Carwg afolu project development presentation v2
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•192 views
AFOLU Project Development presentation to CARWG
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Carwg afolu project development presentation v2
Similar to Carwg afolu project development presentation v2 (20)
More from African Conservation Tillage Network
More from African Conservation Tillage Network (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Carwg afolu project development presentation v2
- 1. AFOLU Project Development Presentation to the Conservation Agriculture Regional Working Group Bulawayo, Zimbabwe 30-31 October 2014 Benoît Rivard Senior Consultant, LTS International
- 2. 2 Purpose Provide a basic understanding of what is needed to develop a ‘carbon project’ as the basis for a discussion on the potential for similar projects/programmes in the agricultural landscapes of Southern Africa.
- 3. 3 Summary • About LTS • AFOLU project development • Relevant standards and methodologies • Barriers and ways to respond • CA within integrated land management • Discussion questions
- 4. 4 About LTS • Established in 1973 • Over 900 assignments completed across 100 countries • Offices in Edinburgh, Nairobi and Lilongwe
- 5. 5 About LTS Current/recent CARWG related assignments • Enhancing Community Resilience Programme – Monitoring & Evaluation (Malawi) • Evaluation of Norad’s support to Zambian Conservation Farming Unit (Zambia) • Regional Vulnerability Assessment and Analysis Programme (SADC) • Integrated Assessment of Land Use Options (Malawi) • REDD+ Pilot Project feasibility study and methodology development (Tanzania) • Estimation of REDD+ cost elements (DR Congo & Tanzania)
- 6. AFOLU PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AFOLU project types Project cycle Project Design Document Additionality
- 7. 7 We already know… Source: State of Voluntary Carbon Markets 2014 - Record 11 MtCO2e in 2013 - Kenya: 4th largest offset supplier - DRC, Ghana, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda also contributed to growing market - Driven by strong health and biodiversity benefits
- 8. 8 AFOLU Project Types • Afforestation, Reforestation and Revegetation (ARR) • Agricultural Land Management (ALM) • Improved Forest Management (IFM) • Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) • Avoided Conversion of Grasslands and Shrublands • Wetlands Restoration and Conservation Non-AFOLU sectors also have linkages (e.g. energy efficiency in integrated farm systems, activities that could alleviate pressure on firewood collection)
- 9. 9 Carbon Project Cycle Initial Concept Pre-feasibility Feasibility Project Design Document Validation, Registration, Approval Project Implementation Realisation of emission reduction Verification Issuance of credits Annual / Bi-annual • Variance between carbon standards, but similar elements • It’s not just about carbon revenue: transaction, implementation and opportunity costs
- 10. 10 Project Design Document Additionality Baseline Leakage Monitoring methodology Application of methodology Project boundary PDDNon- permanence risk Benefit-sharing arrangements FPIC
- 11. 11 Additionality Project without carbon finance Project with carbon finance Profitabilityofproject Profitability threshold unprofitableprofitable Otherwise, • Too risky for carbon ‘buyers’ • No ownership / sustainability if/when payments stop
- 12. METHODOLOGIES & TOOLS Verified Carbon Standard Plan Vivo Shamba Tool
- 13. 13 Verified Carbon Standard - World’s leading voluntary GHG program - Methodological development - Registry of credits - Independent auditing - Often combined with ‘secondary standards’ for additional co-benefits
- 14. 14 Verified Carbon Standard • Agricultural Land Management – “Eligible ALM activities are those that reduce net GHG emissions on croplands and grasslands by increasing C stocks in soils and woody biomass and/or decreasing CO2, N2O and or CH4 emissions from soils.” – Improved Cropland Management – Improved Grassland Management – Cropland and Grassland Land-use Conversions
- 15. 15 Plan Vivo Standard • Community-led design • Writing plan vivos and quantifying carbon services • PES agreements, ex-ante credits • Monitoring and payments How does Plan Vivo work?
