CFI Projects Webinar – 28th July 2014

CFI Projects Webinar – 28th July 2014
Introduction – Rob Asselman
Avoided Deforestation – Christian Dannecker
Forest Regeneration - Ben Keogh
Savanna Burning – Phillip Toyne
Question – Hosted by Josh Harris
myCFI has been developed by Climate Friendly and supported by funding from the Australian Government
1
2
Experience with the
development of REDD projects
under the CFI
CFI Webinar 28 July 2014
South Pole Carbon, 2014
Christian Dannecker, Director of Forestry
South Pole – developing solutions worldwide
Head office
Satellite office
Local presence
• 2006: Incorporation in
Zurich / Switzerland
• 2014: 14 offices
worldwide
• 2011/12/13/14: Best
Project Developer*
London
• Swiss Social
Beijing
Zurich
Entrepreneur of the Year
2011**
Taipei
New Delhi
Mexico City
Kampala
• Over 90 carbon pros from
Hanoi
22 countries
Bangkok
• Projects in over twenty
Medellin
countries
Jakarta
Rio de Janeiro
Johannesburg
Melbourne
Sydney
• Specialized in projects
with substantial social
and environmental
cobenefits
4
Background and overview
• CFI formally not impacted by the recent abolishment of the carbon tax
• Its “replacement”, the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF), is not there yet and of
•
•
course there is price uncertainty
Therefore pricing will either move from 23 to 0 AUD on 2 February or to anywhere
from 2-15 AUD under the ERF
If your REDD project does not get started with the below process in the next 3-5
weeks, you will most likely not sell any carbon at 23 AUD.
CFI project
cycle
ACCU
estimate
CFI
registration
Monitoring
design
and data
collection
Offset
Report
Project registration
External
Verifier
visit
Certificate
of
entitlement
from CFI
Regulator
Sale of
ACCUs
ACCU issuance
(
= South Pole Group Services)
5
Native Forest Protection
Landowners or long-term leaseholders can be compensated for not executing rights to clear
native forests on their property
6
Are you eligible?
1. Only land that is forest following the Australian forest definition:
Vegetation of woody plants above 2m height, covering with its canopy ≥ 20% of the
ground.
2. Only forest that has met this definition continuously, without interruption, from
1989 to 2014
3. Rights to convert to cropland or grassland have been issued by 1 July 2010 and
therefore if you are not on the list, you won’t get REDD CFIs.
4. Property Vegetation Plan (PVP) specifies the tree species and the tree size which
can be felled. The carbon in these trees is calculated to determine the emissions
that are avoided.
You have to agree to:
- Keep the forest standing for 100 years
- manage the native forest in order to achieve a mix of native trees, shrubs and
understorey species
7
Specifications and some lessons learnt
1. Carbon pools that are eligible: AGB, BGB, emissions from biomass burning.
1. A Clearing Buffer must be defined in compliance with the PVP (e.g. “20% of managed land
must be retained under native vegetation cover”). This can be vegetation that has not
continuously met the forest definition
2. A Deforestation Plan must be created, outlining the scenario of forest clearing in absence of
a carbon project. It shows in detail where which clearing method would be applied in order to
show economic viability of forest clearing.
3. Biomass in the forest must be measured in a biomass survey campaign: Plan for at least 4
weeks full work of team >6 people. Assure good trip logistics with back office support!
4. Mathematical models for calculating biomass measurements from DBH & Height must be
developed specific to each project: Allometric Equations = Destructive Sampling & statistic
know-how. A destructive sampling campaign may involve a team of five working for two
weeks cutting down 100 trees to be measured.
2, 3 + 4 mean work in Geographic Information Software.
4 + 5 must meet stringent statistical requirements of the CFI methodology.
5 is a lot of hard work and the summer is coming…so start soon.
