Improving LULUCF Offset Projects: A Carbon Performance Standard and Ecosystem Services

Abstract

The performance standard procedure, a quantitative method for quantifying baseline greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or removals, provides an alternative approach to the project-by-project methods currently being used in most GHG offset programs. By providing a top-down approach to assessing the three main technical offset accounting elements (setting the baseline, identifying leakage, and monitoring), this approach has the advantage of providing a broader analytical framework for addressing the issues and the ability to focus project developers in areas where such issues can be addressed more comprehensively. In addition, this top-down approach gives the performance standard developer the opportunity to consider the ecosystem services and human impacts in the analysis of where and what types of forestry projects should occur within a geographic area. Although further field study is required to understand the full implementation considerations involved, this procedure has the potential to help reduce some of the current reasons identified for the slow development of forest carbon offset projects to date.

KEYWORDS:

• baselines
• carbon
• carbon offset projects
• ecosystem services management
• forest management
• performance standards

Notes

1. See UNFCCC CDM website at http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/ARmethodologies/approved_ar.html

2. It could be GHG emissions or removals, but since this is about forestry projects, and forest management project specifically, GHG removals will be used.

3. This has been especially true in CDM projects where the project developer has put more effort in justifying why the project activity would never had occurred but for the CDM, rather than focusing on identifying the baseline scenario and then showing that the project activity and the baseline scenario are not the same activity. However, with some of the new additionality guidance being discussed by the CDM executive board and meth panel, there has been an attempt to move away from this approach, which is even more likely to be biased by the project developer's perspective.

4. See http://carbon.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/index_e.html