Base Line Methods Developing Forestry and Bioenergy Projects with CDM Quito, Ecuador March, 2004.
-
Upload
kelly-black -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Base Line Methods Developing Forestry and Bioenergy Projects with CDM Quito, Ecuador March, 2004.
Base Line Methods
Developing Forestry and Bioenergy Projects with CDM
Quito, EcuadorMarch, 2004
Joanneum Research Woodrising Consulting Inc.
2
Overview
• Fundamentals
• COP-9 Decision
• GHGProtocol Approach
• Example
• Project Length and Size
Joanneum Research Woodrising Consulting Inc.
3
Fundamentals• Baseline Scenario
– represents what would have occurred in the absence of the project.
• Baseline Emissions– emissions related to the baseline scenario.
• Emissions and Removals
t
Bk
Δ
ΔEmission -<=>
Joanneum Research Woodrising Consulting Inc.
4
COP-9 DecisionBaseline for LULUCF
22. In choosing a baseline methodology for an afforestation or reforestation project activity under the CDM, project participants shall select from among the following approaches the one deemed most appropriate for the project activity, taking into account any guidance by the Executive Board, and justify the appropriateness of their choice:
(a) Existing or historical, as applicable, changes in carbon stocks in the carbon pools within the project boundary;
(b) Changes in carbon stocks in the carbon pools within the project boundary from a land use that represents an economically attractive course of action, taking into account barriers to investment;
(c) Changes in carbon stocks in the pools within the project boundary from the most likely land use at the time the project starts.
Joanneum Research Woodrising Consulting Inc.
5
Scenario Identification
• Geographic Area• Temporal Range• Candidates
– Status quo– Project– Abandonment– Other use– Performance standard– Later implementation
Joanneum Research Woodrising Consulting Inc.
6
Energy Project
Project
Time
CO
2e
q / O
utp
ut
Status Quo
Performance Standard
Later Implementation
Joanneum Research Woodrising Consulting Inc.
7
LULUCF Project
Project
Time
Bio
mas
s
Status Quo
Abandonment
Later Implementation
Joanneum Research Woodrising Consulting Inc.
8
Scenario EvaluationGHGProtocol Approach
• Barrier Test
• Investment Ranking Test
• Performance Standard
• Most Conservative Scenario– Lowest emissions– Highest biomass
Joanneum Research Woodrising Consulting Inc.
9
Barrier Test
• Identify Barriers– Legal– Financial
• capital, investment risk, opportunity costs
– Technological• knowledge, training, equipment
– Market structure– Social structure– Resource availability
• Qualitatively Evaluate Barriers
Joanneum Research Woodrising Consulting Inc.
10
Barrier Test ExamplePlantations on Cropland
Status Quo Abandon Ranching Project
Legal XFinancial X XTechnology X XMarket XSocial
Resources X X
Joanneum Research Woodrising Consulting Inc.
11
Investment Ranking Test
• Financial Analysis– Capital requirement– Internal rate of return (IRR)– Payback– Sensitivity to Assumptions
Joanneum Research Woodrising Consulting Inc.
12
Investment Ranking ExamplePlantations on Cropland
Status Quo Abandon Ranching Project
Capital without CDM
$500 0 $250 $1500
Capitalwith CDM
$750
IRRwithout CDM
35% 0% 40% 26%
IRRwith CDM
45%
Paybackwithout CDM
1 year 1.5 years 12 years
Paybackwith CDM
12 years
Joanneum Research Woodrising Consulting Inc.
13
Performance Standard
• Existing Installations
• Historical Land Use Change– Deforestation rates– Reforestation rates– Probability of reforestation
• Geographic Area and Temporal Range
Joanneum Research Woodrising Consulting Inc.
14
Existing Installations
Rank
CO
2e
q / O
utp
ut
Weighted-average
20th percentile
10th percentile
Best practice
Best technology
From GHGProtocol Project Quantification Standard, Road Test Draft, September 2003
Joanneum Research Woodrising Consulting Inc.
15
Probability of Reforestation
( ) ppT
p
T 1--1= yearin ionreforestat of Prob
forest-Non of Area
Reforested AreaAnnual=
Joanneum Research Woodrising Consulting Inc.
16
ProjectPinus radiata
Biomass
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2004 2014 2024 2034 2044 2054 2064 2074 2084 2094 2104
Year
ton
nes
/ h
ecta
re
Cons Landfill
WW Landfill
LLP
SLP
Other Veg
Trees
AG Litter
BG Litter
Roots
Soil
Joanneum Research Woodrising Consulting Inc.
17
Status Quo BaselineGrassland (steady-state)
Biomass
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2004 2014 2024 2034 2044 2054 2064 2074 2084 2094 2104
Year
ton
nes
/ h
ecta
re
Cons Landfill
WW Landfill
LLP
SLP
Other Veg
Trees
AG Litter
BG Litter
Roots
Soil
Joanneum Research Woodrising Consulting Inc.
18
Status Quo BaselineGrassland (cleared in 1989)
Biomass
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080
Year
ton
nes
/ h
ecta
re
Cons Landfill
WW Landfill
LLP
SLP
Other Veg
Trees
AG Litter
BG Litter
Roots
Soil
Joanneum Research Woodrising Consulting Inc.
19
Probabilistic BaselineReforestation rate = 0.01%
Biomass
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2004 2014 2024 2034 2044 2054 2064 2074 2084 2094 2104
Year
ton
nes
/ h
ecta
re
Landfill
LLP
SLP
Other Veg
Trees
AG Litter
BG Litter
Roots
Soil
Joanneum Research Woodrising Consulting Inc.
20
Project Length and Size
• Energy Projects– 7 years, renewable twice– 10 years
• LULUCF Projects– 20 years, renewable twice– 30 years
• Small Scale– Energy projects– LULUCF projects