Overview Webinar Grassland Project Protocol V2.0 February 24, 2017 This material is based upon work supported by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under number 69-3A75-16-025
Agenda 1. Background 2. Presentation of v2.0 updates 3. Registry software updates 4. Audience questions
Section 1 BACKGROUND
Climate Action Reserve • 501(c)3 nonprofit, founded in 2001 • Voluntary offset registry, and approved Offset Project Registry for CARB • Adopted 18 offset project protocols in the US and Mexico • More than 87M credits issued to voluntary and compliance offset projects
Background • July 22, 2015 : GPP v1.0 adopted • September 2015 : Awarded USDA NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant for outreach, implementation, pilot projects, and protocol update • Spring 2016 : Released Project Development Handbook, conducted stakeholder outreach • July 2016 : Listed 2 pilot projects in Colorado • September 2016 : Initiated protocol update • January 2017: GPP v2.0 Adopted by Reserve Board
[hold for project map]
GPP overview • Avoided conversion of grassland to cropland • Eligibility: – Financial threshold as proxy for conversion pressure – Suitability threshold to limit projects to arable land • Quantification: – Baseline avoided loss of soil C, as well as emissions from cultivation – Project emissions from grazing, compost, fuels, etc. – Calculation tool is provided by the Reserve
GPP overview (con’t) • Permanence ensured through conservation easement, or transfer to federal ownership • Project area must be grassland for at least 10 years prior to the project • Verification can be conducted remotely • Multiple projects can be managed together as a “Cooperative” • Flexible verification schedules • Crediting period is up to 50 years
Section 2 UPDATES FROM V1.0 TO V2.0
GPP v2.0 highlights Major changes in bold • Allow for irrigation of project area • New start date option • New options for suitability threshold • New ecosystem health assessments • Removed accounting for shrubs • Reduced buffer pool contribution for accredited land trusts • Updated soil texture class names • Minor language improvements
Terminology change “Project Developer” is now “Project Owner” • GPP v1.0 used “Project Developer” as a legal term, referring to the entity with ownership of the GHG emission reductions • v1.0 usage caused confusion among users • “Project Owner” has the same definition
Irrigation allowed in project Irrigation now allowed during project • GPP v1.0 prohibits irrigation of the project area • Stakeholders suggested that moderate irrigation can improve rangeland health without significant drawbacks • v2.0 allows for irrigation – Any increases in electricity emissions related to pumping must be accounted for – Also need to account for N 2 O emissions from leaching, volatilization, and run-off
New start date option New option allows project submittal to define start date – Very common approach for forestry – Project is “submitted” when the form is uploaded and the “submit” button is clicked in the registry software • Only applicable before the project easement is recorded • Easement must still be in place prior to completion of initial verification • Simplifies cooperative management – Submit all cooperative projects at once and they will all have the same start date
Suitability threshold options updated Replaced national default with two options: – Option 1: Default value by Major Land Resource Area – Option 2: Local assessment • Stakeholder feedback that national default was too restrictive for some areas • Staff analysis concluded that national default was too low for some areas and too high for others • Staff conducted GIS analysis of the Land Capability Classification of existing cropland, controlling for irrigation • Non-irrigated threshold by default • Irrigated threshold available if project can prove access to irrigation in the baseline
