sCreenC
Fast track estimation of carbon benefits
from forestry activities
Carmenza Robledo, PhD.
Ecoexistence

The landscape reality…
Do we reallyy need 6 different accountingg systems?
yProtected Primaryy
ForestREDD + Management
REDD+ conservation

Plantations
CDM bioenergy

Secondary forest
REDD+ Conservation
REDD+ Enahancenment

Degraded Primary Forest
REDD+ enhancenment
REDD reducing
REDD+d i degradation
dd ti
Secondaryy forest
REDD Enahncement +Management
Permanentpasture

Degraded Forest Lands
A/R CDM or
REDD enhancenment
Permanente a e tpasture
Potential A/R CDM

Intensive
agricultural land
PermanentpastureBaseline scenario
non‐forests
to non‐forest

No

Forest toforest(e.g. pastures)(dedgradation)

Yes

Yes

NoDo you expect
a land use change inthe baseline?

Yes

Forest to non‐forests(deforestation)

Yes

What would have happened without the intervention?
 Expert guess for continuation of the historical trendBaseline scenario

NoNo(e.g. pastures)

Baseline/RL/REL(dedgradation)

Yes

Yes

Carbonsequestration+
Timber andwood

Do you expect
Forest to non‐
Yes
Intervention
forestsa land use changeg in(deforestation)(management activity)
the baseline?
Yes

Me

Quantification
methodMethods:
 Carbon Sequestration (CS) Timber and Wood products (TW)CS + TW

100%

Forest toforest

Plantations /agroforestry

Mitigation
effectManagement
activity

non‐forests
to non‐forestC

10‐30%t
Carbon in the baseline

Timber and wood products go out of the system

Baseline scenario
non‐forests
to non‐forest

Forest toforest

No

Forest to non‐forestsYes(e.g. pastures)(dedgradation)(deforestation)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Management
activity

Mitigation
effectRestoration

SFM

Carbonenhancenment

GHG Emission
Reduction (1)+Timber andwood

Conservation

SFM

Conservation

GHG Emission
Reduction (1)GHG Emission
Reduction (2)+Timber andwood

GHG Emission
Reduction

Methods:et ods:
CE

100%

10‐30%t31

Quantification
methodC2

ER1 + TW

100%ER1C

100%

10‐30%t
Carbon in the baseline
Carbon in the proposed management

1. Carbon enhancement (CE)
2. GHG emission
from degradation
ER2+TW
ER2 (ER1)
3. Timber and wood products (TW)CC

10‐30%tt

C

100%

100%

10‐30%10‐30%t

Timber and wood products go out of the systemt

Baseline scenario
Forest to non‐forests(deforestation)

Management
activity

SFM

Conservation

GHG Emission
Reduction (2)+Timber andwood

GHG Emission
Reduction

Mitigation
effectQuantification
methodMethods:
 GHG emissioni i reduction
d ti fromf
deforestationd ft ti(ER2)
 Timber and wood products

ER2+TWER2CC

100%

100%10‐30%

10‐30%t
Carbon in the baseline
Carbon in the proposed management

Timber and wood products go out of the systemt

Baseline scenario
non‐forests
to non‐forest

No

Forest toforest(e.g. pastures)(dedgradation)

Yes

YesNoDo you expect
a land use change
g inthe baseline?

Yes

Forest to non‐forests(deforestation)

Yes

Baseline scenario

Management
activity

non‐forests
to non‐forest

No

Forest toforest(e.g. pastures)(dedgradation)

Yes

Yes

Plantations /agroforestry

Restoration

No

Do you expect
a land use change
g inthe baseline?

Forest to non‐forests

Yes(deforestation)

Yes

SFM

Conservation

SFM

Conservation

Baseline scenario

Mitigation
effectManagement
activity

non‐forests
to non‐forest

No

Forest toforest(e.g. pastures)(dedgradation)

Yes

Yes

Plantations /agroforestry

Carbonsequestration+Timber andwoodNo

Do you expecta land use change
g inthe baseline?

