Carbon Romani

Developing Forestry

Carbon Projects in

Romania:

Key considerations

March 2010

Developing Forestry

on Projects in

Key considerations & case study

Page 1 of 44

Contents

Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 3

1. Scope ............................................................................................................................................ 5

2. Need for LULUCF projects in Romania.......................................................................................... 6

3. Selecting activities in LULUCF projects ......................................................................................... 7

4. Financing LULUCF projects ........................................................................................................... 9

4.1. Carbon markets ............................................................................................................................ 9

4.2. Green Investment Schemes ........................................................................................................ 10

4.3. Other relevant funding sources .................................................................................................. 12

5. Potential certification routes ...................................................................................................... 13

5.1 Joint Implementation (JI) ............................................................................................................ 14

5.2 Voluntary Carbon Standard ........................................................................................................ 15

5.3 Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards (CCBS) ........................................................... 17

5.4 CarbonFix .................................................................................................................................... 19

5.5 Plan Vivo ..................................................................................................................................... 20

5.6 Summary of forest carbon standards applicable to Romanian LULUCF ..................................... 21

6 Project requirements .................................................................................................................. 22

6.1 Institutional ................................................................................................................................. 22

6.2 Technical ..................................................................................................................................... 22

6.2.1 Additionality ............................................................................................................................... 22

6.2.2 Baseline ....................................................................................................................................... 25

6.2.3 Leakage ....................................................................................................................................... 25

6.2.4 Permanence (risk management) ................................................................................................ 26

6.3 Land-tenure and ownership of carbon credits ........................................................................... 28

6.4 Socio-economic and environmental ........................................................................................... 28

7 Project development steps and costs ......................................................................................... 30

8 Financial and carbon estimates .................................................................................................. 32

9 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 34

10 Contact ........................................................................................................................................ 37

Appendix 1. Glossary of key terms and acronyms ............................................................................ 38

Appendix 2. Carbon & financial assumptions ................................................................................... 40

Appendix 3. References .................................................................................................................... 42

Appendix 4. Resource Library ........................................................................................................... 43

Developing Forestry Carbon Projects in Romania Page 3 of 44

March 2010

Draft – ver 3 – 8Mar10

www.forestcarbon.co.uk

Executive summary

There is a need and potential for projects and programmes in Romania that secure and enhance

climate regulation services, through both increasing carbon sequestration activities and conserving

existing carbon sinks. There is also a need for projects that deliver not only carbon benefits, but

contribute to maintaining biodiversity, watersheds and soil quality.

Land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) projects have various financing routes available to them. They have the potential to access carbon finance by generating carbon credits from activities

that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (carbon sequestration), or prevent emissions of

CO2 that would have otherwise occurred (carbon conservation).

To establish target activities, project developers need to consider the ecosystem services that are

important and under threat at a given site, the actors involved in managing those ecosystems, and

what interventions could be made to incentivise the conservation or increase of carbon stocks.

It is common practice for LULUCF projects to seek verification of their purported impacts through registration to an independent standard. Benefits of using standards include increased access to

carbon finance and potential premiums on carbon credit prices, and promotion of quality and more

cost-effective project design through the use of frameworks, templates and guidance often provided

by standards or their supporting systems.

A range of potential financing routes exist for Romanian LULUCF projects. These include:

• Sale of compliance market Emissions Reduction Units (ERUs) via registration as a Joint

Implementation (JI) project under the Kyoto Protocol;

• Sale of Voluntary Emissions Reductions (VERs) via registration under a voluntary standard;

• Accessing finance from the sale of Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) under a Green Investment

Scheme, into either the compliance or voluntary markets.

The feasibility of engaging private land-owners in LULUCF projects needs to be assessed in terms of:

• The institutional and social capacity that would be required in a project to engage with, raise the awareness of and provide the necessary financial and technical support to private land

owner participants and forest dependent residents;

• The financing that would be necessary to overcome opportunity costs of different land-use

types, in order to determine what land-use types could reasonably be included in LULUCF

activities (informed by the availability of financing)

Potential certification routes are Joint Implementation, or certification to a voluntary standard such

as the Voluntary Carbon Standard, Climate Community and Biodiversity Standard, CarbonFix or Plan

Vivo. Projects may also be able to access finance under a Green Investment Scheme.

Market uncertainty, and length, complexity and costs involved in JI registration mean that it is not

currently a desirable certification route, evidenced by the fact that to date only one LULUCF project

has made it through the JI process. Potential for financing through the Green Investment Scheme


March 2010



should be explored, although this entails country-level approval and financing is likely to be

dependent on macro-level factors.

Certification under a voluntary standard presents opportunities to demonstrate project quality,

particularly where a standard is chosen that demands ‘co-benefits’. Potential routes include the CCB Standard, a standard favoured in the market for its integrated approach to carbon and non-carbon

benefits. To access carbon finance from ‘pre-compliance’ type‘ buyers, additional use of the

Voluntary Carbon Standard may be desirable, and the combination of these two standards is

currently favoured in carbon market commentary. However, the successful pairing of these

standards has to date only been completed in one project, and it is still unclear if the standard will

lead to large numbers of LULUCF projects. Engagement with VCS may also be costly and should only

be considered for relatively large scale projects.

The CarbonFix standard is suited to stand-alone AR (Afforestation/Reforestation) projects, because

of its exclusion of forest conservation as an eligible activity, and lack of procedures for programmes rather than stand-alone projects.

The Plan Vivo Standard could be adopted where the project plans to adopt a ‘payments for

ecosystem services’ (PES) model. The benefit of the Plan Vivo approach is that it is designed

specifically to work in the context of generating ecosystem services from multiple land-holders

across a landscape i.e. where a mosaic of interventions are to be incentivised. The Plan Vivo

Standard has not yet been piloted outside of developing countries, however, which means that there

are no examples of the Standard being applied in a country such as Romania, where payment

incentives required are likely to be higher than in other Plan Vivo projects. A pilot initiative however

could generate many lessons in the carbon/PES arena.

There is potential for LULUCF projects in Romania to gain funding from voluntary and compliance

carbon finance. The voluntary carbon market, and within that the market for credits from LULUCF

projects, has grown quickly in the past decade and continues to grow. Projects need to be pro-active

in terms of identifying sources of up-front financing and routes to market for their credits.

A project at Zarand could realise a net carbon income in the region of US$4 million. The credits that

would be sold to gain income would not be available until 18 months after project inception at the

earliest. Income could be realised before this time through the forward selling of these credits, but

this would be at a discount. To access this income would require an upfront investment of around US$200,000, to be spent on the necessary creation, testing and verification of the credentials,

measurement, protocols and plans for a 50 year carbon project.

The recommended route would be to seek in the first instance access to GIS credits, through the

Romanian government, and back them with a voluntary standard. The credits generated would be

attractive to both the voluntary and compliance markets.


March 2010



1. Scope

This document describes the principles, steps, and potential costs and benefits involved in

developing and certifying a terrestrial carbon management project, with a view to accessing carbon

finance.

The document specifically considers the potential for developing and certifying terrestrial carbon

management projects in Romania. The report describes key principles including additionality,

leakage, baselines and permanence, and describes the potential certification routes open to land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) carbon management projects located in Romania.

Projects that wish to generate verifiable carbon credits from LULUCF activities under any system or

standard invariably must address the following key issues and steps:

1. Establish ecosystem types, key threats to ecosystem services (carbon stocks), barriers to

land-use change and potential activities to generate long-term ecosystem services (e.g

afforestation, avoided deforestation, improved agricultural practices)

2. Identify potential participants in LULUCF project and forms of land-tenure 3. Identify potential sources of funding and certification routes

4. Develop technical detail (additionality, baseline, leakage, permanence, carbon

quantification)

5. Identify environmental and social impacts and potential for maximising co-benefits

6. Identify project development steps and capacity building needs (technical, institutional,

social and financial)


March 2010



2. Need for LULUCF projects in Romania

The FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment in 2005 found that Romania had a 27.7% forest cover,

dominated by semi-natural forest, storing 452 million tonnes of carbon in above ground biomass

alone. Diversity of tree species in growing stock was found to be fairly low, with 73.2% of growing

stock coming from the 3 most common species (compared to 52.4% in the UK), despite there being

58 recorded native species.

Afforestation and forest management are thought to be key activities for the prevention and reduction of land degradation in Romania. A significant proportion of arable agricultural land is

affected by drought and other threats to ecosystem services. Forest cover is thought to have been

depleted by up to two-thirds as result of human activity. In total it has been estimated that in the

last 50 years, there has been a permanent loss of 250,000 ha of forest and grassland ecosystems and

that an additional 280,000 ha have been temporarily or only partially lost. Forest decline in the

Southern Romanian Plain has been markedly severe, caused by decreasing rainfall (Brown et al.,

2002). In addition to loss of carbon sinks, agriculture, industrial development, transportation and

expansion of cities have profoundly affected the biological diversity.

In 2009, the World Bank reported on the achievements of a forest development project for which

the Romanian government received a $25 million loan. The objectives of the project were to

improve the management of state-owned forests through capacity building and technical

innovation, and to support the establishment of pilot systems for forest management among

underserved private forest owners. It was specifically highlighted that, despite progress made in

plans to support private land owners in sustainable land management, small-scale forest owners

may require initial incentives to form associations and grow, such as training and technical support,

accessing financing through a revolving fund partially funded through member contributions,

tapping new forest carbon funds, etc.

