Forest Carbon Project Standard v2 - public comment summary and responses

Nmartin

Description

AMERICAN CARBON REGISTRY SUMMARY ANDR ESPONSE TOP UBLIC COMMENTS The ACR Forest Carbon Project Standard v2.0 (FC PwSa)s open for public comment from February 19 through March 15, 2010. Comments were received ifrtroemen thparties: • California Forestry Association • Carbon Project Services LLC • CE2 Capital Partners • Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance • Environmental Capital LLC • Environmental Synergy Inc. • Equator LLC • Finite Carbon LLC • Forest Carbon Offsets LLC • Rainforest Alliance SmartWood Program • Sun One Solutions • Tatanka Resources LLC • TerraCarbon LLC The comments are provided anonymously below, gro ubpye dtopical area, along with ACR’s response to each comment. For all new standards and methodologies, ACR coordeisn aat sequential process of public consultation and scientific peer review. Many of the public comnmts ebelow were incorporated to improve FtChPeS v2.0 prior to scientific peer review. Additional changesr ew made as a result of peer review. The final FCPS v2.0, published in June 2010, thus reflects publinc tsc oamnmd escientific peer review comments. Peer review comments and ACR’s responses to those sauremmarized separately. A. Definitions and Process ....................................................................................................................... 2 B. Additionality................................................................................................................. ...

Informations

• Publié par: Odri
• Nombre de lectures: 23
• Langue: English

Extrait

A MERICAN C ARBON R EGISTRY   S UMMARY AND R ESPONSE TO P UBLIC C OMMENTS  

  The ACRForest Carbon Project Standard v2.0 (FCPS)was open for public comment from February 19 through March 15, 2010. Comments were received from thirteen parties:    California Forestry Association    Carbon Project Services LLC    CE2 Capital Partners    Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance    Environmental Capital LLC    Environmental Synergy Inc.   Equator LLC    Finite Carbon LLC Forest Carbon Offsets LLC       Rainforest Alliance SmartWood Program    Sun One Solutions   Tatanka Resources LLC    TerraCarbon LLC The comments are provided anonymously below, grouped by topical area, along with ACR’s response to each comment. For all new standards and methodologies, ACR coordinates a sequential process of public consultation and scientific peer review. Many of the public comments below were incorporated to improve theFCPS v2.0prior to scientific peer review. Additional changes were made as a result of peer review. The final FCPS v2.0, published in June 2010, thus reflects public comments and scientific peer review comments. Peer review comments and ACR’s responses to those are summarized separately.     A. Definitions and Process ..........................................................................................................................2 B. Additionality............................................................................................................................................ 6  C. Permanence / Risk Mitigation ................................................................................................................9 D. Minimum Project Term and Crediting Period.......................................................................................18 E. Aggregation; Programmatic Approach .................................................................................................20 F. Baselines and Leakage ..........................................................................................................................23 G. Land Eligibility and Eligible Land Ownership ........................................................................................24 H. Legal Agreements ................................................................................................................................. 25  I. Community & Environmental Impacts .................................................................................................26 J. Verification............................................................................................................................................ 27  K. Miscellaneous ....................................................................................................................................... 28   

2121 Crystal Drive, Suite 500 Arlington, Virginia 22202

 

