good candidate to study jurisdictional aspects on baseline development. 5. No large scale deforestation caused in the recent years and so few cases of frontier deforestation are observed. This helps in better understanding of dynamics of deforestation and degradation caused due to drivers in mosaic deforestation and degradation. From the total drivers selected, the most prevalent ones were selected, to be quantified for their contribution to emissions from deforestation and degradation of forest lands. These are given in Table 4 below. Table 4: List of drivers considered Drivers, activities considered under this methodology Deforestation or degradation Unsustainable extraction of Fuel wood Unsustainable extraction of NTFP Unplanned timber harvesting for local needs Degradation Degradation Degradation 22 ISFR _0.pdf 19

20 Uncontrolled grazing and fodder collection and resulting emissions Anthropogenic forest fire Unplanned mining and quarrying Expansion of subsistence agriculture by conversion of forest lands Encroachment Degradation Deforestation Deforestation Deforestation Deforestation * The details of each of the driver have been given in Appendix III: Summary of Case Study: Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in India These drivers predominantly originate from social needs and intervention activities developed have to consider the critical need of understanding the root causes behind these localized forestcommunity interactions. Management and Monitoring systems require active cooperation and collaboration of local community for successful implementation of the project activities. This methodology proposes two approaches, Project Method or Activity Method for demonstrating additionality and Project Method for the crediting baseline, as given in the Table 5 below. Table 5: Approaches for demonstrating additionality and crediting baseline Additionality and Crediting Method Additionality Crediting Baseline Project Method or Activity Method Project Method The quantifying method is different for each of the drivers, and REDD and ARR components are treated differently. The project developers are given options to use already available secondary data from sources such as census, working plans, existing PRAs, etc. to form detailed references of active drivers, and their physical extent. 20

21 3. DEFINITIONS Term Activity shift leakage ARR Avoiding Planned Deforestation and/or Degradation (APDD) Definitions The application of conservation practices in the project area leads to undesirable and unintended movement of DoFC outside the project area leading to emission of GHG due to deforestation and forest degradation of those areas. Where the shifting of activities increases the rate of DoFC, the related land use change, carbon stock/density changes and non-co2 emissions must be estimated and accounted as leakage. Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation with reference to AFOLU guidance of VCS. Deforestation and/or degradation of forest lands can be happen in a planned manner. Stopping such planned deforestation and degradation is called Avoiding Planned Deforestation and/or Degradation or APDD. APDD is not considered in this methodology. Avoiding Unplanned Deforestation and/or Degradation Deforestation and/or degradation of forest lands can be happen in an unplanned manner. Stopping such unplanned deforestation and degradation is called Avoiding Unplanned Deforestation and/or Degradation or AUDD. Baseline Validation Period Carbon Pool Crediting period Deforestation Degradation Drivers of Forest Change The baseline shall be reassessed and re validated at every 10 years. Reservoir of carbon. The carbon pools in REDD project are AGB, BGB, Litter, SOC, Dead Wood and Wood Products. The period during which the project activity claims emission reductions. In case the start date of the two components (REDD and ARR) are different, they are allowed to start accounting on two separate dates. However the crediting period shall end for both the components on the same day. Direct human-induced conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest Land. Deforestation implies the long-term or permanent loss of forest cover. For this methodology, the change in Land Use from Forest Land to Non- Forest Land shall not be less than 3 years. Changes within the forest which negatively affect the structure or function of the stand or site, and thereby lower the capacity to supply products and/or services. (FAO 2001, 2006, 2003). For this methodology continued loss of carbon stock from Forest Land for at least three years shall qualify as degradation. Forest Lands remain Forest Lands in this case. Activities that lead to loss in forest carbon. 21