Forest to non‐forests

Yes(deforestation)

Yes

Restoration

SFM

Carbonenhancenment

GHG Emission
Reduction (1)+Timber andwood

Conservation

SFM

Conservation

GHG Emission
Reduction (1)GHG Emission
Reduction (2)+Timber andwood

GHG Emission
Reduction

Baseline scenario(e.g. pastures)(dedgradation)

Yes

Yes

Carbonsequestration+
Timber andwood

No

Forest toforest

No

Plantations /agroforestry

Mitigation
effectManagement
activity

non‐forests
to non‐forest

Do you expect
a land use change
g inthe baseline?

Forest to non‐forests

Yes(deforestation)

Yes

Restoration

SFM

Conservation

SFM

Conservation

Carbonenhancenment

GHG Emission
Reduction (1)+Timber andwood

GHG Emission
Reduction (1)GHG Emission
Reduction (2)+Timber andwood

GHG Emission
Reduction

CE

ER1 + TW

ER1

ER2+TW

ER2

Quantification
methodCS + TW

100%

C

100%

10‐30%10‐30%t

C

100%

C

100%10‐30%t
Carbon in the baseline
Carbon in the proposed management

CC

10‐30%t

t

C

100%

100%10‐30%10‐30%t

Timber and wood products go out of the systemt

sCreen includes• 5 methodsth d1.
2
2.
3.
4.
5.

Carbon sequestration (CS)
Carbon enhancement (CE)
GHG emissions from degradation (ER1)
GHG emissions from deforestation (ER2)
Timber and wood products• Treatment of leakages• Also data requirements, considerations forstratification, consideration of time frame,
consideration of biodiversity• Results of sCreen are approximations aimed at
y g potentialpcarbon benefits in an easyy manner.
clarifying

General assumptions and clarifications
 Historical trend as the starting point for the reference scenario
 The methods consider living biomass (aboveground andbelowground biomass). If litter, dead wood or soil organiccarbon of these three pools is consider as potential significant
emitter,
itt otherth methods
th d should
h ld beb used.
d Potential carbon benefits from timber and wood products areaccounted for separately through a specific method.
 Considers two degradation drivers: firewood/wood gatheringand illegal logging.
 We estimate carbon stock changes
changes, following the IPCC
guidance. Positive values imply increase in carbon stocks,
negative values imply decrease in carbon stocks (i.e.
deforestation and degradationghave negativegvalues)) Data (following IPCC tiers): When available local values, if not National data,data if not
 IPCC default values (GPG‐LULUCF or 2006 Inventory guidelines)Cuzaland:: Different Areas – different drivers
Cuzaland
Permanent Forest Estate
FForestst outsidet id PFECapitalia

Management options

Extension of agricultural and livestock frontier 2 (cover 70%)

12

Settlement (cover 90%)1

Mega‐infrastructre (e.g. dams) (cover 100%)3Degradationg‐ Intact forest
Illegal croping (cover 90%)

3Illegal logging (cover 100%)

5Firewood gathering 1 (Cover 90%)12
1.2

Degradation ‐ secundary forest
Illegal crops (cover 70%)

0,50

Illegal logging (cover 70%)
Firewood gathering 1 (cover 60%)2
3Firewood and buidling wood gathering (Cover 50%)

10Forest apt areas (plantations and agroforestry)
Abandoned pastures

3

Biodiversity buffers (Rehabilitation)

10

Watersheds (Agroforesty)1Agricultural land (silvopastoral systems)

0 75

Devveloppmen
nt Plaan B

15

Devveloppmen
nt Plaan A

Extension of agricultural and livestock frontier (cover 90% )O emmissionsDeforestation ‐ Intact forest

Hectares
In million

Management options
Development PlanA

Development Plan
B

15 000 000 Conservation
15,000,000Conservation

Extension of agricultural and livestock frontier
2 (cover 70%)