www.americancarbonregistry.org  

A. Definitions and Process    Comment Response 1 Use of the term Certification. We believe this ACR has chosen vocabulary in theCR Standard   term can be confused with issuance of CDM andFCPScarefully to minimize confusion. ACR CERs or even forest certification programs suchapprovesnew methodologies,certifiesGHG as FSC or SFI. Therefore, we suggest a term Project Plans, and requiresverificationof similar to Eligibility Screening as a way to projects by a third party. ACR does not require describe this step. We also recognize that the  third-party validation because the ACR “certification” appears to be a validation of the certification process includes a detailed and GHG project plan by the ACR program. While rigorous screening by ACR of the GHG Project we support the approach, we would like to see Plan against theACR Standard, any applicable the requirements of the GHG plan for initial sector- specific standard, and the chosen screening be reduced, such as only a disclosure methodology, and because ACR does require of which methodology will be used, rather than third-party verification. a a l   l f o ul w l    a g p re pl a i t c e a r t   i f o le n x   i o b f  il t i h ty e     t m o  e t t h h e o  l d a o n l d o o gy w .  n T e h r is  n w d i   ll  Per the ACR Standard, Certification is “the result project developer when tiating cont   r a acts.  of a successful screening by ACR of a GHG  Furthermold v n e e r g y o  much like to s Project Plan. Prior to certification, ACR may  ee projects th r a e t  ,  p w as e  s  w th o e u  “eligibility screening” to  request corrections or clarifications to the GHG  be officially listed on the ACR website prior to  P P r r o o j j e e c c t t     P P l l a a n n .     c C o e m rt p if l i i c e a s  ti w o i n t   h c   o A n C f R ir  s m ta s  n t d h a a r t  d t s h   e a   n G d, H  i G f    issuance of ERTs. This would also allow the project proponent greater flexibility to market  t d h u e ri   n Pr g  o p je r c o t j   e P c r t  o i p m o p n l e e n m t  e f n o t ll a o ti w o s n     t a h n e  d p   l m an o   n f i a t i o t r h i f n u g lly  offsets prior to full registration.  and secures a positive independent verification , ,     the Proponent will ultimately be able to register the project’s GHG reductions/removals on ACR. Because ACR carefully screens and certifies every GHG Project Plan as meeting all relevant ACR requirements, and requires third-party verification, ACR does not require a separate third-party validation of the GHG Project Plan.” Disclosure of which methodology will be applied is not sufficient for eligibility screening. Per the definition above, eligibility screening includes a review against all applicable ACR criteria, leading to certification. If ACR significantly reduced the scope of our screening and certification, ACR would then likely need to require validation, increasing the overall project development cost to Proponents. ACR already offers an optional early registration. A project whose GHG Project Plan has been certified by ACR, but which has not yet been verified, may be listed on ACR as “pending verification and issuance.” If a Proponent elects this option, ACR lists the project on the registry   www.americancarbonregistry.org   

2121 Crystal Drive, Suite 500 Arlington, Virginia 22202

 

2

3

4

Comment

Response and posts such project information at the Proponent chooses. No ERTs are issued until the GHG reductions/removals have actually occurred and been verified. Definition of Reforestation Project. The 50 year There is no 50-year threshold for reforestation. threshold for reforestation is significantly TheFCPSpublic comment draft included longer than most project standards such as definitions of afforestation and reforestation, VCS, CDM, or CAR, which is 10 years. We which may have created confusion, but the believe if a landowner were going to distinction was not an operational one since ACR regenerate a stand without the carbon market, accepts both afforestation and reforestation and they would have done so within a 10-year does not have any 50-year requirement. The window. Therefore, one clarification that canFCPSclarifies that both afforestation and be made in the Standard is that any land that reforestation (AR) are eligible activities, and the was not forested for more than 10-years for only requirement is that the Project Proponent any reason, including failure to regenerate after document that project areas have not been harvesting, is eligible provided there was no cleared of trees during the last 10 years in order legal requirement to do so. 10 years rather to implement an AR project. This exclusion does than 50 years should incentivize many not apply to fire or natural disturbances, nor to landowners to acquire understocked lands and removal of non-tree vegetation as part of site replant with the help of carbon offset preparation. revenues. Direct Emission Criteria. Within the criteria The original text, “Proponent shall own or have requirement there seems to be contradiction control for the life-of-project over the GHG with the definition of project proponent. We sources and/or sinks from which the reduction suggest inserting the definition of project or removals originate” did not signify that the proponent found on page 16 of the standard Proponent must own the project lands; only that into the requirement cell. the Proponent must document that land title, offset title, and control over GHG sources and sinks is clear, unique and uncontested. This has been clarified in theFCPS. Annual Attestation. Whereas ACR will issue Per theCR Standard,ACR requires both the ERTs following a review of the Attestation, it Project Proponent's annual attestation, and seems confusing to also state under B. Desk- verification – a desk-based audit or full field based Verification on Request for New Issuance verification, as the case may be – in order to that the Project Proponent must submit a continue crediting. TheFCPSclarifies that the verification statement that is the product of a Project Proponent's annual attestation confirms desk-based audit by an ACR-approved verifier the continuance of project activities, confirms to receive issuance of ERTs. Clarification on this that ownership remains clear and uncontested, point would be helpful. discloses any negative environmental or community impacts or claims of negative environmental and community impacts and documents plans to mitigate any reported negative environmental or community impacts, and addresses any significant change in external conditions that would affect the quality or

