|
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (continued)
Several approaches have been used to account for changes in carbon stocks or
greenhouse gas emissions over the lifetimes of LULUCF projects. One method is
based on calculating the difference in carbon stocks between a project and its
baseline at a given point in time-the carbon stock method. The values
provided by this method vary depending on the decision of when to account for
the project's benefits. The average storage method has been used to account
for dynamic systems in which planting, harvesting, and replanting operations
take place. The advantage of this method is that it accounts for the dynamics
of carbon storage over the whole project duration, not only at the times chosen
for accounting. Another approach is to credit only a fraction of the total changes
in carbon stocks or greenhouse gas emissions for each year that the project
is maintained-the ton-year method. A variety of methods have been proposed for
establishing an equivalency factor by analogy to Global Warming Potentials (GWPs).
Depending on the accounting method used, the year-to-year distribution of changes
in carbon stocks or greenhouse gas emissions over the project lifetime varies.
The Kyoto Protocol requires that LULUCF projects result in long-term impacts
on carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. The definition of "long-term"
varies, however, and there is no consensus on minimum time frames for project
duration. Different approaches have been proposed to define the duration of
projects. According to one view, the changes in carbon stocks or greenhouse
gas emissions must be maintained in perpetuity. This argument is based on the
assumption that "reversal" of changes in carbon stocks or greenhouse gas emissions
of a project at any point in time would invalidate a project. A second view
is that the changes in carbon stocks or greenhouse gas emissions must be maintained
for a period of 100 years to be consistent with the time frames adopted in the
Kyoto Protocol for the calculation of GWP values. Under a third view, the changes
in carbon stocks or greenhouse gas emissions must be maintained until they counteract
the effect of an equivalent amount of greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere.
A fourth view holds that the changes in carbon stocks or greenhouse gas emissions
may vary over different time frames, acknowledging that different projects may
have different operational time frames; this approach has been adopted during
the Activities Implemented Jointly (AIJ) Pilot Phase. Eventually, guidelines
will be needed on how to calculate the changes in carbon stocks or greenhouse
gas emissions of projects that are conducted over different lifetimes.
Quantification of greenhouse gas emissions or removals in LULUCF projects is
subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties. Some of these factors (such
as fires, pest and disease, storms) are inherent to certain land-use activities,
particularly forestry; others (such as political and economic factors) may be
generic and applicable to any greenhouse gas mitigation project in LULUCF and
other sectors. These risks and uncertainties could be estimated and the changes
in carbon stocks or greenhouse gas emissions adjusted or mitigated through project
design, diversification of project portfolios, or insurance methods.
The changes in carbon stocks or greenhouse gas emissions associated with individual
LULUCF projects are likely to be more readily quantified and monitored to desired
precision levels than national inventories of greenhouse gas emissions and removals
because of the clearly defined boundaries of project activities, the ease of
stratification of project area, sampling efficiency, and measurement of only
a selection of carbon pools. Techniques and methods for measuring carbon in
vegetation and soils in LULUCF projects to relatively high levels of precision
exist. These techniques have not been universally applied to all projects, however,
and methods for accounting of the changes in carbon stocks have not been standardized.
A selective accounting system could be used to choose which carbon pools to
measure; the choice must include all pools that are expected to decrease and
a selection of pools that are expected to increase as a result of the project.
The requirements for verifiability in the Protocol suggest that only carbon
pools that can be measured and monitored could be claimed.
The costs of measuring and monitoring carbon pools in LULUCF projects are mainly
related to the desired precision level, which varies by project type, size of
project, distribution of project lands (contiguous or dispersed), and natural
variations within the various carbon pools. Different levels of sampling intensity
can be used to balance the costs of estimating, monitoring, and verifying the
change in carbon stocks. In a few forestry projects in tropical countries, project
developers in the early stages of project implementation have measured and monitored
relevant aboveground and below-ground carbon pools to precision levels of about
10 percent of the mean at a cost of about US$1-5 ha-1 and US$0.10-0.50
per t C. The attainable accuracy and precision of carbon measurements and monitoring
is likely to be similar among LULUCF project types, but differing measuring
and monitoring costs will result from decisions about which particular carbon
pools are to be measured and monitored, as well as their variability.
Qualified independent third-party verification plays an essential role in ensuring
unbiased monitoring. Although there is growing experience in verification of
baseline and project design, there is no experience with verification of monitored
data. Guidelines are needed to help establish a procedure and institutional
structure for verification.
LULUCF projects may provide significant socioeconomic and environmental benefits
to host countries and local communities, though some types of projects pose
significant risk of negative impacts. Experience from many pilot projects to
date indicates that the involvement of local stakeholders in the design and
management of project activities is often critical for success. Critical factors
affecting the capacity of projects to provide greenhouse gas and other benefits
include consistency with nationally defined sustainable development goals, institutional
and technical capacity to develop and implement project guidelines and safeguards,
and the extent and effectiveness of local community participation in project
development and implementation.
|