2nd Public Workshop to
Discuss the CCAR
Draft Updated Forest
Protocol
Focus: Harvested Carbon
Accounting
February 3, 2009
Points to Cover
• Project principles
• Update process
– Workgroup
– Issues addressed
•
•
•
•
Accounting for harvested carbon
De minimus
Other miscellaneous
Timeline
CCAR Project Principles
• Protocols are standardized, performance-based
• Reductions are accurate, conservative (minimize
uncertainty)
• Process is public
• Development is driven through stakeholder
workgroup
• Climate Action Reserve
– Strong Standards
– Independent third-party verification
– Public Registration (serialization, tracking)
Update Process
• ARB sought broader application:
– private commercial forests not associated with a land
trust
– private non-timber forests (oak woodlands)
– public lands
CCAR sought improvements
– Update science
– Better address leakage, permanence, baseline
– Improve guidance for calculations
– Cost-effective methods
– Use outside CA
Forest Protocol Workgroup
• Group size chosen to foster dialogue and be
effective
• Have met at least every 3 weeks since November
2007, in all-day sessions
• CCAR managed process
• Comprised of:
–
–
–
–
–
Private and public landowners, large and small
Environmental organizations
Scientists/Academics
Agencies
Verifiers
Forest Protocol Workgroup
Sub-committee leads
• Improved Forest Management Baseline – Eric Holst, EDF
• Public Lands Forest Management Baseline – Bruce
Goines, USFS
• Reforestation Baseline – Doug Wickizer, CAL FIRE
• Avoided Conversion Baseline – Michelle Passero, TNC
Permanence – Ed Murphy, SPI
• Leakage – Katie Goslee, Winrock
• Co-Benefits – Robert Hrubes, SCS
• Quantification, wood products, de minimus – Tim
Robards, CAL FIRE
Forest Issues Addressed in
Update
Dec 5
Workshop
Today
• Maintain core principles:
– Real, Permanent, Additional, Verifiable, and
Enforceable
• Baseline and additionality
• Risk-management: permanence and
leakage
• Quantification
• Co-benefits
• Harvested carbon accounting
• De minimus
• Miscellaneous other
Accounting for
Harvested Carbon
Guiding Principles to Account
for Harvested Carbon
• The purpose of the inclusion of any carbon pool
(including harvested carbon) is to accurately and
conservatively assess the climate benefits of
forest management activities.
• Forest sector responsible for initial sequestration
of carbon.
• Accounting needs to be accurate and crediting be
conservative.
• Quantification needs to be technically sound.
Forest Workgroup Approach
• Reviewed current treatment of harvested wood
products in existing protocols (CCAR, CCX, DOE
1605b, RGGI, VCS, Duke, Georgia)
• DOE 1605b selected because UNFCCC standard
and comprehensive treatment of
– Chain of Custody
- Basis of Volume Estimation
– Calculation Methodology
- Application to project carbon stocks
• Applied 1605b accounting approach to quantify
life-cycle pools and emissions
Forest Workgroup Approach
• Included wood product approach in both baseline
and project activity quantification.
• Considered improvements to 1605b guidance
where local data support more resolute mill
efficiency and product distribution data.
• Considered national decay rates from 1605b.
• Separated quantification (accounting) from
crediting (policy).
Wood Product Life Cycle –
Multiple Sectors
Imported
wood product
Recycling
Harvested
wood product
Mill
- -term
Short
wood products
Long-term wood
products
Landfill
Landfill
Substitution
Biomass
Forest
Energy
Green Bldg
1605b 100-yr Carbon Trends
100%
96%
Percentage of Carbon Primary Wood Products Remaining in End Uses, Landfills
and End Uses added to Landfills all compared to CO2 remaining in the atmosphere over 100 years
92%
89%
90%
87%
88%
83%
81%
78%
80%
79%
77%
75%
73%
72%
70%
70%
73%
69%
68%
67%
66%
65%
65%
63.9%
39%
40%
40%
40.5%
58%
60%
53%
56%
Percent
50%
70%
65%
66%
60%
71%
49%
53%
46%
50%
48%
46%
40%
45%
43%
42%
27%
29%
31%
40%
40%
39%
43%
40% 38%
30%
41%
32%
33%
34%
36% 36%
38%
38%
37%
35%
34%
32%
30%
25%
20%
38%
38%
29%
27%
37%
37%
26%
25%
22%
19%
14%
10%
8%
Years
0%
0%
Softwood Lumber in End Use & Landfills Combined
CO2 Decay Rate in Atmosphere
Softwood Lumber in End Uses
Softwood Lumber in Landfills
36.4%
23.4%
Softwood
lumber in
landfill + longterm in-use
Landfill
Atmosphere
Softwood
lumber in
long-term
in-use
1605b Cumulative Average Decay
Percentage of Carbon Primary Wood Products Remaining in End Uses, Landfills and End Uses added to Landfills all
compared to CO2 remaining in the atmosphere over 100 years
Percent
Periodic Average Lumber in End Uses & Landfills
100%
76.4%
80%
60%
1
2
40%
3
4
5
47.0%
6
7
8
9
5-Year Periods
10
11
12
13
49.1%
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
20%
0%
Periodic Average Lumber in End Uses
21
Periodic Average Atmosphere
1605b 100-yr Carbon Trends
Cumulative Averages
100%
98%
96%
94%
90%
94%
93%
91%
88%
89%
88%
87%
86%
84%
82%
82%
81%
80%
79%
78%
76%
80%
76.4%
65%
68%
63%
66%
61%
60%
61%
59%
57%
55%
58%
Percent
63%
57%
56%
55%
54%
54%
53%
52%
51%
52%
51%
49%
49.1%
Atmosphere
48%
47.0%
30%
20%
Periodic average % of Carbon in Primary Wood Products Remaining in End Uses only
and End Uses & Landfills as compared to the periodic average CO2 remaining in the atmosphere over 100 years
Years
0%
Periodic Average Lumber in End Uses & Landfills
Periodic Average Atmosphere
Softwood
lumber in
landfill + longterm in-use
50%
50%
40%
10%
77%
70% 67%
71%
60%
78%
73%
75%
70%
50%
83%
80%
86%
80%
84%
Periodic Average Lumber in End Uses
Softwood
lumber in
long-term
in-use
Subcommittee Findings
 Accurate forest project accounting requires the
accounting of harvested carbon in both baseline and
project activity analyses.
 The forest sector must account for all emissions over
a 100-year defined period to address permanency
and transparency issues, even though cross-sector
accounting guidelines have not yet been established
programmatically.
 Accounting and crediting are not the same and
should be separated.
Subcommittee Recommendations
Accounting
 The forest protocols will provide guidance for the
accounting of:
─ Carbon in logs delivered to the mill.
─ Mill efficiencies and products produced within the
assessment area.
─ The 100-year average carbon in use.
─ The100-year average carbon remaining in landfills.
Subcommittee Recommendations
Crediting of Harvested Carbon
 For conservative crediting, crediting will be based on
the 100-year carbon cumulative average of in-use
harvest carbon.
 This includes accounting for mill efficiencies and
product generation for each assessment area.
Crediting DOES NOT include landfill carbon storage.
De Minimus
De minimus
Workgroup Recommendation