8
Example:
Sunset Ranch Native Forest
Protection Project
Coolabah NSW
Analysis of stable forest between
1989 and 2012 from AUS government
data =
8.500 ha forest of 15.000 ha property
Mapping of Carbon Estimation Area &
Clearing Buffer according to CFI and PVP
Distribution of over 100 biomass survey plots
over property with random number algorithm
Biomass survey conducted by field teams in
6 weeks on site
Development of local biomass models for
local tree species
Approximately 100 tCO2e per hectare of
forest
Verification concluded in June 2014
9
Thank you
Christian Dannecker
Director Forestry and land use, South Pole Group
[email protected]
www.southpolecarbon.com
+61 434 707 019
Our services for Landowners
• Tailor-made ACCU estimates for your property and your potential in CFI
• Consulting on business plan and feasibility of a project with expected costs and
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
returns
Mapping and stratification based on high resolution satellite images for your
property
Registration of your company / property as an eligible offset entity under CFI
Vegetation biomass estimates and Biomass surveys
Selection of best service – lowest price quotations of an independent auditor
Offset Report development
Supervision of Verification process till successful issuance of credits
Sales at maximized volume / price ratios of your carbon credits
10
11
Natural Forest Regeneration and
the CFI
MY CFI webinar
28th July 2014
Ben Keogh - Managing Director
Australian Carbon Traders
12
Human-Induced Regeneration of a
Permanent Even-Aged Native Forest—1.1
• Designed to be a simple methodology to
capture rapid re-growth following extensive
rains in 2010-2011
• Aimed at Mulga rangelands
• Mulga requires 1-2 years of wetter than a
average years to successfully regenerate
• Young Mulga is preferred by grazing sheep and
goats - less palatable to cattle
13
Key Eligibility
• Zero baseline
– No forest (2m and 20%) 10 years before project start
date
• Project Mechanism and start date
– Prior 1 Jan 2013 - Non Kyoto ACCU
– Post 1 Jan 2013 - Kyoto ACCU
– Must have a documented change in management
(project mechanism) that leads to regeneration
• E.g. removal of grazing, suspension of clearing
• If grazing - grazing must be excluded until forest is 2m and
20%
14
Project development
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identify project Mechanism
Identify Project area boundaries
Identify CEAs
Identify areas of regeneration in CEA
Identify exclusion zones
Establish monitoring régime
Gain necessary approvals ( state govt,
financiers, Indigenous groups)
15
A
C
B
A) Forest extent prior to project
start date and during baseline
B) B) AND Forest Extent in 1989
C) What's left is area of potential
regeneration
Monitoring has to identify
regeneration areas that meet the
definition of a CEA
(RMT results X CEA area )- emissions
= ACCU
16
Project Monitoring
– Fuel usage
– Grazing records
– Regeneration event(s)
– Stem densities /height ( to prove regeneration)
– Change in management ( don’t act on right to
clear, destocking, feral animal control)
17
Example – western NSW
• Project Mechanism – control of feral and domestic grazing
pressures ( goats and sheep)
• Stock removed in 2007 - cannot be returned until forest
cover attained
• Ongoing control of goats ( water point traps) since 2007
• Regeneration began in 2008 but became widespread in Feb
2010 following rains
• Baseline
– February 2000 to February 2010
• All stands 2m and 20% at Feb 2010 ineligible
• Change in carbon
– New stands over 2 and 20 and 0.2ha
18
Comparison 1
Similar areas in 2007 (left) and 2010 (right). The heavily eroded and overgrazed condition
on the left (2007) has been transformed by rain and reduced grazing. Due to the rain and
reduced grazing pressure what would have taken years has occurred in months.
19
Comparison 2
2008 - denuded and no regeneration
2010 Mulga regenerating
The image on the left is a typical area in 2008; a similar area in 2010 shows the
revegetation as indicated by the red arrows.
20
Comparison 3
The image on the left clearly shows the grazing effect of sheep and goats on the
understorey and lower limbs of the Mulga. The image on the right is an area close by with
Mulga clearly revegetating in the foreground and the recovery of the lower limbs of mature
Mulga in the middle and background .
21
Regenerating Mulga
No seedlings were evident in 2008. In 2010 seedlings were evident 15 – 20 m from
individual trees. In the image on the right the image is of an area (approx 10m2 ) 10m
away from the crown of the parent tree. Not only were isolated seedlings identified
(left image), the image on the right had over 15 individual seedlings (some shown by
the red arrows). Mulga trees were laden with mature seed and seed fall was evident
in abundance on the ground. Further rainfall and favourable conditions and the
continued exclusion of grazing will see a further regeneration of Mulga.
22
Comparison 4
2008
heavily grazed young Mulga
2010
young Mulga growing freely
in absence of grazing
23
No regen around bores Bore
2007
2010
Revegetation is not occurring in heavily denuded areas such as the Bore seen here
in 2007 (left) and 2010 (right). The absence of a mature seed source prevents
regeneration. This is common on all areas of heavy traffic such as yards and water
points. Cleared areas or those without seed source are not regenerating and are
considered exclusion zones
24
Infilling of Mulga forests
The red arrows indicate juvenile Mulga either grown from seedling or 2nd
generation Mulga released through moisture availability and reduced
grazing pressure. The juvenile Mulga is infilling between three patches of
Mulga extending the forest extent (blue arrows).
25
Condition of grazed properties
“grazing line”
An area on a nearby property to the east of Wanaaring showing limited Mulga regeneration.
Sheep and goats were sighted nearby and were clearly grazing the area. Close inspection of
the photo will show that the “grazing line” (red dashed line) or the height which sheep and
goats graze the Mulga up to is defined. Further on ground inspection identified no Mulga
seedlings. The juvenile or 2nd generation Mulga (blue arrows) are clearly grazed and take on a
“pom pom” form. More work will be required to quantify the total effect of grazing and 26
for
refining carbon models.
Summary
• Hierarchy of ease!
– Freehold and non Mortgaged in NSW
• Project Area Boundaries
– Affect monitoring of fuel – losses of timber form other
areas - need to be as tight as possible
• CEA Stratification
–
–
–
–
–
Methodology is prescriptive- nature is chaotic
Requires expert GIS analysis – not for the faint hearted
More CEAs = more models – more records - more costs
Must meet definition of CEA
In QLD must match registered Carbon Rights
27
28
1000mm Rainfall Map
29
30
31

Download Report