Non-irrigated results 94% 83% 75% 94% 96% 83% 90% 91% 85% 78% 90% 93% 50% 78% 85% 93% 83% 83% 94% 91% 85% 86% 92% 83% 86% 83% 88% 87% 80% 91% 74% 86% 78% 73% 87% 80% 92% 92% 93% 77% 92% 89% 50% 94% 84% 93% 82% 94% 83% 70% 58% 50% 94% 82% 88% 50% 75% 77% 97% 90% 86% 93% 89% 95% 90% 85% 97% 94% 77% 82% 94% 98% 89% 97% 84% 50% 87% 90% 90% 61% 97% 93% 91% 95% 93% 67% 98% 85% 93% 78% 50% 94% 96% 50% 92% 83% 98% 84% 87% 94% 98% 95% 78% 98% 50% 96% 90% 98% 90% 60% 93% 92% 93% 97% 97% 90% 97% 93% 78% 95% 97% 90% 97% 92% 61% 67% 94% 97% 76% 95% 92% 78% 92% 94% 98% 95% 97% 94% 85% 85% 91% 90% 93% 94% 84% 94% 85% 89% 88% 97% 85% 93% 93% 85% 90% 93% 99% 93% 84% 92% 63% 91% 88% 94% 98% 89% 91% 87% 93% 93% 88% 93% 63% 50% 91% 92% 94% 98% 89% 90% 96% 52% 86% 98% 66% 86% 74% 98% 66% 96% 66% 85% 78% 98% 66% 78% 77% 66% 91% 66%
Irrigated results 95% 78% 95% 97% 75% 97% 88% 97% 75% 95% 95% 75% 95% 95% 95% 98% 96% 97% 95% 95% 73% 87% 97% 97% 94% 93% 87% 94% 73% 97% 99% 73% 96% 94% 99% 97% 93% 97% 99% 93% 97% 97% 99% 94% 87% 99% 98% 98% 92% 92% 96% 99% 99% 96% 99% 99% 99% 99% 96% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%
Ecosystem health assessments Periodic ecosystem health assessments now required for eligibility – Follow the BLM Rangeland Health Assessment protocol – Assessments at least every 6 years – Seriously degraded lands must show improvement • Allows for a long-term view of the health of the project area, ensuring stability of belowground carbon pools • Can help identify non-event-related reversals • Assessment can be completed with minimal training and only a few hours of site activity https://jornada.nmsu.edu/monit-assess/manuals/assessment
Rangeland Health Assessment protocol • Ecological Site Description for reference conditions for 17 different metrics • Assess each metric on a scale of deviation None to slight • Adaptive management to Slight to moderate improve degraded areas Moderate • Ineligible for reporting period if Moderate to extreme condition worsened over time for avoidable reasons Extreme https://jornada.nmsu.edu/monit-assess/manuals/assessment
Accounting for shrubs removed Woody shrubs removed from v2.0 quantification • Optional pool in GPP v1.0 • GPP v1.0 does not properly account for shrubs in the context of fire and reversals • Over two years of outreach, zero stakeholders have expressed interest in accounting for shrubs • Adds significant effort and complexity to quantification and verification • Could be re-worked and added back in the future
Risk of financial failure updated Buffer pool contribution updated : Risk FF = 0% where the Project Owner is accredited land trust • V1.0 applies 10% Risk FF for projects without the Recorded PIA, subordination clause Type I • Land Trust Accreditation Commission requires proof of financial resources to support the easement into the future, including legal costs • Accredited land trusts can, categorically, be viewed as a stable counterparties for the PIA • V2.0 applies 0% risk to these organizations
Soil texture class names updated Renamed the three soil texture classes • V1.0 names can be confusing with the various qualifiers used in the soil survey – E.g., “Sandy loam” = “Sand” • Recommended by contractors GPP v1.0 GPP v2.0 Sand = Coarse Loam = Medium Clay = Fine
Section 3 REGISTRY SOFTWARE UPDATES
Registry software updates • New account type: “Project Owner” (PO) – Used by Cooperative participants who are the “Project Owner” as defined in the protocol • Reduced fee • Limited functionality – Cooperative Developers use “Project Developer” account type • Cooperative developer submits and manages projects – Cooperative ID assigned by the Reserve Administrator – Selects a PO for each project – CRTs will be issued to the PO by automatic forward transfer • Common buffer pool among project types
Section 4 AUDIENCE QUESTIONS
Thank you! Join us at the following events: Event Location Date Navigating the American San Francisco, CA April 19-21 Carbon World Northwest Grazing Pendleton, OR May 10-11 Conference Montana Grassland TBD, MT TBD (summer) Workshop Contact: max@climateactionreserve.org (213) 785-1233
Recommend
More recommend
