DOCSLIB.ORG

Avoided Conversion in the Pematang Gadung Peat Swamp Forest

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Avoided Conversion in the Pematang Gadung Peat Swamp Forest Avoided Conversion in the Pematang Gadung Peat Swamp forest Project Description, Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) Contents 1. Project details ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Summary description of the Project ................................................................................. 1 1.2. Sectoral scope and project type ....................................................................................... 2 1.3. Project proponent ............................................................................................................ 2 1.3.1. Implementing partner: Fauna and Flora International...................................................... 3 1.3.2. Roles and responsibilities of the project proponent and implementing partner ............... 3 1.4. Other entities involved in the project ............................................................................... 3 1.5. Project start date ............................................................................................................. 4 1.6. Project crediting period .................................................................................................... 6 1.7. Project scale and estimated GHG Emission Reductions or Removals ................................. 6 1.8. Description of the project activities .................................................................................. 7 1.8.1. Establish community-based land management rights ...................................................... 7 1.8.2. Develop forest management workplans .......................................................................... 8 1.8.3. Obtain a license for carbon credit trading ........................................................................ 9 1.8.4. Participate in government spatial planning activities ....................................................... 9 1.9. Project location .............................................................................................................. 11 1.10. Conditions prior to implementation ............................................................................... 14 1.10.1. Land use status prior to initiation .................................................................................. 14 1.10.2. Condition of peatland ................................................................................................... 16 1.10.3. Condition of the forest .................................................................................................. 16 1.11. Compliance with Laws, Statutes and Other Regulatory Frameworks ............................... 19 1.11.1. Laws, statutes and other regulatory frameworks relevant to the project ....................... 19 1.11.2. Compliance of the project with relevant local, regional and national laws, statutes and regulatory frameworks ................................................................................................................ 21 1.12. Ownership and other programs ...................................................................................... 22 1.12.1. Right of use................................................................................................................... 22 1.12.2. Emissions Trading Programs and Other Binding Limits ................................................... 22 1.12.3. Participation under Other GHG Programs ...................................................................... 22 1.12.4. Other Forms of Environmental Credit ............................................................................ 22 1.12.5. Projects Rejected by Other GHG Programs .................................................................... 23 1.13. Additional information relevant to the project ............................................................... 23 1.13.1. Eligibility criteria for grouped projects ........................................................................... 23 1.13.2. Leakage management ................................................................................................... 23 1.13.3. Commercially sensitive information .............................................................................. 23 1.13.4. Further information ...................................................................................................... 23 2. Application of the methodology ......................................................................................... 24 2.1. Title and Reference of Methodology .............................................................................. 24 2.2. Applicability of methodology .......................................................................................... 24 2.2.1. Condition A: Tropical, undrained peat swamp forest in southeast Asia .......................... 24 2.2.2. Condition B: Baseline approach ..................................................................................... 25 2.2.3. Condition C: avoided conversion, not avoided degradation ........................................... 25 2.2.4. Condition D: avoided planned conversion ..................................................................... 25 2.2.5. Condition E: Avoided conversion by large corporate entities.......................................... 25 2.2.6. Condition F: Net peat drainage depth shall be calculated using a depth of one meter .... 25 2.2.7. Condition G: Exclusion of the dead wood and litter carbon pools ................................... 