Approved VCS ology VM0009 Version 1.1 10 November 2011 Sectoral Scope 14 Approved VCS ology VM0003 Version 1.2 29 August 2013 Sectoral Scope 14 ology for Improved Forest Management Through Extension of Rotation Age IFM ERA 2012 Ecotrust VM0003, Version 1.2 Sectoral Scope 14 Copyright 2012 Ecotrust 2 ology developed by 721 NW Ninth Ave, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97209 www.ecotrust.org VM0003, Version 1.2 Sectoral Scope 14 Copyright 2012 Ecotrust 3 Table of Contents 1 SOURCES . 5 2 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE OLOGY . 5 3 DEFINITIONS 5 4 APPLICABILITY CONDITIONS . 6 5 PROJECT BOUNDARY . 7 5.1 GHG Sources and Sinks 7 5.2 Project Area and Eligibility of Land . 8 6 PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING THE BASELINE SCENARIO 9 6.1 Selected Baseline Approach 9 6.2 Preliminary Screening Based on the Starting Date of the IFM Project Activity 9 6.3 Determination of Baseline Scenario . 9 7 PROCEDURE FOR DEMONSTRATING ADDITIONALITY 13 8 QUANTIFICATION OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND REMOVALS . 13 8.1 Stratification 13 8.2 Baseline Net GHG Removals by Sinks 14 8.3 Carbon Stock Changes in the Baseline 16 8.4 Baseline Emissions 17 8.4.1 Estimation of Baseline non-CO2 Emissions Due to Biomass Burning 17 8.5 Project Net GHG Removals by Sinks 19 8.5.1 Estimation of Changes in the Carbon Stock . 20 8.5.2 Estimation of GHG Emissions within the Project Area . 37 8.6 Leakage 39 8.6.1 Leakage Due to Activity Shifting . 40 8.7 Summary of the GHG Emission Reduction and/or Removals . 42 8.7.1 Calculation of Uncertainty . 42 8.7.2 Uncertainty Deduction. 43 8.7.3 Calculation of VCUs 44 9 MONITORING . 44 9.1 Data and Parameters Not Monitored 44 9.2 Description of Monitoring Plan . 53 9.2.1 Monitoring of Project Implementation . 53 VM0003, Version 1.2 Sectoral Scope 14 Copyright 2012 Ecotrust 4 9.2.2 Sampling Design and Stratification . 54 9.2.3 Sampling Framework 54 9.2.4 Data and Parameters Monitored . 54 9.2.5 Conservative Approach and Uncertainties . 59 10 REFERENCES 60 VM0003, Version 1.2 Sectoral Scope 14 Copyright 2012 Ecotrust 5 1 SOURCES This ology is based on elements from the following ologies  AR-ACM0001 Afforestation and reforestation of degraded land  The Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality in A/R CDM project activities This ology also refers to the latest approved versions of the following tools  The CDM Additionality Tests available at http//cdm.unfccc.int/ologies/PAologies/tools/am-tool-01-v5.2.pdf  The UNFCCC Tool for testing significance of GHG emissions in A/R project activities available at http//cdm.unfccc.int/ologies/ARologies/tools/ar-am-tool-04-v1.pdf  The UNFCCC tool for the Calculation of the number of sample plots for measurements within A/R CDM project activities available at http//cdm.unfccc.int/ologies/ARologies/tools/ar-am-tool-03-v2.pdf 2 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE OLOGY This ology quantifies the GHG emission reductions and removals generated from improving forest management practices to increase the carbon stock on land by extending the rotation age of a forest or patch of forest before harvesting. By extending the age at which trees are cut, projects increase the average carbon stock on the land and remove more emissions from the atmosphere. 3 DEFINITIONS Terms Clear Cut The harvest of all trees in an area Logging Slash Branches, other dead wood residues, and foliage left on the forest floor after timber removal Patch Cut A clear cut on a small area less than one hectare Seed Tree A variant system on clear cut with limited mature trees being left to provide seeds for regeneration Group Selection A variant on clear cut with groups of trees being left for wildlife habitat, wind firmness, soil retention or other silvicultural goals Tree A perennial woody plant with a diameter at breast height 5 cm and a height greater than 1.3 m. VM0003, Version 1.2 Sectoral Scope 14 Copyright 2012 Ecotrust 6 List of acronyms A/R Afforestation/Reforestation under CDM AFOLU Guidelines Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses section of the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 2006. CDM Clean Development Mechanism GPG LULUCF Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Good Practice Guidance for Land-Use Land Use Change and Forestry IFM Improved forest management VCS Verified Carbon Standard VCU Verified Carbon Unit FSC Forest Stewardship Council 4 APPLICABILITY CONDITIONS This ology is applicable to Improved Forest Management IFM project activities that involve an extension in rotation age ERA. The conditions under which the ology is applicable are  Forest management in both the baseline and project scenariot involves harvesting techniques such as clear cuts, patch cuts, seed tree, continuous thinning or group selection practices.  