This information suggests that Romania provides important ecosystem services, both in terms of

carbon sinks and biodiversity, there are identifiable threats to current ecosystem services, and there

is significant potential to increase these ecosystem services through enhancing carbon stocks. It can

be concluded that there is a strong need for LULUCF initiatives in Romania.


March 2010



3. Selecting activities in LULUCF projects

Carbon credits or offsets can be created in LULUCF projects via activities that remove carbon dioxide

from the atmosphere (carbon sequestration), or prevent emissions of CO2 that would have otherwise

occurred (carbon conservation). Figure 1 shows potential types of LULUCF activity.

Figure 1: Potential terrestrial carbon management strategies and corresponding activities.

Source: Bass et al 2000.

Carbon management

strategy

Types of land use and forestry activity

Carbon sequestration • Silviculture to increase growth rates

• Agroforestry

• Afforestation, reforestation and restoration of degraded lands

• Soil carbon enhancement (e.g. alternative tillage practices)

Carbon conservation

or Reduced Emissions

from Deforestation

and Degradation

(REDD)1

• Conservation of biomass and soil carbon in protected areas

• Changing forest management practices (e.g. reduced impact logging)

• Fire protection and more effective use of prescribed burning in

both forest and agricultural systems

Selection and design of sites and activities will involve the following key steps:

• Assessment of information available (existing maps of land cover, remote sensing data for

past changes in land use, availability of tree growth data);

• Identification of key threats to ecosystem services;

• Considerations of feasibility of achieving project objectives where opportunity costs are high

(i.e. is the proposed activity an efficient application of finance);

• For afforestation/reforestation activities, selection of species. Species selection should be

guided by:

o Participant and project objectives (i.e. maximising climate benefits, developing rural

livelihoods, maintaining biodiversity/ecological restoration, soil stabilisation, watershed

protection, production of non-timber-forest products such as honey) and o Local site conditions (soil type, climate, seedling availability, fertility) and

o Considerations of seedling availability.

• For ‘REDD’ activities, project interventions should be designed to address the root causes of

deforestation.

Project developers should also consider how project activities can support national strategies, thus

potentially having a bigger impact and access to a sustainable financing mechanism in future.

Opportunities could include supporting the national biodiversity strategy. For example, the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for Romania was developed in 1996 , and priorities include the

conservation of endemic species, restoring altered ecosystems, and enhancing biodiversity through

land-use change on arable lands.

1 REDD also refers to the potential future mechanism to provide financing for forest conservation projects under the UNFCCC framework. This has led to some confusion as REDD can be discussed as both a potential future mechanism (in the same way as the CDM is a formal mechanism) that as yet does not exist, or simply referred to as a type of project activity.


March 2010



Project developers should also ensure that they inform the national designated authority or other

relevant organisation about the proposed project activities, and identify applicable national, regional

or local regulations or laws in the project area that could affect the implementation of activities.


March 2010



4. Financing LULUCF projects

Land-use projects require up-front investment and long crediting periods (the period over which

carbon benefits are delivered e.g. this could be up to 100 years for LULUCF projects) – leading often

to ex-ante crediting (the claiming of carbon benefits before they have arisen). These requirements

can clash with carbon market ‘orthodoxies’ that demand ex-post crediting and where mechanisms

have been designed primarily with a view to reducing industrial emissions. In these mechanisms,

“low-hanging fruit” projects can generate large volumes of emissions reduction at low cost in short

crediting periods. The crediting periods for AR projects in particular can affect the attractiveness of projects to investors.

Despite these challenges, the importance of reducing GHG emissions from land-use change, and

attractiveness of forestry projects to certain types of funders for their diverse and tangible benefits,

means that there are a number of financing opportunities available for LULUCF carbon management

projects, both for up-front project development costs, and for sale of carbon credits in carbon

markets.

Project developers need to consider sources of both upfront funding, and ongoing funding to cover transactions costs. Significant upfront financial inputs will be required before a carbon management

project reaches the ‘starting blocks’ i.e. the point of generating carbon credits. Typical sources of

upfront financing for LULUCF carbon management projects include:

• Pre-sales of carbon credits

• Not-for-profit financing, conservation/development financing (from e.g. government bodies

or large international NGOs), philanthropy

• Other private finance

The following sections describe the current conditions and potential for accessing carbon finance for

LULUCF projects

4.1. Carbon markets

Drivers

Carbon credit trading from forestry projects may take place in the compliance markets (where

credits are generated from Kyoto-compliant projects i.e. CDM or JI) where companies and countries

purchase credits to meet binding emissions targets, or in the voluntary market, where buyers

engage in voluntary purchases for more diverse and complex reasons than in the compliance

market. Philanthropy is a key driver, with buyers willing to pay premiums to a certain extent for

projects certified to standards demanding high assurances on environmental and socio-economic benefits. At the other end of the spectrum, more speculative buyers are engaging in the voluntary

market for pre-compliance reasons, with the expectation of needing to internalise carbon costs in

the future, or investing in projects which they expect to be accepted into future cap-and-trade

regimes. In between are businesses buying voluntary credits for business reasons: the presentation

of an ethical stance to stakeholders.

Size of market

The State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2009 report by Ecosystem Marketplace found that in total,

20.8 MtCO2 have been traded from 226 forest carbon projects to date. 73% of trading took place in

the Over the Counter (OTC) market (as opposed to through an exchange, such as the Chicago


March 2010



Climate Exchange). Kyoto Protocol driven markets consisted of only 6.25% of the market for forest

carbon (1.3 MtCO2), i.e. the majority of credits are traded in the voluntary market. Despite market

uncertainties and tough financial conditions, the market has continued to grow from 5.1 MtCO2 in

2007, to 5.4 MtCO2 in 2008, and 3.7 MtCO2 in the first half of 2009.

Pricing

The average price (volume weighted) in the OTC market (voluntary) was $7.88 /tCO2, compared to

$10.24 /tCO2 in the compliance markets. Out of 226 projects recorded, 90% were operating in the

voluntary market, 6% in the CCX and only 4% registered in a compliance scheme (9 projects in total,

only 3 under CDM and JI).

Future development

According to Ecosystem Marketplace’s State of the Forest Carbon Market 2009 report, the forest

carbon market (compliance and voluntary) currently stands “in an uncertain position on the verge of

potentially enormous growth”. The engagement of the private sector in forest conservation projects has thus far been fairly limited. The focus in terms of ‘REDD’ (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation

and Degradation) market growth is largely on policy development in the US, where the Clean Energy

Jobs and American Power Act in the Senate explicitly calls for domestic forestry offsets and REDD

financing.

Financing commitments are emerging for REDD projects and ‘REDD-readiness’ initiatives, and several

funding streams are already in place, such as the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. It is too early to

predict what form the future REDD mechanisms will take, and how it will be structured in terms of

financing. Investors are thought to be observing developments but hesitating to engage before more

is known about how REDD will take shape. Demand for credits from forest conservation activities today comes from the voluntary market or from speculators purchasing for pre-compliance hedging.

It is difficult to determine the full extent of trading taking place as many bilateral forward purchases,

or commitments to purchase future REDD credits take place privately. The US is generally expected

to drive demand and be the dominant location of purchaser, dependant partly on the development

and implementation of a national cap and trade scheme.

4.2. Green Investment Schemes

A currently favoured option in the context of international emissions trading is the “greening” of

Assigned Amount Units (AAUs), where the seller country uses income from AAU trading2 to invest in

GHG emission reduction projects or other projects beneficial to the environment. Although AAUs are

country assets, trading is not per definition restricted to sovereigns only. Private sector entities may

be authorised by their respective governments to trade AAUs (EBRD 2009). The scheme has the

potential to address buyers’ perceptions that some AAUs are “hot air” i.e. they do not represent real

emissions reductions or sustainability benefits. These perceptions were created as many Eastern

European countries gained large surpluses of AAUs due to post 1990 economic conditions).

The Green Investment Scheme (GIS) is a relatively new financing mechanism, designed to

complement pre-existing flexible mechanisms applicable in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). It

proposes to provide an alternative mechanism for projects unlikely to use or get through the JI

2 Under Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol, countries with emission reduction or limitation targets can sell part of their allocated national emissions cap (Assigned Amount) in case a surplus is envisaged or buy additional emission rights in case a shortage is expected during the first Kyoto compliance period (2008-2012).


March 2010



process, and provide a testing ground for the development of post-2012 mechanisms. Proceeds

from intergovernmental trading of AAUs are used to finance bilaterally agreed environmental

projects and Programmes up to and beyond 2012.

GIS thus provide a mechanism to provide up-front payments for LULUCF projects to be implemented over time, while the AAUs sold can still be used immediately by buyers for compliance offsetting. A

significant benefit of GIS in relation to its suitability for financing LULUCF is that it applies to

Programmes as well as projects. New participants (i.e. land owners) can be added to the Programme

at any time. This ‘scalability’ potential can be key to the success and sustainability of land-use

initiatives, particularly where private landowners and community lands are to be included in

schemes. The programmatic approach gives the flexibility to start at a manageable scale and pilot

activities, and scale-up as confidence and awareness of the scheme grows and benefits become

apparent.