Remove determination of de minimus and
deleterious from the protocol.

Pools are either required or optional.
Required/Optional Pools
Forest
Management
Reforestation
Avoided Conversion
Determination of Value
Required
Required1
Required
Sampled in Project
Required
Required1
Required
Calculation based on above
ground sampling
Optional
Required
Optional
Sampled in Project
Standing Dead
Biomass
Required
Required
Required
Sampled in Project
Lying Dead Wood
Optional
Optional2
Optional
Sampled in Project
Litter
Optional
Optional
Optional
Sampled in Project
Soil
Soil3
Optional
Optional
Optional
Sampled in project
Off-site Dead
biomass
Wood Products
Required
NA
Required
Decay calculation from volume of
harvested wood
Category
Carbon Pool
Living
biomass
Above-ground living
Biomass
Below-ground living
biomass
Shrubs and
Herbaceous
Understory
On-site Dead
biomass
1/ Existing trees are not considered a part of a reforestation project but must be tracked over time to keep separate from regeneration. Since residual and new
trees are easy to identify for several decades, this may be done at the first inventory.
2/ Lying dead wood is not a part of a reforestation project, however if the pool is significant and expected to diminish over time then it must be inventoried and is
a required pool.
3/ Soil carbon is not anticipated to change significantly due to forestry activities, however, exceptions may exist including deep ripping or significant soil erosion.
Other Miscellaneous
Other Updates



Project definition clarity
Project start date
Reforestation baseline
Verification Protocol
• Drafted after Forest Project protocol goes
through public review
Comments received by CCAR
to date






Baseline – summarize comments
Additionality – summarize comments
Permanence – summarize comments
Co-benefits – summarize comments
Leakage – summarize comments
Quantification – summarize comments
Timeline
 Public workshop on wood products quantification
and other miscellaneous items on February 3, 2009.
• We are now in an additional two week public
comment period to address wood products or other
protocol issues. Concludes on February 20, 2009
• Comments can be provided online at:
http://www.climateregistry.org/tools/protocols/project
-protocols/forests.html
• Final draft delivered to CCAR on March 8, 2009
• Final Forest Project protocol to CCAR Board in April
2009
Contact
John Nickerson
California Climate Action Registry
[email protected]
707-489-2443
http://www.climateregistry.org/tools/protocols/project-protocols/forests.html