Forests which are not subject to timber harvesting, or managed without an objective for earning revenue through timber harvesting in the baseline scenario are not eligible under this ology.  Forests must be certified by the Forest Stewardship Council FSC by the start of the project crediting period. FSC certification must be demonstrated no later than at the time of the first verification event.  Project proponents must define the minimum project length in their project description document.  The project does not encompass managed peat forests and the proportion of wetlands are not expected to change as part of the project  Project proponents must have a projection of management practices in both with and without project scenarios.  If fire is used as part of forest management then fire control measures, such as installation of fire-breaks or back-burning, must be taken to ensure fire does not spread outside the project areathat is, no biomass burning must be permitted to occur beyond the project area due to forest management activities.  There may be no leakage through activity shifting to other lands owned or managed by project proponents outside the bounds of the project area. VM0003, Version 1.2 Sectoral Scope 14 Copyright 2012 Ecotrust 7 5 PROJECT BOUNDARY 5.1 GHG Sources and Sinks The carbon pools included in or excluded from the project boundary are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Selected Carbon Pools Carbon pools Selected Yes or No Justification / Explanation of choice Above-ground biomass Yes Major carbon pool subjected to the project activity. Below-ground biomass Yes Below-ground biomass stock is expected to increase due to the implementation of the VCS IFM project activity. Belowground biomass subsequent to harvest is not assessed with the conservative assumption of immediate emission. Dead wood Conditional Dead wood stocks can be conservatively excluded UNLESS the project scenario produces greater levels of slash than the baseline AND slash is burned as part of forest management. If slash produced in the project case is left in the forest to become part of the dead wood pool, dead wood may be conservatively excluded. Alternatively, project proponents may elect to include the pool where included the pool must be estimated in both the baseline and with project cases as long as the dead wood pool represents less than 50 of total carbon volume on the site in any given modeled year. Litter No Changes in the litter pool will be de minimis as a result of rotation extension. Soil organic carbon No Changes in the soil organic carbon pool will be de minimis as a result of rotation extension. VM0003, Version 1.2 Sectoral Scope 14 Copyright 2012 Ecotrust 8 Wood products Conditional This stock may increase or decrease when compared to baseline due to implementation of the project activity. The ology provides an approach for accounting for this pool, but it allows also for exclusion of the wood products pool if transparent and verifiable ination can be provided that carbon stocks in wood products are rising faster in the project case than in the baseline or are decreasing faster in the baseline than in the project case. The emission sources included in or excluded from the project boundary area shown in Table 2. Any one of these sources can be neglected, ie, accounted as zero, if the application of the most recent UNFCCC CDM Tool for testing significance of GHG emissions in A/R project activities see section 10 References leads to the conclusion that the emission source is insignificant. Table 2 Emissions sources included in the project boundary Sources Gas Included / Excluded Justification / Explanation of choice Burning of biomass CO2 Excluded However, carbon stock decreases due to burning are accounted as a carbon stock change CH4 Included Non-CO2 gas emitted from biomass burning N2O Excluded Potential emissions are negligibly small Following the guidance of the cutive Board of the CDM, emissions caused by combustion of fossil fuels and through the use of fertilizers are considered insignificant and are not considered here UNFCCC CDM EB 44, UNFCCC CDM EB 42. 5.2 Project area and eligibility of land The project area geographically delineates the improved forest management project activity under the control of the project proponents. The IFM project activity may contain more than one discrete area of land. At the time the project description is validated, the following must be defined  Each discrete area of land must have a unique geographic identification;  Aggregation of forest properties with multiple landowners is permitted under the ology with aggregated areas treated as a single project area;  The project proponents must describe legal title to the forest, rights of access to the sequestered carbon or avoided carbon emissions, current land tenure, and forest management for each discrete area of forest; VM0003, Version 1.2 Sectoral Scope 14 Copyright 2012 Ecotrust 9  The project proponents must justify that, during the project lifetime, each discrete area of land is expected to be subject to a change in forest management through activities under the control of the project proponents. 