The overall potential availability of ‘greened’ AAUs generated through GIS has been estimated at approximately 6.5 GtCO2e over the forest commitment period, and Romania was estimated to have

potential to provide 100 Mt GTCO2e, generating potentially up to 1 billion Euros in revenue. As of

October 2008, Hungary, Ukraine, Latvia, the Czech Republic and Romania had adopted legislation on

GIS (Ürge-Vorsatz et al, 2008). Romania is currently implementing a Green Investment Scheme.

About 100 million Assigned Amount Units (AAUs), each corresponding to the emission of one ton of

CO2, can potentially be sold over the 2009-2012 period. The priority areas for GIS in Romania include

the reduction of GHG emissions from agriculture and AR initiatives (Trusca, 2008).

In December 2008, Climate Strategies published a working paper on ‘Options for Land-Use and Bio-

energy Projects under a GIS in Romania’ (Frieden at al., 2008). The following key issues were identified in relation to implementing GIS in Romania:

• Significant funding opportunities for rural development projects are available (including land-

use activities) under measures of the National Rural Development Plan 2008-2013, which has

now been officially approved;

• There is increased decentralization of the administration of natural resources in rural areas (i.e.

arable, forests, grazing land);

• In principle, GIS beneficiaries may be private land owners (i.e. their associations), but their own

co-financing capacity and interest in afforestation or other activities that do not immediately

generate income is minimal;

• Land prices are increasing and agricultural use is more financially attractive than forest use

(especially under the EU rural development scheme); despite a current Programme of

acquisition of degraded private lands by the National Forest Administration (NFA) “Romsilva”, it

would appear that owners are unwilling to sell. “Romsilva” therefore has no land available for

afforestation measures under its own Forest Regeneration Fund;

• Environmental concerns (including biodiversity and protected areas, wildlife, land degradation).

The paper concluded that the implementation of a GIS in Romania should focus on land-use

activities which are economically interesting for (industrial) raw material and energy production as

well as on forest management.

The above key observations in the 2008 Climate Strategies Working Paper can be also read more

broadly in respect of the feasibly of LULUCF carbon management schemes in Romania in general. If


March 2010



projects are to develop with a view to accessing carbon finance, project developers will need to

consider what national or local funding opportunities exist, and whether they affect the additionality

of the project. Projects may be unlikely to receive buy-in at the local and national level, or likely to

receive financial support in the form of carbon finance, unless wider ‘non-carbon’ concerns,

predominantly biodiversity and rural development, are integral to project design and implementation. The feasibility of engaging private land-owners in LULUCF projects clearly needs to

be assessed in terms of:

a. The institutional and social capacity that would be required in a project to engage with,

raise the awareness of and provide the necessary financial and technical support to private

land owner participants;

b. The financing that would be necessary to overcome opportunity costs of different land-use



4.3. Other relevant funding sources

Multilateral Carbon Credit Fund

The Multilateral carbon credit fund, a joint initiative of the European Bank for Reconstruction and

Development (EBRD) and European Investment Bank (EIB), is one of the few funds dedicated

specially to countries from Central Europe to Central Asia. Private and public companies and EBRD

and EIB shareholder countries, through joining MCCF can purchase emissions reductions credits of various types (ERUs, CERs, EUAs or AAUs) or participate in Green Investment Schemes (see section

6.1.2). A MCCF facilitated GIS deal between Spain and Poland was concluded in November 2009.The

total commitments to the MCCF have now reached €208.5 million after Spain committed an extra

€18.5 million in December 20093. In total, six countries and six companies have provided initial

commitments to the MCCF.

• Country: Finland, Belgium (Flanders), Ireland, Luxembourg, Spain and Sweden.

• Private: CEZ (Czech Republic), Endesa (Spain), Gas Natural (Spain), PPC (Greece), Union

Fenosa (Spain) and Zeroemissions (Spain).

Carbon credits from projects in the following countries can be purchased by the MCCF: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia,

Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, FYR Macedonia, Moldova,

Mongolia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Tajikistan,

Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

Some benefits of the MCCF approach in relation to its applicability to LULUCF projects are that: • Up to 50% of carbon finance can be accessed upfront if there is need

• In addition to carbon finance, the EBRD and EIB can provide traditional finance to projects

that meet high standards

• EBRD and EIA can provide expertise in project appraisal and risk mitigation

3 http://www.ebrd.com/new/pressrel/2009/091221b.htm


March 2010



5. Potential certification routes

Terrestrial carbon management projects generating carbon credits are increasingly using standards

to verify their claims in relation to their climate and other benefits, and to enable them to access

carbon finance via the sale of independently certified carbon credits. Developing a project with a

view to certification under a standard will not only increase avenues of funding, but also provide a

framework for designing a project cost-effectively and ensuring all aspects of the project are

properly documented, through the provision of templates and guidance that often underpin

standards (although to varying degrees).

The State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2009 report found that 86% of all OTC forest carbon offsets

traded to date originate from projects using either an internal or third-party standard. Certification

to third-party standards was found to have increased significantly from 15% of credits in 2002 to

96% in the first half of 2009.

Standards broadly fall into two categories: those created by and able to generate credits tradable in

compliance markets, and those created to register projects operating in the voluntary carbon

market. Projects that are developed under a voluntary carbon market scheme typically do not require either international regulatory action or host country approval.

Key considerations when considering potential certification routes are:

• What standards are open to LULUCF projects in Romania?

• What standard is best aligned to the project concept in terms of the proposed scale,

objectives and activities of the project and the focus and image/perception of the standard?

E.g. Large scale carbon benefits? Biodiversity focus? Community focus? Small-scale discrete

project or large scale programme with multiple participants?

• What are the costs of engagement with the standard? How complex and cumbersome is the

application process?

• What is the market value of the credits issued under the standard and does it justify the cost

of engagement?

These standards vary in their geographic scope, activities that are deemed eligible for generating

carbon credits, carbon verification procedures, and also the extent to which they focus on the quality of measuring and monitoring carbon, or have a broader focus on additional impacts i.e. wider

socio-economic and environmental impacts. They can also vary in the extent to which they provide

and are underpinned by project development tools and guidance, or simply provide a set of

requirements which project must conform to.

Applicability

The following standards could potentially be applicable to a LULUCF project in Romania.

• Joint Implementation – compliance standard

• Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS)

• CarbonFix

• Plan Vivo

• Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards (CCBS)

Voluntary standards


March 2010



The following sections describe the focus and key aspects of the standards, along with a brief

discussion of strengths and weaknesses, costs of engagement and potential applicability to LULUCF

projects in Romania.

5.1 Joint Implementation (JI)

Background

The Kyoto Protocol (KP), which came into force February 16, 2005, provided for the development of

market mechanisms, known as ‘flexible mechanisms’ by which parties to the Protocol can meet their greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction commitments. These are: Emissions Trading (ET), Joint

Implementation (JI), and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The principal rationale for

enabling market-based mechanisms for emissions trading is that they can be designed to provide a

cost-effective means of reducing emissions, and provide parties to the protocol more flexibility in

how they meet their emissions reductions targets.

Joint Implementation enables a developed country to offset their domestic emissions by investing in

a project in another developed country, or country with economy in transition, in exchange for

Emission Reduction Units (ERUs). The pilot phase of Joint Implementation, known as Activities Implemented Jointly, has been in effect since 1995. JI project developers and sellers of credits could

be government agencies (forestry), NGOs (potentially working with local land owners), or private

sector developers.

Eligible activities for LULUCF

The Kyoto Protocol allows JI projects in afforestation and reforestation (Art.3.3), reduced

deforestation (Art. 3.3), revegetation (Art. 3.4), cropland land management (Art 3.4), grazing land

management (Art. 3.4) and forest management (Art. 3.4).

Practical impact of Standard

Only one LULUCF project has been registered under JI, the Romania Afforestation of Degraded

Agricultural Land Project.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Complex rules apply to the generation and trading of credits from JI LULUCF activities. This is partly

because LULUCF activities, at national level, can be emitters or removers or carbon. JI removal units

can only be transferred once the LULUCF emission inventory for the country has been accounted for

and accepted. No JI forestry credits can be issued until the end of the commitment period, making

them less attractive to buyers due to uncertainty of delivery. JI forestry credits for individual projects

will only be issued if the country as a whole has reduced their emissions from, or increased its sequestration, in the LULUCF sector. This dependency on national accounting and performance

factors means that private sector developers are less likely to be willing to invest in JI forestry

projects.

There was initially thought to be strong potential for JI LULUCF projects to improve degraded land in

numerous Eastern European and Russian countries, but the mechanism is yet to deliver large-scale

benefits. Fewer projects than expected have been developed under JI, and the market for AAUs has

been more competitive than for CERs (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2009). Credits from JI land-use

activities are excluded from the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, and LULUCF projects


March 2010



have faced similar hurdles under JI and CDM, including institutional, procedural and capacity

limitations, and complex national accounting rules under Articles 3.4 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Ecosystem Marketplace (2009) considers that investment in JI projects is “unlikely to increase in

the current uncertain policy climate, given the long preparation and crediting periods required”. Overall, demand for ERUs from LULULCF projects has not been high, although the broader scope in

terms of activities compared to the CDM (where only AR is allowed), and the permanent nature of

LULUCF ERUs (with no replacement liability), as opposed to temporary crediting under for AR CERs,

were thought to be factors that would generate more market demand.