25 2.2.8. Condition H: Project area does not include human settlements ..................................... 26 2.2.9. Condition I: Forest biomass is steady-state or increasing at the start of the project........ 26 2.2.10. Condition J: Volume of trees extracted upon conversion is assumed to be the total volume above a minimum diameter threshold ............................................................................. 26 i 2.2.11. Condition K: The project boundary shall be hydrologically intact ................................... 26 2.2.12. Condition L: The project area was not zoned for conversion to generate additionality for REDD 26 2.3. Project boundaries ......................................................................................................... 26 2.3.1. Geographic project boundaries ..................................................................................... 26 2.3.2. Sources, sinks and reservoirs (carbon pools) .................................................................. 29 2.3.3. Emission sources included in the project boundary, other than those resulting from changes in carbon pools .............................................................................................................. 30 2.4. Baseline scenario ........................................................................................................... 31 2.4.1. Step 1a &b: Identify credible alternative land use scenarios ......................................... 31 2.4.2. Step 1c: Selection of the most plausible baseline scenario ............................................. 35 2.4.3. Step 2: Investment Analysis .......................................................................................... 39 2.4.4. Step 4: Common practice analysis ................................................................................. 39 2.4.5. Conclusion of the additionality and baseline assessment ............................................... 40 2.5. Methodology deviations................................................................................................. 40 3. Quantification of GHG emission reductions and removals ................................................. 41 3.1. Methodology Step 5: Stratification ................................................................................. 41 3.1.1. Step 1: Stratification according to pre-existing conditions and baseline projections ....... 41 d) Site specifications for each stratum and supplementary sampling ............................................ 41 e) Final stratification of baseline scenario.................................................................................... 44 3.1.2. Step 2: stratification according to the project activity .................................................... 47 3.1.3. Step 3: Final ex-ante stratification ................................................................................. 47 3.1.4. Step 4: Leakage stratification ........................................................................................ 47 3.2. Methodology Step 6: Procedure for determining the baseline scenario .......................... 48 3.3. Methodology Step 7: Procedure for demonstrating additionality ................................... 48 3.4. Methodology Step 8: Baseline emissions ........................................................................ 49 3.4.1. Methodology step 8.1: estimate of carbon stock changes in the aboveground biomass . 49 Increase in carbon stocks due to aboveground biomass growth in baseline land-use (8.1.3) ......... 52 3.4.2. Methodology step 8.2: GHG emissions from peat .......................................................... 55 3.5. Methodology Step 9. Ex ante net avoided GHG emissions .............................................. 57 3.6. Methodology Step 10. Leakage ...................................................................................... 57 3.6.1. Market leakage ............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fossil Peat of the Illinois Basin : a Guide to the Study of Coal Balls Of
    ^uA^^^^i 557 IL6ed no. 11 vol <=>&ued- // FOSSIL PEAT FROM THE ILLINOIS BASIN cn:.\/E' HM * Tom L. Phillips Matthew J. Avcin Dwain Berggren 9lUmH Stcde Qeol(Xjical SuMtey STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND EDUCATION COVER - A photograph (natural size) of a cellulose acetate peel showing the fossil peat preserved in a coal ball collected from the Herrin (No. 6) Coal Member near Carrier Mills, Illinois. Figure 2 describes its contents. 1976 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Urbana, Illinois 61801 Jack A. Simon, M.S., Chief ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ithority of State of Illinois. Ch. 127. IRS. Par. 58 .25 3 3051 00004 8540 I FOSSIL PEAT OF THE ILLINOIS BASIN Goal QalU of PenntyUankM, Acje Tom L. Phillips Matthew J. Avcin Dwain Berggren Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://archive.org/details/fossilpeatofilli11phil CONTENTS Introduction 1 Geology of the fossil peat deposits 3 The Illinois Basin 3 How the coal balls formed 3 Plants in fossil peat 7 Studies of fossil peat 9 Internal anatomy and external morphology 10 Plant taxonomy 11 Plant evolution 12 Palynology 13 Preparation of floras 14 Analyses of permineralized peat 14 Formation of coal balls 17 Preparing coal balls for study 17 Making coal-ball peels 18 Examining peels with a microscope 24 Mounting peel sections on glass slides 24 Recovering spores and other microfossils from coal balls 26 Preserving coal balls 28 Repairing and embedding coal-ball slices 29 Sources of materials 31 Finding coal balls 31 Materials needed 32 Selected references 33 Plates and explanations 34 .