2121 Crystal Drive, Suite 500 Arlington, Virginia 22202

 www.americancarbonregistry.org  

  5

6 7

Comment Response environmental integrity of the project. Methodology Approach vs. Protocol Approach. ACR publishes general and sector-specific Methodology development add significant standards, and provides flexibility in costs and time to overall project development, methodology choice by allowing Proponents to and [commenter] sees the US following a use an ACR-published methodology, use an protocol approach in the longer-term. Unless approved CDM methodology, submit an existing ACR plans to take some of the “methodologies” methodology from another GHG program for that are reportedly under ACR development ACR approval, modify an existing methodology, already and make them similar in nature to or develop a new methodology and submit it for standard protocols, then methodology approval. All new methodologies and development may end up being a bottleneck in substantive modifications, whether developed the ACR system. We would be curious to how by ACR or by Proponents, undergo ACR’s public you see ACR’s methodology approach being as consultation and scientific peer review process. efficient as CCX’s and CAR’s protocol approaches.  s A t C a R n ’ d s  a m rd e i t z h e o d  d m ol e o t g h i o es d  i o n l   o d g e ie v s e , l   o av p a m il e a n b t l   e a  f r o e  r  a u ll s   eby    any project meeting methodology applicability conditions. Some apply a performance standard approach and others do not. ACR’s public consultation and scientific peer review process is generally significantly more efficient and quicker than the protocol development process of other comparable registries. For example CAR’s process involves scoping and issue papers for new protocols, followed by establishment of a protocol stakeholder workgroup that deliberates for months or years. The VCS process involves a double validation generally requiring 1-2 years. In contrast ACR’s process takes a matter of months, and no Project Proponent is obligated to wait for ACR to develop a methodology (since Proponents have the option of submitting their own methodology to ACR for approval). A definition has been added.

Chapter 3.C: Please better define “Programmatic Project Development Approach” either in the text or add to the Definitions Section as this term is not industry standard. “Forest” definition needs to specifically exclude ACR disagrees with a categorical exclusion of oil palm and other biofuels. biofuels. As needed ACR will adopt sustainability criteria for biofuels, which would exclude forest carbon projects that promote unsustainable production of biofuels. ACR also requires all GHG Project Plans and annual attestations to address

2121 Crystal Drive, Suite 500 Arlington, Virginia 22202

 www.americancarbonregistry.org  

 Comment

Response community and environmental impacts. However a categorical exclusion of biofuels from the “forest” definition risks excluding sustainable biofuels projects with significant GHG benefits and positive community and environmental co- benefits. 8 There are multiple references to the GHGFCPShas been clarified. A GHG Project Plan is Project Plan throughout the document. There is the only type of Project Document ACR currently a definition for it as well. In Table 1, Chapter 3, accepts, so the separate definition of Project there is a definition for Project Document Document has been dropped. which is a lot like the definition for GHG Project Plan in the definition section. After Table 1, Project Document is not mentioned in the document. Are you really meaning GHG Project Plan? 9 There is a definition of Crediting Period. It Added. would be useful to also include one for Minimum Project Term. 10 (Rather than current definition of CCBA) The The definition of CCBA has been clarified. following text better characterizes the CCB Because CCB Standards address only the Standards and the CCBA: community and biodiversity impacts of a project, Climate, Community & Biodiversity (CCB)  not its GHG reductions or removals, validation Standards. The CCB Standards are published by  n a o n t d     s v a e t r i i s f f i y c   a A ti C o R n  r  a e g q a u i i n r s e t  m t e h n e  t C s  C fo B  r  S r t e a g n is d t a e r r d i s n   g d   o G e H s  G  the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA), a partnership of international NGOs  emission reductions/removals. seeking to foster the development of forest protection and restoration activities around the world that deliver significant climate, community and biodiversity benefits. The CCB Standards include requirements to ensure that local people are engaged in the design and implementation of emissions reductions activities and that they and their natural environment benefit from these activities. Validation and verification against the CCB Standards does not satisfy ACR requirements for carbon accounting, but does satisfy the Community and Environmental Impacts requirements of the ACR, and projects may choose to pursue approval against the CCB Standards to complement registration on the ACR. 11 It would be useful to include clarification of This process is detailed in theCR Standard.The ‘ACR’s public consultation and scientific peer ACR process emphasizes full transparency: all 2121 Crystal Drive, Suite 500www.americancarbonregistry.org    Arlington, Virginia 22202

