1. Methodologies for Moldova Soil Conservation project ARNM0007 Rama Chandra Reddy July 12, 2005.

2. Outline  Project  Carbon pools  Baseline assessment  Baseline approach  Additionality  Leakage  Meth panel preliminary recommendations  Outstanding issues

3. Moldova Soil Conservation Project  Problem: Soil erosion and landslides major factors affecting public lands  Objectives:  Restoration of degraded lands  Improvement in the supplies of forest products  Employment generation  Contribution to GHG removals  Biodiversity conservation  Project area: Degraded lands and pastures – 14,494 ha

4. Project  Project participants: PCF and Moldsilva  Stakeholders: Moldsilva – State Forest Agency of Moldova 150 Local Councils  Project boundary: 1890 individual plots distributed throughout the country in 289 Mayoralities (local councils)  Species planted: Quercus sp, Robinia sp, Poplar sp, Pinus sp and other local species  Use of CO 2 FIX model for initial projections  Net anthropogenic GHG removals of the project : 2,479,568 t CO2e

5. Carbon Pools  Carbon pools considered in the project  Above ground biomass  Below ground biomass  Deadwood  Litter  Soil carbon  Major pools in the baseline: Soil carbon and litter  Biomass pools are negligible because of continuous land degradation

6. Baseline Scenario Soil Erosion, Land Slides

7. Physical features Land slides 1995199619971998199920002001Avg No. of activated land slide reports 13571211262689865107 Administrative regions 81014 12511  Carpathian mountains influence the geology  Average precipitation – 560mm in north and 380 mm in south  Soil erosion and land slides are the major factors

8. Baseline Approach  Baseline – paragraph 22(a)  a) Existing or historical, as applicable changes in the carbon pools within the project boundary  Net negative baseline removals will lead to further loss of carbon  Average annual pre-existing A/R area to be deducted from the project area

9. Baseline Assessment  Identifying the most likely prospective land use  Approach to baseline assessment  Identification of current land use/land-use trends  Analysis of national A/R policies and regulation on public lands  Assessment of likely trends in land use without intervention  Identification of the baseline scenario  Choice of carbon pools for assessment  Stratification, sampling, and measurement strategies  Calculation of carbon stocks of the baseline land use  Assessment of likely emissions from the baseline land use, and whether these activities will be displaced as result of the project  Assessment of the possibilities of natural regeneration  Assessment of the net GHG removals under the baseline scenario

10. Land-use class Area (ha) Carbon in vegetation (t C/ha) Soil carbon (C t/ha) Total Carbon stock (t) Carbon Dynamics (t/ha/yr) Degraded lands3,905.4 Humified and moderately humified soils 3,191.80.196.9309,605- 0.6 Slightly humified soils 713.60.149.735,537- 0.5 Pastures10,588.50.285.7 Humified and moderate humified soils 9,385.70.296.5907,597- 0.5 Slightly humified soils 1,202.80.264.577,821- 0.4 Totals14,493.91,330,560 Baseline Scenario

11. Soil Carbon Baseline Evolution

12. Baseline Methodology  Baseline scenario =  Project scenario =  Leakage = a) Staff Travel  b) Socioeconomic indicators – alternative grazing, return of plantations to local councils, employment, fuelwood supplies,  Net anthropogenic removals = with

13. Monitoring Methodology  No baseline monitoring – will result in the saving of monitoring costs  Project scenario monitoring  Biomass monitoring at 5 year intervals  Soil carbon monitoring at 20 year intervals  Delineation of project boundary and its monitoring  Stratification, sampling, and data collection  Estimation of biomass equations using destructive sampling  Updating CO2FIX model projections with actual data from field measurements at each time interval  Quality Assurance/Quality Control

14. Additionality  Identification and assessment of plausible scenarios  Identification of the project scenario  Comparison of carbon removals of baseline & project scenarios  Application of additionality tools  Early start project (step 0)  Legal and regulatory framework (step 1)  Investment (financial/economic) analysis (step 2)  Barrier analysis (step 3)  Impact of CDM registration (Step 5)  Establishment of additionally Financial and economic additionality Investment barriers and common property issues Lack of awareness to soil erosion costs

15. Leakage  Staff travel outside the project boundaries  Activity shifting due to displacement of socioeconomic activities  Displacement of grazing  Fuelwood collection

16. Measures against Non-permanency  Crediting period and lCERs  Renewable – 20 year period, twice renewable  Contractual agreements  Contractual agreements between Moldsilva and 150 local councils  Moldsilva will manage the sites until establishment  Uncertainty assessment  Scenario analysis – Worst Case, Normal, and Best Case  Risk discounting – to account for fire, grazing, and other risks

17. Meth Panel Preliminary Recommendations  Applicability and non-applicability conditions  Positive change in baseline carbon and baseline re-evaluation at the end of 1 st crediting period  Treatment of pre-existing afforestation  Assessment of leakage – activity displacement and market impacts  Uncertainty assessment

18. Other Issues Commented  National policies  Definition of project boundaries and monitoring  Baseline approach  Additionality  Leakage  Stakeholder issues  Uncertainty – fire

19. Outstanding issues  Baseline re-evaluation under positive baseline at the end of first crediting period  Quantification of leakage due to activity shifting  Common practice test  Extent of detail in the monitoring methodology