JI Afforestation Project in Romania

Romania was the first industrialised country to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and is host to several JI

projects. One of these projects is the Romania Afforestation of Degraded Agricultural Land Project

supported by the Prototype Carbon Fund. The project, implemented by the Romania National Forest

Administration (NFA) is afforesting 6,728 hectares of state-owned, degraded agricultural lowlands in seven counties. The project is expected to generate 410,046 tCO2 from 2008-2012, although this

may be lower due to losses resulting from flooding. The project has already signed an Emissions

Reduction Purchase Agreement (ERPA) for part of the volume with the Prototype Carbon Fund (see

section 8.1.3).

5.2 Voluntary Carbon Standard

Background

The VCS Programme (including standards and guidelines) aims to provide a robust global standard

and Programme for approval of credible voluntary offsets. Its objectives are to standardise and

provide transparency and credibility to the voluntary offset market, enhance business, consumer

and government confidence in voluntary offsets, create a trusted and tradable voluntary offset

credit with transparent procedures to prevent double-counting, and to stimulate investment and

innovation.

Development of the Voluntary Carbon Standard was led by the Climate Group, the International

Emissions Trading Association and the World Economic Forum in late 2005. The VCS Programme is

managed by the VCS Association (VCSA) which oversees the development of the standard, sets

accreditation rules for validators and verifiers, designs the approval process for recognition of other

GHG Programmes, manages the VCS Project Database, and approves new methodologies.

Eligible LULUCF activities

The VCS Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land-Use (AFOLU) Programme was initiated in November

2007 and includes afforestation and reforestation (ARR), agricultural land-management (ALM), improved forest management (IFM) and reduced emissions from degradation and deforestation

(REDD)

Projects must use one of the VCS Programme approved methodologies. VCS Programme

methodologies include:

• Applicability criteria that defines project eligibility;

• A process to assess additionality;

• Determination criteria for the baseline scenario; and


March 2010



• All necessary monitoring aspects related to monitoring and reporting of accurate carbon

credits.

Specific requirements for methodologies are that they follow requirements in ISO 14064-2:2006 (clauses 5.3.–5.9). Deviations from approved methodologies are only permitted when project

specific and must be reported as part of the public validation and verification report.

Relevant parts of the standard for AFOLU:

VCS 2007.1 (released 18 November 2008)

VCS Tool for AFOLU Methodological Issues (contains rules for developing and applying AFOLU

methodologies)

VCS Tool for Non-Permanence Risk Analysis and Buffer Determination (contains rules for conducting

the project risk-analysis)

The earliest allowable project start date for VCS projects is normally 1st January 2002, but AFOLU

projects can start earlier provided the following conditions are met:

• Project validation and verification against the VCS has been completed by 1 October 2010;

• The project proponent can verifiably demonstrate that the project was designed and

implemented as a climate change mitigation project from its inception; and

• Prior to 1 January 2002, the project applied an externally reviewed methodology and engaged independent carbon monitoring experts to assess and quantify the project’s baseline scenario

and net emissions reductions or removals.

• Reforestation activities are only eligible where the project area was not forested for at least 10

years prior to the project start date.

Certification

Projects are registered as VCS projects by the VCS Board following validation and verification (see

Figure 2 below). Validators asses the project against the VCS Standards and verifiers assess the

emissions reductions. Validation and verification is carried out in conformance with ISO 14064-3:2006 and ISO 14065:2007. Validation and verification can be carried out be the same body. AFOLU

projects starting on or after 1st January 2002 are not required to complete validation within a

specific time frame.

Validators and verifiers produce validation/verification statements as appropriate for the VCS Board

which:

• Describe the level of assurance of the statement;

• Describe the objectives, scope and criteria used in the validation/verification;

• Describe the nature of the data provided i.e. hypothetical, projected, historical;

• Show the GHG assertion of the project (i.e. the level of emissions reductions claimed) and

for verification, verifier’s conclusion on its validity, including any qualifications or limitations.

Practical impact of standard

The VCS came to accept AFOLU standards some years after the standard’s inception, and went

through a lengthy process of developing rigorous technical requirements. Several VCS AFOLU methodologies are currently going through the double approval process, and although the VCS is

often described as a market leader in terms of the perception of its robustness, it is as yet unclear

what the practical impact of the standard will be in terms of number of projects. One AFOLU project


March 2010



has come through the registration process so far: a private 10,000ha pine and eucalyptus plantation

in Tanzania, which has also been validated under the CCBS.

Validation/Verification costs

The VCS Association recommends that projects speak directly to validators and verifiers to receive cost estimates for their specific project type. Estimates have been made at a range of US$15,000 –

US$30,000 per audit (Merger 2008).

Credit Issuance

US $0.04 per issued VER.

Strengths and weaknesses

The VCS standard for AFOLU projects has attracted considerable attention and is widely regarded as

a robust standard in relation to verification of carbon benefits.

Projects are required to identify potential negative environmental and socio-economic impacts and

take steps to mitigate them, and cannot convert native ecosystems to generate carbon credits, but

projects are not required to generate positive impacts.

This has attracted some criticism and concerns that the standard will only be used for large scale

projects with substantial up-front financing, and with little community involvement or biodiversity

benefits. A popular ‘marriage’ of standards has emerged in response to these criticisms of the VCS,

with many projects developing, or purporting to be developing projects for double-certification

under the CCB Standard to demonstrate that local communities and biodiversity impacts have been

considered and are more integral to project objectives than would be required under the VCS.

5.3 Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards (CCBS)

The Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards (CCBS) are project design standards developed

by the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance, a partnership of companies and NGOs created in

2003. The CCBA aims to promote the development of forest protection, restoration and agroforestry

projects through high-quality multiple-benefit land-based carbon projects. It is applicable to all land-

based projects that aim to reduce or remove carbon dioxide emissions.

To satisfy requirements on climate benefits, projects are required to:

• Estimate net changes in carbon stocks using the IPCC 2006 Guidelines for AFOLU or a more

robust and detailed methodology;

• Estimate net changes in emissions of non-CO2 GHGs such as CH4 and N2O if those gases are

likely to account for more than a 5% increase or decrease (in CO2 equivalent) of the project’s

overall GHG reductions or removals;

• Estimate any other GHG emissions resulting from project activities;

• Demonstrate that the “net climate impact” of the project is positive.

The CCBS are different from other ‘carbon standards’ in that the standards organisation does not

approve carbon accounting methodologies or certify carbon credits i.e. there is no such thing as a

‘CCB credit’ (in comparison to a VCS project which generates VCUs, or a Plan Vivo project which

generates Plan Vivo Certificates), only carbon credits from a CCB registered project. This makes the

CCB Standards particularly suitable where a project has more of a broad focus on co-benefits than


March 2010



carbon benefits, or simply wishes to demonstrate quality design rather than generate fungible

(tradable) carbon credits. Projects wishing to generate fungible credits may choose to undertake

additional certification to a carbon standard such as the Voluntary Carbon Standard, CarbonFix or

Plan Vivo, depending on which is suitable for the project type.

There are currently 18 projects registered under the CCBS, four of which are principally forest

conservation projects. The CCB Association claim there are over 100 projects in the project pipeline,

half of which involve forest conservation activities, demonstrating the standard is a popular choice

for REDD-based projects (or demonstrating that there are few other choices).

Validation/Certification

Projects can achieve one of two validation levels: approved, indicating all requirements have been

met, or Gold, indicating all requirements have been met and also one optional ‘Gold Level Criterion’

has been met.

Independent third-party auditors validate projects against the CCB Standards though:

• Reviewing available project documentation

• Conducting a project field visit to speak with project implementers, identify evidence of

conformance, interview relevant stakeholders and review public comments submitted via

the CCBA website.

• Assessing the project against each CCB Standards criterion

• Identifying missing information and evidence.

Auditors prepare a ’Draft CCB Validation Report’ which outlines any areas where the project did not

satisfy requirements. Upon receipt of the report, the project has six months to address any failing

criteria and submit supporting documentation to demonstrate criteria have been met. The auditor

then produces a Final CCB Validation Report giving their opinion as to whether the project meets the

standards or not. Projects that meet the standards are then issued a Statement of CCM Standards

Compliance by the auditor indicating whether they have earned a ‘silver’ or ‘gold’ rating.

Verification

Initial project certification is valid for 5 years, after which to maintain certification projects must

undertake third-party verification by an auditor, who may be the original auditor or a new one. The

CCBA intends to develop additional guidance for verification over time.


In 2009, it was estimated that 23% of all forest carbon credits came from projects registered under

the CCB Standards, amounting to 3.7Mt CO2, demonstrating that projects which consider the

broader impacts of land-use management than carbon impacts are valued in the marketplace

(Ecosystem Marketplace, 2009).

To access carbon finance from ‘pre-compliance type‘ buyers, an additional certification to the

Voluntary Carbon Standard may be required, and the combination of these two standards is

currently favoured in the marketplace. It will become more clear in the next 6-12 months whether

this demand for double-certification will act as a significant barrier to projects, particularly smaller

projects and projects located in developing countries, and those that are attempting potentially

more costly and complex interventions (i.e. management of natural forest for biodiversity and

watersheds, rather than commercial plantation).


March 2010



Current version of the standard:

CCB Project Design Standards

5.4 CarbonFix

Background

CarbonFix is a German-based standard developed in 2007 to apply to afforestation and reforestation

projects (other project activities including REDD are not eligible). Its aim is to set a quality standard that combines criteria on sustainable forest management, carbon sequestration, and permanence,

without compromising its practical implementation.