- 16. 16 Case Study – Trees for Hope • Dowa & Neno, Malawi • First sale in 2012 • Think about business plan, marketing strategy and diversity of buyers from an early stage • Market now requiring product differentiation, quantification of co-benefits, good marketing materials (videos, farmer profiles, newsletters, project visits) and quick response times to serve the needs of buyers effectively • With average $7/tCO2 these organisations need diverse income streams now (consultancy, research projects, additional grants, etc) • Co-benefits: reducing soil erosion, improving soil fertility and limiting deforestation
- 17. 17 Shamba Tool • Aim: to develop a GHG accounting approach for CSA that is accessible to non-specialists and applicable across various land use interventions • Based on RothC model • Plan Vivo-approved approach
- 18. 18 Other relevant standards • American Carbon Registry • The Gold Standard • Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard (secondary standard)
- 19. BARRIERS TO ACCESS CARBON MARKETS The barriers of ‘A’ in AFOLU Ways to address barriers
- 20. 20 The barriers of ‘A’ in AFOLU • Mitigation potential of smallholder farmers at individual level from CA activities is low (if any) (~0.79-8.51 tCO2/year/hectare) • Aggregation is required, which increases transaction costs • Decline of voluntary and compliance market prices leads to an over-supply of credits, price goes ↓ • Non-permanence risk buffers can be very high • Complex MRV requirements with higher costs related to soil carbon • Below-ground carbon increases take time
- 21. 21 Ways to Address Barriers • Standardised baselines aim to remove some of the technical burden with PDD development • Programmatic / Grouped approach • Bilateral & multi-lateral funding to ‘kickstart’ carbon markets
- 22. 22 CA in the integrated landscape • Upstream/downstream suite of integrated land use planning interventions • Potential for payments for ecosystem services (not just Carbon) • REDD+ pilot projects use improved agriculture as an activity to relieve pressure on forest
- 23. Riparian areas Intensify agriculture, irrigation Sloped areas Terracing, A/R on riverbanks Sustainable land management Grass strips: Napier grass Rainwater harvesting structures River bank protection Enhancing soil fertility Mulching & manuring Legume inter-planting Sasakawa planting Conservation agriculture Improved planting & seed Small-scale irrigation Homestead garden development Forest restoration Supporting activities (VSL, capacity) Integrated Land Use Planning example
- 24. 1) Name one carbon standard 2) Name one step of the project development cycle 3) Name one barrier for the ‘A’ in AFOLU
- 26. 26 VCS Eligible ALM Activities 1. Improved Cropland Management – Practices that reduce net GHG emissions of cropland systems by increasing soil carbon stocks, reducing soil N2O emissions, and/or reducing CH4 emissions
- 27. 27 VCS Eligible ALM Activities 2. Improved Grassland Management – Practices that reduce net GHG emissions of grassland systems by increasing soil carbon stocks, reducing soil N2O emissions, and/or reducing CH4 emissions
- 28. 28 VCS Eligible ALM Activities 3. Cropland and Grassland Land-use Conversions – Practices that convert cropland to grassland or grassland to cropland and reduce net GHG emissions of grassland systems by increasing soil carbon stocks, reducing soil N2O emissions, and/or reducing CH4 emissions
Editor's Notes
- Leakage Activities to mitigate leakage and sustainably reduce deforestation and/or forest or wetland degradation are encouraged and may include the establishment of agricultural intensification practices on non-wetlands, lengthened fallow periods, agroforestry and fast-growing woodlots on degraded land, forest under-story farming, ecotourism and other sustainable livelihood activities, sustainable production of non-timber forest products, and/or sustainable aquaculture. Leakage management zones can minimize the displacement of land use activities to areas outside the project area by maintaining the production of goods and services, such as agricultural products, within areas under the control of the project proponent or by addressing the socio-economic factors that drive land use change. Non-permanence risk Projects with tree harvesting shall demonstrate that the permanence of their carbon stock is maintained and shall put in place management systems to ensure the carbon against which VCUs are issued is not lost during a final cut with no subsequent replanting or regeneration. WRC projects shall demonstrate that the permanence of their soil carbon stock will be maintained.