 Comment Response review process’. For example, what period is public comments and peer review comments are required for public comments, how are made public (though without disclosing the scientific peers identified, whether the public identity of public commenters and peer comments and peer reviews must be made reviewers). ACR, though it may not incorporate public and how ACR will respond to them etc. all public and peer review comments, responds to all comments. 12 Referring to “A list of presumptively approved This text has been revised in theFCPSas methodologies is on the ACR website at published. ACR does presumptively approve www.americancarbonregistry.org. some methodologies, which have gone through Methodologies in this list are presumptively public comment and/or peer review under the approved because they have been approved for applicable programs. If there is any doubt use by these programs, because they were whether public consultation and peer review authored by Winrock technical staff and have under the applicable program is sufficient to been successfully peer reviewed, or because meet ACR’s requirements, and always in the case they have been reviewed and found to reflect of new methodologies or methodology best practice in GHG accounting based on modifications, ACR coordinates its own public currently available science. If a Project consultation and scientific peer review process. Proponent wishes to apply an existing   methodology not included on this list, the Proponent should submit the methodology for review by ACR’s methodology review committee, at currently published fees. The committee will assess the methodology and determine whether it is approved for use without modifications, approved contingent on certain modifications, or not approved ” . This text does not refer to public consultation. Does that mean that public consultation is not always part of the process and has not been used for the methodologies just approved?   B.   Additionality    Comment Response 1 In chapter 4 of the standard, there are ACR agrees with the commenter that except in references to the need to demonstrate that the case of projects with a Start Date before “GHG mitigation was an objective from project November 1, 1997, it is not necessary to require inception” (chapter 4, section A), and that the the Project Proponent to document that GHG purpose of the additionality tests is to “help mitigation was an objective from project ACR to determine whether realizing a GHG inception, only to document that the activity emissions reduction/removal goal was a passes ACR’s additionality tests. Meeting these reason, even if only one among many, for tests (either the regulatory surplus plus implementing the project activity” (chapter 4, performance standard approach, or the three- section B). As stated in your definition of prong test) is sufficient to demonstrate that the

2121 Crystal Drive, Suite 500 Arlington, Virginia 22202

 www.americancarbonregistry.org  

 

2

3

Comment Response additionality, the decisive factor is whether the project activity is additional. TheFCPShas been project reductions/removals ‘would have modified accordingly. occurred in the absence of the project activity and without carbon market incentives.’ We  Projects with a Start Date earlier than November suggest that this point is clarified in chapter 4,  a 1, n     1 o 9 ri 9 g 7 i   n m al u  o st b   j s e ti c ll t   i d ve o . c   ument GHG mitigation as  sections A and B (with the emphasis on carbon market incentives, not GHG mitigation objectives or goals). This point could also be clarified in ACR’s additionality test in Table 2 with respect to implementation barriers (currently, the question of carbon market incentives is raised only in the analysis of financial and institutional barriers, it should also be raised in the analysis of technological barriers). Additionality testing should be completed on This is correct. TheFCPSclarifies that Project the basis of conditions and evidence existing as Proponents must demonstrate in the GHG Project of the project inception date. Plan that, as of the project Start Date, the project activities exceed currently effective and enforced laws and regulations, exceed common practice in the relevant geographic region and forest type, and face at least one of three implementation barriers. This section allows a project proponent to The common practice component of the three- demonstrate additionality through a three- prong test and the performance standard prong approach or through a Performance approach to additionality are separate and Standard. However, it is still unclear what ACR distinct. ACR allows Project Proponents to would accept as a Performance Standard for demonstrate additionality using the three-prong Improved Forest Management (IFM), especially test, and the finalFCPSclarifies that Project since the Common Practice Test in the three- Proponents should document common practice prong approach is already very similar to a forest management in the same region, forest Performance Standard. We would like ACR to type, and by similar landowners, e.g. through further define Common Practice and identify forest management plans or the opinions of what scientific data or processes would be forestry consultants. a W cc e  e b p e t l a ie bl v e e     a t s h   e a  b Perf t  o m rm ec a h n a c n e i   s St m a  f n o d r a   r e d s   t f a o b r l   i I s F h M in .  g  The FCPSalso provides additional guidance on Common Practi   ce e   s and a Performance Standard  which types of performance standards will be  is the use of quantitative data such as the U.S.  acceptable to ACR. A “common practice” or performance standard baseline based solely on For c e e s s t s  S ar e y r , v   i s c u e p  F p o o r r e t s e t d  I   n by v   e q n u t a o l r it y a   t A i na e l   y d s a i t s, a     a s n u d c   h i   f  average carbon stocks (e.g. derived from FIA) is  n as e  written opinions from forest in v dustry  s n i o g t n   i a fi c c c a e n p t t   a d b a l n e, g   e si r  n o c f e     c t r h e is d   it a i p n p g  r n o o a n c - h a  p d o di s t e i s o   nal professionals familiar with the project region.  activities. ACR has developed and will shortly publish an IFM performance standard methodology.

2121 Crystal Drive, Suite 500 Arlington, Virginia 22202

 

www.americancarbonregistry.org