Standard documents

• CarbonFix Standard Procedures. Version 3.0

• CarbonFix Standard Criteria and Methodology. Version 3.0

The CarbonFix Standard provides its own ‘CFS methodology’ for calculating net carbon sequestration

by the project. A formula is used which derives the amount of carbon credits to be awarded by

multiplying the eligible planting area with the carbon benefit per hectare, and subtracting project

emissions, any losses from leakage and the baseline emissions.

Validation/Certification

Projects first undertake a “pre-validation” process which involves firstly creating an account on the

CarbonFix system4,uploading project documents and agreeing to CarbonFix’s general terms and

conditions of use5. Pre-validation involves a desk-review of these documents by the Technical Board

of the CarbonFix association for “completeness, plausibility and accordance to the CFS criteria”. If the pre-validation is successful, the project developer then can request certification by an approved

body. They must do so within 12 months of the pre-validation.

Certification must be repeated in years 2 and 5 (from the project start) and then every 5 years from

then on. These ‘regular certifications’ differ slightly from the ‘initial certification’ in that eligibility

and additionality criteria are assumed to be met.

Validation /Verification Costs

Each pre-validation by the CarbonFix technical board carries a fixed fee of €1500. Additional charges

may occur if there are several rounds of corrective action requests. Validation and verification has

been estimates at a range of US$15,000 – US$30,000 (Merger 2008).

Certification fees

0.50 Euros per sold VER (credits issued in Markit Environmental Registry)

Practical impact

4 www.CarbonFix.info/Project_Developers 5http://www.carbonfix.info/General_Terms_and_Conditions


March 2010



CarbonFix is still a relatively new standard, launched in 2007, and currently only one project is fully

certified (several projects are in the ‘pre-validation’ stage). It is difficult therefore to predict whether

there will be a large market interest in and uptake of credits from CarbonFix projects.


Strengths of CarbonFix are that, in comparison to the VCS, there is a single, approved methodology

that is relatively straightforward. The standard has been recommended in independent reviews as

an attractive choice for small to medium size projects (100 ha and above) (Merger, 2008).

Certification fees are fairly high at 0.50 Euros per tonne CO2, although certification fees are only

charged when credits are sold, and are likely to come down as the standard gains more projects.

The CarbonFix standard may be an attractive option for stand-alone AR projects. Significant potential

drawbacks in potential application to a Romanian project, or programme of activities under LULUCF,

are firstly that CarbonFix excludes other project types such as forest conservation and management.

Secondly, lack of procedures for programmes rather than stand-alone projects, makes the standard less attractive for landscape level initiatives planning to engage multiple landowners in various

interventions.

5.5 Plan Vivo

Background

Plan Vivo is a System and Standard applicable to community-led land-use projects. Projects use a

‘payments for ecosystem services’ (PES) model to incentivise land-use change by multiple land

owners or forest dependent community groups. Eligible activities include afforestation and

reforestation, forest conservation and avoided deforestation, agroforestry and forest restoration.

Projects are required to conduct participatory design techniques and promote the use of native

species. To date, Plan Vivo projects have generated 0.7 MTCO2 and the current average price

(volume weighted) is approximately $8 per tCO2. Credits from Plan Vivo projects are called Plan Vivo Certificates, and represent the reduction or avoidance of one tonne CO2 plus livelihood and

ecosystem benefits.

Practical impact

Plan Vivo projects have been underway for a number of years in Mexico (one of the longest standing

VCM forest carbon projects), Uganda and Mozambique, with recently validated projects in Tanzania

and Malawi. Projects are under development in Nicaragua, Cameroon and Kenya.

Validation and Verification

Projects must be validated by an independent expert reviewer approved by the Foundation, in addition to internal document review by the Plan Vivo Foundation, and peer review of technical

specifications (project-specific methodologies). Verification of projects must be undertaken within 5

years of project registration.

Validation costs

Validation is likely to cost between US$6,000 - US$9,000 depending on the size and complexity of

the project.

Certification Fees

$0.35 per Certificate, $0.05 of which is used to issue credits in the Markit Environmental Registry.


March 2010



5.6 Summary of forest carbon standards applicable to Romanian LULUCF

Figure 2: Summary of forest carbon standards applicable to Romanian LULUCF

Type Name of

standard

Eligible project

types:

Geographic

scope

Methodology Credit type LULUCF

projects

registered

and trading

Car

bo

n v

eri

fica

tio

n

(Co

mp

lian

ce)

Joint

Implementation

(JI)

Multiple eligible

project types, for

forestry

Annex I

countries

JI approved Emissions

Reduction Unit

(ERU)

1

Car

bo

n v

eri

fica

tio

n (

volu

nta

ry)

Voluntary

Carbon

Standard (for

AFOLU)

Afforestation,

Reforestation, and

Revegetation (ARR)

Agricultural Land

Management (ALM)

Improved Forest

Management (IFM)

Reduced Emissions

from Deforestation

and Degradation

(REDD)

No

restrictions

VCS approved

methodologies

Voluntary Carbon

Unit (VCU)

1

CarbonFix Afforestation

/reforestation

No

restrictions

Single CarbonFix

AR

methodology

VERfutures 3

Plan Vivo Afforestation

/reforestation,

agroforestry, avoided

deforestation and

forest conservation,

forest restoration.

No

restrictions

Project-specific

methodologies

based on IPCC

good practice

Plan Vivo

Certificate

4

Pro

ject

de

sign

Climate,

Community and

Biodiversity

Standards

(CCBS)

Any land-based carbon

projects that either

reduce or remove

carbon emissions

(REDD, A/R,

revegetation, forest

restoration,

agroforestry and

sustainable agriculture)

No

restrictions

N/A N/A 18


March 2010



6 Project requirements

6.1 Institutional

Details of the institutional capacity required of LULUCF project developers can be found in Figure 2.

Figure 3: Institutional Capacity of LULUCF Project Developers

Area: Functions:

Administrative

(and

coordination)

• Negotiating carbon sales with buyers and marketing the project

• Overseeing project improvement and development

• Coordinating external project reviews i.e. validation, annual reporting, verification

• Database management to record carbon sales, monitoring results and

other project data

Technical • Biomass inventories

• Developing monitoring plans

• Providing technical support and training to landowners in projects with multiple participants

• Collecting other data as required by the project (e.g. tree growth data

on sample plots)

• Selection of suitable species and sourcing seedlings

• Biodiversity assessments and monitoring capabilities

Social • Stakeholder analysis

• Assessing the security of land-tenure rights

• Conducting discussions and workshops with stakeholders

• Livelihoods assessments, collection of socio-economic information

• Improving local organisational capacity

• Resolving disputes

6.2 Technical

The following sections summarise the key technical principles and requirements involved in

developing terrestrial carbon management projects.

6.2.1 Additionality

In order to generate carbon credits from terrestrial carbon management activities, a project

developer needs to demonstrate that, in the absence of the project, there is a threat to the carbon

stocks which without intervention will lead to its degradation or loss. Projects are considered to be

additional where the carbon sequestration/conservation benefit would not have happened without

the project intervention, made possible through the availability of carbon finance6. Additionality

6 NB/ Additionality is also a relevant concept in a non-market funded scheme where funders do not purchase carbon

credits, as it relates to the efficient use of finance. A government funded payments for carbon sequestration services


March 2010



tests often adopt the Clean Development Mechanism additionality tool, where projects need to

show regulatory/legal7 and investment8 additionality, and demonstrate that barriers exist to the

Land owners in Romania are fully legally responsibility for their own forests9. However, there are a

number of national funds under which LULUCF activities may be supported, listed below and detailed further in Figure 4.

• The Land Reclamation Fund – managed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural

Development

• The EU Rural Development Fund – managed by the Agency for the Payments on Rural

Development and Fishing under the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural

Development

• The Environment Fund – managed by the Ministry of Environment

• National Forest Administration (NFA) Fund for Forest Regeneration and Conservation

In order to be additional, afforestation projects should not be planned in areas already selected for

afforestation under any government funded initiative. Some funds may exclude the combination

with other public financing such as carbon financing or GIS (see section 4.2). In order to ensure

additionality it will have to be assessed for each project which combination of financial resources

can be applied.

Projects can demonstrate financial additionality by showing that barriers existing to accessing

project financing from non-carbon finance sources. Where government financial support is available

for the activity to be supported by the project, documentation will need to show why that source of

support was not accessible or appropriate. Where the project intends to use blended finance from

public and market sources, documentation will need to show, normally through an’ investment

additionality’ test, that the carbon finance ‘tipped the balance’ and made the project financially

viable.

Additionality can also be demonstrated where the management objectives of the project focus on ecological restoration of natural forest, and potential revenues that could have been generated from

timber for example are therefore excluded making the project financially unviable without additional

finance.

scheme, for example, should seek to support additional sequestration activities than would otherwise occurred, or

conserve forests that are threatened. To not include a requirement or principle of additionality could lead to severely

inefficient allocation of resources. 7 i.e. the project is not required by an effectively enforced law or regulation

8 i.e. the project is not supported by commercial interests likely to make the activity viable in its own right

9 Governmental Ordinance 139 / 2005


March 2010



Figure 4: Available funds for land-use improvement activities in Romania . Source (Frieden at al., 2008)


March 2010



6.2.2 Baseline

To measure what the carbon benefit of the project is, a baseline scenario must be established. The

baseline represents what would have happened in the absence of project activities, against which

the impact of the project can be measured. It is often also referred to as the ‘business as usual’

scenario.

