1. I guess you are confused regarding the Carbon avoidance (REDD) and removal project (ARR). This VM0047 is a new methodology only for ARR project. 2. In this methodology there are other methods also for proving additionality such as common practice analysis, investment barrier, regulatory surplus etc. 3. Although for Area-based approach the 10 year Forest/Non forest requirement is not mentioned in this methodology, Its a general requirement for all AFOLU project mentioned in VCS Standard, where it clearly said "Activities that convert native ecosystems to generate GHG credits are not eligible under the VCS Program" and the area should not be clear in 10 year prior to project. 4. Maps and coordinates are already there in Project document (PD) which is public 5. Every project need to get validated and verified by an Independent Validation and Verification bodies (VVB) 6. Verification happen in every five years, but developers constantly monitor carbon stocks. And issuance only happen post verification. 7. For Census based approach you need not to account for baseline and leakage as the project plot for census based should not exceed 1 hector and can only occur in area with less than 10% percent pre-existing woody biomass cover; and/or b) occur in an area subject to continuous cropping, in “settlements”, or “other lands” land use category. Hope this helps.
Hey Elias, thanks again for the great analysis. I’m curious about something you mentioned at minute 7:30-how do you know the project clear-cut the area specifically for the purpose of developing it? From the two images alone, I’m not sure how that conclusion can be drawn. For instance, the area could have been deforested in 2006 and used as pasture by 2010, and then the landowner might have decided to plant trees because it was more profitable. I assume you have additional evidence indicating that the clear-cutting was done with the intention to plant trees?
Great Video. Just a quick point on disasters. This is cleary defined in the Standard, Programm definitions and registration and issuance process as "loss event", where essentially projects hafe to make up for the VCUs lost at the event. That being said it would be wonderful to see your list of examples of projects that exemplify the points your are making. Maybe a little report? Anyway, thanks again for disecting these methodologies. standards and all the hard work you and the team at Renoster are doing to aliviate VCM projects. 🙏🙏🙏
The additionality tool would also require a financial analysis to demonstrate that in the absence of carbon finance the plantation would not occur. I am in favor of restoration with native species and that should be promoted. Nonetheless, I've seen several examples where exotic trees monocultures (e.g. in Uganda, Colombia) did improved livelihoods and even biodiversity compared to the baseline scenario was continuation of degraded lands with soil erosion and depriving opportunities for local people....
1. I guess you are confused regarding the Carbon avoidance (REDD) and removal project (ARR). This VM0047 is a new methodology only for ARR project.
2. In this methodology there are other methods also for proving additionality such as common practice analysis, investment barrier, regulatory surplus etc.
3. Although for Area-based approach the 10 year Forest/Non forest requirement is not mentioned in this methodology, Its a general requirement for all AFOLU project mentioned in VCS Standard, where it clearly said "Activities that convert native ecosystems to generate GHG credits are not eligible under the VCS Program" and the area should not be clear in 10 year prior to project.
4. Maps and coordinates are already there in Project document (PD) which is public
5. Every project need to get validated and verified by an Independent Validation and Verification bodies (VVB)
6. Verification happen in every five years, but developers constantly monitor carbon stocks. And issuance only happen post verification.
7. For Census based approach you need not to account for baseline and leakage as the project plot for census based should not exceed 1 hector and can only occur in area with less than 10%
percent pre-existing woody biomass cover; and/or
b) occur in an area subject to continuous cropping, in “settlements”, or “other lands”
land use category.
Hope this helps.
Hey Elias, thanks again for the great analysis. I’m curious about something you mentioned at minute 7:30-how do you know the project clear-cut the area specifically for the purpose of developing it? From the two images alone, I’m not sure how that conclusion can be drawn. For instance, the area could have been deforested in 2006 and used as pasture by 2010, and then the landowner might have decided to plant trees because it was more profitable. I assume you have additional evidence indicating that the clear-cutting was done with the intention to plant trees?
Great Video. Just a quick point on disasters. This is cleary defined in the Standard, Programm definitions and registration and issuance process as "loss event", where essentially projects hafe to make up for the VCUs lost at the event. That being said it would be wonderful to see your list of examples of projects that exemplify the points your are making. Maybe a little report? Anyway, thanks again for disecting these methodologies. standards and all the hard work you and the team at Renoster are doing to aliviate VCM projects. 🙏🙏🙏
The additionality tool would also require a financial analysis to demonstrate that in the absence of carbon finance the plantation would not occur. I am in favor of restoration with native species and that should be promoted. Nonetheless, I've seen several examples where exotic trees monocultures (e.g. in Uganda, Colombia) did improved livelihoods and even biodiversity compared to the baseline scenario was continuation of degraded lands with soil erosion and depriving opportunities for local people....
totally agree. well put.
How are you actually getting interlacing issues on your video, are you filming this on old tech or something? :p
Could you please share links of the two projects who clear-cut rainforest and been certified? Would like to be sure that it really append