22 Historical Reference Period Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) Classes Leakage Area Leakage Management Zone Logging Slash Loss Event Market Leakage Minimum Mapping Unit Parcels of project area Project Area Project Emission REDD Reference Region Starting Date (Crediting Period) The selected project area shall qualify as Forest Land for a minimum of 10 years before the project start date. All the six LULC classes as defined by IPCC, or LULC classes which the host country has defined given that all the land classes under IPCC is covered in the latter. Area outside the Project Area to where the drivers of deforestation and degradation of forest lands are displaced in the case of REDD; and drivers causing emissions in the case of ARR. The area near the project areas which are developed and earmarked as areas which shall help in decrease of the leakage. This shall depend on the activities planned in the project activity. Dead wood residues (including foliage) left on the forest floor after timber removal The loss event results in a reversal of GHG emission reductions or removals achieved to date (on the basis to which credits issued and buffered), due to some anthropogenic or natural cause. Due to the conservation practices inside the project area there is impact on the supply chain of forest products which result in a shift of production of forest product elsewhere to fulfill the demand supply chain. Minimum Mapping Unit (MMU) refers to the minimum unit that is used in classification and RS analysis, and is fixed as 1 ha. Discontinuous parcels are allowed as project area. However they have to be mapped separately and clearly, including as KML files. The geographical area where REDD and/or ARR components are planned on ground. At the start of the activity/ies; these are forest areas in the case of REDD and non-forest areas in the case of ARR. ARR and REDD areas have to be separately mapped and shall not share the same area. GHG emissions within the Project Area due to implementation of the Project Activity. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in Forest Lands with reference to AFOLU guidance of VCS. Reference Region is the region from which the historical trends of changes in forest land is computed. From this trend, the change that shall happen during the project life is predicted, and this forms the baseline. The date from which actual emissions, emission reductions or sequestration happen within the project area due to the project activity. ARR and REDD components can have different start dates for the 22

23 crediting period. Starting Date (Project Activity) Start date of an AFOLU project shall be the date on which activities that lead to the generation of GHG emission reductions or removals are implemented. Such activities may include preparing land for seeding, planting, changing agricultural or forestry practices, rewetting, restoring hydrological functions, or implementing management or protection plans. If the project activity has both REDD and ARR components; then the starting dates of the REDD and ARR component are to be separately mentioned. The first among these two shall be considered as the starting date of the Project Activity. 23

24 4. APPLICABILITY CONDITIONS This methodology is applicable to project activities that Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) of forest lands. This methodology is applicable to an Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation (ARR) component 24, only if this component is a part of the REDD project design and is not a stand-alone component. The methodology is applicable only for Avoided Unplanned Deforestation and Degradation (AUDD). APDD activities cannot apply this methodology. The following AFOLU activities given in Table 6 below are eligible to apply this methodology. Table 6: Eligible project categories and activities Project category Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation (ARR) along with REDD (REDD+ARR) Eligible to apply the methodology? The project activity can apply the methodology. The project activity can apply the methodology. Activity Avoiding Unplanned Deforestation and / or Degradation (AUDD) AUDD + Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation (ARR) Afforestation, Reforestation Revegetation (ARR) and The project activity is not eligible to apply the methodology. Not eligible This methodology cannot be applied on Wetlands and peat lands. Forest lands which are converted to crop land or grass land due to Shifting Cultivation are not eligible under this methodology, since temporary carbon losses are not accounted in the methodology. Avoided Conversion of Cropland and/or Grassland is not covered under this methodology. The REDD areas shall be proved to be a forest land for at least 10 years prior to the REDD component start date. The ARR areas shall not be a forest land for at least 10 years prior to the start of the whole project activity. This can either be the REDD component start date or the ARR component start date (if ARR starts prior to REDD component). In cases where ARR component starts after the REDD component, only those lands which were not forest land at least 10 years prior to the starting of the REDD component are eligible under 24 This methodology is essentially a REDDARR methodology and cannot be used for stand along ARR activities. The ARR is expected to take place in areas near the identified REDD project areas, which shall not be geographically removed from the REDD area. The boundary definitions are provided in section 5: Project Boundary. 24