12,000,000 Conservation

Settlement (cover 90%)

1,000,000 No settlement

SFM
Settlement with
reduced impact

SFM
Extension ofagricultural&livestock frontier

Mega‐infrastructre (e.g. dams) (cover 100%)

3,000,000 No infrastructre

Deforestation ‐ Intact forest
Extension of agricultural and livestock frontier(cover 90% )Hectares

0 emissions

No settlement
Reduced mega‐Mega‐infrastructure infrastructure (70%)

Degradation ‐ Intact forest
Illegal croping (cover 90%)
Illegal logging (cover 100%)

3,000,000 No illegal activities No illegal activites
Enrichment &5,000,000 No illegal activities conservation

Firewood gathering 1 (Cover 90%)

1 200 000 no firewood
1,200,000

Degradation ‐ secundary forest
Illegalg croping
p g ((cover 70%))
Illegal logging (cover 70%)
Firewood gathering 1 (cover 60%)
Firewood and buidling wood gathering (Cover50%)
Forest apt areas (plantations andagroforestry)
Abandoned pastures
Biodiversity buffers (Rehabilitation)
Watersheeds (Agroforesty)
Agricultural land (silvopastoral systems)

0 emissions

cookstoves
Development Plan
A

500,000 No illegal
g activities No illegal
g activites
2,000,000 No illegal activities Conservation
3,000,000 no firewood
cookstoves
nofirewood/building Cookstoves and10000000 materials
i l
reduceddd logging
liDevelopment Plan0 emissions
A
100% planted in 5 100% planted in 10
3,000,000 years
years
100% planted in 5 100% planted in 10
1,000,000 years
years
100% planted in 5 100% planted in 10
1,000,000 years
years
100% planted in 5 100% planted in 10years
750,000 yearsIllegal activites at
20%
Enrichment & SFM
Sustainablecookstove wood
Development PlanB
Illegal activites at
20%
SFM
cookstove to 80%
Cookstoves andreduceddd logging
li
Development Plan
B
100% planted in 15years
100% planted in 15years
100% planted in 15years
100% planted in 15years

GTCO2e

Carbon Sequestrationq((CS))
1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

Maximal mitigation potential
Development Plan A

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

Development Plan BMaximum potential:‐ Highest mitigation potential
potential, but‐ No consideration of other development
priorities‐ High investments required in the first 5 years
Development A:‐ Considers other sector’s priorities‐ Less investment intensive than the previous
pone
Development B:‐ ‐Considers other sector’s priorities
p‐ Less investment intensive than the previousone

Test phase ‐ 2103
Methodology design (2012)
Methodology review by experts
First calculation routineTests:– Sub‐national level (at different scales and with different
number of forestry activities)• Colombia, Ghana and Malaysia– National level• Test countryy ((usingg the current information from a realcountry)

Advantages of sCreen• One methodologicalh d l i l package
kf allll fforestry
foractivities• Allows comparing possible scenarios• Allows dialogue among stakeholders
regarding advantages and disadvantages ofvarious management options• Flexible regarding data sources and cheap
screening
i optionti• User friendly

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION!!
carmenza.robledo@com
bl dLand area/activity area

Emission factors

Carbonbenefits

For other GHG emissions In the foreests/land(e.g transportation)

XWh ?
Where?
Land area: Forest land,Grassland, Wetland, Degraded
land
land…
Related activities:
Definition of boundaries
Stratification
Related activities:
Identification of units
relevant for other GHG
emissions (e.g. km intransportation)

What?
Carbon stock changes per activity(per land unit)
Other GHG emissions
Relatedl d activities:
i ii
Inventory per pool and activity(including sampling, fieldmeasurementst andd datad t analysis)
l i)
Related activities:
Quantification of GHG perunit (e.g. CO2 emissions perKm from transportation)