- Improved Cropland Management a) Soil carbon stocks can be increased by practices that increase residue inputs to soils and/or reduce soil carbon mineralization rates. Such practices include, but are not limited to, the adoption of no-till, elimination of bare fallows, use of cover crops, creation of field buffers (eg, windbreaks or riparian buffers), use of improved vegetated fallows, conversion from annual to perennial crops and introduction of agroforestry practices on cropland. Where perennial woody species are introduced as part of cropland management (eg, field buffers and agroforestry), carbon sequestration in perennial woody biomass may be included as part of the ALM project. b) Soil N2O emissions can be reduced by improving nitrogen fertilizer management practices to reduce the amount of nitrogen added as fertilizer or manure to targeted crops. Examples of practices that improve efficiency while reducing total nitrogen additions include improved application timing (eg, split application), improved formulations (eg, slow release fertilizers or nitrification inhibitors) and improved placement of nitrogen. c) Soil CH4 emissions can be reduced through practices such as improved water management in flooded croplands (in particular flooded rice cultivation), through improved management of crop residues and organic amendments and through the use of rice cultivars with lower potential for CH4 production and transport. Improved Grassland Management a) Soil carbon stocks can be increased by practices that increase belowground inputs or decrease the rate of decomposition. Such practices include increasing forage productivity (eg, through improved fertility and water management), introducing species with deeper roots and/or more root growth and reducing degradation from overgrazing. b) Soil N2O emissions can be reduced by improving nitrogen fertilizer management practices on grasslands as set out in Section 4.2.2 (1)(b) above. c) N2O and CH4 emissions associated with burning can be reduced by reducing the frequency and/or intensity of fire. d) N2O and CH4 emissions associated with grazing animals can be reduced through practices such as improving livestock genetics, improving the feed quality (eg, by introducing new forage species or by feed supplementation) and/or by reducing stocking rates Cropland and Grassland Land-use Conversions a) The conversion of cropland to perennial grasses can increase soil carbon by increasing belowground carbon inputs and eliminating and/or reducing soil disturbance. Decreases in nitrogen fertilizer and manure applications resulting from a conversion to grassland may also reduce N2O emissions. b) Conversion of drained, farmed organic or wetland soils to perennial non-woody vegetation, where there is substantial reduction or elimination of drainage, is an eligible practice but shall follow both the WRC and ALM requirements. c) Grassland conversions to cropland production (eg, introducing orchard crops or agroforestry practices on degraded pastures) may increase soil and biomass carbon stocks. Only conversions where the crop in the project activity does not qualify as forest are included under ALM. Land conversions of cropland or grassland to forest vegetation are considered ARR activities. Projects that convert grasslands shall demonstrate that they do not have a negative impact on local ecosystems as set out in Section 3.1.6 Note - Project activities relating to manure management are eligible under sectoral scope 15 (livestock, enteric fermentation, and manure management), not sectoral scope 14 (AFOLU).
- Community-led design Plan Vivo project design is community-led. Communities decide which land use activities (e.g. woodlots, agroforestry, forest conservation) will best address threats to local ecosystems and are of interest and value to them. Eligible activities (for generating Plan Vivo Certificates) are afforestation and agroforestry, forest conservation, restoration and avoided deforestation. Writing plan vivos and quantifying carbon services Each ‘producer’ or ‘producer group’ (where the land is communally owned or managed) writes their own ‘plan vivo’, a land-management plan laying out activities to be implemented. Each participant or group adapts their activities to their own circumstances and priorities, creating diverse interventions across the landscape. Each plan vivo is checked by the project coordinator to check it is realistic and in line with technical requirements, and will support the participant’s livelihood objectives. Using the project’s approved technical specification (which includes a methodology for calculating carbon sequestered or emissions avoided), the carbon services generated from each plan vivo are calculated. PES agreements (‘payments for ecosystem services’) Producers/groups enter into written agreements with the project coordinator, who agree to make staged payments and provide continued technical support. Monitoring and payments The project coordinator monitors plan vivos over time. When participants meet agreed monitoring targets, a payment can be made, providing continued incentives. Monitoring indicators should be simple and cost-effective to measure, and enable technical functions to take place at a local level.
- Trees of Hope encourages farmers to plant trees (e.g. gliricidia sepium) through providing strategic land use systems which reduces deforestation and allows rural Malawians to profit from sequestered CO2 in the form of carbon credit sales. With extra income generated through the Trees of Hope program, rural smallholder farmers can gain access to things such as livestock, transportation, household improvements, savings, and pay for an education for their children. What have farmers used the carbon payments for? Opened bank accounts, livestock (e.g. pigs, goats), solar PV panel, school fees, etc. Intercrop mango orchard with groundnuts https://www.clintonfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/25/how-farmers-are-benefiting-carbon-credits-nine-photos In 2012, the Trees of Hope program made its first seven sales of carbon offsets, totaling 8,950 tons and providing $39,380 in income for farmers. Already sequestered 200,000 tons of CO2 In addition to its economic benefits, the Trees of Hope project has been able to alleviate threats to the local ecosystem. The trees contribute to reducing soil erosion by checking run off, improving soil fertility by increasing bio-diversity, and limiting deforestation through improved land management strategies. Furthermore, the Trees of Hope project decreases the population’s vulnerability to climate change not only with benefits derived from the tree-based land use systems, but also through increased income from the sale of Plan Vivo carbon certificates.