25 ARR. Land eligibility has to be proven separately for the ARR component and the REDD component. Industrial plantations are not eligible under this methodology. 5. PROJECT BOUNDARY 5.1 Spatial boundary The spatial boundaries of the project activity are explained below: Reference Region: Reference Region (RR) shall effectively capture the trend of deforestation and degradation of forest lands that would occur in the project area. In mosaic deforestation and forest degradation, drivers can differ along a short distance, and can exhibit different sets of patterns. The RR shall be comparable to the Project Area (PA). The detailed comparison to be conducted is given in Table 7 below. The area of the RR shall not be less than that of the PA. RR need not share boundary with the PA and further, the RR need not be contiguous, and can be formed of distinct parcels. Project Area: The PA need not have a continuous boundary, and can be formed of discrete parcels. REDD components and ARR components shall be distinctly mapped. The project area under REDD shall have been forested for at least 10 years prior to the start date of REDD. The ARR areas shall not be a forest land for at least 10 years prior to the start of the project activity. This can either be the REDD component start date or the ARR component start date (if ARR starts prior to REDD component). In cases where ARR component starts after the REDD component, only those lands which were not forest land at least 10 years prior to the starting of the REDD component are eligible under ARR. There is no minimum or maximum cap on the area of a parcel of land within the project area. The area under ARR cannot be more than 90% of the total project area (REDD+ARR). Final PA has to be fixed at first verification. Table 7: Points of comparison between Project Area and Reference Region. Factors Forest types Points of comparison The forests within the RR shall be similar to the forests within the PA. A list of all the forest types within the PA and RR is to be prepared. The forest classification used in the host country can be used for this, and there is no need for a separate inventory. Areas of forest types in RR which are not present in the PA are to be removed from any further LULC change analysis. The forest types shall be compared by comparing the area of each forest type within the total forest area of the PA to that of the area of each forest type within the total forest area of the RR. Any forest type having an area less than 5% of the total forest area within the PA is not to be considered for the analysis. The percentage of area of each such identified forest type within the RR shall be within 10 percentage points of the PA. Distance RR need not share the boundary with the PA, and can be discrete parcels. RR shall be within the same management practices as the 25

26 Factors Points of comparison project area. As an example, the RR for a PA can be anywhere within a state in India, as the forest management principles within a state of India is the same. So, RR and PA cannot have two completely different management regimes, either partially or for the whole area. Social The socio-economic factors in both the PA and RR shall be comparable. This shall be done on two features: 1. Population density 2. Per capita income These may be collected from secondary data also, and a primary survey is required only in the absence of any such information. Drivers The types of prevalent drivers shall be the same. RR shall not have any driver which is not present at the PA. For this, two lists of all possible drivers are prepared, one for RR and one for PA. All the drivers in the respective region is marked and selected for comparison. All the drivers which are present in the RR, but absent in the PA are identified. The areas which are affected by such drivers are identified. RR is again modified by removing such areas, and conducting the exercise once again till all such areas are removed from the RR. Thedetails of different spatial probabilities of the Reference Region and the Project Area are given below in Figure 1, 2 and 3 26

27 Figure 1: Project Area inside the Reference Region Figure 2: Project Area and Reference Region that do not share boundary 27

28 Figure 3: Discrete parcels of Project Area and Reference Region Leakage Management Zone is the area which shall help in managing potential leakage. This shall depend on the activities planned in the project activity. Leakage Zones is a preliminary leakage monitoring zone that shall be identified against each discrete project parcel for the REDD component. The leakage belt shall be at a distance related to the distance that an agent of a driver is willing to travel and cause deforestation or degradation of forest lands. Activities within leakage zones shall be monitored during each verification activity or as specified in section 9, whichever is of shorter duration. 5.2 Temporal boundary Start date of the project activity: The start dates are defined in the definitions section of this methodology. Crediting period: As per the definitions given in this methodology. Start date of the crediting period: As per the definitions given in this methodology. 5.3 Carbon Pools REDD Baseline Scope Carbon Pools Included Yes or No Planned or unplanned deforestation/degradation (APD or AUDD) with annual crop as the land cover in the baseline scenario Aboveground tree biomass Aboveground nontree Biomass Yes Yes Justification/Explanation Carbon stock will increase, hence one of the major carbon pool Expected to decrease or change could be insignificant, hence can be conservatively excluded 28