Activities involved in the development of a forest carbon baseline are likely to include:

• Identification of current land-use categories and trends in ‘project reference area’ and drivers of land-use change

• Biomass inventory

• Application of carbon models such as CO2FIX

For afforestation/reforestation projects, determining the baseline involved quantifying ecisting

carbon stocks and considering whether, in the absence of project activities, losses or increase will occur, for example through some planting activities or through natural regeneration. Static baselines

are often assumed.

For forest conservation projects, the development of baselines involves quantifying existing carbon

stocks, and estimating at what rate forest carbon losses will take place. Historical deforestation rates

often form the primary source of assumptions made and are simply projected forward, although the

baseline may include a scenario where future emissions are projected to rise above current levels,

due to the specific circumstances in the area (e.g. increasing population pressure).

Resources for developing baseline scenarios

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ‘Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-

Use Change and Forestry’

• Pearson, T., S. Walker and S. Brown (2006) ‘Sourcebook for Land use, Land use change, and

Forestry Projects’ BioCarbon Fund, World Bank

• Romania specific information: Brown, S., Phillips, H., Voicu, M., Abrudan, I., Blujdea, V., Pahontu, C., Kostyushin, V. (2002) Romania Afforestation of Degraded Agricultural Land

Project: Baseline Study, Emission Reductions Projections and Monitoring Plans.

6.2.3 Leakage

Leakage can occur where, as a result of project activities in one area, carbon stocks are lost, or the

rate of carbon emissions increased in another area or areas. For example, a poorly designed

afforestation project that did not take into account a landowner’s livelihood needs, might simply

displace agricultural activity to another area leading to forest clearances. Where measures are not

taken to identify and mitigate sources of leakage, carbon benefits of a project are at risk of being

over-estimated.

Project activities should be designed so as to prevent leakage. A well designed forest conservation project for example must identify and address the root causes of deforestation or forest degradation


March 2010



so as to reduce and not displace the problem. In addition to taking measures to avoid leakage,

project developers are also generally required to monitor leakage and deduct any leakage from

claimed emissions reductions. In the case of forest conservation, there may be limited capacity to

monitor activities outside of the boundaries of its project and reasonable estimates may normally be

made of leakage and deducted from carbon credits.

6.2.4 Permanence (risk management)

There are risks that the net carbon sequestration benefit, or avoided emissions benefits from forest

carbon projects may not be achieved, or be achieved by subsequently be reduced or reversed, and

carbon released back into the atmosphere. This is referred to as the “permanence” issue, and has

received a lot of attention and frequent claims that terrestrial carbon management projects should not be eligible activities for generating carbon credits. The importance of retaining and increasing

carbon sinks in terms of the climate regulating services they provide, and linkages with other

ecosystem services, biodiversity, livelihoods and other aspects of human well-being have meant that

forest carbon projects continue to be developed and supported. Standards have focused on ensuring

appropriate risk management and monitoring mechanisms are in place to reduce risks of

impermanence.

Forest carbon projects must assess potential risks to losses of forest carbon stocks, and to not

achieving expected emissions reductions. It is normal practice, and required by all forest carbon

standards, for projects to maintain a risk buffer of unsold carbon credits, ranging typically from 10%-40% depending on the perceived levels of risk.

Permanence risk is different in forest conservation compared to afforestation, in that conservation

activities reduce emissions from a continuing source (deforestation), similarly for example to a

project instituting energy efficiency measures in a power station. Even if deforestation rates were to

increase to pre-project levels after the project, the project will still have created an emissions

reduction, in the same way as an energy efficiency project where after the project the efficient

practices or technology were not maintained. On the other hand, it cannot be guaranteed that a

“rebound” effect might occur with the effect of raising deforestation rates above the baseline after

the end of the project. Permanence is therefore still a potential issue in forest conservation projects that needs to be addressed in project documentation.

The Voluntary Carbon Standard has developed a framework for assessing risk under the factors in

Figure 5. Figure 6 summarises risk factors identified and mitigation measured developed in the

Romanian JI afforestation project.


March 2010



Figure 6: Risks identified in Romanian JI Afforestation project to non-delivery of expected

carbon credits

Risks identified Mitigation measures

• Drought (considered to be the

highest risk)

• Irrigation systems

• Grazing • Fencing measures

• Fire / Disease / Wind

• Model Predictions

(may not reflect on the ground

planting)

• Yield Table Predictions

• Periodic review of CO2FIX parameters in

the light of project monitoring and

independent third party validation

• Site Productivity Class inaccuracy • Conservative site productivity class

identification (higher class selected

where unclear)

• Illegal Felling (mainly by locals for

firewood)

• Staff vigilance and building good

community relations

• Financial and Technical Capacity

A general volume and carbon reduction factor of 10% was built into the financial and carbon

analysis to take account of possible losses. Source: Brown (2002)

Project risk

Unclear land tenure and potential for disputes

Financial failure

Technical failure

Management failure

Economic risk

Rising land opportunity costs

Regulatory and social risk

Political instability

Social instability

Natural disturbance risk

Devastating fire

Pest and disease

Extreme weather (e.g. flood, fire, drought)

Geological risk (e.g. Volcano, earthquake, landslide)

Figure 5: Project risk categories. Source. VCS AFOLU Tool.


March 2010



6.3 Land-tenure and ownership of carbon credits

Clear and secure rights of access, and rights to benefit from carbon finance, are essential to forest

carbon projects. Project boundaries should be clear to avoid disputes with local stakeholders. In

practice, a forest carbon project may take place on:

• State-land, where the management has been handed over or is shared with a clearly

constituted user-group (e.g. a community resource management unit, or local NGO), and

access rights are allowed or leased;

• Open access land;

• Community/customarily owned land;

• Private land.

In Romania, the restitution of land is almost completed, so that most land is private, with only a

small share remaining state owned (which is mostly leased for long periods, i.e. 50 years). Any initiative on degraded land will require the voluntary participation, motivation and appropriate

awareness of the owner. Programmes engaging multiple private owners in LULUCF projects will

require significant social capacity and awareness of national and local issues to ensure parties can

interact with confidence and enter into long-term agreements with the minimum potential for

disputes.

Significant property fragmentation, lack of forest ownership experience, small owners’ limited

administrative capacity, and their reluctance to develop owners associations, as well as delayed

revenues from forestry, have been identified as barriers to implementing afforestation Programmes

in Romania (Frieden at al., 2008).

6.4 Socio-economic and environmental Socio-economic

To develop a sustainable LULUCF project, the activities must be designed to address root causes of

and threats to forest resources. This means that stakeholder input and participatory planning are

key, particularly where projects involve multiple private owner participants or community forest-

users across a landscape. Stakeholder involvement, participatory planning, and assessing the

potential socio-economic impacts of activities are also likely to be required by standards being

applied (to varying extents depending on the focus of the standard).

LULUCF projects can be designed to increase employment, improve agricultural productivity,

improve local capacity and reduce poverty through payments for ecosystem services (e,g. through the Plan Vivo model). Such benefits can be attractive to (or required by) potential buyers, investors

and other funders of LULUCF projects, as it is increasingly recognised that ecosystem degradation

and loss of human well-being are inextricably linked.

The key factors that lead to both sustainable land-use and sustainable livelihoods are: securing

people’s access, improving local capabilities, developing equitable benefit sharing mechanisms,

facilitating strong community organisations, and a policy environment that supports these factors

(Bass et al., 2000).


March 2010



Activities likely to be involved in project development to satisfy these needs are:

• Semi-structured interviews with relevant actors;

• Participatory observation;

• Social documents analysis (e.g. statistical data on local communities such as employment

levels, livelihood information, and income levels etc).

Socio-economic information should be gathered including:

• Demographic characteristics and maps of where communities are located in the project

area;

• Status and type of agricultural land (ownership status, land-use, productivity, soil quality);

• Available working force in the community;

• Information on wood production and use trends in the area.

There appears to be a strong need and potential to improve rural livelihoods in Romania through

LULUCF activities that mitigate problems of drought and soil erosion in particular. The total area of

agriculture in Romania is 120,000 square km; arable land comprises 41.8% of the surface of the country. Estimates are that about 40% of the agricultural area is affected by erosion (Brown et al.

2002).

Biodiversity

Maintenance of forest cover and biodiversity are mutually supporting ecosystem services. Natural

ecosystems tend to be more drought resistant and resilient to potential climate change impacts.

Biodiversity and ecological restoration objectives can not only have significant local benefits, but

also attract additional funding to the project, particularly in the voluntary carbon market where

philanthropy and corporate social responsibility are key drivers.

Romanian LULUCF projects have significant potential to deliver biodiversity benefits. Romania is a

country with rich biodiversity and a high percentage of intact natural ecosystems:

• 47% of the land area is covered with natural and semi-natural ecosystems;

• Romania has the largest areas of undisturbed forest in Europe;

• The territory of Romania is a meeting point between bio-geographic regions, producing a

floral diversity that including 3,500 species of higher plants and a faunal diversity estimated to be more than 30,000 species. These include a large number of endemic and sub-endemic

plants (228) and animals (1,000).

• Romania is a critical transit area for migrating birds within Europe which are mainly

migrating through the eastern part of the Mediterranean basin.

Source: Brown et al.,2002.