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Non-Timber Forest Products Harvest Manual for Commercial Harvest on State-Owned Lands
    Alaska Non-Timber Forest Products Harvest Manual For Commercial Harvest on State-Owned Lands State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Mining, Land and Water April 2, 2008 - 1 - State of Alaska Non-Timber Forest Product Commercial Harvest Manual, April 2, 2008 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Special notices, clarifications, and general rules 4 Procedure for revision 5 Products and species descriptions 6 Bark birch 7 cedar 8 various species 9 Berries and berry-like fruits 10 Branches and stems of deciduous woody species 11 Buds and tips 12 Burls and galls 13 Cones 14 Conks 15 Cuttings – willow, dogwood & poplar 16 Diamond willow 17 Evergreen boughs 18 Floral greenery 19 Leaves and flowers of woody plants 20 Lichens ground-growing 21 tree-growing 22 Mosses and liverworts 23 Mushrooms 24 Non-woody perennial plants tender edible shoots, stems, leaves, and/or flowers 25 mature stems, leaves and flowers 26 Roots edible or medicinal 27 for fiber 28 Seed heads 29 Seeds 30 Transplants plugs 31 shrubby perennial with root ball 32 sprigs 33 tree sapling with root ball 34 Appendix I: Plants never allowed for harvest 35 Appendix II: Guidelines for non over-the-counter permit products 36 Glossary 38 Selected references 39 - 2 - State of Alaska Non-Timber Forest Product Commercial Harvest Manual, April 2, 2008 Introduction Non-timber forest products are generally defined as products derived from biological resources. Examples of non-timber forest products may include mushrooms, conks, boughs, cones, leaves, burls, landscaping transplants, roots, flowers, fruits, and berries. Not included are minerals, rocks, soil, water, animals, and animal parts.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring Silvopastures with Oak Saplings: Effects of Mulch and Diameter Class on Survival, Growth, and Annual Leaf-Nutrient Patterns
    Agroforest Syst (2014) 88:935–946 DOI 10.1007/s10457-014-9737-y Restoring silvopastures with oak saplings: effects of mulch and diameter class on survival, growth, and annual leaf-nutrient patterns M. N. Jime´nez • J. R. Pinto • M. A. Ripoll • A. Sa´nchez-Miranda • F. B. Navarro Received: 13 March 2014 / Accepted: 14 August 2014 / Published online: 23 August 2014 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 Abstract In Southwestern Spain, multifunctional leaf-nutrient concentrations were analyzed. Forty silvopastoral systems consisting of pastureland and months after planting, all treatments showed high open oak woodlands are known as Dehesas. These, survival (81 %) but only straw-mulched saplings and other similar systems of the Mediterranean basin, differed significantly (94 %) from control (74 %). are currently threatened by increasing intensive land DBH increased over time but showed no significant use. As a consequence, oak regeneration is declining differences among mulch treatments. Saplings with and is in need of adequate management and active high initial DBH showed the greatest growth and restoration. Traditional restoration practices outplant change in DBH at the end of the study period. Leaf- one-year-old, nursery-produced oak seedlings grown nutrient concentrations changed significantly in the in 250–350 cm3 containers, but establishment and year following outplanting. Bi-monthly foliar nutrient growth results are typically poor. This work examines concentration data show decreases in P, K, Zn, and B holm oak (Quercus ilex L. subsp. ballota (Desf.) and sharp increases in Ca and Fe. In this work, we Samp.) grown in a non-conventional container size provide some evidence concerning the viability of (24 l) and age (6–7 years) with three mulch treatments non-conventional oak size for restoring, regenerating, (control, stone, and straw).
    [Show full text]
  • The Verlot Peat Area Was Investigated by Rigg, Ac­ Thick
    188 PEAT RESOURCES OF WASHINGTON Verlot peat area and the layer of fibrous peat and muck under it was 4 feet The Verlot peat area was investigated by Rigg, ac­ thick. companied by C. E. Torrence and D. Tunstall, August Lake Ketchum peat area 13 to 15, 1926. The following description is based on field The Lake Ketchum peat area (19 acres) 1s m secs. 6 notes made at that time, supplemented by some explana­ and 7, T. 32 N., R. 4 E., about 3 miles north of East Stan­ tions. wood by State Highway IE and a crooked dead-end road The peat area was estimated at 15 to 20 acres. Its loca­ up a steep slope. The deposit borders the north shore tion was estimated to be about 2 miles south of the old of the lake (map, fig. 193). The lake and the topography Mackie statio~ (an abandoned sawmill) on the old of the region surrounding it are shown on the Mount Monte Cristo Branch (now abandoned) of the Northern Vernon quadrangle. The elevation of the peat is about 175 Pacific Railway. The location of Mackie is shown on feet above sea level, and it is less than 2 miles from the Forest Service maps of the Snoqualmie National Forest. shore of Skagit Bay. It lies in a depression in glacial The peat is probably in sec. 25 or 36, T. 30 N., R. 8 E. It drift of the region. The lake has no surface outlet. On was reached from the station by a rather steep, rocky wet the soil map of Snohomish County (Anderson et al., 1947) trail which extended over the mountainous region and the area is mapped as Gre~nwood peat and Carbondale down to the Pilchuck River.