29 Planned or unplanned deforestation/degradation (APD or AUDD) with pasture grass as the land cover in the baseline scenario Below ground biomass Yes Since BGB accounts could account for 20-26% of the total biomass (Ravindranath, 2008), hence one of the major carbon pools. Dead wood Optional May be conservatively excluded. Litter No Excluded as per the VCS AFOLU Requirements Wood products Soil Organic carbon Aboveground tree biomass Aboveground nontree Biomass Below ground biomass Optional if demonstrated as deminimis Optional Yes Optional Yes If it is demonstrated that timber extraction is not being diverted to wood products on a large scale, this pool may be deemed de minimis (less than 5% of the total GHG benefits) and may be excluded from baseline estimations. To determine that the carbon pool is de minimis project developer can use peer reviewed literature or the CDM A/R methodological tool Tool for testing significance of GHG emissions in A/R CDM May be conservatively excluded. Can be included in case baseline in REDD is conversion to crop land. Can also be included in ARR component. Carbon stock will increase, hence one of the major carbon pool Expected to decrease or change could be insignificant, hence can be conservatively excluded Since BGB accounts could account for 20-26% of the total biomass (Ravindranath, 2008), hence one of the major carbon pools. Dead wood Optional May be conservatively excluded Litter No Excluded as per the VCS AFOLU Requirements 29

30 Planned or unplanned deforestation/degradation (APD or AUDD) with perennial tree crop as the land cover in the baseline scenario Wood products Soil Organic carbon Aboveground tree biomass Aboveground nontree Biomass Below ground biomass Optional if demonstrated as deminimis Optional Yes Yes Yes If it is demonstrated that timber extraction is not being diverted to wood products on a large scale, this pool may be deemed de minimis (less than 5% of the total GHG benefits) and may be excluded from baseline estimations. To determine that the carbon pool is de minimis project developer can use peer reviewed literature or the CDM A/R methodological tool Tool for testing significance of GHG emissions in A/R CDM May be conservatively excluded Carbon stock will increase, hence one of the major carbon pool May be conservatively excluded if it is demonstrated that the carbon pool is de minimis (less than 5% of the total GHG benefits) and may be excluded from baseline estimations. To determine that the carbon pool is de minimis project developer can use peer reviewed literature or the CDM A/R methodological tool Tool for testing significance of GHG emissions in A/R CDM Since BGB could account for 20-26% of the total biomass (Ravindranath, 2008), hence one of the major carbon pools. Dead wood Optional May be conservatively excluded Litter No Excluded as per the VCS AFOLU Requirements 30

31 Wood products Soil Organic carbon Optional if demonstrated as deminimis Optional If it is demonstrated that timber extraction is not being diverted to wood products on a large scale, this pool may be deemed de minimis (less than 5% of the total GHG benefits) and may be excluded from baseline estimations. To determine that the carbon pool is de minimis project developer can use peer reviewed literature or the CDM A/R methodological tool Tool for testing significance of GHG emissions in A/R CDM May be conservatively excluded ARR Carbon Pools Aboveground woody biomass Aboveground non-woody biomass Included Yes or No Yes Optional Justification/Explanation One of the major carbon pools. May be conservatively excluded, and hence rate of change of carbon in baseline in this pool shall not be less zero. VCS or CDM guidelines in exclusion of this carbon pool shall be considered. Below ground biomass Yes Since BGB accounts could account for 20-26% of the total biomass (Ravindranath, 2008), hence one of the major carbon pools. Dead wood Optional May be conservatively excluded if it is demonstrated that the carbon pool is de minimis (less than 5% of the total GHG benefits) and may be excluded from baseline estimations. To determine that the carbon pool is de minimis project developer can use peer reviewed literature or the CDM A/R methodological tool Tool for testing significance of GHG emissions in A/R CDM Litter Optional May be conservatively excluded if it is demonstrated that the carbon pool is de minimis (less than 5% of the total GHG benefits) and may be excluded from baseline estimations. To determine that the carbon pool is 31