March 2010



7 Project development steps and costs

Experience of LULUCF projects in the voluntary market so far shows that significant resources need

to be deployed upfront for effective capacity building, project design and implementation. Project

development costs, including costs of validation and verification, will of course vary depending on

the size and complexity of the project, number of stakeholders, availability and completeness of

existing technical information, and the level of project development support required by the project

manager/owner. The following section present the key work streams and inputs involved in

developing and certifying a LULUCF project or programme, and the relevant financial inputs likely to be required.

Project development steps and costs

• Quantifying existing carbon stocks (literature review and biomass inventory);

• Initial stakeholder analysis and consultation on project design with key stakeholders;

• Livelihoods analysis;

• Preparation of project documentation;

• All carbon projects need to produce a project design document (PDD) describing the project

objectives and boundaries, baseline conditions, actors and activities involved and project

time-frames, technical aspects including additionality, permanence and leakage, and

describing how carbon and other impacts of the project will be measured and monitored. The

PDD is the core project document. Most standards provide or recommend a PDD template to

ensure all required documentation is included;

• A methodology defining the general framework and parameters based on which the project

developer defines their baseline, quantifies carbon impacts and develops monitoring plans for

the project activity;

• Pilot implementation of activities.

The average LULUCF project takes 12-18 months from the point of engaging a standard with a

project concept, and achieving full registration. Estimated costs at this stage for a Cost estimates can

be developed by estimating number of staff involved and assuming 18 months of time is needed. External consultancy costs for a medium sized project may include up to £8,000 for socio-economic

and livelihoods assessments, £15,000 – £20,000 for biomass and biodiversity surveys, £10,000 -

£20,000 for technical training and capacity building and £10,000 - £15,000 if a project specific

methodology is required. These are rough estimates and must be refined to take into account

project specific information, particularly capacity building needs, and the amount of technical

evidence available for the site. In addition capital inputs required to prepare for activities such as

developing seed banks, nurseries, technology and equipment required such as GIS software, GPS

units.

Ongoing transaction costs

• Measuring and monitoring changes in carbon stocks (including the monitoring of leakage)

• Technical extension support to participating communities/land owners (for PES

programmes)

• Continued stakeholder consultation

• Marketing credits from projects and negotiating sales contracts


March 2010



• Record keeping /database management

Registration/certification costs (of engaging with a standard)

• Initial validation and registration fees (potentially including review of a newly submitted methodology)

• Verification

• Certificate Issuance fees


March 2010



8 Financial and carbon estimates

Initial estimates, based on existing forestry site data, suggest that net carbon income may be in the

region of US$3.5 million at a discount rate of 10%. The position is summarised in Figures 7, 8 and 9,

and greater detail can be found in Appendix 2.

Figure 7: Carbon estimate (based on existing forestry data)

Carbon Summary

(tCO2e)

Current carbon stock 2,040,647

Carbon threat 1,863,555 Over 50 years

Future sequestration 223,720 Over 50 years

Total carbon available 2,087,275

Less post felling CO2 -367,970 Residual CO2 stored on cleared and

Less community outtake -78,900 Community use

Less Buffer (30%) -492,121 Risk based buffer (in case of failure)

Total saleable carbon 1,148,283

Figure 8: Financial estimates

Financial Summary

(US$) (US$)

Saleable carbon (tCO2e) 1,148,283

Estimated price (US$) 5.00

Revenue

5,741,416

Less Transaction costs

Registration & certification

(50,927)

Brokerage 3% (172,242)

(223,169)

5,518,247

Less Carbon project costs

Project management

(140,000)

Verification, audit (over 50 years)

(290,000)

Less Project costs

Local management, monitoring & legal

(665,000)

(1,095,000)

Net Cash Flow

4,423,247

NPV at 10% DR

4,205,242


March 2010



Figure 9: Cash flow

Cash Flow Summary

Year

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 onwards

Income

Carbon revenue

5,741,416

Expenditure

Transaction costs

(223,169)

Carbon project (160,000)

(30,000) (240,000)

Local project (30,000) (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) (25,000) (570,000)

Net (190,000) (10,000) 5,508,247 (10,000) (10,000) (55,000) (810,000)

Cumulative (190,000) (200,000) 5,308,247 5,298,247 5,288,247 5,233,247 4,423,247

The cash flow table recognises that there is an upfront investment required to generate carbon

income. This would cover the documents and activities itemised in section 7 – essentially the

creation and proving of the credentials necessary to be awarded the carbon credits to sell.


March 2010



9 Conclusions

There is a significant need and potential for the development of LULUCF projects in Romania.

If projects are to develop with a view to accessing carbon finance, project developers will need to

consider what national or local funding opportunities exist, and whether they affect the additionality

of the project. Projects are more likely to receive buy-in at the local and national level, and attract

financial support where ‘non-carbon’ concerns, predominantly biodiversity and rural development,

are integral to project design and implementation.

The feasibility of engaging private land-owners in LULUCF projects needs to be assessed in terms of:

a. The institutional and social capacity that would be required in a project to engage with, raise

the awareness of and provide the necessary financial and technical support to private land

owner participants and forest dependent residents;

b. The financing that would be necessary to overcome opportunity costs of different land-use



Potential certification routes are Joint Implementation, or certification to a voluntary standard such

as the Voluntary Carbon Standard, Climate Community and Biodiversity Standard, CarbonFix or Plan

Vivo. Projects may also be able to access finance under a Green Investment Scheme.

Market uncertainty, and length, complexity and costs involved in JI registration mean that it is not

currently a desirable certification route, although financing opportunities do exist mainly through

World Bank administered carbon funds. Potential for financing through the Green Investment

Scheme should be explored, although this entails country-level approval and financing is likely to be

dependent on macro-level factors.

Certification under a voluntary standard presents opportunities to demonstrate project quality,

particularly where a standard is chosen that demands ‘co-benefits’. Potential routes include a single

certification to the CCB Standard, a standard favoured in the market for its integrated approach to

carbon and non-carbon benefits, which would entail development of detailed socio-economic and

biodiversity monitoring plans. To access carbon finance from ‘pre-compliance type‘ buyers, an

additional certification to the Voluntary Carbon Standard may be desirable, and the combination of

these two standards is currently favoured in the marketplace. However, the successful pairing of

these standards has to date only been completed in one project, and the slow approval process and

relatively top-down technical approach of the VCS process means that it is still unclear if the standard will lead to large numbers of AFOLU projects, and engagement with VCS may be costly.

The CarbonFix standard may be a more attractive option for stand-alone AR projects, although the

exclusion of other project types such as forest conservation and management, and lack of

procedures for programmes rather than stand-alone projects, makes the standard less attractive for

landscape level initiatives planning to engage multiple landowners.


March 2010



The Plan Vivo Standard could be adopted where the project plans to adopt a payments for

ecosystem services (PES) model. The benefit of the Plan Vivo approach is that it is designed

specifically to work in the context of generating ecosystem services from multiple land-holders

across a landscape i.e. where a mosaic of interventions are to be incentivised. The Plan Vivo

Standard has not yet been piloted outside of developing countries, however, which means that there are no examples of the Standard being applied in a country such as Romania, where payment

incentives required are likely to be higher than in other Plan Vivo projects. The Plan Vivo Foundation

has indicated a willingness to work with Forest Carbon on using a project in Romania as a pathfinder

for the accreditation of projects in developed countries, and this may have benefits in terms of the

cost of accreditation and the potential marketing benefit for the project.

It is recommended that in the first instance a joint approach be taken to accreditation: namely that

of a GIS project through the Romanian government (to create compliance grade carbon credits),

backed by either Plan Vivo or CCBA independent project verification.

The considerations involved in identifying a certification route are summarised in Figure 10.

A project at Zarand could realise a net carbon income in the region of US$4 million. The credits that

would be sold to gain income would not be available until 18 months after project inception at the

earliest. Income could be realised before this time through the forward selling of these credits, but

this would be at a discount. To access this income would require an upfront investment of around

US$200,000, to be spent on the creation, testing and verification of the credentials, measurement,

protocols and plans for a 50 year carbon project.


March 2010



LULUCF Project concept

Project includes REDD activities?

No Yes

Project limitied to

afforestation/reforestation?

Yes No

Project working with multiple

smallholders/communities on their

land?

YesNo

Project plans to deliver and

demonstrate socio-economic

and/or biodiversity benefits?

Yes No

Small-medium scale project

(e.g. 100-5000ha)?

Yes No

Consider CarbonFix or

CCBS (CarbonFix if

carbon credits required)

Project working with multiple

smallholders/communities on their

land?

Consider

Plan Vivo

YesNo

Project plans to deliver and

demonstrate socio-economic

and/or biodiversity benefits?

No Yes

Small-medium scale project

(e.g. 100-5000ha)?

Consider

VCS

YesNo

Consider

CCBS

Consider VCS +

CCBS (stand alone

CCBS if carbon

credits not

required)

Figure 10: Project certification routes


March 2010



10 Contact

Stephen Prior

Forest Carbon Ltd

NETPark

Sedgefield

County Durham

TS21 3FD

[email protected]

0845 680 4480



March 2010



Appendix 1. Glossary of key terms and acronyms

AAU Assigned Amount Unit

A/R Afforestation and reforestation

Additionality The extent to which a project is made possible by carbon finance, i.e.

additional to what would have happened in the absence of carbon finance

Afforestation The direct human-induced conversion of land that has not been forested for

a period of at least 50 years to forested land through planting, seeding

and/or the human-induced promotion of natural seed sources AR Afforestation and/or Reforestation

AFOLU Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

Baseline The scenario that reasonably represents the anthropogenic emissions by

sources of greenhouse gases that would occur in the absence of the

proposed project activity

Biodiversity The variety of ecosystems and living organisms including genetic variation

within species

Carbon credit/offset A unit of greenhouse gas emissions, normally expressed in tonnes of carbon

dioxide equivalent or CO2e, that has been avoided or withdrawn from the atmosphere and stored in a carbon sink, and can be traded in carbon

markets by individuals and companies and used to compensate for

emissions elsewhere.