    [Show full text]
  • Longleaf Pine: an Annotated Bibliography, 1946 Through 1967
    U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research Paper SO-35 longleaf pine: an annotated bibliography, 1946 through 1967 Thomas C. Croker, Jr. SOUTHERN FOREST EXPERIMENT STATION T.C. Nelson, Director FOREST SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 1968 Croker, Thomas C., Jr. 1968. Longleaf pine: an annotated bibliography, 1946 through 1967. Southern Forest Exp. Sta., New Orleans, Louisiana. 52 pp. (U. S. Dep. Agr. Forest Serv. Res. Pap. SO-35) Lists 665 publications appearing since W. G. Wahlenberg compiled the bibliography for his book, Longleaf Pine. Contents Page Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Factors of the environment. Biology........................................................................................ 2 11 Site factors, climate, situation, soil ............................................................................. 2 15 Animal ecology. Game management .......................................................................... 2 16 General botany ............................................................................................................. 2 17 Systematic botany ....................................................................................................... 6 18 Plant ecology................................................................................................................. 7 2. Silviculture...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wine | Spirits | Beer
    WINE | SPIRITS | BEER CELLAR99 In the early days of the original Ruffino’s in Baton Rouge, business people entertaining clients would often lament that they could not order many of the well-known wines due to the restrictions of their expense accounts. Ruffin’s solution, a collection of selected cabernets and red blends, all from California, for $99 that anywhere else would fetch well over $100. Frank Family Vineyards, 2018 Machete, by Orin Swift, 2017 Palermo, by Orin Swift, 2016 Papillon by Orin Swift, 2018 Faust, Napa Valley, 2017 Cyrus, Alexander Valley, 2014 Jordan, Alexander Valley, 2016 Stag’s Leap Winery, 2016 The Prisoner Wine Co., 2018 Stout Family Vineyards, 2015 Cakebread, Napa Valley, 2018 Love Hammer, by SLO Down Wines, 2016 Duckhorn, Napa Valley, 2017 SPECIALTY COCKTAILS THE MAN-TINI | Knob Creek Bourbon – Lemon & Lime – Cognac – Agave Nectar SATSUMA MULE | Bayou Satsuma – Simple Syrup & Lime – Stoli Ginger Beer - Mint BIERE SOLLEIT | St Germain–Fresh Lemon –Ragin Cajun Ale BACK PORCH | House Infused Lemon Vodka –Hibiscus Syrup –St. Germaine Liqueur BLUE BERRY LEMON DROP | House Infused Blueberry Vodka - Fresh Lemon PEAR MARTINI | Pear Vodka -St. Germaine Liqueur –Fresh Lime PINEAPPLE INFUSION | House Infused Pineapple Vodka –Orange Liqueur –Pineapple Juice POMEGRANATE MARTINI | Citrus Vodka - Pama Liquor - Gran Gala Orange Liquor - Pomegranate Juice LAFAYETTE | BATON ROUGE | DE LA RONDE HALL | RUFFINOSRESTAURANT.COM WHISKEY JAMESON, IRISH WHISKEY JACK DANIEL’S, TENNESSEE WHISKEY, “GENTLEMAN JACK” toasted wood | sherry |
    [Show full text]
  • Pine Tar; History and Uses
    Pine Tar; History And Uses Theodore P. Kaye Few visitors to any ship which as been rigged in a traditional manner have left the vessel without experiencing the aroma of pine tar. The aroma produces reactions that are as strong as the scent; few people are ambivalent about its distinctive smell. As professionals engaged in the restoration and maintenance of old ships, we should know not only about this product, but also some of its history. Wood tar has been used by mariners as a preservative for wood and rigging for at least the past six centuries. In the northern parts of Scandinavia, small land owners produced wood tar as a cash crop. This tar was traded for staples and made its way to larger towns and cities for further distribution. In Sweden, it was called "Peasant Tar" or was named for the district from which it came, for example, Lukea Tar or Umea Tar. At first barrels were exported directly from the regions in which they were produced with the region's name burned into the barrel. These regional tars varied in quality and in the type of barrel used to transport it to market. Wood tars from Finland and Russia were seen as inferior to even the lowest grade of Swedish tar which was Haparanda tar. In 1648, the newly formed NorrlSndska TjSrkompaniet (The Wood Tar Company of North Sweden) was granted sole export privileges for the country by the King of Sweden. As Stockholm grew in importance, pine tar trading concentrated at this port and all the barrels were marked "Stockholm Tar".
