1	Alternative Approaches to Quantifying and Reporting Carbon Sequestration Projects: The Case of Afforestation. Allan Sommer and Brian Murray (RTI) sommer@rti.org Third USDA Symposium On Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry, March 21-24, Baltimore MD
2	Outline of Presentation and Analysis Overview of the role mitigation projects and quantification protocols play in GHG policy Application of a generalized WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol to a hypothetical mitigation project Implications that variation in quantification procedures and protocols may have on quantified project benefits
3	Project Based Approaches to GHG Mitigation Projects involve intentional activities or actions to reduce GHG’s The product of these projects may (may not) be used to produce GHG emission offsets Mitigation projects are voluntary, not required by law Development of mitigation projects contain nuances that are location and sector specific
4	GHG Mitigation Project Programs/Registries Domestic US Federal Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992: GHG Registry State California Climate Action Registry Oregon Climate Trust Other emerging state programs Private Chicago Climate Exchange International Kyoto Mechanisms (JI and CDM)
5	The Role of “Protocols” Emergence of different project-based GHG mitigation projects has created some confusion and demand for quantification/reporting standards Protocol guidance on methods for quantifying and reporting GHG emission and sequestration effects at the project level Current Efforts Program-specific: e.g., CA registry protocol, 1605(b), Kyoto Broad/harmonization: WRI/WBCSD
6	General Framework for Project Quantification
7	Project Baselines and Additionality General Definitions Baselines – activity and GHG effect that would occur without the project Additionality – GHG mitigation relative to the baseline Two options/methods to setting baselines exist Project specific approach – bottom-up approach, detailed evaluation of the circumstances pertaining to a specific project Performance standard approach – top-down approach, based on the historical activities in a region and tracking the performance of a reference group over time
8	Case Study Application of Bottomland Hardwoods in the Lower Mississippi Valley Project Description Afforestation of marginal croplands in Miss. River Valley Frequently flooded (2-year floodplain) Issaquena County 13,784 acres in total; 2,000 met selection criteria
9	Data Sources Biophysical Data Land Use Characterization (National Resource Inventory) Geo-referenced Soil type, elevation etc Timber yields (Local Growth and Yield Functions) Carbon yields (FORCARB) Economic Data Timber prices and costs Agriculture prices and costs
10	Preliminary Assessment Generally involves a qualitative assessment of the following: Eligibility of project activities and GHG pools Initial screening for Additionality Leakage Assess Project Costs Assess Project Benefits
11	Project GHG Quantification Recall basic steps from general quantification framework Performance Standard Approach to setting baselines Estimate the baseline afforestation rate NRI Data and logistic regressions to calculate annual afforestation rates in MS counties Estimate Baseline Carbon Accumulation Combine county specific afforestation rates with carbon yield functions (time-dependent and dynamic), biophysical data, and forest carbon prediction model
12	Quantification: Estimate Baseline Afforestation Rate Using Logistic Regression Analysis
13	Baseline Afforestation Rate Confidence Interval Upper Bounds Derived from Regression Analysis
14	Baseline Quantification: Carbon Accumulation at Different Points in Time Baseline carbon accumulation at year 10 and 60
15	Estimate Gross Project GHG: No Additionality or Leakage Adjustments Estimated project carbon for year 10 and 60 Assume with project all trees planted in 1^st year Quantities accumulated after 10 yrs, 60 yrs given below
16	Estimate Secondary Effects – Leakage Leakage: Shifting of GHG emissions to outside project boundaries (undermines project GHG benefits) Estimates derived from study by Murray, McCarl and Lee (2004) Commercial forestry in South-Central USA is estimated to be ~20% Adjust project GHG benefits downward by 20% See Murray presentation (this session) for more details on leakage
17	Calculate Net Project Carbon Benefits (Gross – Baseline – Leakage)
18	Sources of Variation in Results Choosing the project-specific (“case study”) approach to establishing the baseline would result in all project carbon being deemed additional in our example If timber harvesting is allowed, debits are imposed for carbon reversal Natural disturbances also produce the potential for carbon reversal and debiting These and other sources for variation in project results can affect project economic returns
19	Impacts on Economic Returns
20	Impacts on Economic Returns Economic returns with and without baseline adjustments
21	Impacts on Economic Returns (cont.)
22	Program-Specific Issues: CA Registry Baseline guidance - additionality Eligibility: Pools - above ground only Secondary effects – leakage not required in CCAR
23	Summary and Recap Protocols are needed to ensure consistency of GHG project reporting Program-specific and cross-program protocols are now being developed Treatment of Baselines/Additionality and Leakage can substantially alter project benefits and economic returns More work is needed to create project-based empirical estimates