1. KYOTO PROTOCOL’S JOINT IMPLEMENTATION: Romsilva’s AFFORESTATION OF DEGRADED LAND project Dragos MIHAI National Forest Administration ROMSILVA ROMANIA EUSTAFOR workshop on Forestry and the EU emission trading scheme, Brussels, 26 th June 2008

2. Romania Climate: mild continental Temperature: -2.5 ⋯ +11.4 o C Precipitation: 385 mm (L) and >1000 mm (H) West/East: 700/ 400 mm Relief: balanced among plains\hills\mountains

3. A place like any other ….

5. but vulnerable to … Human impact: forest degradation after forest restitution (South west of Romania, Dolj county, Marsani, 2007) Natural disasters: tornado impact (South east of Romania, Tulcea county, Ciucurova, 2006)

6. Natural hazards in Romania OVERALL, ALL ARRABLE AGRICULTURAL LAND OF THE COUNTRY IS AFFECTED BY DROUGHT and HALF OF THE COUNTRY AREA IS AFFECTED BY DIFFERENT LAND DEGRADATION TYPES Under these circumstances, afforestation is being seen as a key activity for the prevention and combat of land degradation

7. combating land degradation/desertification actions; increasing the forest area conservation and improvement of biodiversity; climate change mitigation activities (removal of CO2) by sinks establishment, within mandatory accounting and reporting under Kyoto Protocol of A(fforestation) R(eforestation) D(eforestation) and supplementary Romania’s selected activities of forest management (FM) and revegetation (Rv) C. Tradition and continuity (massive afforestation between 1950-1990) B. Experience (in all kind of climates, site conditions) A. Necessity (as large share of country area is sloppy and affected by degradation) Afforestation of bad lands in Romania is governed by: E. Rural developement chalanges D. Environmental global commitments:

8. Romania: multiple tools to finance the afforestation activities – Dedicated sources (special national funds: Degraded Lands Afforestation Fund, Environment Fund) Own NFA Romsilva Fund (Fund for Forest Regeneration and Conservation) EU rural development funds Kyoto Protocol’s flexible instruments: Joint Implementation (JI) and Green Investment Scheme (GIS, under current development) Each tool is implemented according specific legislation Each tool is implemented according specific legislation Implementation is a “project by project” approach Implementation is a “project by project” approach Funds are equally open to private or state companies (exception: EU RD funds, open only to private in order to avoid state aid issue) Funds are equally open to private or state companies (exception: EU RD funds, open only to private in order to avoid state aid issue)

9. KP’s Joint implementation – Afforestation of degraded lands ERPA (emission reduction purchase agreement) between NFA Romsilva and Prototype Carbon Fund (administred by WB) on the transfer of ERU (emission reduction unit), CO2 removal by sink, concluded in September, 2003 Reason behind project promotion: the boost of the afforestation pace in the transition-to-market period (drop from 15 000 ha before 1990 to some 100 ha in 2000, curently 6000 ha/year) (so the C transaction was considered as a tool not a purpose in itself) Scope of the project is to foster the combat of land degradation and desertification and promote developmental and environmental synergies

10. Project facts (1) - project area 6496 ha, out of which effectively under afforestation 6033 ha - lands type: degraded and marginal for agriculture, located in the South-West, South East and East of Romania, in areas currently affected by heavy droughts and showing extremely low percentage of forests - land owner: state, under NFA Romsilva administration. Currently some very small areas, about 60 ha are under land restitution to private owners - species used for afforestation: indigenous (45 %, i.e. oak, willow, white poplar) and exotic (55 %, i.e. robinia, gleditschia, etc). -risks in the project: flooding in spring 2006 (affected 1800 ha) and drought (affectted locally plantations) - specific project biodiversity friendly approach in Small Island of Braila, where there were planted only indigenous poplar (Populus alba) and preserved areas with Tamarix, while ponds areas were excluded form plantations

11. Project facts (2) -carbon selling right: NFA Romsilva’s, with reinvestment of revenues in forest regeneration and conservation. As a small area is restituted to private owners, appropiate arangements to share the rights to these owners must be negotiated - annual allocation of RMU (Removal unit = 1 to CO2 sink by forests), but legal conversion of RMU in ERU (Emission Reduction Unit = 1 to CO2e) and their transfer to the PCF investors only at the end of KP commitment period, based on Romania’s option to account emission/removal for Art 3.3 only at the end of commitment period, in 2017) - contracted the transfer of 850 000 to CO2e, from removal by sinks, subject to 5 years monitoring plan - C pools into the deal: soil organic matter (SOM), dead organic matter (DOM); biomass (roots, stem, branches, foliage) - 1 st monitoring was performed in 2008. It estimated the C in biomass and DOM. SOM will be measured with 2 nd monitoring (compared against baseline, measured in 2004)

12. Project facts (3) -Total project net CO2 removal is 50 % from planned (because: overestimation of C accumulation in initial planned, 30 % of project plantations were flooded in spring 2006 and plantations lost, repeated gap filling due to harsh site conditions, etc) - currently the revenue on carbon covers < 5 % out of costs, this share will increase as the plantations grows and costs with plantation comes to minimal (initially estimated 40 %)

13. 1 st monitoring results of C accumulation of plantation on main species

14. Next challenge for the project - redesigning and replantation of 1800 ha of flooded area - gap filling of young plantations in drought affected areas (autumn planting, increased use of locally proven most tolerant species) - Project plantations enter into normal practice of planning, production and administration, as being integrated with existing forests (ensure C permanence in the project lands)

15. Recommendation and conclusions Afforestation of degraded or marginal lands represent efficient way to improve environment and livelihood in rural areas in East European countries, which show high percent of land degradation under rural development and energy security vulnerability and needs For above region, these countries should continue promoting the afforestation as a main toll to solve land degradation issues and support rural development programs, by recognizing their social and environmental multiple benefits. As well, EU MS states should lobby for the further introduction in the EU Trading Scheme of the transaction of the C units form land use (at least from afforestation) Viability of afforestation activities (of degraded lands) could be financially improved and supported via sequestered carbon transactions, noting that C financing may act as incentive in the mobilizing national/other partner resources

16. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!