    [Show full text]
  • Important Physical Properties of Peat Materials
    2:aadiued by tda%i~neiFiires3: Service Library Matcrriai May Be Pratseted by Ctlpyrigllt lav~.Further Reprodlaction May Constitute Copyright Infringement Important Physical Properties of Peat Materials D. H. BOELTER U.S.A, ABSTRACT RESUME Peat materials from 12 bogs in northern Minnesota, U.S.A., L'observation des sols tou!beux de 12 fondrihres isphaignes showed significant differences in physical properties. It is du nord du Minnesota, E.-U., a rBvBlB d'importantes diffB- pointed out that 1) these properties can be related to the rences de leurs propriBtBs physiques. L'auteur signale 1) qu'il hydrology of organic soils only if the soils represent un- est possible que ces propri6tBs decoulent du regime hydro- disturbed field conditions, and 2) volumetric expressions of logique des sols organiques, lorsque ces sols n'ont pas BtB water content are necessary to correctly evaluate the amount bouleversBs et 2) qu'il faut exprimer volumBtriquement la of water in a peat profile. The differences in physical properties teneur en eau pour Bvaluer correctement la quantit6 d'eau were related to degree of decomposition as measured by prBsente dans les couches de tourbe successives. Les bulk density and fibre content. Undecomposed peats with differences de propriBt6s physiques d6coulent du degr6 de low bulk density and high fibre content contain many large d6composition, qu'on Bvalue gr5ce i la masse volumique pores which yield as much as 80 per cent of their saturated du sol et la proportion de fibres. La tourbe non dBcomposBe, water content to drainage and permit rapid water movement. i faible masse volumique et forte proportion de fibres, With increasing decomposition, fibre content decreases, contient de nombreux pores Blargis qui laissent Bgoutter resulting in increased bulk density and a greater proportion of jusqu'i 80 p.
    [Show full text]
  • Delay on New Lecense Issuance and Perfection Of
    DELAY ON NEW LECENSE ISSUANCE AND PERFECTION OF GOVERNANCE OF PRIMARY NATURAL FOREST AND PEAT LANDS (Instruction of President of Republic of Indonesia Number 10 Year 2011,20 May 2011) THE PRESIDENT OF REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, For: FIR S T: In order to balance and to synchronize the To take nec~ssary steps accordingly to re­ development of economy, social, culture, and envi­ spective duties, functions, and authorities to support ronment as well as effort to decrease Greenhouse delay on new license issuance for primary natural for­ Gas Emission, which is carried out through emission ests and peat lands within conservation forest, pro­ reduction from deforestation and forest degradation, tection forest, production forest (limited production hereby instruct: forest, regular/permanent production forest, convers­ able production forest) and other areas of usage as To: stated on Indicative Map of New License Delay as the 1. The Minister of Forestry; Attachment of Presidential Instruction. 2. The Minister of Domestic Affairs; 3. The Minister of Environment; SECOND: 4. The Head of Presidential Working Unit for Devel­ Delay on new license issuance as meant in opment Supervision and Control; FIRST Dictum, applies on the use of primary natural 5. The Head of National Land Agency; forests and peat lands area, with exception granted 6. The Chairman of National Spatial Order Coordina- to: tion Agency; a. Application that has been granted' principle ap­ 7. The Chairman of National Survey and Mapping proval from the Minister of Forestry; Coordination Agency; b. Implementation of national development with vi- 8. The Head of REDD + Institutional Establishment tal nature, they are: geothermal, oil and natural Preparation Task Forr.p.
    [Show full text]
  • Sphagnum Farming for Replacing Peat in Horticultural Substrates
    Sphagnum farming for replacing peat in horticultural substrates Rastede, Lower Saxony, Germany (53° 15.80′ N, 08°16′ E) Sabine Wichmann1, Greta Gaudig1, Matthias Krebs1, Hans Joosten1, Kerstin Albrecht2, Silke Kumar3 1 2 3 University of Greifswald, University of Rostock, Torfwerk Moorkultur Ramsloh ©FAO/Sabine Wichmann ©FAO/Sabine Sphagnum farming: a: site with infrastructure for water management (pump, ditches, overflow) and dams used as causeways (maintenance, harvest, transport) (schematic representation: Sabine Wichmann) b: Preparation of a Sphagnum farming production site (photo: Sabine Wichmann); c: same site with established Sphagnum culture and irrigation system (photo: Sabine Wichmann). Summary Sphagnum (peat moss) biomass provides a GHG-neutral alternative to fossil peat in professional horticulture. So far however, it has only been collected in the wild. Small-scale land-based Sphagnum farming is currently practiced on degraded peatlands. Sphagnum farming has also been tested on specially constructed floating mats that guarantee a constant water supply. This water–based cultivation allows bog waters to be used as reservoirs to irrigate cultivated areas in dry periods. It also creates additional Sphagnum farming areas. A mosaic of rewetted areas with land-and water-based cultivation may present the optimal combination for Sphagnum farming on degraded bogs. Experiments have also shown the suitability of growing media made of Sphagnum biomass for cultivating a wide variety of crops from seedling to saleable plant. Sphagnum biomass is also suitable for other uses, including gardening design, terrariums, sanitary items, insulation of buildings, water filtering and pharmaceuticals. When Sphagnum is cultivated as a new agricultural crop on rewetted peatlands, the high and stable water levels greatly reduce GHG emissions and the subsidence of the formerly drained peat soil.
