REPORTS - SPECIAL REPORTS

Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry


Other reports in this collection

5.2. Magnitude and Experience of Project-Based Activities


This section reviews the experience of LULUCF projects that generate GHG and other benefits and are being implemented on the ground at least partially. It summarizes estimated GHG benefits for 27 such projects and several portfolios of projects, reviews estimated project costs, and assesses the limited estimates of the potential magnitude of project activities under Article 6 and possibly Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol.

Some of the key questions addressed in this section follow:

  • What is the experience of the voluntary, non-credit, AIJ Pilot Phase established by the UNFCCC in terms of the number, type, and technical issues surrounding LULUCF projects?
  • What are the cost estimates of such projects, and how do they vary by project type and location?
  • What is the likely supply and cost of projects that might help Annex I countries meet their emissions reduction commitments under Articles 6 and 12?
  • Are such projects likely to be implemented at significant scales by 2012?

5.2.1. Quantifying Project Activities: Issues and Methods


By far, most LULUCF projects being implemented within countries or funded internationally are designed to promote economic and social development, without regard for their potential GHG benefits. Such projects provide timber or fuelwood supply, community woodlots, agroforestry crops, soil conservation, biodiversity or watershed protection, and socioeconomic development. The GHG implications of these projects generally have not been estimated or reported.

Six representative case studies of LULUCF projects that are being implemented illustrate the diversity of project types, locations, and estimated GHG benefits and costs (Box 5-1). These cases provide an introduction to the kinds of activities, the projected socioeconomic benefits, and the environmental impacts associated with LULUCF projects described throughout this chapter. These cases are representative of two major categories of LULUCF projects (see Section 5.1): carbon sequestration through increases in carbon stocks, and emissions avoidance through conservation of existing carbon stocks.

Box 5-1. LUCF Carbon Mitigation Projects: Selected Case Studies

Krknose and Sumava National Parks, Czech Republic

Objectives and Activities
Temperate forest rehabilitation and reforestation.

Land Area and Type
14,000 ha broadleaf and conifer species forest.

Description of Activities
Designed to restore mountain forest degradation or mortality from air pollution and acid deposition in unique Norway spruce (Picea abies) stands, perhaps from coal-fired power plants in Poland. Studies indicate natural regeneration of stands would be difficult, and grasslands would dominate. About 7,000 ha were completely reforested, and mortality tree gaps were planted on another 7,000 ha. Project implementation will be 17 years and its lifetime 99 years.

GHG Estimated Benefits and Methods
Cumulative net sequestration of 2,682,030 t C, using CO2FIX model. Average carbon benefit is 192 t C ha-1, at 6.4 t C ha-1 yr-1.

Projected Socioeconomic Benefits
Increase in recreational and tourism value; 200 laborers/farmers involved.

Projected Environmental Impacts
May reduce air pollution levels, conserve and increase forest biodiversity, and improve hydrologic system of the area.

Status of Project
Started in 1992; 5,400 ha planted to date.

Cost Estimate and Efficiency
$38.2 million total cost, public and private financing. Efficiency calculated to be $14.25 per t C.

References
FACE Foundation (1998), Witthoeft-Muehlmann (1998).

Saskatchewan Soil Enhancement Project, Canada

Objectives and Activities
Assess carbon sequestration benefits of farmers changing from conventional soil tillage to reduced-tillage systems.

Land Area and Type
150 experimental sites in Saskatchewan prairie grassland agricultural cropping systems.

Partners
Regional soil conservation agencies, GEMCO (private consortium of Canadian companies initiating GHG reduction pilot projects), and farmers.

Description of Activities
Establishment of experimental research sites to develop baseline soils data and precise measurement locations for a network of fields representing dominant soil types and land uses across Saskatchewan, to measure future changes in soil carbon. Data will be used to calibrate soil carbon simulation models, such as CENTURY, to predict changes in soil carbon across the province, for potential generation of carbon credits for emissions trading in Canada or internationally.

GHG Estimated Benefits and Methods
CENTURY model.

Projected Socioeconomic Benefits
Generation of new carbon commodity for farmers; reduced farm energy costs of alternative tillage systems.

Projected Environmental Impacts
Enhanced soil tilth and carbon sequestration, reduced erosion of soil and carbon off-field, improved local air and water quality.

Status of Project
Several years of data collection from established sites; technical papers and modeling.

Cost Estimate and Efficiency
Not applicable.

References
Padbury (1999).

Rehabilitation of Mt. Elgon and Kibale National Parks, Uganda

Objectives and Activities
Tropical forest rehabilitation and reforestation.

Land Area and Type
27,000 ha broadleaf and conifer species forest.

Partners
FACE Foundation, Netherlands, and Uganda national parks agency.

Description of Activities
Restoration of natural forest and reforestation using native tree species, and fire control, within two national parks. Cooperation with the IUCN-sponsored project in adjacent communities to support sustainable land use in buffer zones around the parks, to reduce forest degradation and forest conversion to agriculture from fire and logging within them. Activities to be implemented over 17 years; project lifetime is 99 years.

GHG Estimated Benefits and Methods
707,000 t C total over lifetime, using CO2FIX model. Average carbon benefit is 26 t C ha-1, at 0.9 t C ha-1 yr.

Projected Socioeconomic Benefits
Reforestation planting jobs.

Projected Environmental Impacts
Reduced soil erosion, improved water quality, reduced logging and fire degradation of park, conserving biodiversity.

Status of Project
Began in 1994; rehabilitation or replanting has occurred on 5,700 ha to date.

