Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-l9twb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T23:49:11.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Case study 2: monitoring requirements for reforestation and improved forest management projects across standards

from Part III - MRV at offset project scale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2015

Mariana Deheza
Affiliation:
CDC Climat
Valentin Bellassen
Affiliation:
CDC Climat, Paris
Nicolas Stephan
Affiliation:
CDC Climat, Paris
Get access

Summary

Context

On the voluntary carbon market, 26% of all the carbon credits that were exchanged in 2012 came from forestry projects, with 9% from projects reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) and 17% from reforestation and improved forest management (IFM) projects (Peters-Stanley et al., 2013). REDD projects, which take a territorial approach to MRV, are treated in a specific case study of part I variant 2 (see Chapter 4). This case study focuses on the MRV procedures and their associated uncertainty for forestry projects across two certification standards: the CDM and the VCS. These two standards were chosen because they are the two most used among certification standards for forestry projects (Peters-Stanley and Hamilton 2012). In 2011, 60% of all transacted forestry credits in both the voluntary and the compliance market were certified by the CDM or the VCS.

The Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) is one of the most widely used standards in the voluntary market, with 55 percent of transacted credits (56 MtCO2e) according to Peters-Stanley et al. (2013). This standard was founded by The Climate Group, International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), The World Economic Forum and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in 2005.

As of May 2013, 1,005 projects have been registered under this standard and issued more than 120 million verified carbon units (VCU). Within those, 73 are forestry projects, with an estimated capacity of generating 27 MVCUs per year. VCS also constitutes the most popular standard for forestry projects, with 28 percent of all forestry projects transacted worldwide (Peters-Stanley and Hamilton 2012).

Any methodology accepted by the CDM can be used in the VCS. Protocols –or methodologies –developed by the Climate Action Reserve (CAR) are also accepted, except for the CAR forest protocol. No VCS-specific AR methodology has been developed as project proponents opted to use the CDM methodologies. Together, the CDM and the VCS have validated nine reforestation or IFM methodologies (Table 13.1).

Type
Chapter
Information
Accounting for Carbon
Monitoring, Reporting and Verifying Emissions in the Climate Economy
, pp. 423 - 466
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beaurain, F. and Schmidt-Traub, G., 2010. Developing CDM Programmes of Activities: a Guidebook. South Pole Carbon Asset Management Ltd, Zurich.Google Scholar
Cacho, O., Wise, R. and MacDicken, K., 2004. Carbon monitoring costs and their effect on incentives to sequester carbon through forestry. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 9(3): 273–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calmel, M., Martinet, A., et al., 2011. REDD+ at Project Scale: Evaluation and Development Guide. ONFI, Paris.Google Scholar
Chenost, C. and Gardette, Y.M., 2010. Bringing Forest Carbon Projects to the Market. UNEP, Paris.Google Scholar
Guigon, P., Bellassen, V. and Ambrosi, P., 2009. Voluntary carbon markets: what the standards say… (Working Paper, Mission Climat). Caisse des Depots.
IPCC, 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Chapter 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU). IGES, Hayama, Japan.
Krey, M., 2005. Transaction costs of unilateral CDM projects in India-results from an empirical survey. Energy Policy 33: 2385–2397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martel, S., 2013. Évaluation préliminaire des coûts de suivi pour un projet en métropole, Oral presentation in the 6th meeting of the Forest Carbon and Wood Club.
Michaelowa, A. and Stronzik, M., 2002. Transaction costs of the Kyoto mechanisms (HWWA Discussion Paper, No. 175).
Pearson, T., Brown, S., Sohngen, B., Henman, J. and Ohrel, S., 2013. Transaction costs for carbon sequestration projects in the tropical forest sector. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change (May): 1–14.Google Scholar
Peters-Stanley, M. and Hamilton, K. 2012. Developing Dimension: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2012. Forest Trends' Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Peters-Stanley, M., Gonzales, G. and Yin, D., 2013. Covering New Ground: State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2013. Forest Trends' Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Torres, D., 2013. Les méthodes et coûts du suivi pratiqués dans les pays en développement, Oral presentation in the 6th meeting of the Forest Carbon and Wood Club.
UNEP, 2007. Guidebook to Financing CDM Projects. United Nations Environment Programme, Denmark.
UNEP Risoe, 2013. CDM Pipeline. http://cdmpipeline.org/. Accessed May 4, 2013.
UNFCCC, 2009. Cost of implementing methodologies and monitoring systems relating to estimates of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, the assessment of carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions from changes in forest cover, and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks. Technical paper.
UNFCCC, 2011. Guidelines for the establishment of sector specific standardized baselines, EB 62 Report Annex 8. UNFCCC.
Vallejo, A., Reddy, R.C. and van der Linden, M., 2011. Manual for Monitoring of CDM Afforestation and Reforestation Projects – Part I – Standard Operational Procedures. Carbon Finance Unit, World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×