1 / 14

Developing a VCS AFOLU Standard for Peatland Rewetting and Conservation

Explore the need, benefits, and challenges of establishing a standard for peatland projects within the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) AFOLU framework. Learn about peat oxidation, possible project activities, issues, and considerations for emissions reduction and management.

gretchen-morgan
Télécharger la présentation

Developing a VCS AFOLU Standard for Peatland Rewetting and Conservation

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. Towards a VCS AFOLU standard for Peatland Rewetting and Conservation Igino Emmer (Silvestrum) Manuel Estrada (Terra Carbon) Hans Joosten (Greifswald University)

  2. Contents • The need for an international ‘peat standard’ • Issues addressed concerning peat

  3. Why develop a standard? • No international standard specific for peat exists • VCS AFOLU includes ARR, ALM, IFM, REDD • Specific guidance for peat IS needed • EB (47th meeting) has rejected NM0297 "Carbon dioxide and methane emissions avoidance from Block-C, Central Kalimantan” • (a) It cannot be ensured that the baseline GHG emissions related to the above mentioned project activities are of anthropogenic nature; • (b) The permanence of the GHG emission reduction cannot be ensured

  4. The Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) • Global benchmark standard for voluntary carbon projects • Founded by IETA, the WBCSD and the Climate Group • Designed to be as robust as Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), while attempting to reduce costs and bottlenecks • Real, additional, measurable, permanent, independently verified and unique offsets (VCUs)

  5. Why a dedicated AFOLU peat standard? • Peat can represent a carbon pool in ARR, ALM, IFM and REDD, however • The soil carbon pool (peat) is large and potentially dominant vis à vis the other carbon pools • GHG emissions and carbon stock increases largely depend on hydrological conditions • Emission reductions may be achieved that are in a different order of magnitude • Expert group acts as a third party proposing a standard to the VCS

  6. GHG emissions from peatland degradation Peat oxidation due to: • Drainage • Fire • Land uses: • Logging • Agriculture • Peat extraction

  7. VCS-PRC: possible project activities • Peatland rewetting and conservation • ‘Rewetting’ implies the elevation of the average annual water table in drained peatland as a consequence of project activities resulting in reduced net GHG emissions • Additional activities in combination with rewetting and conservation • ARR, ALM, IFM, REDD on peatland • Peatland fire management

  8. Issues regarding PRC project activities • Rewetting: • Resulting CH4, and N2O emissions • Crediting period vs peat depletion time • Hydrological connectivity  leakage and permanence • Fire management: • Baseline setting

  9. Accounting for emissions reductions from rewetting • Current knowledge and experience allow for the development of cost effective and environmentally sound approaches to estimate emissions reductions in peatland projects, e.g.: • Water level/CO2 emissions relationships, remote sensing (soil moisture), peat subsidence/CO2 emissions • Applying conservatively high emissions factors in the project case (e.g. CH4) • Discounting uncertainties from the carbon benefits • Conservatively neglect insignificant emissions in the baseline/reductions in the project case to reduce costs

  10. Issues addressed • Drainage before 1 January 2008: no need to prove that drainage was with the intention to generate carbon credits by rewetting • ARR vs ARRp (etc) • Significance peat >5%  use both ARR and PRC guidance • Peat is dominant source  PRC risk assessment

  11. Issues addressed • Biofuel crop production activities on drained peat are not eligible. Biofuel plus rewetting: use PRC guidance • Drainage of peatland to increase forest productivity is not eligible

  12. Issues addressed • Because reliable onsite monitoring of both N2O emission changes and N input (from artificial fertiliser and manure from grazing animals) is complicated and susceptible to fraud, reducing emissions from N fertilisation on peatland is not eligible for crediting • N-fertiliser application in ALM on peat is not eligible • Upon rewetting, N2O emission will not increase, therefore, ignoring N2O emission implies a conservative approach

  13. Fire management • Only eligible in combination with rewetting • Complicated baseline setting • Pre-defined conservative estimate of emissions from fire in the baseline (25% of total baseline emissions) - conditional • Applying IPCC GL 2006 Tier-3 methods

  14. Thank you Igino Emmer igino.emmer@silvestrum.com Manuel Estrada manuel.estrada@terracarbon.com Hans Joosten joosten@uni-greifswald.de

More Related