    [Show full text]
  • How the Palm Oil Industry Is Cooking the Climate
    HOW THE PALM OIL INDUSTRY IS COOKING THE CLIMATE www.greenpeace.org ‘Climate change is market failure on the greatest scale the world has seen. It results from the fact that the costs of greenhouse gas emissions are not paid for by those who create the emissions.’ 007 King Review for the UK Government Treasury EXecutIVE suMMARY InDOnesIA’S PEATLAND CArbON stOcks PLUMMet AS PALM OIL DEMAND SOArs ‘Our actions now cast their shadow far into the future. stores into sources of emissions. Resulting temperature [Climate policy needs to] have the economics of risk at its increase could disrupt ecosystems in ways that provoke yet core; and go beyond the marginal changes which are the more greenhouse emissions, potentially leading to further usual daily fare of economists. acceleration of climate change. Nicholas Stern, former Chief Economist of the World Bank Conclusions from the world’s leading climate scientists in the Every year, 1.8 billion tonnes (Gt) of climate changing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are released by the that large cuts in GHG emissions are needed rapidly. Time is degradation and burning of Indonesia’s peatlands – 4% of global desperately short. The greater the delay in realising emissions GHG emissions from less than 0.1% of the land on earth. reductions, the higher the financial, social and ecological costs will be. This report shows how, through growing demand for palm oil, the world’s largest food, cosmetic and biofuel industries are INDOnesIA’S RAINFOrests AND driving the wholesale destruction of peatlands and rainforests.
    [Show full text]
  • Methodology Assessment Report: Baseline and Monitoring Methodology for Avoiding Planned Deforestation of Undrained Peat Swamp Forests
    METHODOLOGY ELEMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT: VCS Version 3 Methodology Assessment Report: Baseline and Monitoring Methodology for Avoiding Planned Deforestation of Undrained Peat Swamp Forests 2000 Powell Street, Suite 600 Emeryville, CA 94608 www.scscertified.com Methodology Baseline and Monitoring Methodology for Avoiding Planned Deforestation of Element Title Undrained Peat Swamp Forests Version Version 7.0 Methodology Methodology Element Category Sectoral Scope(s) 14 v3.0 1 METHODOLOGY ELEMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT: VCS Version 3 Report Title Methodology Assessment Report: Baseline and Monitoring Methodology for Avoiding Planned Deforestation of Undrained Peat Swamp Forests Report Version 2.0 Assessment Criteria VCS Standard v3.2 and associated documents as described in Section 1.3 Client Terra Global Capital LLC Pages 126 Date of Issue 31 August 2012 Prepared By Scientific Certification Systems Contact Todd Frank 2000 Powell Street, Suite 600 Emeryville, CA 94608 510.452.9099 www.scscertified.com Approved By Todd Frank Work Carried Out By Ryan Anderson, Lead Verifier Carly Green, Technical Expert Zane Haxton, Technical Reviewer v3.0 2 METHODOLOGY ELEMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT: VCS Version 3 Summary: This report documents the first assessment of the proposed VCS methodology “Baseline and Monitoring Methodology for Avoiding Planned Deforestation of Undrained Peat Swamp Forests,” developed by Terra Global Capital LLC. The methodology includes criteria for estimating baseline and project scenario emissions from avoided conversion of production peat swamp forests based on legally approved conversion rates or historical deforestation rates observed in a proxy area. It includes procedures for estimating emissions from peat burning, peat oxidation, peat drainage, rice production, agricultural intensification, and biomass removal, as well as carbon stock changes in the aboveground tree, aboveground non tree, belowground, dead woos, soil organic carbon, and long lived wood products pools.
    [Show full text]