Cost Estimate and Efficiency
$2.6 million total cost, with private financing. Efficiency calculated to be $27.80 per t C.

References
FACE Foundation (1998), Witthoeft-Muehlmann (1998).

Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area (RBCMA) Carbon Sequestration Pilot Project, Belize

Objectives and Activities
Tropical forest sustainable forest management and protection.

Land Area and Type
14,327 ha of tropical forest acquired and protected; 46,406 ha put under sustainable forest management.

Partners
Programme for Belize (private conservation and development organization) and The Nature Conservancy. Financed by U.S. electric utilities (Wisconsin Power Company, CINergy, Detroit Edison, PacifiCorp, EEI Utilitree Carbon Company) and Suncor Energy, Inc.

Description of Activities
Component A involves the purchase of endangered forest land, thereby expanding RBCMA's existing protected forest areas. If not protected, this property is highly likely to be converted to agricultural use, permanently dividing the RBCMA ecosystem. Component B involves the development of a sustainable forestry management program that will increase the level and rate of carbon sequestered within half of the RBCMA, including the purchased parcel. The remaining RBCMA lands will be left undisturbed for experimental control areas, conservation, and research.

GHG Estimated Benefits and Methods
2.4 million t C total over 40-yr lifetime, using Winrock GHG estimation and monitoring software. Average carbon benefit is 31 t C ha-1, at 0.8 t C ha-1 yr-1.

Projected Socioeconomic Benefits
Create jobs in newly established forest products industry; enhance commercial value of forests; transfer forest monitoring and management technologies; protect Mayan archaeological sites.

Projected Environmental Impacts
Conserve biodiversity from agricultural conversion; enhance water quality via reduced soil erosion.

Status of Project
In year 5 of a 40-yr project.

Cost Estimate and Efficiency
$2.6 million total cost, with private financing. Efficiency calculated to be $3 per t C.

References
EPA/USIJI (1998), Witthoeft-Muehlmann (1998), TNC (1999).

Scolel Te Pilot Project for Community Forestry and Carbon Sequestration, Chiapas, Mexico

Objectives and Activities
Tropical forest and highland conifer forest reforestation and community agroforestry on individual farmers' small plots.

Land Area and Type
2,000 ha within 13,200 ha (project size depends on funding received).

Partners
Wide range, including local credit unions, regional research institute (ECOSUR), University of Edinburgh, UK-Overseas Development Administration, International Automobile Federation, among others.

Description of Activities
Consultations with local village farmers identified preferred candidate reforestation, forest management, and agroforestry practices. The project designed a system of technical assistance to farmers by producing plans for each parcel, calculating carbon benefits, and developing a monitoring protocol. International Automobile Federation funded the first implemented management plans. Project is designed to reduce degradation and conversion of remnant forest, and to enhance village land-use sustainability and financial returns.

GHG Estimated Benefits and Methods
Cumulative net sequestration of 15,000-333,000 t C total over lifetime, using CO2FIX model. Average carbon benefit is 26 t C ha-1, at 0.9 t C ha-1 yr-1.

Projected Socioeconomic Benefits
Build local economy through sustainable agroforestry; improve welfare of women and villagers.

Projected Environmental Impacts
Conserve and increase forest biodiversity, reduce forest fragmentation and soil erosion, serve as buffer zone by slowing in-migration to the forest.

Status of Project
50 ha funded for initial implementation. Detailed studies at community and regional scale completed. Management, research, and financial institutions established.

Cost Estimate and Efficiency
$3.4 million projected total cost, with initial phase at $0.5 million, and public and private financing. Efficiency calculated to be $10 per t C.

References
EPA/USIJI (1998), Tipper and de Jong (1998), Witthoeft-Muehlmann (1998).

INFAPRO: Innoprise-FACE Foundation Project, Sabah, Malaysia

Objectives and Activities
Enrichment planting and forest rehabilitation in previously harvested mature forest.

Land Area and Type
25,000 ha of selectively logged dipterocarp lowland tropical forest concession lands.

Partners
Innoprise Corporation (forestry arm of Sabah Foundation, Sabah, Malaysia) and FACE (Forests Absorbing CO2 Emissions) Foundation of Dutch Electricity Board, The Netherlands.

Description of Activities
The project estimates it will sequester approximately 4.3 million t C over the course of 60 years, largely using literature data for the estimate. Permanent sample plots to measure stem growth are established; necromass, understory, and soil data collected for the ICSB-NEP RIL project are being used (see Table 5-2).

GHG Estimated Benefits and Methods
707,000 t C total over lifetime, using CO2FIX model. Average carbon benefit is 26 t C ha-1, at 0.9 t C ha-1 yr-1.

Projected Socioeconomic Benefits
Generate US$ 800 million in timber, which will revert to the social programs of the Sabah Foundation. Build capacity through technical training, at all levels of project staff, and with local, regional, and international organizations. Direct employment of more than 150 people.

Projected Environmental Impacts
Improve at least 25,000 ha of degraded logged forests.

Status of Project
The project is in the seventh year of its implementation phase, which is planned to last 25 years; project lifetime is 99 years. If CDM guidelines and crediting are not in place soon, implementation of this project may be halted.

Cost Estimate and Efficiency
$15 million total cost, with private financing. Efficiency calculated to be $3.50 per t C.

References
FACE Foundation (1998), Stuart and Moura-Costa (1998), Witthoeft-Muehlmann (1998).

NOTE: For all case studies described, GHG and cost estimates are provisional. These estimates are genearally provided by project developers and do not use consistent, comparable methods.

(continues on next page)


Other reports in this collection

IPCC Homepage