6 PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING THE BASELINE SCENARIO 6.1 Selected Baseline Approach “Changes in carbon stocks in the pools within the project boundary from the most likely land use at the time the project starts”. 6.2 Preliminary screening based on the starting date of the IFM project activity In accordance to the VCS Standard v3, or latest version, the start date for AFOLU projects can be earlier than 1 January 2002, provided that project validation and verification against the VCS has been completed by 1 October 2011, the project proponent can verifiably demonstrate that it had been designed and implemented as a climate change mitigation project from its inception, and that prior to 1 January 2002 the project engaged independent verifiers/monitoring experts and applied ologies that now con to this VCS-approved ology to assess and quantify the project’s baseline scenario, leakage and net emissions reductions/removals. If the project proponents claim that the start date of the IFM project activity is before the date of validation, then the project proponents must  Provide evidence that the starting date of the IFM project activity was after 1 January 2002, and  Provide evidence that the incentive from the planned sale of VCUs was seriously considered in the decision to proceed with the project activity. This evidence must be based on preferably official, legal and/or other corporate documentation that was available to third parties at, or prior to, the start of the project activity. 6.3 Determination of Baseline Scenario Step 1a. Identify credible alternative forest management scenarios to the proposed VCS project activity As per the applicability conditions the project must demonstrate a baseline that involves clear cut, patch cut, seed tree, continuous thinning or group selection forest management techniques, using such evidence as management plans, forest inventories, assessments by reputable forestry consultants, the common practice of alternative land owners and common practice in the region. If such a baseline cannot be demonstrated then this ology cannot be applied. Baseline scenarios with no timber harvesting or management without a timber revenue objective must be excluded as per the ology applicability conditions. Identify realistic and credible land-use scenarios that would have occurred on the land within the proposed project area in the absence of the IFM project activity under the VCS.1 The scenario should be feasible for the project 1 For example, continuation of the pre-project land-use or switch to land-use typical for region where the IFM project is planned VM0003, Version 1.2 Sectoral Scope 14 Copyright 2012 Ecotrust 10 proponents or similar project proponents taking into account relevant national and/or sectoral policies2 and circumstances, such as historical land uses, practices and economic trends. The identified land use scenario must be limited to forested land uses. This process should clearly identify barriers and benefits of all potential scenarios. The possible land-use scenarios to be uated must include  Continuation of the pre-project forest management Historical Baseline,  Legal requirements for forest management in the region Legal Baseline,  Common practice forest management in the region Common Practice Baseline, and  Forest management as modeled under the project but in the absence of registration as an IFM project activity. For identifying realistic and credible land-use scenarios, land use records, field surveys, data and feedback from stakeholders, and ination from other appropriate sources, including Participatory Rural Appraisal PRA3 may be used as appropriate. All current land uses within the boundary of the proposed IFM project activity may be deemed realistic and credible. Project proponents should use the following guidelines to define these possible land-use scenarios. Guidance for Defining the Legal Baseline The Legal Baseline is defined by the forest management scenario that maximizes net present value to the forest owners through timber harvesting while reflecting all legal requirements for forest management. In many cases, the specific management practices defined by the project proponent in the Legal Baseline may not be explicitly addressed in the relevant forest practices regulations, and the legality and plausibility of these practices must be confirmed by an independent forest consulting entity. Guidance for Defining the Common Practice Baseline Common practice in the project region must be defined by an independent forest consulting entity and should consider the following elements of forest management 1 Harvest rotations, to be located, establishing agricultural plantation, tourist resort, hunting area/farm, utilizing regionally typical s of funds investment