Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Forest Carbon Offsets: A scorecard for evaluating project quality

1,233

Published on

Presentation by John Gunn, Senior Program Leader, Manomet CCenter for Conservation Sciences, at the Blandin Foundation sponsored Forest Values and Carbon Markets: Opportunities for Minnesota …

Presentation by John Gunn, Senior Program Leader, Manomet CCenter for Conservation Sciences, at the Blandin Foundation sponsored Forest Values and Carbon Markets: Opportunities for Minnesota conference. February 25-26, 2009 at the Cloquet Forestry Center, Cloquet MN

Published in: Technology, Business
2 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • I think you are arguing on different topics and therefore, will never make perfect sense, even if you spend the next 4 Saturday. After all, MTV Exiled: Carbon Offsets is about carbon offset. Just my 0.02$.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • I respectfully disagree with a couple of the ideas on MTV Exiled: Carbon Offsets especially as it has to do with carbon offsets but will research this further externally on Saturday to see how I feel about this.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,233
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
44
Comments
2
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Transcript

    • 1. John Gunn, Ph.D. Senior Program Leader Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences Brunswick, Maine 26 February 2008 06/08/09 Forest Carbon Offsets: A Scorecard for Evaluating Project Quality
    • 2. Click here to offset your carbon footprint …
      • Forest carbon is clearly an important part of mitigating GHG emissions
      • What qualifies as a legitimate carbon offset?
      • The carbon market could be abused
      • Rigor and transparency are critical to ensure that the buyer, and atmosphere, are getting the offsets expected.
      06/08/09
    • 3. Outline
      • Overview of forest carbon offsets and affiliated jargon
      • The Manomet Forest Carbon Offsets Scorecard as a tool for evaluating offset projects
      06/08/09
    • 4. WHAT ROLE WILL MANAGED FORESTS PLAY IN FOREST CARBON OFFSET MARKETS AND GHG MITIGATION? 06/08/09
    • 5. Volatility in CO2e markets now – drop in price related to concerns over “additionality and permanence” Carbon Equivalent ($/MTCO2e) Trading on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) from May 2008 – February 2009 06/08/09
    • 6. When gas is expensive, energy producers rely more on coal, which emits higher levels of CO 2 and boosts demand for carbon permits.
    • 7. Global Voluntary and Regulatory Carbon Offset Market Value OTC forest offset market with huge variation in price: $1.80/tCO2e to one transaction at $300/tCO2e.
    • 8.  
    • 9. How forests play a role in markets
      • Afforestation
      • Reforestation/restoration
      • Avoided deforestation or conversion
      • Forest management
      • Enduring wood products/product substitution
      06/08/09
    • 10. Forests and Carbon – Market Entry Requirements Emerging:
      • Demonstrate that entity-wide forest holdings are sustainably managed.
      • Demonstrate long-term commitment to maintain carbon stocks.
      • Use of approved methods to quantify carbon stocks.
      • Independent third-party verification of carbon stocks.
      06/08/09
    • 11. Some key concepts that will define available carbon markets for managed forests (voluntary vs. regulatory)
      • Baselines
      • Additionality
      • Leakage
      • Permanence
      06/08/09
    • 12. Baselines
      • The bar you are measured against
      • Base Year
      • Practices (project level)
        • “Business-as-Usual”, or BAU
        • Regulatory
      • Stocking (e.g., FIA mean)
      06/08/09
    • 13. Baseline Examples BAU: Practices or Regulatory
    • 14. Additionality (real & measurable)
      • Is CO 2 really being sequestered “additionally”?
      • More than what would have happened in absence of project or payment
      • Offsets for actual carbon emissions
      06/08/09
    • 15. Additionality
    • 16. Leakage
      • Internal
        • Owner shifts activities within ownership
      • External
        • Carbon practices displace activities to other forests (local, global)
      • Difficult to measure
      06/08/09
    • 17. Permanence (enforceable)
      • Intentional Conversion or Natural Disturbance
      • Insurance/Reserves
      • Legal enforcement
      • How long?
      06/08/09
    • 18. Basic Elements of the Major Forest Carbon Offset Standards 06/08/09 Standard Baseline Additionality Permanence CCX Base Year =Growth – Harvest 15 years VCS 5-10 Years Prior Practices Permanent CCAR Regulatory Practices Perm. Easement RGGI Proposed FIA mean > FIA mean 99 years
    • 19.  
    • 20. What Is the Scorecard?
      • An easy-to-use tool for evaluating quality of forest projects.
      • 43 questions addressing:
      • Contract structure
      • Baselines
      • Additionality
      • Monitoring, measurement, reporting, and verification
      • Permanence
      • Leakage
      • Transparency
      • Co-benefits/costs
    • 21. How Can It Help You?
      • Guides users in understanding and addressing key quality components of offsets.
      • Provides a standardized reference point in an unstandardized marketplace.
    • 22. Who Should Use It?
      • Project developers, offset buyers and sellers, anyone interested in understanding what creates high-quality forest offsets.
    • 23. How Was It Developed?
      • Extensive reviewed of GHG registries, GHG accounting protocols, program requirements, project design and certification standards, and reports analyzing carbon markets and offset providers.
      • We distilled and synthesized carbon offset “best practices.”
    • 24. 3. Additionality Yes No 3.1 Will the project exceed regulatory requirements or other legal mandates? ___ ___ 3.2 Can it be demonstrated that carbon credits will not be generated retroactively from activities that have already occurred? ___ ___ 3.3 Can it be demonstrated that the project will result in a net reduction of GHG levels in the atmosphere relative to the baseline? ___ ___ 3.4 Can it be demonstrated that none of the project’s credits have been sold more than once? ___ ___ 3.5 Can it be demonstrated that the project’s credits will be permanently retired once they are sold? ___ ___ Subtotal (out of 5)=
    • 25. 5. Permanence Yes No 5.1 Is maintenance of additional carbon stocks contractually required for: At least 20 years? At least 50 years? At least 100 years? In perpetuity? ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 5.2 Have all the project’s carbon risks been identified and risk management strategies been enacted to guard against carbon loss during the project’s contractual obligation? ___ ___ 5.3 Must carbon stocks be restored or replaced if lost before the end of the project’s contractual obligation? ___ ___ Subtotal (out of 6)=
    • 26. Uncertainty around these key concepts will define available carbon markets (voluntary vs. regulatory)
      • In particular :
      • Baselines
      • Additionality
      • Leakage
      • Permanence
      06/08/09
    • 27.
      • For more information: www.manomet.org
      • Funded by:
      • Merck Family Fund
      • Roy A. Hunt Foundation
      • Davis Conservation Foundation
      • Henry P. Kendall Foundation
      • Authors: Julie Beane, John Hagan, Andy Whitman, & John Gunn

    ×