32 de minimis project developer can use peer reviewed literature or the CDM A/R methodological tool Tool for testing significance of GHG emissions in A/R CDM Wood products Optional May be conservatively excluded Soil Organic Carbon Optional May be conservatively excluded. 5.4 GHG boundary For Baseline and for emissions Table 8: GHG emissions from carbon pools to be included or not for GHG assessment Source Gas Included Yes or No Justification/Explanation CO2 Yes Emissions are related to changes in carbon pools. Baseline Project Baseline Deforestation and Forest Degradation Cook stove and Fuel Efficiency (CFE) activities Biomass burning from unplanned large CH4 Yes Included only in the case of certain intervention activities such as cook stove and fuel efficiency activities (CFE). In baseline if biomass is burnt during land preparation in the case of ARR, CH4 is included. In baseline if grazing and animal management is involved, CH4 is not counted for reasons of conservativeness. N2O Yes Included as cook stove and fuel efficiency activities (CFE) are involved. In baseline or project if biomass is burnt, N2O is included. If baseline involves application of fertilizers N2O is not considered for reasons of conservativeness. CO2 Yes Included as a significant source of CO2. CH4 Yes CH4 emissions of burning woody biomass in CFE activities are significant. N2O Yes N2O emissions of burning woody biomass in CFE activities are significant. CO2 No Emissions are already included in the changes of carbon pools 32

33 Source Gas Included Yes or No Justification/Explanation and small scale fires CH4 Yes CH4 emissions of burning woody biomass from unplanned fires are to be accounted. If the fires are catastrophic, CH4 emissions must be estimated and demonstrated negligible or otherwise accounted for. N2O No N2O emissions of burning woody biomass from unplanned fires are to be accounted, If the fires are catastrophic, N2O emissions must be estimated and demonstrated negligible, or otherwise accounted for. Fossil fuel used during harvesting CO2 No Emissions from fossil fuel combustion is considered deminimis for REDD. However considered for ARR. CH4 No Insignificant N2O No Insignificant CO2 Yes Emissions related to changes in carbon pools are taken into account. But woody biomass will not be removed during assisted natural regeneration activities. Removal of woody biomass during assisted natural regeneration (ANR and ARR) activities CH4 Yes CH4 emissions from removal of woody biomass are significant when fire is used in preparing the land for ANR activities. But woody biomass will not be removed during assisted natural regeneration activities. N2O No N2O emissions from burning woody biomass during ANR activities are assumed negligible and conservatively excluded. Fertilizer used during enrichment planting CO2 No Assumed negligible CH4 No Assumed negligible 33

34 Source Gas Included for assisting natural regeneration and ARR Yes or No Justification/Explanation N2O No Assumed negligible Increased fertilizer use CO2 No Not Applicable CH4 No Not Applicable N2O No N2O emissions related to increased fertilizer use are de minimis. 5.5 Grouped Project Grouped project having discrete project parcels are allowed under this methodology. The grouped project shall follow the guidelines and requirements as set in VCS Standard and VCS AFOLU requirements. 6. BASELINE SCENARIO Baseline is the continuation of the pre-projects scenario and the behavior during the lifetime of the project activity. A step-by-step explanation of how baseline scenario is determined is given below in Figure 4. The baseline for this methodology is the historic and /or continued land use and land cover and associated carbon stocks in all selected carbon pools and the changes in these carbon stocks in all selected carbon pools within the project boundary. This is applicable for REDD as well as ARR component of the projects. In instances where a jurisdictional baseline has been developed, and a published Reference Emission Levels exist, these values may be considered. Figure 4: Procedure to determine baseline scenario and emissions 34

35 The sources and sinks of the identified baseline must be determined ex-ante for each year crediting period. The baseline must be reassessed after every 10 years as per Section VCS AFOLU Requirements v3.4 or in case the guideline is updated, the guideline of latest VCS AFOLU Requirements shall be followed. The procedure of reassessment of the baseline shall be as per Section of VCS AFOLU Requirements v3.4 or in case the guideline is updated then the guidelines of latest VCS AFOLU Requirements shall be followed. 7. ADDITIONALITY Step 1: Regulatory Surplus Project developers must demonstrate regulatory surplus in accordance with the rules and requirements regarding regulatory surplus set out in the latest version of the VCS Standard. Projects may use project method or activity method to demonstrate additionality. Project method: Projects must apply the latest version of the VCS tool VT Tool for the Demonstration and Assessment of Additionality in VCS Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Project Activities, v3.0 for demonstration of additionality. This is applicable in cases where a project has a mix of more than one component (such as REDD and ARR in which case, additionality has to be demonstrated for the project as a whole). Demonstration of additionality also can be carried out 35