1 / 23

Allan Sommer and Brian Murray (RTI) sommer@rti

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.

shae
Download Presentation

Allan Sommer and Brian Murray (RTI) sommer@rti

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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. DefineProjectDimensions • Initial Assessment • Define primary and secondary effects • Determine eligibility • Perform initial screening • Additionality • Leakage • Assess Costs Revise as needed IfNo, Revise as needed Yes Benefit-cost Screening SetProjectBaseline Top-down (Performance Standard) Approach Bottom-up (Project-specific) Approach Report Estimates resulting from Baseline Approach Estimate Project GHG Effects Estimate Secondary Effects Calculate Net GHG Effects 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 • Dependent Variable: Plot Conversion to Forest • Full State Sample 82 Counties (4,299 observations) • County coefficients show effects relative to omitted county. • 81 of the 82 MS Counties were included in the regressions • however only those in the LYRB used in the analysis are presented here.

  13. Baseline Afforestation Rate Confidence Interval Upper Bounds Derived from Regression Analysis • Calculated from confidence intervals, upper bound most conservative

  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 1st 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 • Economic returns under different baseline stringency levels (Confidence intervals from regression results)

  20. Impacts on Economic Returns • Economic returns with and without baseline adjustments

  21. Impacts on Economic Returns (cont.) • Commercial Forestry vs. Forest Preservation

  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

More Related