Carbon dioxide A greenhouse gas (GHG) which exerts a warming influence on the earth’s

atmosphere

Carbon pool A reservoir with the capacity to store and release carbon, such as soil, above

and below ground biomass, litter, dead wood etc

Carbon sequestration An activity which increases the amount or rate of accumulation of carbon by

creating or enhancing existing carbon sinks.

Certification The issuance by an independent organisation of carbon credits in respect of a project that has generated emissions reductions according to their

requirements. Often also used to refer to project registration to a standard

CDM Clean Development Mechanism. One of the flexible mechanisms created by

the Kyoto Protocol.

CER Certified emission reduction

Crediting Period The time over which project emissions reductions are to be implemented,

monitored and delivered.

DOE Designated operational entity

Double Counting Where the same GHG emissions reductions or removals from an activity are

claimed by two separate entities for the purpose of demonstrating GHG emissions reductions, or are sold by one entity to multiple buyers.

GHG Greenhouse gas(es)

Invasive species Introduced non-native species which spread readily and dominate native

species

JI Joint Implementation. One of the flexible mechanisms created by the Kyoto

Protocol.


March 2010



Kyoto Protocol A 1997 international agreement, which introduced legally binding GHG

reduction commitments for developed (Annex I) countries, as well as a

number of mechanisms enabling carbon trading between countries and

generation of carbon credits

Leakage Net changes of anthropogenic emissions by GHG sources that occur outside the project boundary, but are measurable and attributable to offsite the

project activity

Native Species A species that has arrived and inhabited an area naturally without deliberate

assistance by man, or would occur had it not been removed through past

management

PDD Project Design Document

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The legal

foundation of international policy on climate change, under which the Kyoto

Protocol was developed.

Validation The initial independent of a project’s design against a standard

Verification The independent corroboration of the delivery of expected carbon credits by

a project


March 2010



Appendix 2. Carbon & financial assumptions

Appendix 2.1 Carbon assumptions

Description Value Explanation

1. Total project area (hectares)

4,200 The area in which carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions will be measured throughout the life of the project.

2. Baseline deforestation rate (%/yr)

Variable - see below

The estimated average deforestation rate for the area if the project is not implemented.

3. Projected deforestation rate during project (%/yr)

0.10% The projected average deforestation rate during the project activities – unpreventable or planned deforestation

4. Average carbon stock in intact forest in the project area (tCO2eq/ha)

485 May include above ground, below ground, and dead carbon pools – this estimate based on timber volume only

5. Average annual growth Variable – see below

This is the additional carbon that will be sequestered during the life of the project

6. Average carbon stock of land after conversion (tCO2eq/ha)

100 This is the carbon stock of the land after it is deforested and converted to other use. Must include all pools used above.

7. Project Lifetime (years) 50

The period during which emissions reductions will be monitored. The table below to estimate credits generated must be modified to match the chosen project lifetime

8. Non-permanence buffer (%) 30%

% of credits generated that must be deposited in a fund used to insure against non-permanence. The buffer amount depends on an assessment of project risk.

Baseline deforestation rate

Managed forest, as stated in existing forest management plans:

• 10,500 m3 per annum in area 1

• 280 m3 per annum in area 2

Unmanaged: assumed to be deforested in 10 years.

Deforestation rate in managed forests accelerated in year 1 due to 14 years of unused felling

allowance.

Average annual growth

Assumed to be 3.0 m3 per ha per annum in the managed forest, no growth assumed in unmanaged

forest.


March 2010



Total growth estimated based on current age mix of standing forest.

Appendix 2.2 Financial assumptions

Description Value Explanation

Sale Price of credits ($) 5.00 Estimated price per credit

Brokerage fee (%) 3.00%

Registration ($/tCO2e) 0.04 Fee charged by registry

Certification fee ($/tCO2e) 0.03 Total fees charged by

standards body

Appendix 2.3 Upfront project costs

Description

Amount

(US$)

Crediting component

Creation of GIS project, drafting of PDD 15,000

Greenhouse gas component

Estimate of baseline and with-project deforestation rates 25,000

Measurement of carbon stocks 35,000

Social component

Description of current social conditions in the project zone. 5,000

Description of likely without-project social conditions 5,000

Participatory project design 10,000

Social impact monitoring plan 5,000

Environmental component

Description of current biodiversity and other environmental conditions 15,000

Projection of likely without-project biodiversity & other environmental conditions 10,000 Environmental monitoring plan 15,000

Validation component

Audit and approval of PDD 20,000

TOTAL Project Design and PDD preparation 160,000


March 2010



Appendix 3. References

Aasrud,A., Baron, R., Buchner, B. and McCall, K. (2009) Sectoral Market Mechanisms: Issues

for Negotiation and Domestic Implementation. OECD and IEA paper. Available at

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/3/28/44001884.pdf

Bass S., Dubois, O., Moura Costa, P., Pinard, M., Tipper, R. and Wilson, C. (2000). Rural

livelihoods and carbon management, IIED Natural Resource Issues Paper No. 1, International

Institute for Environment and Development, London.

Brown, S., Phillips, H., Voicu, M., Abrudan, I., Blujdea, V., Pahontu, C., Kostyushin, V. (2002)

Romania Afforestation of Degraded Agricultural Land Project: Baseline Study, Emission Reductions

Projections and Monitoring Plans. Prepared for the World Bank.

Ecosystem Marketplace (2010) State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2009: Taking Root and

Branching Out.

FAO (2005) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005. Available at: http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2005/en/

Frieden, D., Tuerk, A., Blujdea, V. (2008) Options for Land-Use and Bio-energy Projects under

a GIS in Romania. Climate Strategies. Available at: http://www.climatestrategies.org/our-

reports/category/36/109.html

EBRD (2009) GIS Manual: Manual for the Sale and Purchase of Assigned Amount Units under

a Green Investment Scheme. Available at:

http://www.ebrd.com/country/sector/energyef/carbon/mccf/guide.pdf

Merger, E. (2008) Forestry Carbon Standards 2008 A Comparison of the leading Standards in the

Voluntary Carbon Market and the state of climate forestation projects. Available at:

http://www.carbonfix.info/chameleon//outbox//public/55/CoP15_Merger_091212.pdf

Trusca, V. (2008), GIS Development in Romania, Presentation held at the REC Workshop

Facilitating GIS: first lessons learnt and the way forward, Budapest, 24 April 2008

Ürge-Vorsatz,D., Tuerk, A., Sharmina, M., Feiler, J., Qiao, L. (2008) Green Investment

Schemes: Maximizing their benefits for climate and society . Executive Summary. Climate Strategies.


March 2010



Appendix 4. Resource Library

The following resources may provide important information and guidance for developing LULUCF

projects in Romania:

Romania specific information

Brown, S., Phillips, H., Voicu, M., Abrudan, I., Blujdea, V., Pahontu, C., Kostyushin, V. (2002)

Romania Afforestation of Degraded Agricultural Land Project: Baseline Study, Emission Reductions

Projections and Monitoring Plans. Prepared for the World Bank.

Forest Carbon | Technical

(General)

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ‘Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use

Change and Forestry’

• Pearson, T., S. Walker and S. Brown (2006) ‘Sourcebook for Land use, Land use change, and Forestry Projects’ BioCarbon Fund, World Bank

(Quantifying carbon benefits | sequestration)

• Pearson, T.R.H., S. Brown and R. Birdsey (2007) ‘Measurement guidelines for the sequestration

of forest carbon’ USDA Forest Service General Technical Report

• BioCarbon Fund REDD Methodology for Estimating Reductions of GHG Emissions from Mosaic

Deforestation: Available at: http://wbcarbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page=DocLib&CatalogID=49189

Developing PES Schemes

• The Katoomba Group PES Learning Tools:

http://www.katoombagroup.org/learning_tools.php

UNDP Resources

A number of studies have been funded by the UNDP in Romania that may provide valuable resources for forest carbon or other ecosystem services initiatives. A full list of initiatives (completed and

ongoing) can be viewed at http://europeandcis.undp.org/home/search?e=1534&q=romania.

• “National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment (NCSA) for Global Environmental Management in

Romania”. Objectives were to address global environmental issues, in particular those pertaining

to the Conventions of biological diversity, climate change and land degradation. Completed in

2005, locally implemented by the Ministry of Waters and Environmental Protection.

For more information go to: http://www.gefonline.org/projectDetails.cfm?projID=2038

• “Strengthening Romania's Protected Area System by Demonstrating Best Practices for

Management of Small Protected Areas in Macin Mountains National Park”. A landscape-oriented

method of managing small protected areas and improving conservation in Macin Mountains

National Park, locally implemented by the National Forestry Administration.


March 2010



o Agreements on environmental friendly agricultural practices with local farmers were

implemented

o Biodiversity inventory undertaken

For more information go to: http://www.gefonline.org/projectDetails.cfm?projID=1034

Documents

Carbon Romani