- American Carbon Registry The ACR has prioritized AFOLU as a means to incentivize large-scale emission reduction opportunities that can simultaneously alleviate poverty, enhance food security, and mitigate the impacts of climate change on the world’s poorest populations. The full scope of CSA related activities are eligible under the ACR. However utilisation of the standard by project developers in Sub-Saharan Africa has been limited by the lack of published methodologies relevant to smallholder CSA activities. CCBS The CCB standards were developed specifically to address the social and environmental risks and opportunities of land management projects. This makes the standards of particular relevance to CSA. Adherence with the standards provides a safeguard against the social and environmental risks of land management project implementation such as involuntary resettlement, respecting indigenous peoples and local communities customary and statutory rights to lands, territories and resources. It also acts as a verification tool to credit buyers that project developer’s claims of co-benefit generation are justified.
- Standardised approaches, such as common practice tests, with clearly defined thresholds for adoption are considered to be more streamlined, transparent and objective than case-by-case (project-specific) assessments. Applying a standardised approach to agricultural practices should consider variability within and between regions and industries (for example, differences in agricultural activities that are the result of agro-climatic variability between regions). Standardised approaches may present a risk of non-‘additional’ abatement because of their limited capacity to consider whether an individual landholder would have been likely to undertake the activity in the normal course of business.
- a) Soil carbon stocks can be increased by practices that increase residue inputs to soils and/or reduce soil carbon mineralization rates. Such practices include, but are not limited to, the adoption of no-till, elimination of bare fallows, use of cover crops, creation of field buffers (eg, windbreaks or riparian buffers), use of improved vegetated fallows, conversion from annual to perennial crops and introduction of agroforestry practices on cropland. Where perennial woody species are introduced as part of cropland management (eg, field buffers and agroforestry), carbon sequestration in perennial woody biomass may be included as part of the ALM project. b) Soil N2O emissions can be reduced by improving nitrogen fertilizer management practices to reduce the amount of nitrogen added as fertilizer or manure to targeted crops. Examples of practices that improve efficiency while reducing total nitrogen additions include improved application timing (eg, split application), improved formulations (eg, slow release fertilizers or nitrification inhibitors) and improved placement of nitrogen. c) Soil CH4 emissions can be reduced through practices such as improved water management in flooded croplands (in particular flooded rice cultivation), through improved management of crop residues and organic amendments and through the use of rice cultivars with lower potential for CH4 production and transport.
- a) Soil carbon stocks can be increased by practices that increase belowground inputs or decrease the rate of decomposition. Such practices include increasing forage productivity (eg, through improved fertility and water management), introducing species with deeper roots and/or more root growth and reducing degradation from overgrazing. b) Soil N2O emissions can be reduced by improving nitrogen fertilizer management practices on grasslands as set out in Section 4.2.2 (1)(b) above. c) N2O and CH4 emissions associated with burning can be reduced by reducing the frequency and/or intensity of fire. d) N2O and CH4 emissions associated with grazing animals can be reduced through practices such as improving livestock genetics, improving the feed quality (eg, by introducing new forage species or by feed supplementation) and/or by reducing stocking rates.
- a) The conversion of cropland to perennial grasses can increase soil carbon by increasing belowground carbon inputs and eliminating and/or reducing soil disturbance. Decreases in nitrogen fertilizer and manure applications resulting from a conversion to grassland may also reduce N2O emissions. b) Conversion of drained, farmed organic or wetland soils to perennial non-woody vegetation, where there is substantial reduction or elimination of drainage, is an eligible practice but shall follow both the WRC and ALM requirements. c) Grassland conversions to cropland production (eg, introducing orchard crops or agroforestry practices on degraded pastures) may increase soil and biomass carbon stocks. Only conversions where the crop in the project activity does not qualify as forest are included under ALM. Land conversions of cropland or grassland to forest vegetation are considered ARR activities. Projects that convert grasslands shall demonstrate that they do not have a negative impact on local ecosystems as set out in Section 3.1.6 Note - Project activities relating to manure management are eligible under sectoral scope 15 (livestock, enteric fermentation, and manure management), not sectoral scope 14 (AFOLU).